Date   

locked Re: question about transferring a Google Group

Judy F.
 

Vickie, I read his note regarding ‘clutter’ as meaning lots of options for the owner/moderator to choose from.  Maybe I misinterpreted it.

 

Judy F.

SW Florida - USA

 

From: vickie via Groups.io [mailto:vickie_00@...]
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:47 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] question about transferring a Google Group

 

Duane >>>Since these choices would only be made by Owners/Moderators, it might create some "clutter" for them, but Members would normally have fewer choices to make.

 

It depends on the group.  My group  the members don't need or  would I permit them choices because of the type of group I assist.   

I don't see how it can create clutter.

 Once an options is turned off it also  should not show that option to members.. 

 

 

 

Vickie

 

 





 

 

 


From: Duane <txpigeon@...>
To: beta@groups.io
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:32 PM
Subject: [beta] Re: question about transferring a Google Group


On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 07:17 am, vickie <vickie_00@...> wrote:

>
> I feel    having an option to turn on or off a feature  would resolve a lot
> of back and forth debates on what moderators want or don't want.
>
> Vickie 
>

Although Mark has stated "As much as I hate adding additional options" (though on a different subject), for GroupsIO to be the ultimate email/web group site, it's probably going to need to have as many options for Owner/Moderators as possible.  This may include allowing/disallowing some features on a particular group.  As J_catlady has said, I wouldn't want a feature to be removed, simply disallowed if that works best for my group.  Since these choices would only be made by Owners/Moderators, it might create some "clutter" for them, but Members would normally have fewer choices to make.

Duane



 

 


locked Re: question about transferring a Google Group

 

An unformed analogy has been floating around in my head about this issue, and I just realized what it is: the gay marriage debate. That was a case where straight people against it were saying that allowing gay people to marry would somehow hurt them (the straight people against it), whereas gay people in favor it argued that allowing gay people to do something would not take anything away from straight people. The argument against was a matter of society and culture as a whole, akin to Shal's argument about Groups.io as a whole. I do get that. I'm just pointing out a similar situation.

Another analogy is franchises. The group owners are like the franchisees and the group members are like the customers of the franchisee. The company does have to take both into account to some reasonable extent, the operative word, I think, being "reasonable." How much leeway does the company give franchisees? You do want some sort of uniformity, I suppose, for the sake of the "brand" (or something - I am really unfamiliar with any of this). But you also don't want to alienate franchisees who have an absolute need of some kind in order to run their business (like Vickie does) - perhaps due to their location or other particular condition.

Just food for thought (no pun intended).

J


locked Re: question about transferring a Google Group

vickie <vickie_00@...>
 

Duane >>>Since these choices would only be made by Owners/Moderators, it might create some "clutter" for them, but Members would normally have fewer choices to make.
 
It depends on the group.  My group  the members don't need or  would I permit them choices because of the type of group I assist.   
I don't see how it can create clutter.
 Once an options is turned off it also  should not show that option to members.. 



Vickie

 










From: Duane <txpigeon@...>
To: beta@groups.io
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:32 PM
Subject: [beta] Re: question about transferring a Google Group

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 07:17 am, vickie <vickie_00@...> wrote:

>
> I feel    having an option to turn on or off a feature  would resolve a lot
> of back and forth debates on what moderators want or don't want.
>
> Vickie 
>

Although Mark has stated "As much as I hate adding additional options" (though on a different subject), for GroupsIO to be the ultimate email/web group site, it's probably going to need to have as many options for Owner/Moderators as possible.  This may include allowing/disallowing some features on a particular group.  As J_catlady has said, I wouldn't want a feature to be removed, simply disallowed if that works best for my group.  Since these choices would only be made by Owners/Moderators, it might create some "clutter" for them, but Members would normally have fewer choices to make.

Duane








locked Re: Polls

 

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Ro <recarlton@...> wrote:
Do created poll questions go to members on special notices only?


Polls are like normal messages, so no, they do not go to people on special notices only.

Mark 


locked Updates to Trello

Beta Integration <beta@...>
 

[Beta] New card "Print wiki page" was added to list "Wiki".


[Beta] The description of card "Print wiki page" was changed to:

A view without the sidebar/header/footer.


[Beta] The purple label "Wiki" was added to the card "Print wiki page".


locked Re: cancelled invite still shows as "sent" and not logged #bug?

 

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:
I removed one just now on a couple of groups.  They're gone from the Sent Invitations list, but there's no entry in the Activity logs.

We're now logging resending invites and removing invites.

Mark 


locked Re: question about transferring a Google Group

Duane
 

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 07:17 am, vickie <vickie_00@...> wrote:


I feel    having an option to turn on or off a feature  would resolve a lot
of back and forth debates on what moderators want or don't want.

Vickie 
Although Mark has stated "As much as I hate adding additional options" (though on a different subject), for GroupsIO to be the ultimate email/web group site, it's probably going to need to have as many options for Owner/Moderators as possible. This may include allowing/disallowing some features on a particular group. As J_catlady has said, I wouldn't want a feature to be removed, simply disallowed if that works best for my group. Since these choices would only be made by Owners/Moderators, it might create some "clutter" for them, but Members would normally have fewer choices to make.

Duane


locked Re: Various Questions

 

Agreed, Invite is now very smooth now and obvious how to use.

J


locked Re: Various Questions

 

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Feathered Leader <featheredleader@...> wrote:

So I take it that the invitation process is still not all figured out? I'm waiting to have clear instructions to give some people I want to invite to my group who are NOT very computer techy. Does that exist yet, or not?

I have nothing on the todo list for invites. As far as I know it's as easy to use as it's ever been.

Mark 


locked Re: question about transferring a Google Group

 

Mark B,

I agree (in part) with your other post that the group owners are the real users. You can "prove" that by pointing out that they're the only ones who are allowed to upgrade, and they're the ones who pay for that. But I also think the group members can be considered users. Literally, they use the system. 

That said, in response to Shal's comment that members should be considered as well as moderators, of *course* they should. But nobody here is talking about anything extraordinary or inappropriate of that harms, even in the most innocuous way, any group member. If they need to be in a group where they can delete their posts, they don't have to join a group that doesn't allow this. Similarly for editing their posts. Similarly if they don't like groups where all posts are moderated and the moderator can edit their writing with a single slash of the metaphorical pen, without explanation or attribution. Members who don't like anything at all about a particular group can simply decline to join it. There are going to be thousands upon thousands of groups. It hurst a group owner more than any group members to not provide options that allow the owner to run a group in the manner that he or she sees fit, or that is important to them. They are doing all the work to put the groups togather and run them (which bolsters Mark B's argument that they are the real users).

What I saw in the beginning of these debates about settings was people simply misunderstanding that the request for the setting was a request to provide an option, not a request to remove a feature. After that, despite a clarification of what was being asked for, the two "sides" dug their feet in.

I think everyone can be happy. Just provide the settings! It's just like "NuM(x)". Give us "Mex edits (x)." It's a great feature and yahoo had neither one!

J



locked Re: question about transferring a Google Group

 

I think Vickie hit the nail squarely on the head:  leave the options in the moderator's controls, let the moderators decided what's best for their groups.  I believe tehis should apply to specific controls as well as to concepts (sich as codes of conduct);  the moderators know what's best for their groups, there's no need for this group or Mark F. to have to debate the pro's and con's of these things if there is a possibility of leaving something on or off, implemented or not implemented, just leave it up to the group owner.

Best,

Mark Bielecki

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 07:17 am, vickie <vickie_00@...> wrote:

J. Faulkner
I am    addressing not only your message but also everyone in the Beta group.


I feel    having an option to turn on or off a feature  would resolve a lot of back and forth debates on what moderators want or don't want.

This has to go  across the board on every feature added to groups  where a  moderator has that  option to turn  features off or on .

I don't want anyone to loose out on features they want  but at the  same  time  a feature  added may not meet my needs for my group members and more important my group  guideline. 
I feel it  is fair to say this is  true  for  every moderators group.

I created a group and I have not transferred members yet and that is because a lot of features in place now would not  work  for me.
I have over 1,000 members on hold. 
There is no way  in this particular group I can allow members to edit post.
 No email is also not an option.

Deleting post messages or files is not an option. 
This would open the door to a lot of problems  for me and group members.
Creating  or updating files is not an option.
Using calendar is not needed and also is not an option. I need auto send files,  I  need to be able to create files 
Hangout is  not an option. It would be  devastating if  the  members were able to use hangout in this particular group I have.


So in truth. when we talk about wishlist, added features or   updated change to certain features we also have to be considerate
on how that will affect that moderators group which is why I feel we need to start thinking on  the moderators option
to  turn features   on or off.
I see no other way around this  so that   every moderators choice for what they want for their group is  met. 

Finally  with respect to everyone in the beta group, it's gotten old the tug of   debates on  who wants what or what is needed or not.
We all can have what we need for our groups  and the simple solution is to have an option to turn those features off or on so
the feature can be used   or not  for your group.



Vickie 






 

Vickie

 










From: J. Faulkner <jfaulkner44@...>
To: beta@groups.io
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] question about transferring a Google Group

Vickie, I totally agree.  That’s why I’m hoping the owner/moderator of a group will have an option to turn the Editing feature on or off. 
 
Judy
SW Florida - USA
 
From: vickie via Groups.io [mailto:vickie_00@...]
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 7:32 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] question about transferring a Google Group
 
J. Faulkner
 
The first one was fine, but there after No.  
Trying to find the small changes is time consuming when they all seem to look the same to me.
 
Sorry, but I would delete  and move on.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Vickie
 
 




 
 
 

From:  <jfaulkner44@...>
To: beta@groups.io
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] question about transferring a Google Group
 
Vickie, did you notice that after the first one, they were edits with from what I could see small changes?
 
Judy F.
SW Florida - USA
 
From: vickie via Groups.io [mailto:vickie_00@...]
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 5:20 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] question about transferring a Google Group
 
Yep,  another..
 
You definitely have the hiccups.. Dup messages on the same subject. 
 
 
Vickie
 
 



Send: 5:19 PM Eastern time
 
 

From: RichardTE <xg3@...>
To: beta@groups.io
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 10:02 AM
Subject: [beta] Re: question about transferring a Google Group
 
Thank you for your feedback, Duane and Mark — 
If I can take this issue a little further, I have a G group that's been dormant for a couple years, but has over 4k topics (assuming this amounts to 10-15k posts).  There's no rush on this, and if any solution could safely copy, say, 90% of posts to Groups.io, that would be plenty for our needs.  In other words, when the crawler hits a corrupted post, simply ignore it or mark it:  2008-11-04 from MObama (unreadable).
I would be happy to help research the problem, if there's any possibility for progress.  Googling existing solutions isn't very encouraging ...  
·         (2011) SaturnBoy / FlexMonkey:  www.saturnboy.com/2010/03/scraping-google-groups/ 
·         (2015) HitHub / Icy:  www.github.com/icy/google-group-crawler 
I trust Mark's efforts are already beyond the scope of these examples.  Would like to keep the issue alive for others in the same g-boat.  
Thank you. ~ RichardTE 
 
 
 
 



 


locked Re: Editing messages

Ro
 

I just dont see the point of such arguments.  A simple on/off button on the moderator setting would allow the owner or moderator to determine if edits will be allowed.  Arguing which group needs what seems beside the point.  If this setting were to exist, you as a group owner, choose to allow edits or not, depending on your needs and philosophical outlook.  I frankly see such a setting as no different than allowing moderation or not, allowing attachments or not, etc. 


Ro

with Sally and Silk waiting at their feed dishes, and Handy, Feliz &  Police Kitty patrolling in the Great Beyond.





To: beta@groups.io
From: msb05001@...
Subject: [beta] Re: Editing messages
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 05:16:34 -0800

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 04:55 am, RichardTE <xg3@...> wrote:
I would like to request a change in how re-edited posts are handled.  
Yesterday I missed the warning in yellow at the top of the editing page that reads: "NOTE: Edits will be emailed to group members. Please be considerate in the number of edits you make."
I'm very sorry about that.  When a sender goes on the website and updates an earlier post of their own, is it necessary that the re-edited or updated text be emailed out to the group (launching a near-duplicate email)?  Couldn't a group simply declare that re-edited or updated messages will not be emailed to the group (but remain on the web)?  If the sender wants to alert group members to new edits, then they can post a new message saying so. 
 
Mark's original 3 suggestions do not include this option:  http://groups.io/g/beta/message/6111 

I personally can see many situations for 'minor edits' (as Wikipedia calls them).  A sender wants to correct a fact/spelling/grammar/tone.  A sender has publicly embarrassed himself (hey, I can relate!) or someone else, and wants to remove the offending words.  A sender wants to delete excessive re-quoted text.  On a technical/educational/genealogical group, new information has emerged that impacts an earlier discussion (pls see Cruz on Ancestry.com).  A multi-language group encourages its members to correct their prose.  On a poetry group, the writers will forever be retweaking their text.  The larger message here is that we can re-edit with impunity.
 
Others will disagree, and that should be fine for their groups.  For discussions on philosophy of art, for example, post-micro-editing is crucial, uh important, uh essential, uh ...
RichardTE     
 
But why shouldn't those that get Groups.io via email, who don't use the website to view posts, be kept up to date of any edits.  RichardTE's suggestion cuts those users out of the loop;  as a result there are two different information streams, and one of those groups of users (who don't go to the website) are cut out of having the must current and accurate information available.  I think edits should be sent out to all users based on the delivery method they chose to use;  people making edits need to be more careful of their original posts and subsequent edits if they are concerned about causing a barrage of email;  they shouldn't be able to leave a whole subset of the users in the dark because they made a mistake in their original post.  Arguably, a mischevious or deceitful poster could intentionally send out misinformation and then correct it with an edit knowing that certain users would never become aware that there was a change !  It could become embarrassing for a subsequent user to be arguing for or against someone's post, all the while not knowing that what they were arguing for or against had been edited and changed to mean something else entirely!
Best,
Mark Bielecki


locked Re: Editing messages

Ro
 

But you are free to leave the group or join a different one that has rules you like.  We dont take away the ability to moderate because some of us dont use it, and because some members dont like it.  I dont like moderated groups. I dont have to join them. simple. I am exercising my right of free choice as a member.  We are not required to set up rules that our members "like".  The members are free to choose whether to be a member or not.


Ro

with Sally and Silk waiting at their feed dishes, and Handy, Feliz &  Police Kitty patrolling in the Great Beyond.




> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 00:36:28 -0800
> To: beta@groups.io
> From: shals2nd@...
> Subject: Re: [beta] Editing messages
>
> J,
>
> > What I don't understand, still, is people who argue against an option
> > simply because they won't use it, even when inclusion of the option
> > would not affect them in any way.
>
> The use of those options would directly affect me as a member of those groups.
>
> The design of Groups.io has to include the member's perspective, not just that of group owners and moderators.
>
>
> Shal
> https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum
>
>
>
>


locked Re: Editing messages

 

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 05:16 am, Mark Bielecki wrote:
But why shouldn't those that get Groups.io via email, who don't use the website to view posts, be kept up to date of any edits.  RichardTE's suggestion cuts those users out of the loop;  as a result there are two different information streams ... 

 All good arguments, Mark B.  Particularly, multiple information streams are of serious concern, as are mischievous re-editors with ill intent.  But still, there are other concerns as well.  Community building on the Internet should bend toward diversity and inclusion of folks with all kinds of communications styles, preferences and needs.  Archiving rules should be variable by group.   

Here's my example of the 'Groupsio' family tree: 
We're on a genealogical group where I have posted many times over the years about members of the Groupsio family.  We know that researchers depend on this group's archive for details on family histories.

Along comes a new website — the Ancestropedia, with important new pages on the Groupsio family, my area of interest.  It would benefit the research if I could go back into my past posts and attach these new links to my old messages.  Then, when researchers read my posts about the Groupsios, they will get links to the  Groupsio pages on Ancestropdia.  I don't think that each minor re-edit (or footnote) should have to launch a new group email. 

Thank you,
RichardTE 


locked Re: question about transferring a Google Group

vickie <vickie_00@...>
 

J. Faulkner
I am    addressing not only your message but also everyone in the Beta group.


I feel    having an option to turn on or off a feature  would resolve a lot of back and forth debates on what moderators want or don't want.

This has to go  across the board on every feature added to groups  where a  moderator has that  option to turn  features off or on .

I don't want anyone to loose out on features they want  but at the  same  time  a feature  added may not meet my needs for my group members and more important my group  guideline. 
I feel it  is fair to say this is  true  for  every moderators group.

I created a group and I have not transferred members yet and that is because a lot of features in place now would not  work  for me.
I have over 1,000 members on hold. 
There is no way  in this particular group I can allow members to edit post.
 No email is also not an option.

Deleting post messages or files is not an option. 
This would open the door to a lot of problems  for me and group members.
Creating  or updating files is not an option.
Using calendar is not needed and also is not an option. I need auto send files,  I  need to be able to create files 
Hangout is  not an option. It would be  devastating if  the  members were able to use hangout in this particular group I have.


So in truth. when we talk about wishlist, added features or   updated change to certain features we also have to be considerate
on how that will affect that moderators group which is why I feel we need to start thinking on  the moderators option
to  turn features   on or off.
I see no other way around this  so that   every moderators choice for what they want for their group is  met. 

Finally  with respect to everyone in the beta group, it's gotten old the tug of   debates on  who wants what or what is needed or not.
We all can have what we need for our groups  and the simple solution is to have an option to turn those features off or on so
the feature can be used   or not  for your group.



Vickie 






 

Vickie

 










From: J. Faulkner <jfaulkner44@...>
To: beta@groups.io
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] question about transferring a Google Group

Vickie, I totally agree.  That’s why I’m hoping the owner/moderator of a group will have an option to turn the Editing feature on or off. 
 
Judy
SW Florida - USA
 
From: vickie via Groups.io [mailto:vickie_00@...]
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 7:32 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] question about transferring a Google Group
 
J. Faulkner
 
The first one was fine, but there after No.  
Trying to find the small changes is time consuming when they all seem to look the same to me.
 
Sorry, but I would delete  and move on.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Vickie
 
 




 
 
 

From:  <jfaulkner44@...>
To: beta@groups.io
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] question about transferring a Google Group
 
Vickie, did you notice that after the first one, they were edits with from what I could see small changes?
 
Judy F.
SW Florida - USA
 
From: vickie via Groups.io [mailto:vickie_00@...]
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 5:20 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] question about transferring a Google Group
 
Yep,  another..
 
You definitely have the hiccups.. Dup messages on the same subject. 
 
 
Vickie
 
 



Send: 5:19 PM Eastern time
 
 

From: RichardTE <xg3@...>
To: beta@groups.io
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 10:02 AM
Subject: [beta] Re: question about transferring a Google Group
 
Thank you for your feedback, Duane and Mark — 
If I can take this issue a little further, I have a G group that's been dormant for a couple years, but has over 4k topics (assuming this amounts to 10-15k posts).  There's no rush on this, and if any solution could safely copy, say, 90% of posts to Groups.io, that would be plenty for our needs.  In other words, when the crawler hits a corrupted post, simply ignore it or mark it:  2008-11-04 from MObama (unreadable).
I would be happy to help research the problem, if there's any possibility for progress.  Googling existing solutions isn't very encouraging ...  
·         (2011) SaturnBoy / FlexMonkey:  www.saturnboy.com/2010/03/scraping-google-groups/ 
·         (2015) HitHub / Icy:  www.github.com/icy/google-group-crawler 
I trust Mark's efforts are already beyond the scope of these examples.  Would like to keep the issue alive for others in the same g-boat.  
Thank you. ~ RichardTE 
 
 
 
 




locked Re: Editing messages

 

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 04:55 am, RichardTE <xg3@...> wrote:

I would like to request a change in how re-edited posts are handled.  

Yesterday I missed the warning in yellow at the top of the editing page that reads: "NOTE: Edits will be emailed to group members. Please be considerate in the number of edits you make."

I'm very sorry about that.  When a sender goes on the website and updates an earlier post of their own, is it necessary that the re-edited or updated text be emailed out to the group (launching a near-duplicate email)?  Couldn't a group simply declare that re-edited or updated messages will not be emailed to the group (but remain on the web)?  If the sender wants to alert group members to new edits, then they can post a new message saying so. 
 
Mark's original 3 suggestions do not include this option:  http://groups.io/g/beta/message/6111 

I personally can see many situations for 'minor edits' (as Wikipedia calls them).  A sender wants to correct a fact/spelling/grammar/tone.  A sender has publicly embarrassed himself (hey, I can relate!) or someone else, and wants to remove the offending words.  A sender wants to delete excessive re-quoted text.  On a technical/educational/genealogical group, new information has emerged that impacts an earlier discussion (pls see Cruz on Ancestry.com).  A multi-language group encourages its members to correct their prose.  On a poetry group, the writers will forever be retweaking their text.  The larger message here is that we can re-edit with impunity.
 
Others will disagree, and that should be fine for their groups.  For discussions on philosophy of art, for example, post-micro-editing is crucial, uh important, uh essential, uh ...
RichardTE     

 

But why shouldn't those that get Groups.io via email, who don't use the website to view posts, be kept up to date of any edits.  RichardTE's suggestion cuts those users out of the loop;  as a result there are two different information streams, and one of those groups of users (who don't go to the website) are cut out of having the must current and accurate information available.  I think edits should be sent out to all users based on the delivery method they chose to use;  people making edits need to be more careful of their original posts and subsequent edits if they are concerned about causing a barrage of email;  they shouldn't be able to leave a whole subset of the users in the dark because they made a mistake in their original post.  Arguably, a mischevious or deceitful poster could intentionally send out misinformation and then correct it with an edit knowing that certain users would never become aware that there was a change !  It could become embarrassing for a subsequent user to be arguing for or against someone's post, all the while not knowing that what they were arguing for or against had been edited and changed to mean something else entirely!

Best,

Mark Bielecki


locked Re: Disabling the "No Email" delivery option

 

In response to Shal's comment (see below), I might argue that the group owners are Groups.io's users, not the groups' members.  The group members are the group owners' users, with the groups' owners making group by group decisions as to what's best for that particular group's users.

Therefore, Groups.io should be catering to and addressing the needs and wants of the group owners' and if there is a split of opinion by the groups' owners then addressing those needs should be what Groups.io does, not trying to drill down and make decisions for the groups' end users that may limit or hamstring the options available to the groups' owners.

There's a fine line here (read it twice if it doesn't initially make sense);  the discussion here should be making options available to groups' owners to choose from, not taking options away from the groups' owners because some third party is arguing that the end users would want it one way and not the other.  Let the groups' owners make those types of decisions from as wide a palette of options available as possible !

Best,

Mark Bielecki


On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:39 am, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:


But the institutional question (the question for Groups.io) is whether the inclusion of this proposed option would be beneficial or harmful to most of it's users. And in that light, it boils down to whether Groups.io wants to support users that are strongly web oriented.



locked Re: Editing messages

 

I would like to request a change in how re-edited posts are handled.  

Yesterday I missed the warning in yellow at the top of the editing page that reads: "NOTE: Edits will be emailed to group members. Please be considerate in the number of edits you make."

I'm very sorry about that.  When a sender goes on the website and updates an earlier post of their own, is it necessary that the re-edited or updated text be emailed out to the group (launching a near-duplicate email)?  Couldn't a group simply declare that re-edited or updated messages will not be emailed to the group (but remain on the web)?  If the sender wants to alert group members to new edits, then they can post a new message saying so. 
 
Mark's original 3 suggestions do not include this option:  http://groups.io/g/beta/message/6111 

I personally can see many situations for 'minor edits' (as Wikipedia calls them).  A sender wants to correct a fact/spelling/grammar/tone.  A sender has publicly embarrassed himself (hey, I can relate!) or someone else, and wants to remove the offending words.  A sender wants to delete excessive re-quoted text.  On a technical/educational/genealogical group, new information has emerged that impacts an earlier discussion (pls see Cruz on Ancestry.com).  A multi-language group encourages its members to correct their prose.  On a poetry group, the writers will forever be retweaking their text.  The larger message here is that we can re-edit with impunity.
 
Others will disagree, and that should be fine for their groups.  For discussions on philosophy of art, for example, post-micro-editing is crucial, uh important, uh essential, uh ...
RichardTE     


locked Re: Bulk operations for hashtags #suggestion

Green Fizzpops
 

170 #intro tags applied individually. A dozen more tags to go.
Bulk hashtag tools would be super useful for mods like me who want to utilise the power of hashtags and have large transferred archives full of buried useful info.

On 17 Feb 2016 08:02, "Greenfizzpops" <greenfizzpops@...> wrote:

[Edited Message Follows]

Would it be possible to have bulk operation functionality for moderators applying hashtags?

For example
I have been searching for all threads with the words "Intro", "Introduction" "new member" etc in the topic and then individually going into each one and typing #intro into the subject. It is exhausting on a 10 year old message archive.

It would be really useful to be able to select the threads I want from search results, and then choose a hashtag to apply from a dropdown list of currently defined hashtags.

Regards
Green


locked Re: Editing messages

 

Yes, of course, if you're arguing from a mdmber's perspective. What I've seen here in these discussions about inclusion of settings is people arguing, as moderators, thst they want •their members• to have this or that ability.

Furthermore, the culture of a group is up to its leaders. If a member doesn't feel comfortable with a group's rules or culture, they are free to not join if participate in it.

As you pointed out, there are already 24 K people here. This is not a one-size-fits-all place.

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 19, 2016, at 12:36 AM, Shal Farley <@Shal> wrote:

J,

What I don't understand, still, is people who argue against an option
simply because they won't use it, even when inclusion of the option
would not affect them in any way.
The use of those options would directly affect me as a member of those groups.

The design of Groups.io has to include the member's perspective, not just that of group owners and moderators.


Shal
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum