Date   

moderated Re: 14-day expired pending member does not generate a log entry #bug #suggestion

 

And did you say this is currently described in some log as “removed”? I think that should be changed to “expired.” Wasn’t sure whether you were talking hypothetically or factually and I have no examples to check in my group.


On Oct 9, 2021, at 4:42 PM, Christos Psarras <christos@...> wrote:

On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 07:20 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I would make the entry in the past members list say "expired"
Good call.  My original thought was rejected as in rejected (by the system) but expired is better, self-explanatory.

Cheers,
Christos

--
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: 14-day expired pending member does not generate a log entry #bug #suggestion

 

On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 07:20 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I would make the entry in the past members list say "expired"
Good call.  My original thought was rejected as in rejected (by the system) but expired is better, self-explanatory.

Cheers,
Christos


moderated Re: 14-day expired pending member does not generate a log entry #bug #suggestion

 

On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 04:12 PM, Christos Psarras wrote:

Don't you think there should be a log entry indicating the member was auto-rejected due to time limit expiration
I think there should be. I would make the entry in the past members list say "expired" - not "removed." Currently, rejected members say "rejected" in the Past Members list.
 
--
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 14-day expired pending member does not generate a log entry #bug #suggestion

 

I'm not quite sure if this is a bug/omission, or it's by design, in which case I'd suggest to add something about it to the activity log.

I had someone in a group apply over 14 days ago.  They weren't claimed, and they never answered the pending notice requests (unrelated to the recent spammers BTW), all the time in between still showing NC.  Yesterday or today, not sure (pun intended) they were unceremoniously gone as expected.  But there is no log entry that says so, all there is in the log is the applied entry and the two entries for my pending notice sending.

Don't you think there should be a log entry indicating the member was auto-rejected due to time limit expiration or whatever the reason would be, so the "case circle" would be closed?  Right now, unless if someone knows what happened, they are left wondering especially if they have a free group with no past members list capability.  In a premium group one can see that person listed as a past member, but the reason stated is "removed"***, kind of implying an admin removed them, but when they click on that reason link to get the log entries, there is no indication in there why they were removed or by whom.  To an untrained/not as knowledgeable mod this "lack of closure" can look a bit confusing.

*** that reason also seems to me to not be quite the right one, I think it should be rejected.

Cheers,
Christos


moderated Site updates #changelog

 

Changes to the site this week:

October 8, 2021:

  • DOCS: Updates from Nina.
  • BUGFIX: More work to eliminate bogus draft saving error messages. Discussion
  • CHANGE: Removed the Remove option from the Banned Members page, as it didn't make sense/was mostly a duplicate of the Unban option. Discussion
  • CHANGE: Unbanning someone no longer generates a past member record. Discussion

October 7, 2021:

  • CHANGE: Changed Recent Bounces to Bounces in the Account sidebar. In the Email Delivery History page as well as the account Bounces page, changed Recent Bounces to Bounces.
  • BUGFIX: When making a change or adding a new group member notice, and an existing member notice of the same type does not have a name set, the update would silently fail. Discussion

October 6, 2021:

  • BUGFIX: Attachments with non-ascii characters in their names would fail to download. Discussion
  • BUGFIX: Post Status: Override: not moderated should override any moderated hashtags. Discussion

October 5, 2021:

  • BUGFIX: Better handling on small screens of non-breaking topic summaries. Discussion
  • BUGFIX: For photos with spaces in the name, properly encode the Download URL so that the spaces are intact. Discussion
  • BUGFIX: The Subgroup Category dropdown in the group settings page was not working. Discussion

The next #changelog will be sent on Friday, October 15th.

Take care everyone.

Mark


moderated Re: Private messages sent via groups.io are not logged? #misc

 

This is just my opinion, but if a log entry is recorded, the message is by definition not private.
--
David Bryant
Canyon Lake, Texas
https://t-vog.groups.io/g/main    https://davidcbryant.net


moderated Re: Private messages sent via groups.io are not logged? #misc

Bruce Bowman
 

On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 05:32 PM, Andy wrote:
If someone sends a private reply, it seems the act of sending the message is not logged in the Activity Log.

I'm wondering (a) if my understanding is correct, and (b) if it seems right that groups.io doesn't log it.
Private responses to group emails never pass through groups.io and therefore cannot be intercepted and logged. It seems appropriate -- or at least consistent -- that private messages sent via the groups.io web interface be treated the same way. Having said that, I would not object to having them appear in the log; if that's what everyone wants to do.

Regards,
Bruce


moderated Private messages sent via groups.io are not logged? #misc

Andy
 

If someone sends a private reply, it seems the act of sending the message is not logged in the Activity Log.

I'm wondering (a) if my understanding is correct, and (b) if it seems right that groups.io doesn't log it.  I would have thought that it would.  So many other things are logged - private messages to +owner, group messages rejected, etc.  Heck, messages from a Moderator to a member are logged; so why not messages from a member to a member?

(I am not a fan of having the contents of the message in the log; just an entry that says a message was sent.)

Andy


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

Mike Hanauer
 

"I have also changed my mind about yesterday's action of changing 'Reply to' to 'Send to', and have reverted the change."

After all the good dialogue, I am disappointed.
  • I think 2 reply-tos to for one transaction is one too many
  • I think "send" is pretty much the universal "I am done so transmit" trigger

AllTheBest.

    ~Mike


On Friday, October 8, 2021, 01:02:47 PM EDT, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:


Hi All,

I appreciate the conversation. It doesn't seem to me that any of the proposals are meaningfully better than what we have now. I have also changed my mind about yesterday's action of changing 'Reply to' to 'Send to', and have reverted the change. 

I always appreciate suggestions for improvements as the site can always be made better. 

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Improved draft saving #update

 

Hi Andy,

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 3:00 PM Andy Wedge <andy_wedge@...> wrote:
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? And which browser are you using?
 
I just opened a saved draft message on Beta and hit the discard button and got these two messages:


I just pushed a couple changes that should hopefully fix this.

Thanks,
Mark 


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

 

Hi All,

I appreciate the conversation. It doesn't seem to me that any of the proposals are meaningfully better than what we have now. I have also changed my mind about yesterday's action of changing 'Reply to' to 'Send to', and have reverted the change. 

I always appreciate suggestions for improvements as the site can always be made better. 

Thanks,
Mark


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

 

Hi All,

I've gone ahead and made the change where unbanning someone does not generate a new past member record. I have also removed the `Remove` option on the Banned Members page, it was mostly a duplicate with `Unban`.

Thanks,
Mark


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

 


On 2021-10-07 20:47, Andy via groups.io wrote:
I think there were changes to this policy, weren't there?  The most recently banned members are NOT on the Past Members list.

I honestly have no idea if something was changed or not, I have not had to use the ban functionality before and I only did a couple of tests with a single test user yesterday, but I did notice one strange thing in the banned-member filtered screen, or at least it looked strange to me.  You can (as expected) select someone and from Actions select "unban" or "send message".  But there's also a "remove" option, see below, I don't know what that is supposed to do, I didn't try it when I did my test yesterday.  I mean, unbanning someone removes them from the list, so what's the purpose of the "remove" option, what does it do?  It's not documented in the owner manual in the "Unbanning a member" section.  Could it be you accidentally selected that for some folk and it may have something to do with what you're (or not) seeing?  I have no clue.

Cheers,
Christos


moderated Re: one page to see all pending messages #suggestion

Malcolm Austen
 

On Fri, 08 Oct 2021 14:50:59 +0100, Ry Jones <rjones@...> wrote:

I would like one page to visit where I can see all pending messages for all of my mailing lists. Right now, I can see that I have a dozen or so pending messages (mostly spam) across all of my lists, but then I have to go click several times to delete them all, or to approve the rare message I should approve.

May I also request ... says he hoping he isn't asking for something that's already there ... a way to search (for a person or email) all the member lists of all the groups I have access to the membership of.

ever hopeful, Malcolm.

--
Malcolm Austen - email: malcolm.austen@...


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

Carol Good
 

It would also (d) remove the set Default Reply Option that Owners currently
have as pointed out in my #30478 ( https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/30478
) , and I think that would be a mistake.
I'm with Chris; we have our group default set for a reason and don't want it changed unnecessarily.

Carol


moderated one page to see all pending messages #suggestion

Ry Jones
 

Hi,
I would like one page to visit where I can see all pending messages for all of my mailing lists. Right now, I can see that I have a dozen or so pending messages (mostly spam) across all of my lists, but then I have to go click several times to delete them all, or to approve the rare message I should approve.

I would like an easier way to do this.
Ry
--
Ry Jones
Community Architect, Hyperledger


moderated Re: Subgroup Category setting changes do not stick #bug

Ry Jones
 

Thank you!


On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 5:21 AM Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 1:06 PM Ry Jones <rjones@...> wrote:

When setting group categories in the admin interface, the UI reports success, but the value is not updated.

This should be fixed now.

Thanks,
Mark 



--
Ry Jones
Community Architect, Hyperledger


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

Chris Jones
 

On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 09:06 AM, Andy Wedge wrote:
So, instead of having just the options Reply, Like and More under a message, why not have  'Reply to Group', 'Reply to Sender', Like and More.  The little arrow symbol next to the word Reply could be duplicated for ' Reply to Group' and left as a single arrow for ' Reply to Sender'. Alternatively, the single arrow could be supplemented with a group head & shoulders icon for ' Reply to Group' or a single person head & shoulders icon  for 'Reply to Sender'.

This would a) make the approach of starting a reply more consistent with email clients b) remove the need for the Private button and c) enable a single 'Send' button to used below the message composition window (more consistency with email clients).
It would also (d) remove the set Default Reply Option that Owners currently have as pointed out in my #30478, and I think that would be a mistake.

I will readily agree that it would look very neat, but as I also said earlier A change of button or tab wording is one thing; a change in available functions is another matter entirely. If there is a genuine difficulty with the existing wording then IMHO resolving that by tinkering with the availability of a function is the wrong solution.

Chris


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

 

On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 01:06 AM, Andy Wedge wrote:
On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 08:14 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
I also think Send to Member works great with Send to Group in the other case.
As I've said, I was quite happy with how it was.
That's not how it was.
 
--
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

Andy Wedge
 

On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 08:14 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
I also think Send to Member works great with Send to Group in the other case.
As I've said, I was quite happy with how it was. I never found it confusing and I've not had any comments from any of my members about that either.

I think the root cause of this issue is that the initial reply option makes no distinction, like in many email clients, between 'Reply' and 'Reply All', It's only after the initial 'Reply' has been selected that we then get to the point of deciding how many people we are replying to.

So, instead of having just the options Reply, Like and More under a message, why not have  'Reply to Group', 'Reply to Sender', Like and More.  The little arrow symbol next to the word Reply could be duplicated for ' Reply to Group' and left as a single arrow for ' Reply to Sender'. Alternatively, the single arrow could be supplemented with a group head & shoulders icon for ' Reply to Group' or a single person head & shoulders icon  for 'Reply to Sender'.

This would a) make the approach of starting a reply more consistent with email clients b) remove the need for the Private button and c) enable a single 'Send' button to used below the message composition window (more consistency with email clients).  The 'BCC Me' check box option should still only be displayed for 'Reply to Sender' responses.

Regards
Andy

841 - 860 of 31095