Date   

moderated Re: Button Label Clarification for web site reply #suggestion

Chris Jones
 

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 09:07 PM, Mike Hanauer wrote:
Another, perhaps better or easier/straighforward solution might be to have two buttons to the left, one "Send to Group" and the other "Send to Sender" - and eliminate the private button.
That suggestion removes a group Owner's ability to set the Default Reply Option (e.g. Group or Sender) for no obvious wider benefit. The ability to remove one or the other reply options might remain, but it still takes away a function that Owners currently have. How might they view that removal? A change of button or tab wording is one thing; a change in available functions is another matter entirely.

Chris


moderated Re: Non-members becoming Past members? #misc

 

Hi All,

Currently, when you ban an existing member of your group, that generates a past member record. If you proactively ban an email address (someone that is not currently a member of your group), that does not generate a past member record.

If you unban someone, regardless of whether that was a proactive or not ban, that also generates a past member record. This is basically a duplicate record (for members who had been banned).

My proposal is to eliminate the creation of a past member record when you unban someone. That fixes Andy's problem.

Please let me know what you think.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Button Label Clarification for web site reply #suggestion

 

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 1:07 PM Mike Hanauer via groups.io <MGHanauer=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

Another, perhaps better or easier/straighforward solution might be to have two buttons to the left, one "Send to Group" and the other "Send to Sender" - and eliminate the private button. "Discard" can stay, perhaps on the right.

I don't like the idea of adding another button. The Private button was an idea taken from Instagram, which given their number of users, I consider a standard.

Mark


moderated Re: Button Label Clarification for web site reply #suggestion

Mike Hanauer
 

In some cases, a sender may not be a member. True?

Consider Better, not Bigger. So many advantages. Just ask. USA adds a Chicago to our overpop each year.
"Still more population growth is not our way to a healthy community, a healthy planet, OR enjoyable cycling."

    ~Mike


On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 04:11:35 PM EDT, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:


I vote for Send to Member!


On Oct 7, 2021, at 1:05 PM, Dan Tucker <antiquetuck@...> wrote:


I see what’s going on here, and agree with J’s discussion. 
But I don’t care for “Author”. 
How about “Member” - that IS where it’s being directed - to that member. 


On Oct 7, 2021, at 11:42, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:


I like “send to author”.


On Oct 7, 2021, at 12:32 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:


On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:04 PM Andy Wedge <andy_wedge@...> wrote:

There's also now an inconsistency in the terminology as we have 'Send to Group' but the private message option says 'Reply to Sender'.  If you were just thinking of changing instances of Reply to Send then 'Send to Sender' really doesn't sound good.

Hmmmm. How about 'Send to Author'?

Mark 

--
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


--
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: Button Label Clarification for web site reply #suggestion

 

I vote for Send to Member!


On Oct 7, 2021, at 1:05 PM, Dan Tucker <antiquetuck@...> wrote:

I see what’s going on here, and agree with J’s discussion. 
But I don’t care for “Author”. 
How about “Member” - that IS where it’s being directed - to that member. 


On Oct 7, 2021, at 11:42, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

I like “send to author”.


On Oct 7, 2021, at 12:32 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:


On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:04 PM Andy Wedge <andy_wedge@...> wrote:

There's also now an inconsistency in the terminology as we have 'Send to Group' but the private message option says 'Reply to Sender'.  If you were just thinking of changing instances of Reply to Send then 'Send to Sender' really doesn't sound good.

Hmmmm. How about 'Send to Author'?

Mark 

--
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


--
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: Button Label Clarification for web site reply #suggestion

Mike Hanauer
 

Thanks so much for the brainstorming Mark.

Another, perhaps better or easier/straighforward solution might be to have two buttons to the left, one "Send to Group" and the other "Send to Sender" - and eliminate the private button. "Discard" can stay, perhaps on the right.

Consider Better, not Bigger. So many advantages. Just ask. USA adds a Chicago to our overpop each year.
"Still more population growth is not our way to a healthy community, a healthy planet, OR enjoyable cycling."

    ~Mike


On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 04:00:12 PM EDT, Mike Hanauer via groups.io <mghanauer@...> wrote:


Thanks Mark. Now see your point. I think, still, I would retain sender. Me thinks changing terminology is a bigger problem. 
I don't think "author" is used elsewhere.


Consider Better, not Bigger. So many advantages. Just ask. USA adds a Chicago to our overpop each year.
"Still more population growth is not our way to a healthy community, a healthy planet, OR enjoyable cycling."

    ~Mike


On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 03:53:31 PM EDT, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:


On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:50 PM Mike Hanauer via groups.io <MGHanauer=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
It IS the sender. It is probably the author. FURTHER, "sender" is what you use in many other contexts -- why introduce another inconsistency. Reply to sender is everywhere. And then "Reply to Sender" BUT "Send to Author".  Yuck me thinks.

Yes, I will be fixing the Send to/Reply to inconsistency. I was asking about Send to Sender changed to something else, because yes, that sounds a bit weird.

Mark


moderated Re: Button Label Clarification for web site reply #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 03:53 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Yes, I will be fixing the Send to/Reply to inconsistency. I was asking about Send to Sender changed to something else, because yes, that sounds a bit weird.
My understanding:  The original complaint was that clicking "Reply to Sender" didn't make it clear that the button actually closed the editor and sent a message. 

Personally, I was not confused by this, and did not consider it broken...but I guess others disagree. That being the case, "Send to Sender" doesn't sound so bad. At least it tells you what's going to happen.

"Send to Author" doesn't work so well if the original post was a quote. "Post to Sender?" "Send to Originator?" They all have their problems, and are no better than "Reply to Sender" was. How about "Close and Send" with the actual destination indicated (and toggled as appropriate) elsewhere?

I will find some way to adapt to whatever we end up with. Wondering now if others will be so accommodating.

Regards,
Bruce


moderated Re: Button Label Clarification for web site reply #suggestion

 

I see what’s going on here, and agree with J’s discussion. 
But I don’t care for “Author”. 
How about “Member” - that IS where it’s being directed - to that member. 


On Oct 7, 2021, at 11:42, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

I like “send to author”.


On Oct 7, 2021, at 12:32 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:


On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:04 PM Andy Wedge <andy_wedge@...> wrote:

There's also now an inconsistency in the terminology as we have 'Send to Group' but the private message option says 'Reply to Sender'.  If you were just thinking of changing instances of Reply to Send then 'Send to Sender' really doesn't sound good.

Hmmmm. How about 'Send to Author'?

Mark 

--
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: Button Label Clarification for web site reply #suggestion

Mike Hanauer
 

Thanks Mark. Now see your point. I think, still, I would retain sender. Me thinks changing terminology is a bigger problem. 
I don't think "author" is used elsewhere.


Consider Better, not Bigger. So many advantages. Just ask. USA adds a Chicago to our overpop each year.
"Still more population growth is not our way to a healthy community, a healthy planet, OR enjoyable cycling."

    ~Mike


On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 03:53:31 PM EDT, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:


On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:50 PM Mike Hanauer via groups.io <MGHanauer=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
It IS the sender. It is probably the author. FURTHER, "sender" is what you use in many other contexts -- why introduce another inconsistency. Reply to sender is everywhere. And then "Reply to Sender" BUT "Send to Author".  Yuck me thinks.

Yes, I will be fixing the Send to/Reply to inconsistency. I was asking about Send to Sender changed to something else, because yes, that sounds a bit weird.

Mark


moderated Re: Button Label Clarification for web site reply #suggestion

 

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:50 PM Mike Hanauer via groups.io <MGHanauer=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
It IS the sender. It is probably the author. FURTHER, "sender" is what you use in many other contexts -- why introduce another inconsistency. Reply to sender is everywhere. And then "Reply to Sender" BUT "Send to Author".  Yuck me thinks.

Yes, I will be fixing the Send to/Reply to inconsistency. I was asking about Send to Sender changed to something else, because yes, that sounds a bit weird.

Mark


moderated Re: Button Label Clarification for web site reply #suggestion

Mike Hanauer
 

It IS the sender. It is probably the author. FURTHER, "sender" is what you use in many other contexts -- why introduce another inconsistency. Reply to sender is everywhere. And then "Reply to Sender" BUT "Send to Author".  Yuck me thinks.

But, the main point is that if "private" is chosen, and even reclicked, "Send" reverts back to "Reply" for both cases.

    ~Mike


On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 03:37:47 PM EDT, Mike Hanauer <mghanauer@...> wrote:


I think "Sender" is the more recognized.

But, the main point is that if "private" is chosen, and even reclicked, "Send" reverts back to "Reply" for both cases.

    ~Mike


On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 03:32:18 PM EDT, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:


On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:04 PM Andy Wedge <andy_wedge@...> wrote:

There's also now an inconsistency in the terminology as we have 'Send to Group' but the private message option says 'Reply to Sender'.  If you were just thinking of changing instances of Reply to Send then 'Send to Sender' really doesn't sound good.

Hmmmm. How about 'Send to Author'?

Mark 


moderated Re: Button Label Clarification for web site reply #suggestion

 

I like “send to author”.


On Oct 7, 2021, at 12:32 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:


On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:04 PM Andy Wedge <andy_wedge@...> wrote:

There's also now an inconsistency in the terminology as we have 'Send to Group' but the private message option says 'Reply to Sender'.  If you were just thinking of changing instances of Reply to Send then 'Send to Sender' really doesn't sound good.

Hmmmm. How about 'Send to Author'?

Mark 

--
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: Button Label Clarification for web site reply #suggestion

Mike Hanauer
 

I think "Sender" is the more recognized.

But, the main point is that if "private" is chosen, and even reclicked, "Send" reverts back to "Reply" for both cases.

    ~Mike


On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 03:32:18 PM EDT, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:


On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:04 PM Andy Wedge <andy_wedge@...> wrote:

There's also now an inconsistency in the terminology as we have 'Send to Group' but the private message option says 'Reply to Sender'.  If you were just thinking of changing instances of Reply to Send then 'Send to Sender' really doesn't sound good.

Hmmmm. How about 'Send to Author'?

Mark 


moderated Re: Button Label Clarification for web site reply #suggestion

 

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:04 PM Andy Wedge <andy_wedge@...> wrote:

There's also now an inconsistency in the terminology as we have 'Send to Group' but the private message option says 'Reply to Sender'.  If you were just thinking of changing instances of Reply to Send then 'Send to Sender' really doesn't sound good.

Hmmmm. How about 'Send to Author'?

Mark 


moderated Re: Button Label Clarification for web site reply #suggestion

Andy Wedge
 

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 06:12 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I've changed the `Reply` word to `Send`
If you start a reply and then hit the Private button twice it changes back to 'Reply to Group'.

There's also now an inconsistency in the terminology as we have 'Send to Group' but the private message option says 'Reply to Sender'.  If you were just thinking of changing instances of Reply to Send then 'Send to Sender' really doesn't sound good.

Andy

 


moderated Re: Trying to add member notice with existing type and name fails to issue warning, does nothing, navigates poorly #bug

 

Mark,

Thanks. All of that makes perfect sense! I suspected something like that, except for the creation timestamp. 

A couple of suggestions at this point:

1. Figure out whether, and when, Active should be the default. Should it be consistently one way or the other, or should it be the default only if this is the first message of that type being created, etc? In particular, I would not continue to have it be the default in the cases where multiple active noticed are allowed. I think most users will not understand that if they create what (to them) is simply a new, or alternative, welcome notice, for example, it actually gets ADDED to any existing active one(s) and ALL are sent out as welcome messages. (I love the ability to do this. But it came as a shock to me.) Minimum, I would  add some explanation to the Active checkbox in those cases.

2. What is the purpose of a name, if it’s not an identifier, something that sets the notice apart from others of its same type? It makes no sense to me to allow multiple notices of the same type with identical names, and I would have the system reject those.


On Oct 7, 2021, at 9:58 AM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:


Hi J,

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 8:55 AM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

I am very sorry to tell you this, but there are now other weirdnesses! I just tried again to create a new Banned notice in my test group. Here is what happened:

1. (a) There are now TWO Banned notices, listed as at the same time (same timestamp, a couple of minutes ago), one with name "Banned Member" (which was the correct name - the name I left in place as the default) and another with name "Banned."
    (b) Despite the (alleged) two new notices, there is only log entry for my having created a new notice.

2. My original, pre-test Banned notice, with "name not set," and creation date a long time ago, has disappeared.

What happened is that member notices really shouldn't have an empty name ("name not set"). That bug was fixed last December. When you added the new member notice, we went in and updated the old member notice, giving it a name ("Banned"). That changed the updated date on the notice (which was labeled 'Date' on the Member Notices page, but I've now changed that to 'Updated'). Confused? Make sense?

 
3. (a) The default, upon creation of the message, was that the Active box was checked. This is different from yesterday, when I reported the bug. At that time, it defaulted to unchecked.
    (b) Yet despite the default, both "new" notices were created as not active.

I just fixed this bug.

Thanks,
Mark 

--
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: Button Label Clarification for web site reply #suggestion

 

Hi All,

After looking at what Gmail does, I've changed the `Reply` word to `Send` for the various reply button combos (ie it's now `Send to Group`).

Hope this helps.
Mark

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 5:37 AM Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 07:17 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
A single person not understanding what is in front of them does not suggest that non - understanding of these particular functions is widespread.
It would also depend on whether an individual had read the section of the Members Manual relating to how to reply.  I don't get too excited about suggestions like this when the information is readily available.  Little tweaks can be useful, but are often suggested because many don't want to be bothered reading the manuals.

Duane


moderated Re: Trying to add member notice with existing type and name fails to issue warning, does nothing, navigates poorly #bug

 

Hi J,

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 8:55 AM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

I am very sorry to tell you this, but there are now other weirdnesses! I just tried again to create a new Banned notice in my test group. Here is what happened:

1. (a) There are now TWO Banned notices, listed as at the same time (same timestamp, a couple of minutes ago), one with name "Banned Member" (which was the correct name - the name I left in place as the default) and another with name "Banned."
    (b) Despite the (alleged) two new notices, there is only log entry for my having created a new notice.

2. My original, pre-test Banned notice, with "name not set," and creation date a long time ago, has disappeared.

What happened is that member notices really shouldn't have an empty name ("name not set"). That bug was fixed last December. When you added the new member notice, we went in and updated the old member notice, giving it a name ("Banned"). That changed the updated date on the notice (which was labeled 'Date' on the Member Notices page, but I've now changed that to 'Updated'). Confused? Make sense?

 
3. (a) The default, upon creation of the message, was that the Active box was checked. This is different from yesterday, when I reported the bug. At that time, it defaulted to unchecked.
    (b) Yet despite the default, both "new" notices were created as not active.

I just fixed this bug.

Thanks,
Mark 


moderated Re: Trying to add member notice with existing type and name fails to issue warning, does nothing, navigates poorly #bug

 

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 08:38 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
monthly reminders.
I think I've been MIA. I never knew we had "monthly reminder" notices! That and multiple active welcome messages is going to make my life much easier.
 
--
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: Trying to add member notice with existing type and name fails to issue warning, does nothing, navigates poorly #bug

 

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 08:37 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I think I have fixed this. Please check it and let me know.
Mark,

I am very sorry to tell you this, but there are now other weirdnesses! I just tried again to create a new Banned notice in my test group. Here is what happened:

1. (a) There are now TWO Banned notices, listed as at the same time (same timestamp, a couple of minutes ago), one with name "Banned Member" (which was the correct name - the name I left in place as the default) and another with name "Banned."
    (b) Despite the (alleged) two new notices, there is only log entry for my having created a new notice.

2. My original, pre-test Banned notice, with "name not set," and creation date a long time ago, has disappeared.

3. (a) The default, upon creation of the message, was that the Active box was checked. This is different from yesterday, when I reported the bug. At that time, it defaulted to unchecked.
    (b) Yet despite the default, both "new" notices were created as not active.

The good news is that the navigation is fixed.
--
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

881 - 900 of 31095