Date   

locked Re: Site #changelog

Judy F.
 

Great! Thanks so much, that’s what I was hoping you would say. 

 

Judy F.

SW Florida - USA

 

From: Mark Fletcher [mailto:markf@corp.groups.io]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:40 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Site #updates

 

Hi Judy,

 

When viewing a pending message, if the person who sent the message is set to moderated (regardless of what the group is set to), there are now two buttons, 'Approve' and 'Approve & Unmoderate Sender'. 'Approve' does not change the posting status of the sender.

 

Thanks,

Mark

 

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 5:40 PM, J. Faulkner <jfaulkner44@...> wrote:

Hi Mark, the second item is two separate options, right? 

 

Judy F.

SW Florida - USA

 

From: Mark Fletcher [mailto:markf@corp.groups.io]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 7:26 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: [beta] Site #updates

 

- Can now edit archived messages. Edit and Delete buttons now appear in the Inbox view.

 

- In the pending message page, there's now an 'Approve & Unmoderate Sender' for messages from members who are set to moderated.

 

 

Mark

 


locked Re: Editing messages

Linda
 

> Edits are logged in the activity log (when and who did it).
 
That works for me, Mark, thanks!
 
Linda

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Re: Editing messages

I just pushed a change to the site where edited messages now display an 'Edited' label at the top right corner. That was easy because it didn't require a database change. Displaying who edited it (or even just Poster vs Moderator) would require a slight db change. Not a big deal if you guys think it's important.

Edits are logged in the activity log (when and who did it).

Thanks,
Mark

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:36 AM, Chris Leong <walkraft@...> wrote:

I was only suggesting saving the last edit time and editor. I think it is important for transparency to know if it was edited by the OP or a mod.

On 12/11/2014 10:34 PM, "Ian Gillis" <tessel.bas@...> wrote:

On 12 November 2014 08:50, Chris Leong <walkraft@...> wrote:
What if there was a note indicating that the message had been edited by a particular user on a particular date? That might curb potential abuse.

​Chris,

That could get complicated; multiple edits and associated version control would produce a list of dates, times and people.

IMHO the single word "Edited" together with an update of the post time is sufficient.

And "potential abuse" - by whom? If only originators and editors are allowed to edit, where is the risk?

Also, maybe Ronaldo's concern about email subscribers not seeing subsequent edits could be alleviated by a resend after edit?

regards,
Ian



--



locked Re: Editing messages

 

I just pushed a change to the site where edited messages now display an 'Edited' label at the top right corner. That was easy because it didn't require a database change. Displaying who edited it (or even just Poster vs Moderator) would require a slight db change. Not a big deal if you guys think it's important.

Edits are logged in the activity log (when and who did it).

Thanks,
Mark

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:36 AM, Chris Leong <walkraft@...> wrote:

I was only suggesting saving the last edit time and editor. I think it is important for transparency to know if it was edited by the OP or a mod.

On 12/11/2014 10:34 PM, "Ian Gillis" <tessel.bas@...> wrote:

On 12 November 2014 08:50, Chris Leong <walkraft@...> wrote:
What if there was a note indicating that the message had been edited by a particular user on a particular date? That might curb potential abuse.

​Chris,

That could get complicated; multiple edits and associated version control would produce a list of dates, times and people.

IMHO the single word "Edited" together with an update of the post time is sufficient.

And "potential abuse" - by whom? If only originators and editors are allowed to edit, where is the risk?

Also, maybe Ronaldo's concern about email subscribers not seeing subsequent edits could be alleviated by a resend after edit?

regards,
Ian



--



locked Re: Site #changelog

Linda
 

'Approve & Unmoderate Sender'
'Approve & Use Group Default'
 
Linda

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Site #updates

Agreed, but I'm not sure how to make it better without having the button be really long. :-/

Mark

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Linda Star-Freedman <donlin2@...> wrote:
That's good; wording is unclear though.
 
Linda

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Site #updates

That's exactly what it does.

Mark

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Linda Star-Freedman <donlin2@...> wrote:
Hi Mark,
Wouldn't Approve and Switch to Default Group Settings be more useful? 
Thanks,
Linda
 

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Site #updates

Hi Judy,

When viewing a pending message, if the person who sent the message is set to moderated (regardless of what the group is set to), there are now two buttons, 'Approve' and 'Approve & Unmoderate Sender'. 'Approve' does not change the posting status of the sender.

Thanks,
Mark




locked Re: Site #changelog

 

Agreed, but I'm not sure how to make it better without having the button be really long. :-/

Mark

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Linda Star-Freedman <donlin2@...> wrote:
That's good; wording is unclear though.
 
Linda

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Site #updates

That's exactly what it does.

Mark

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Linda Star-Freedman <donlin2@...> wrote:
Hi Mark,
Wouldn't Approve and Switch to Default Group Settings be more useful? 
Thanks,
Linda
 

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Site #updates

Hi Judy,

When viewing a pending message, if the person who sent the message is set to moderated (regardless of what the group is set to), there are now two buttons, 'Approve' and 'Approve & Unmoderate Sender'. 'Approve' does not change the posting status of the sender.

Thanks,
Mark




locked Re: Site #changelog

Linda
 

That's good; wording is unclear though.
 
Linda

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Site #updates

That's exactly what it does.

Mark

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Linda Star-Freedman <donlin2@...> wrote:
Hi Mark,
Wouldn't Approve and Switch to Default Group Settings be more useful? 
Thanks,
Linda
 

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Site #updates

Hi Judy,

When viewing a pending message, if the person who sent the message is set to moderated (regardless of what the group is set to), there are now two buttons, 'Approve' and 'Approve & Unmoderate Sender'. 'Approve' does not change the posting status of the sender.

Thanks,
Mark



locked Re: Site #changelog

 

That's exactly what it does.

Mark

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Linda Star-Freedman <donlin2@...> wrote:
Hi Mark,
Wouldn't Approve and Switch to Default Group Settings be more useful? 
Thanks,
Linda
 

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Site #updates

Hi Judy,

When viewing a pending message, if the person who sent the message is set to moderated (regardless of what the group is set to), there are now two buttons, 'Approve' and 'Approve & Unmoderate Sender'. 'Approve' does not change the posting status of the sender.

Thanks,
Mark



locked Re: Site #changelog

Linda
 

Hi Mark,
Wouldn't Approve and Switch to Default Group Settings be more useful? 
Thanks,
Linda
 

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Site #updates

Hi Judy,

When viewing a pending message, if the person who sent the message is set to moderated (regardless of what the group is set to), there are now two buttons, 'Approve' and 'Approve & Unmoderate Sender'. 'Approve' does not change the posting status of the sender.

Thanks,
Mark


locked Re: Site #changelog

 

Hi Judy,

When viewing a pending message, if the person who sent the message is set to moderated (regardless of what the group is set to), there are now two buttons, 'Approve' and 'Approve & Unmoderate Sender'. 'Approve' does not change the posting status of the sender.

Thanks,
Mark

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 5:40 PM, J. Faulkner <jfaulkner44@...> wrote:

Hi Mark, the second item is two separate options, right? 

 

Judy F.

SW Florida - USA

 

From: Mark Fletcher [mailto:markf@corp.groups.io]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 7:26 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: [beta] Site #updates

 

- Can now edit archived messages. Edit and Delete buttons now appear in the Inbox view.

 

- In the pending message page, there's now an 'Approve & Unmoderate Sender' for messages from members who are set to moderated.

 

 

Mark



locked Re: Site #changelog

Judy F.
 

Ian, that is not the case on all groups.  Most sewing/embroidery type groups I belong to (moderate, own or just a member) all members, with a few exceptions of some, are moderated all the times.  This is what I’m keep saying, all groups do not work the same way.  Example:  on a buying and selling group that I moderate, members submit ads ALL of those need to be moderated no matter if it is the first or 15th.  No member, except owner/moderator, are unmoderated.  This goes for joining also,  they all have to be approved once they submit the requested information.

 

Thanks,

 

Judy F.

SW Florida - USA

 

From: Ian Gillis [mailto:tessel.bas@...]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 6:46 AM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Site #updates

 

 

On 12 November 2014 02:40, J. Faulkner <jfaulkner44@...> wrote:

Hi Mark, the second item is two separate options, right? 

 

I hope not. On Yahoo Groups a new member whose initial posts are moderated needs

a) to have his message approved and
b) if he looks
like a decent chap he has to be Unmoderated.

A single button to do both at once would be wonderful…




--


locked Re: Editing messages

 

I was only suggesting saving the last edit time and editor. I think it is important for transparency to know if it was edited by the OP or a mod.

On 12/11/2014 10:34 PM, "Ian Gillis" <tessel.bas@...> wrote:

On 12 November 2014 08:50, Chris Leong <walkraft@...> wrote:
What if there was a note indicating that the message had been edited by a particular user on a particular date? That might curb potential abuse.

​Chris,

That could get complicated; multiple edits and associated version control would produce a list of dates, times and people.

IMHO the single word "Edited" together with an update of the post time is sufficient.

And "potential abuse" - by whom? If only originators and editors are allowed to edit, where is the risk?

Also, maybe Ronaldo's concern about email subscribers not seeing subsequent edits could be alleviated by a resend after edit?

regards,
Ian



--


locked Re: Calendar is live

Laurence Taylor
 

On 11/11/2014 20:56, Ian Gillis wrote:

​Laurence,

I'm not a Facebook devotee and I far prefer lengthy prose to vestigial
comments.

But I feel you do Facebook a disservice in lumping it together with Twitter
and the like. I would dispute that it is designed around short messages -
there appears to be no reasonable limit to the post length and lengthy
treatises can be compiled and linked to posts using the Facebook Notes
facility.
True; FB will do long messages, but you rarely see them. Twitter frankly
I don't see the point.


Moreover, if you post messages to the <mygroup>@groups.facebook.com address
and turn on email notifications you can turn it into a fair copy of a list
server.
I didn't know that! I do have email notification, and it says on it "to
respond reply to this email" but when I tried it it didn't work.

The trouble with Facebook groupsis that you can't create one without
providing members, so testing is a bit difficult.

Facebook has a bad image because of its more uncouth devotees - but it has
attributes which may be ignored by the yobbos but are nevertheless there
for use by the more "couth" of us.

From your email handle I presume you are involved with the amateur radio
fraternity - I'm involved with groups of engineers and I can assure you
that Facebook is quite popular once they become familiar with its rather
different UI and overcome their innate prejudice.
You presume correctly :-)

I'm a member of several tech-related FB groups, but the vast majority
seem to be fairly trivial. Maybe I should try starting a seriouis one!

--
rgds
LAurence
<><


locked Re: Site #changelog

 


On 12 November 2014 02:40, J. Faulkner <jfaulkner44@...> wrote:
Hi Mark, the second item is two separate options, right? 

​I hope not. On Yahoo Groups a new member whose initial posts are moderated needs

a) to have his message approved and
b) if he looks​ like a decent chap he has to be Unmoderated.

A single button to do both at once would be wonderful…



--


locked Re: Editing messages

 


On 12 November 2014 08:50, Chris Leong <walkraft@...> wrote:
What if there was a note indicating that the message had been edited by a particular user on a particular date? That might curb potential abuse.

​Chris,

That could get complicated; multiple edits and associated version control would produce a list of dates, times and people.

IMHO the single word "Edited" together with an update of the post time is sufficient.

And "potential abuse" - by whom? If only originators and editors are allowed to edit, where is the risk?

Also, maybe Ronaldo's concern about email subscribers not seeing subsequent edits could be alleviated by a resend after edit?

regards,
Ian



--


locked Re: Editing messages

 

What if there was a note indicating that the message had been edited by a particular user on a particular date? That might curb potential abuse.


locked Re: Site #changelog

Judy F.
 

Hi Mark, the second item is two separate options, right? 

 

Judy F.

SW Florida - USA

 

From: Mark Fletcher [mailto:markf@corp.groups.io]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 7:26 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: [beta] Site #updates

 

- Can now edit archived messages. Edit and Delete buttons now appear in the Inbox view.

 

- In the pending message page, there's now an 'Approve & Unmoderate Sender' for messages from members who are set to moderated.

 

 

Mark


locked Re: Editing messages

Linda
 

Hi Ronaldo, I think this is a wonderful feature of Groups.io. A careless moderator, for instance, might approve a message containing a broken link. Being able to fix the link would help members who read via the web. Linda

--------------------------------------------------
From: "ro-esp" <ro-esp@dds.nl>
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 7:24 PM
To: <beta@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [beta] Editing messages

markf@corp.groups.io sendis:

I've just pushed to the site the ability to edit archived messages. Also,
the Edit and Delete buttons now also appear when viewing messages in the
Inbox view. Let me know if you see any issues.
Err... WHO can edit WHICH messages? I don't see a problem with moderators editing messages *before* they're sent out, or members deleting their OWN messages, but letting even just moderators change the content of messages that were sent out already definitely sounds like a bad idea.

groetjes, Ronaldo


--
http://www.esperanto.net http://www.moneyasdebt.net




 

- Can now edit archived messages. Edit and Delete buttons now appear in the Inbox view.

- In the pending message page, there's now an 'Approve & Unmoderate Sender' for messages from members who are set to moderated.


Mark


locked Re: Editing messages

ro-esp
 

markf@corp.groups.io sendis:

I've just pushed to the site the ability to edit archived messages. Also,
the Edit and Delete buttons now also appear when viewing messages in the
Inbox view. Let me know if you see any issues.
Err... WHO can edit WHICH messages? I don't see a problem with moderators editing messages *before* they're sent out, or members deleting their OWN messages, but letting even just moderators change the content of messages that were sent out already definitely sounds like a bad idea.

groetjes, Ronaldo


--
http://www.esperanto.net http://www.moneyasdebt.net


locked Re: Calendar is live

 


On 11 November 2014 14:47, Laurence Taylor <g7mzh@...> wrote:
The "like" function can be part of it, but more importantly, there is a
significant difference between a Facebook-like setup (I'm inlcuding
Myspace, Twitter, Tumbler, &c), which is designed round short messages
and usually even sorter responses and only function when connected to
the respective web site, and discussion groups (Yahoo Groups, Google
Groups, MLM, &c), which are intended for long posts and equally long
replies, which may be read and written offline.

​Laurence,

I'm not a Facebook devotee and I far prefer lengthy prose to vestigial comments.

But I feel you do Facebook a disservice in lumping it together with Twitter and the like. I would dispute that it is designed around short messages - there appears to be no reasonable limit to the post length and lengthy treatises can be compiled and linked to posts using the Facebook Notes facility.
Moreover, if you post messages to the <mygroup>@groups.facebook.com address and turn on email notifications you can turn it into a fair copy of a list server.

Facebook has a bad image because of its more uncouth devotees - but it has attributes which may be ignored by the yobbos but are nevertheless there for use by the more "couth" of us.

From your email handle I presume you are involved with the amateur radio fraternity - I'm involved with groups of engineers and I can assure you that Facebook is quite popular once they become familiar with its rather different UI and overcome their innate prejudice.

regards,
Ian



--