Date   

Re: better member list filtering #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 06:18 PM, I wrote:
If I first search the members list for yahoo.com and subsequently apply the "No Email" filter to those search hits, I don't get all yahoo accounts with No Email set. I get everyone on No Email, as if I hadn't done the search. This is odd behavior for a filter.
Ah. If I apply the filter and then do the search, I get the results I want.

Still, not what I expected.

Thanks,
Bruce


Re: better member list filtering #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 04:37 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I just pushed a new Filter pop-up on the Members screen. I also replaced the 'Members' dropdown with a normal button, as it's now redundant.
Mark -- Quick question:  Is there any way to AND some of these? At least in combination with the search box?

If I first search the members list for yahoo.com and subsequently apply the "No Email" filter to those search hits, I don't get all yahoo accounts with No Email set. I get everyone on No Email, as if I hadn't done the search. This is odd behavior for a filter.

Thanks,
Bruce


Re: better member list filtering #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 04:37 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I just pushed a new Filter pop-up on the Members screen. I also replaced the 'Members' dropdown with a normal button, as it's now redundant.
I like the new filter feature.

Poor Nina. :-)

Bruce


Re: better member list filtering #suggestion

Chris Jones
 

On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 10:47 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Please try it now.
Success! Many thanks.:)

Chris


Re: better member list filtering #suggestion

 

On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 2:38 PM Chris Jones via groups.io <chrisjones12=btinternet.com@groups.io> wrote:

The filter system does not find them, and in fact the filter selection of Moderation Status; Override; not moderated is not retained when Apply is clicked. The display defaults to the full membership list, and revisiting the filter selection shows the above setting not checked.

Please try it now.

Thanks,
Mark 


Re: better member list filtering #suggestion

Chris Jones
 

On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 09:37 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Please let me know your thoughts or if you see something amiss
Mark; the group I co - own has a Group Moderation setting of All messages are moderated, with a small number of members set to Override; not moderated.

The filter system does not find them, and in fact the filter selection of Moderation Status; Override; not moderated is not retained when Apply is clicked. The display defaults to the full membership list, and revisiting the filter selection shows the above setting not checked.

Chris


moderated Large Database (4K rows) Navigation Issue #suggestion

Jim Wilson
 

I would greatly appreciate a way to either:

  1. (easiest?) add an additional navigation bar at the top of the page to alleviate the need to scroll to the bottom of each page; or
  2. (more difficult) enter "id:[row id]" in the search box similar to the way "posterid:[id]" can be used in messages to locate particular user posts; or
  3. (programming challenge) create a reactive ajax method where typing alphanumerals will jump to the first row of the currently ordered column, including the ID column.

Ok, "c." is probably pushing it but, hey, I gotta try.

--
Jim


Re: better member list filtering #suggestion

Chris Jones
 

On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 10:09 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
That's very good! Can I suggest that the now - redundant Members button be removed; <snip>
That's there for consistency for how the rest of the site works. Clicking it will clear all filters, as it just goes back to the members page as a fresh visit.
Aha! Then it fulfills my suggestion of a Clear All Filters function, which is excellent. The earlier statement of it being redundant is not strictly true!

 
 
 
What rôle does the Cancel button fill? I haven't been able to track down what it actually does.
If you check some filter boxes, then click Cancel instead of Apply, those clicked buttons are removed. I'm not wed to keeping that button or the functionality.
 
Ah; I did wonder that; I tried before asking that but it didn't work for me, hence the question. Having tried it again I found I am getting odd results that are not wholly predictable.

Chris


Re: better member list filtering #suggestion

 

On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 2:05 PM Chris Jones via groups.io <chrisjones12=btinternet.com@groups.io> wrote:

That's very good! Can I suggest that the now - redundant Members button be removed; it is now serving no purpose and it won't be long before people are reporting that the Members button no longer works!

That's there for consistency for how the rest of the site works. Clicking it will clear all filters, as it just goes back to the members page as a fresh visit.

 
What rôle does the Cancel button fill? I haven't been able to track down what it actually does.

If you check some filter boxes, then click Cancel instead of Apply, those clicked buttons are removed. I'm not wed to keeping that button or the functionality.

Thanks,
Mark 


Re: better member list filtering #suggestion

Chris Jones
 

On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 09:37 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Please let me know your thoughts
That's very good! Can I suggest that the now - redundant Members button be removed; it is now serving no purpose and it won't be long before people are reporting that the Members button no longer works!

Can I further suggest that the Members button be replaced by a Clear All Filtering button? As far as I can see returning to the full list requires all the selected filters to be unchecked followed by clicking Apply, which is a minimum of 3 clicks just for a single filter. Button to be grey out if no filters are selected.

What rôle does the Cancel button fill? I haven't been able to track down what it actually does.

Chris


moderated Re: Member with "Posting Always Allowed" could not post to "Announcement-Only Group" #bug

 

I’m guessing that it was a bug when members *could* post to that group. Seems like nobody except moderators should be able to post to an “announcement only” group.


On Apr 7, 2021, at 1:07 PM, Dan Halbert <halbert@...> wrote:

A group Member (not Moderator) with "Posting Always Allowed" could not post to one of our groups marked as an "Announcement-Only Group". Other Members with the same privilege have successfully posted to this group in the past.

Was there a change about this recently, or is this possibly a new bug?

I can provide details privately.

Thanks,
Dan

--
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


Re: better member list filtering #suggestion

 

Hi All,

I just pushed a new Filter pop-up on the Members screen. I also replaced the 'Members' dropdown with a normal button, as it's now redundant.

Please let me know your thoughts or if you see something amiss (it was a fairly substantial change to the code). I wasn't sure where to place the Filter button, for one thing. 

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Member with "Posting Always Allowed" could not post to "Announcement-Only Group" #bug

Jim Wilson
 

It's not a bug. "Posting Always Allowed" does not apply to an "Announcement-Only Group" but rather to default group settings. If members previously posted, it would mean something had to have changed since then.

See https://groups.io/helpcenter/ownersmanual?single=true#customizing-group-settings_spam-control-and-moderation-settings

--
Jim


moderated Member with "Posting Always Allowed" could not post to "Announcement-Only Group" #bug

Dan Halbert
 

A group Member (not Moderator) with "Posting Always Allowed" could not post to one of our groups marked as an "Announcement-Only Group". Other Members with the same privilege have successfully posted to this group in the past.

Was there a change about this recently, or is this possibly a new bug?

I can provide details privately.

Thanks,
Dan


moderated Re: #suggestion feature request to strip out duplicate attachments in replies #suggestion

KWKloeber
 

Mark

Re-reading the exchange let me clarify that I am usually curt and to the point - I meant nothing derogatory in the original comment.  Rather you HAVE to make money.  Hopefully LOTS of money so the platform can continue ..... nothing nefarious or diabolical about that.  So I would hope that, while improving the service, you are concentrating on those things to cement the future of the platform.

NOW that said, my experience is that there is oftentimes a wide, gray, line between whether it's better to "optimize and improve" existing services/features than invent new features.  Just my personal leaning is that I wish that (as much?, more?) effort was put into fixing (ok, improving/optimizing) searching, some image issues (what else is on the list of existing features?) that I "miss" operating as well as or efficiently as possible, versus new features that I don't "miss" because I've never had them (such as the app development.) 
Just my .02 here.
Thx for all the hard work you do.


On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 07:32 PM, KWKloeber wrote:
Sure, naturally it would depend on how many of a group's members repost pics and how much storage gets "wasted" by that but at some point groups out of storage need to either laboriously go thru and delete, or moderate every msg, or ante up to the level -- which adds to the bottom line.
Not just for reposting -- It would be handy to be able to do that even when composing a new msg, and not need to upload a new image.  Yah one can always throw in a link to a pic, but it ain't the same as having it display in-line on the msg.

Thx
-k


On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 06:02 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 8:01 AM KWKloeber via groups.io <KWKloeber=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

Realizing of course that this would negatively impact the business model bottom line I’m not all that hopeful!
 
Were I just such a diabolical business man. Sorry to disappoint.
 
The truth is that this would be a pretty extensive change to the code base, with the associated risk. I'd like to do it, sure. But I can't see how this would be higher priority right now than the other things I'm working on, like bug fixes, the app, and new features.
 
Actually, I suspect it wouldn't affect the bottom line much one way or the other.
 
Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: #suggestion feature request to strip out duplicate attachments in replies #suggestion

 

David wrote:

a) No need to store the attachments on the server multiple time
b) No need to email the same attachments multiple times.
Hmm... Taken together with Mark's comment I think that brings us back to the original request from Donald (the OP): to strip the duplicates.

But for embedded images maybe only in the case of a detected top-post? That is, avoid stripping out a deliberately quoted image, to address Ken S's concern.

There was a problem in one of my groups where someone attached many MB
of images, then modified his post a dozen or so times. Some people
were screaming at the volume of mail that they were downloading. This
was one of the reasons I have disabled editing of posts on my groups.
Yeah... I think editing is a different issue which may require a different solution. If the images were inline in the text stripping them out of the edited text might severely compromise the member's intended meaning.

Shal


moderated Re: #suggestion feature request to strip out duplicate attachments in replies #suggestion

 

Bruce,

I'm skeptical that this is actually true. In a group export, all
attachments are BASE64 encoded and included as part of the
messages.mbox file. They may reside in separate MIME parts within each
message but that's all.
This may have changed, since the post is from 2015, but I'm guessing only in detail:

"When we receive an email, we pull all the attachments out of the
message and store them elsewhere (Amazon S3) while storing the
(hopefully now much smaller) email in a database. When viewing the
original message, or downloading the archives, or editing a message,
we reverse the process, pulling the attachments from S3 to rebuild the
original email."
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/2512

Hence my "how hard could it be?" attitude about implementing this feature. At least going forward; I could see how it would be a major pain to try and apply it retroactively to references kept hither and yon throughout the database.

But "how hard could it be?" is an infamous phrase, and I've been bitten by it time and again. My suggestion has at least one booby-trap: it likely requires reference counting or an equivalently messy way to know when it is safe to delete the target storage.

So I'll take Mark's word at face value.

Shal


moderated Re: #suggestion feature request to strip out duplicate attachments in replies #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 04:55 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
Images and attachments already occupy separate storage from the body text of the message.

Shal -- I'm skeptical that this is actually true. In a group export, all attachments are BASE64 encoded and included as part of the messages.mbox file. They may reside in separate MIME parts within each message but that's all.*

If so, implementation of this kind of functionality would likely require a complete rework of the groups.io message base (with, as Mark said, significant risk of breaking something else).

Regards,
Bruce

*How attachments are indexed so as to provide such functionality as the Emailed Photos folder is unclear to me.


moderated Re: #suggestion feature request to strip out duplicate attachments in replies #suggestion

KWKloeber
 

Sure, naturally it would depend on how many of a group's members repost pics and how much storage gets "wasted" by that but at some point groups out of storage need to either laboriously go thru and delete, or moderate every msg, or ante up to the level -- which adds to the bottom line.
Not just for reposting -- It would be handy to be able to do that even when composing a new msg, and not need to upload a new image.  Yah one can always throw in a link to a pic, but it ain't the same as having it display in-line on the msg.

Thx
-k


On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 06:02 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 8:01 AM KWKloeber via groups.io <KWKloeber=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

Realizing of course that this would negatively impact the business model bottom line I’m not all that hopeful!
 
Were I just such a diabolical business man. Sorry to disappoint.
 
The truth is that this would be a pretty extensive change to the code base, with the associated risk. I'd like to do it, sure. But I can't see how this would be higher priority right now than the other things I'm working on, like bug fixes, the app, and new features.
 
Actually, I suspect it wouldn't affect the bottom line much one way or the other.
 
Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: links to photos inconsistent #bug #suggestion

Judy F.
 

Yippee!!!!  Thanks Mark.
Judy F.
SW Florida - USA


On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 01:02 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 7:58 AM Jen Weber <jenkweber@...> wrote:
I have noticed that when viewing a photo in an album, right clicking the photo and selecting "Copy Link Address" gives an incorrect address.
It seems to be sending someone to a position 1 photo earlier in the album.

That's expected. The left half of the photo is one big link to the previous photo and the right half of the photo is one big link to the next photo. (corresponding to the left/right arrows).
 
I want to take this opportunity to once again BEG for coding the photo albums to generate a stable URL that does not refer to a position in the album, but rather to a unique identifier of the photo.  I know this has been brought up before, but it is so frustrating that as soon as an album's contents are added to or changed, all of the messages with links to anything in that album are all pointing to the wrong things.  

I have changed the URL structure for viewing photos so that now the URLs refer to specific photos and not to a relative position in an album. This means the URLs will no longer change when photos are added/removed from an album.
 
Cheers,
Mark 

1941 - 1960 of 30674