For general Groups.io questions, please see the Group Managers Forum and Group_Help groups. Note: those groups are volunteer-led and are not officially run by Groups.io.
|
Andy
I don't know if this is relevant, but my group has members opting for Special Notices Only who are Bounced, but none who are Bouncing.
Andy
|
|
|
|
Chris Jones
Mark; while investigating something else entirely I think I have found a bug in the detection of some members being "bouncing" but not recorded as such.
This perceived problem seems to arise if a member has their delivery set to Special Notices Only; in the group I co - own they should still receive monthly notices because these are sent as Special Notices, but I have found several instances where these have been bounced for several months or even longer. However, there is no "Bouncing" Status badge against these members in the Members List. I have concluded - perhaps wrongly - that where a member has selected Special Notices Only a message bounce will not be automatically further investigated by system - generated Bounce Probes. A little further delving revealed the point that as the individuals are not listed as bouncing a Moderator cannot send a Bounce Probe manually, which most of the time makes sense. Can you confirm (or otherwise!) my conclusion that a "Special Notices" member will not have system Bounce Probes sent to them in the event of a bounce occurring is correct? If my belief is correct then I think this configuration is wrong; any bounced message should be followed up by bounce probes and the member badged accordingly. In some respects this doesn't matter but I could easy see it mattering for any group hovering around the threshold where payment for member numbers applies; members recorded as Bouncing don't count towards the trigger point but if they aren't logged as bouncing then they will be included as "valid" members even when they aren't because of their unrecorded bouncing status. Chris
|
|
|
|
On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 10:51 AM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote: Mark, how do we get out of the test version? Just click on the 'TEST VERSION' text at the top. Alternatively, visit this url: https://groups.io/unsettest Cheers, Mark
|
|
|
|
Mark, how do we get out of the test version?
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
|
On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 05:01 PM, Duane wrote:
It appears that the options are only unavailable if the topic is locked (by a mod.)In common with others (as discussed on this group), my group polls are locked when they are created due to the lock topic attribute on the #poll-notice hashtag so that replies by email are automatically rejected. A member still needs to be able to close a poll that they created as described in the manual. Andy
|
|
|
|
On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 09:21 AM, Andy Wedge wrote:
However, the options to do so are not available for them to select.I did some checking on this. It appears that the options are only unavailable if the topic is locked (by a mod.) That would explain the need for the edit archive permission. Duane
|
|
|
|
On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 03:38 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
More detail please. Can you give me the exact steps to reproduce this?One of my members has reported this happening in the app too. He tried posting a message and then posted the same message again as he saw an error the first time:  Andy
|
|
|
|
Hi Mark,
in my testing subgroup, I noticed that the locked topic icon is not always displayed for polls on the polls page. When viewing by topic I see this:  However, on the Poll view, the locked topic icon is not displayed for all locked topics:  Regards Andy
|
|
|
|
Hi Mark,
the member's manual gives clear instructions on how a member can close (or repoen) a poll. However, the options to do so are not available for them to select. Currently, it seems the minimum requirement is to be a Moderator with the Edit Archives permission. Regards Andy
|
|
|
|
That is true. I just checked it. It seemed to me before that it was being marked as "claimed" if I even just opened it.
But I still think that "claiming" a pending message should be an affirmative act, just as it is for "claiming" a pending member. Currently, if you check "edit," even if you make no changes, it is marked as claimed. Even if I click on "edit" and then decide to do nothing, it is currently still marked as claimed. That is a different policy from pending members. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
|
On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 11:38 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
This problem is the reason I had to completely stop even looking at pending messages in the two groups in which I’m a sort of subsidiary mod.If you just click on the message subject in the pending list, you can view the message without it being logged as claimed. Andy
|
|
|
|
I agree. This problem is the reason I had to completely stop even looking at pending messages in the two groups in which I’m a sort of subsidiary mod. The minute I open a message, I’m logged as having claimed it, which is extremely misleading (I think the word “wrong” would not be hyperbolic).
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I don’t think this is a problem with having two log entires. I think there should be separate log entries for (a) claiming a message and (b) acting on it. The problem is the overzealousness of (a).
On Sep 12, 2021, at 3:26 AM, Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...> wrote:
--
J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
|
On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 10:18 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I do take slight issue, though, with simply opening a pending message causing it to be "claimed." That's not what happens when you look at a pending member, where you have to explicitly claim it.Therein lies the problem. Obviously, I cannot moderate a message without reading it. If I open the message to read it and simply close it, the message is not claimed. I always thought I had to open a message in the editor to claim it. Even the docs say that. I don't think it's appropriate for the log to say I did something that I didn't do. Thanks, Bruce
|
|
|
|
On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 12:30 AM, Bruce Bowman wrote:
Mark -- Recently, when I approve a message, it's creating duplicate log entries: One about me claiming the message and another about approving it.I raised this issue back in May this year. I still think it's unnecessary to have two entries when a message is just approved. A point I tried to make in #29585. Regards Andy
|
|
|
|
On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 04:30 PM, Bruce Bowman wrote:
It is intentional?Yes because you might claim it and reject it. Or do something else with it. Or nothing at all. Why should they not be separate log entries? I do take slight issue, though, with simply opening a pending message causing it to be "claimed." That's not what happens when you look at a pending member, where you have to explicitly claim it. Mods can look at pending members without being logged as having claimed them. This policy for logging mods as having claimed a message when they actually have just opened it is relatively new, and seems wrong. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
|
Andy
Not a bug. It is intentional.
|
|
|
|
Mark -- Recently, when I approve a message, it's creating duplicate log entries: One about me claiming the message and another about approving it.
I've never noticed this before. It is intentional? Regards, Bruce
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Site updates
#changelog
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:26 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
API: Fixed Documentation on a diet? Cheers, Christos
|
|
|
|
moderated
Site updates
#changelog
Changes to the site this week: September 10, 2021:
September 7, 2021:
The next #changelog post will be on September 17th. Take care everyone. Mark
|
|
|
|
"turns them into two"
Oops, not thinking straight. Of course it turns them into two. Two of them are in the same topic. All is well! -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|