Date   

moderated Re: possible bug in confirmation/application flow #bug #misc

Chris Jones
 

On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 12:59 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
I want to turn this into a suggestion that a group’s  pending message be sent only to confirmed groups.io accounts.
I would support that, although IME it won't completely "debug" the joining process for the simple reason that such bugs as there are are in the hands of the applicants!

I cannot begin to count the number of times we receive applications (with or without "confirmation" where despite sending reminders about returning the Pending Subscription request nothing ever turns up.

We have one pending at the moment; it is his second application (the first was in December) and he has still not responded despite a reminder. Unless he acts promptly this one will fall off the edge of the table as well in a few days time.

It may be that original P/S messages & reminders go into applicants' spam boxes, but there is nothing we can do about that.

Chris.


moderated Re: possible bug in confirmation/application flow #bug #misc

 

Ok, thanks. 

In that case, I want to turn this into a suggestion that a group’s  pending message be sent only to confirmed groups.io accounts. That seems to make the most sense in terms of group privacy, as well as preventing us from having to go through the resend scenarios you mentioned, and which I’ve also been doing in the cases I’m referring to here.


On Feb 15, 2021, at 4:49 PM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 05:46 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
And my understanding (if correct?) is that they're not sent a group's pending message (or shouldn't be) until they've confirmed.
No, the confirmation and pending message are sent at the same time.  I see it quite often in my groups where they reply to the pending before they're confirmed.  For those that do confirm, I resend the pending notice, for those that don't, I send both.  (I also see where both are bounced because they entered an incorrect email address, so just remove the member.)

Duane

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: possible bug in confirmation/application flow #bug #misc

Duane
 

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 05:46 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
And my understanding (if correct?) is that they're not sent a group's pending message (or shouldn't be) until they've confirmed.
No, the confirmation and pending message are sent at the same time.  I see it quite often in my groups where they reply to the pending before they're confirmed.  For those that do confirm, I resend the pending notice, for those that don't, I send both.  (I also see where both are bounced because they entered an incorrect email address, so just remove the member.)

Duane


moderated possible bug in confirmation/application flow #bug #misc

 

I'm not sure what to call this, or whether it's a bug.

I've noticed that sometimes we get a pending member who is not marked NC (so they have confirmed), and whose last email delivery shows as "Confirmation Message." These are members who applied via the web, which means that the confirmation message was sent because it's the first group they're joining. (Members who already have a groups.io account and who apply to a group via email also receive the equivalent of a confirmation message, although people will say here that it's "not really" a confirmation message. But we're not in that case so the terminology doesn't matter.)

Anyway, the issue is that it seems they never received the pending subscription message. Because if their last email delivery was the confirmation  message, and they're not marked NC, then they must have confirmed. And my understanding (if correct?) is that they're not sent a group's pending message (or shouldn't be) until they've confirmed. So, if correct, the steps are (a) receive confirmation message, (2) confirm, (3) receive the group's pending message. These applicants have been through (1) and (2) (they've confirmed, since they're not NC) but are still not showing that they've received the pending member message, so they're missing (3).

In these cases I always resend the pending message, because it looks to me like they never got it. But I would like to know what's happening, and whether my understanding is correct. If so, this would seem to be a bug.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Site updates #changelog

 

On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 3:00 AM Andy Wedge <andy_wedge@...> wrote:

On the Default Sub Settings page, the Converse point doesn't work.  When the initial settings are Individual Messages and Following Only, if you change the Email Delivery to Special Notices Only and click the Update Group button a message is displayed at the top of the screen saying Your changes have been saved but the settings remain the same as before.

Also, there are two update styles (my term) when changing these options now.

I've changed all 3 screens (edit subscription, group member, and group default sub settings) so that any incompatible changes are fixed immediately in the page and not when the changes are saved.

Thanks,
Mark 


moderated Re: unify moderation response #suggestion

Duane
 

On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 09:19 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
On 02/13/2021 19:17, Duane wrote:
That would be the way you have Thunderbird set up.  For me, the 'sent' message goes in the Sent folder of my Gmail account, not the Inbox.

Duane

Sure, but it's still a duplicate I don't need.
In that case, I would use POP3 for email so there are never duplicates in various email clients.

Duane


moderated Re: unify moderation response #suggestion

Mark Murphy
 

I agree with Glenn's suggestion and his subsequent replies to comments. He is just asking for a third link for this purpose. What exactly is the downside?


moderated Re: #bug event times in /feed are all 8 hours out #bug

Malcolm Austen
 

Mark,

In trying to look at this afresh, as far as I can see we are now being delivered the old copy of this javascript file - without the change you made (see below). I have run closed all browsers and Ccleaner (and rebooted too) and still see the old javascript in two browsers.

Can you check the file that you are serving up please?

Thanks, Malcolm.

-- 
Malcolm Austen <malcolm.austen@...>

On 12/12/2020 04:48:36, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:

On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 12:40 PM Malcolm Austen <malcolm.austen@...> wrote:
At risk of making a fool of myself, I think I have spotted it as a bug in https://groups.io/js/displaytime-0.2.6.js

function DisplayEventTime(t, tzstr, dateFormat, timeFormat) {
    if (t == 0) {
        return '';
    }
    if (typeof tzstr === 'undefined' || tzstr == '') {
        tzstr = '';
        momentDay = moment(t);
    } else {
        momentDay = moment(t).tz(tzstr);
<snip>
should, I suspect, have that last line before the snip as                  momentDay = moment.tz(t,tzstr)
- that's what the matching line looks like in the other, similar functions in that file.


You might be right. I've been unable to reproduce the bug, try as I might. I've made the change to this line of code, please let me know if it fixes the problem for you. You may need to do a force reload; hold down the shift key while clicking the browser refresh button.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Photo Album Ordering #suggestion

Jen Weber
 

Thanks for the replies!

For me, changing the Download features isn't nearly as important of a feature. In fact, I can live without it, as I've never really interacted with it anyway.  I enjoy the larger view that happens when I click on a photo in an album, and I think most of my friends in my groups also use this to view individual photos.

I'm sorry that changing to a stable URL means a new data structure.  Could that be done though?  This would really improve my groups' ease of use by a tremendous amount.  I think the fact that it has been suggested multiple times shows the need for it.

I know I'm speaking for hundreds of users when I ask/beg for it.  It would be INVALUABLE for our experience.  As it is, archiving messages that refer to photos is so much less effective since those photo links often end up pointing to the wrong thing.  I know newer members to our group find it hard to get a lot out of archived conversations because of this.  (We are a visual arts group).  

I hppe this change can make its way to the "to implement" list for the folks that produce groups.io.!

Thanks!

Jen


moderated Re: Photo Album Ordering #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 10:58 PM, Jen Weber wrote:
On the interface looking at a picture in a album...the "download" button.  I never hit that, because I don't want to save photos to my computer, which is what I generally think of as "downloading".
Jen -- When you click the Download button, the file is sent as a binary data stream. What is subsequently done with the file depends on browser settings.

With JPEGs and other supported image formats, most browsers simply display the image [again]. It is possible to reconfigure your browser to do otherwise, or to force a download from the server side (using the "download" attribute in HTML5). I'm told this was once investigated but caused other problems.

PLEASE can the regular URL that we see when we navigate to the photo album be this second one, with the file name included?  This would eliminate so much confusion!
I can tell people to click the download button, but I am SURE very few people will figure this out otherwise.  Maybe even get rid of the download button, or make it actually bring up a save menu (if we set permissions as moderators/owners to allow file saving, though).
The "intermediate view" (for lack of a better term) allows you to move the photo to another location, edit its metadata, or assign it as a cover photo for the enclosing album. I don't know how we would accomplish those objectives if it were eliminated... a complete proposal needs to address this.

All that said, a URL that is stable as other photos within the album are moved/deleted would be handy. It's been suggested more than once. It would probably require a new data structure for albums (perhaps a linked list).

Regards,
Bruce


moderated Re: unify moderation response #suggestion

Glenn Glazer
 

On 02/14/2021 00:53, Andy Wedge wrote:
It's probably less important to make a wrong decision between Reject or Delete than it is to mistakenly approve a message when it should not have been or to Reject/Delete a message when it should have been approved. So, the fact that the Approve and Reject/Delete actions employ different techniques is entirely logical and helps to avoid mistakes.

That's opinion. You are trying to make your preference the preference of all users. I'm trying to create a scenario in which different preferences can be satisfied.

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est


moderated Re: Photo Album Ordering #suggestion

Yvette Money <yveterinarian@...>
 

I second the wish to have the URLs reflect the actual photo it has been generated for.  One issue with using the download button to get the correct URL is that the photo is always smaller.  I belong to a group of Miniaturists who very much appreciate being able to see the photo larger so that they can see tiny details.  Each week I showcase another photo from a member's album for the members to peruse.  It is confusing for them if the URL changes and they are no longer seeing the photo they were meant to see that week.  
--
Yvette in Ontario


moderated Incorrect topic inclusion in MyFollowedTopics screen #bug

 

Hi Mark,

Something in the MyFollowedTopics screen or thereabouts is not working quite right.   I just noticed this, I see topics from docs in there but I shouldn't, I'm set to Individual-All in docs; but I am set to FO+FF+AFR in beta, the parent.

Also, this is not related to the recent sub settings changes, it's been going on for a while, a couple of months at least.

Cheers,
Christos


moderated Re: unify moderation response #suggestion

Andy Wedge
 

On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 12:14 AM, Glenn Glazer wrote:

As it stands though, there is a logical separation of moderator actions in the current approach as you Reply to Approve or tap/click a link to Reject or Delete; thereby eliminating the risk of tapping/clicking the wrong link if an Approve link was present.  Anything that reduces the chance of the wrong option being selected is a plus point for me (and the Discard button on the Web UI was recently moved to prevent accidental use) so I would say keep the notification email as it is.

Well you could say the same thing of the situation now, one could click reject when they meant delete or vice-versa. While I grant human error exists, I tend to think more highly of people who sign up to be admins and moderators as being rather more savvy than the average group member. I think going after 100% error free user interfaces results inevitably in loss of reasonable functionality, making it less useful rather than more so.
Nobody is talking about 100% error free and that can never be the case when you ass human interaction into the mix.

When you receive an email notification for a pending message your primary decision is "Do I approve this?" If your answer is Yes then you Reply. If your answer is No then you have a secondary decision "Reject or Delete?".  It's probably less important to make a wrong decision between Reject or Delete than it is to mistakenly approve a message when it should not have been or to Reject/Delete a message when it should have been approved. So, the fact that the Approve and Reject/Delete actions employ different techniques is entirely logical and helps to avoid mistakes.

Andy


moderated Re: unify moderation response #suggestion

 

Glenn,

One thing that the URL lets me do is fast access to all pending
messages. E.g., if there are many pending messages, taking me to the
pending page is more convenient than replying to all of them since I
can select all at that page.
That use case is already covered by the link at the top of the email: "View this message online".

I believe that link used to be below the quoted message, where the others are, but it was #suggested that it be moved to the top for convenience. On the theory that if you'd rather deal with the message on site you don't need to scroll through it in the email message.

On my Android phone I use that rather than reply. Not because I care about the extra Sent message but because I like the web interface better than the email interface on my phone.

On my desktop I generally switch to a pinned tab in my browser to review pending messages, and simply treat the email notice as a reminder to go check.

Shal


moderated Re: Photo Album Ordering #suggestion

Jen Weber
 

Ok, I finally found something...

On the interface looking at a picture in a album...the "download" button.  I never hit that, because I don't want to save photos to my computer, which is what I generally think of as "downloading".

Normally, the URL at the top of the photo in an album shows like this
....photo/(albumID)/(position of photo in album)?p=Created,,,20,1,0,0

(for example:  https://jtacertificationstudygroup.groups.io/g/JTA.Level3.Study.Group/photo/260613/8?p=Created,,,20,1,0,0)
This is also what clicking on the photo and "copying address" will copy for you.

BUT for some reason, on the bottom, clicking on download takes me to a different view of the photo and the URL actually CONTAINS the file name! This is what I want!
...photo/(albumID)/(position of photo in album/(name of file)?p=Created,,,20,1,0,0

(for example: https://jtacertificationstudygroup.groups.io/g/JTA.Level3.Study.Group/photo/260613/8/JenW_S19%200292%20Jonquils.jpg?p=Created,,,20,1,0,0)

there is no actual saving or downloading of the file that happens.
I am in a group of 900 people and I dont think anyone has figured this out for years!!

PLEASE can the regular URL that we see when we navigate to the photo album be this second one, with the file name included?  This would eliminate so much confusion!
I can tell people to click the download button, but I am SURE very few people will figure this out otherwise.  Maybe even get rid of the download button, or make it actually bring up a save menu (if we set permissions as moderators/owners to allow file saving, though).

Jen Weber

PS - Thanks to another Jen for privately emailing me until I could figure this out...


moderated Re: unify moderation response #suggestion

Glenn Glazer
 

On 02/13/2021 19:17, Duane wrote:
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 09:05 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
If I use gmail on my phone to reply to a moderation request, when I go to my mail in Thunderbird, I get an extra copy of my sent mail in my inbox that I don't need.
That would be the way you have Thunderbird set up.  For me, the 'sent' message goes in the Sent folder of my Gmail account, not the Inbox.

Duane

Sure, but it's still a duplicate I don't need.

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est


moderated Re: unify moderation response #suggestion

Duane
 

On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 09:05 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
If I use gmail on my phone to reply to a moderation request, when I go to my mail in Thunderbird, I get an extra copy of my sent mail in my inbox that I don't need.
That would be the way you have Thunderbird set up.  For me, the 'sent' message goes in the Sent folder of my Gmail account, not the Inbox.

Duane


moderated Re: unify moderation response #suggestion

Glenn Glazer
 

Here's another reason.

If I use gmail on my phone to reply to a moderation request, when I go to my mail in Thunderbird, I get an extra copy of my sent mail in my inbox that I don't need.

This doesn't happen if I use "view message online" URL.

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est


moderated Re: unify moderation response #suggestion

Glenn Glazer
 

On 02/13/2021 15:12, Andy Wedge wrote:
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 09:51 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
Ease of use for the moderator. You keep focusing on the sender part, which is actually not relevant to the proposal.

I'm not saying get rid of the email response, I'm saying that different moderators have different use cases and that having both supports everyone. If you don't need the link, don't use it.
The current links at the bottom of a notification email for Reject and Delete are Mailto: links which start a new email whereas the action required to approve a message is to reply to the notification.  What you are really asking for is a Mailto: link that starts a new email that can be used to approve a message rather than use an email client reply function.

Exactly, though I would say "in addition to" instead of "rather than".


I don't think the way you phrased your original suggestion was very clear and use of the term 'do not notify the sender' doesn't make sense in terms of a message being approved. 

Possibly. It was clear to me when I wrote it ;) but clearly also there's been some confusion. Which is why we have dialog. I hope the intention is clear now.


As it stands though, there is a logical separation of moderator actions in the current approach as you Reply to Approve or tap/click a link to Reject or Delete; thereby eliminating the risk of tapping/clicking the wrong link if an Approve link was present.  Anything that reduces the chance of the wrong option being selected is a plus point for me (and the Discard button on the Web UI was recently moved to prevent accidental use) so I would say keep the notification email as it is.

Well you could say the same thing of the situation now, one could click reject when they meant delete or vice-versa. While I grant human error exists, I tend to think more highly of people who sign up to be admins and moderators as being rather more savvy than the average group member. I think going after 100% error free user interfaces results inevitably in loss of reasonable functionality, making it less useful rather than more so.

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est

1861 - 1880 of 30101