Date   

locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups AND quoted messages #bug

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 11:32 am, Duane wrote:
Since Groups.io is a whole new idea, I think it's worth trying new things, possibly some for the better.

And if I believed that these ideas were "the better" rather than just excuses to overcomplicate things, I'd be right there praising them.  It is my considered, and strong, opinion that they are not.

Some things really do reach a point of maximum utility and attempts to change them make them worse.

Groups.io, contrary to a number off assertions, is very, very far from "a new idea."  A wedding of two very conventional ideas, and there are others that do this, too, is not revolutionary.  And that's no insult, either, just an observation of fact.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups AND quoted messages #bug

 

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 11:32 am, Duane wrote:
Since Groups.io is a whole new idea, I think it's worth trying new things, possibly some for the better.

Exactly! Mark has the beautiful flexibility to make something that really works and avoid doing it some way just because Y!G does it that way.

The conventions that exist in almost all other forums are there for a reason. Brian said the reason doesn't matter. I think it does matter. It counters arguments like: "Just because everyone else looks both ways before crossing the street doesn't we mean we have to. It's just a stupid convention."  The conventions are there because they *make the most sense*.

Also: If there's going to be a separate PM function not within the context of forum posts, it could be invoked when someone wants to reply privately to a forum post. It would be the same action and would just be called into play (with different parameters/details). 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups AND quoted messages #bug

 

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 11:32 am, HR Tech wrote:
craigslist is different but it came to mind as an example of where reply means reply to sender. 

It does not mean that there. 


 many of us are coming here from email based groups that featured reply to group and sender options

What might those be besides Y!G? Google groups is eliminated from your list, craigslist eliminated from your list. So do you mean Y!G and Big Tent? I'm not familiar with Big Tent.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups AND quoted messages #bug

Duane
 

The point of my thoughts is that "that's the way it's always been done" doesn't mean it can't be better. Since Groups.io is a whole new idea, I think it's worth trying new things, possibly some for the better.

Duane


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups AND quoted messages #bug

Maria
 

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 10:31 am, Brian Vogel wrote:
As to Maria's assertions about Google Groups

Apologies. It's been a while since I used a Google group. Not sure if it's changed since then or my recollection was off. Realize craigslist is different but it came to mind as an example of where reply means reply to sender. 

My main point is that many of us are coming here from email based groups that featured reply to group and sender options, and perhaps, like me, not looking for a traditional web forum. 

Maria



locked Searching the archives

Carlos
 

Is it possible to perform complex searches in group archives?  I.E. Searching by subject, message body, author, and so on.  If so, how is this accomplished?


locked Bug report: approving members via the web interface using screen readers

hannah day <tiggerfan23@...>
 

Hello everyone.

I am submitting a bug report as I suspect something is wrong with approving members via the web interface using a screen reader. In this report, the latest NVDA as of today and Windows 10 was used. The browser used was the latest Firefox as of today.

Please try to duplicate the following.

1. In any of your own groups or groups you moderate and have been given permission to approve/reject new members, click on members, then pending.

2. Try to check (tick) one or more checkboxes (tickboxes). Click action and accept the verification by clicking yes.

3. In my case, the status from "pending" to "approved" never happened.

So in the end, I had to click on the member's email address, and click "approve pending sub" button.

If this is in fact not a bug, but a user error on my part, please accept my sincere apologies, especially for wasting your time. I'm not trying to make excuses here, but I cannot always comprehend with text on web pages for example. So what might make total sense for one doesn't necessarily make total sense for me.

For now though, thank you in advance for attempting to reproduce this. I look forward to any responses.

Kindest regards
Hannah Day


locked Copy of invitation mail

Sue
 

I sent some customised invitations out just recently and I wanted my fellow mods to see exactly what I'd said. I had thought I could just point them at the invitations page but that only shows when an invitation was sent and to whom.

I see that the customisation does stay in place so they could read it there but I could foresee a need to send an invitation to one (or more) people and then reword it for another (or more) person.  Would it be viable to have a copy of the sent invitations?

Also I notice on the four that I sent the same day, two have that date showing as the date invited but the other two have the day the person actually joined ( presumably the other two were more prompt to join, hence the date matching). Date invited should remain constant really, for future reference.

In addition, whilst sometimes the default message would do, if I customise an invite I would very much like to be able to remove the default message from around my message. Is that possible or could it be made so?

Thank you,

Sue


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups AND quoted messages #bug

 

And I'm agreeing but simply adding that there's good reason for the convention.:-)

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 4, 2016, at 10:31 AM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 09:26 am, Duane wrote:
So how did those practices become "standard?

 Completely irrelevant to the fact that they are "standard."   I'm not attempting to give a history lesson, but to point out that there are certain deeply ingrained conventions that really do not require reinvention, at all, because:

1.  They are incredibly widely known.

2.  They are used by most without conscious thought at this point.

3.  They do the required job beautifully.

As to Maria's assertions about Google Groups, here's a screen shot taken mere seconds ago.  It says all that needs to be said:

<googlegroups.jpg>

The options given when you hit the "Post Reply" button are Post and Discard.  The act of choosing to reply strictly limits what the nature of that interaction is.  I used Google Groups for a number of years, have been away for quite a while, and what pops up when I dropped in today is pretty consistent with what was there when last I haunted those environs.

I did not claim that absolutely, positively no one else uses what Groups.io is using now, but they are, indeed outliers.

Craigslist is not a web forum in any conventional sense of the word.  Google Groups proves my point, and we already know what Yahoo Groups does.

I'm also, like on the last thread, now out on this one.  For those who want to reinvent a wheel that definitely does not need it, knock yourselves out making your case.  Mine is based on convention, ingrained, well-known and widely employed practice, and complete utility for purpose in the environment under discussion.  There's nothing else I can say nor any stronger case I could make.


--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Sue wrote, in part:  "additional option might be to forward to the moderators? I can't think of an occasion when somebody would need to cc in the mods to their reply (although I'm sure other people could come up with a situation where they would) "

Which is generally implemented with a "Report" button or link, in my experience.  Another of those things that, when present, virtually anyone except a complete newbie will recognize and understand its function.  It also prevents accidental misdirection without allowing the end-user to deal with addressing at all.

Breaking my own silence here because this is a new comment on a very old function.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups

Sue
 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 12:01 pm, Shal Farley wrote:

To: o Group o Sender (display name), o Moderators
CC: |_| Sender (display name)
or
CC: |_| Moderators

Shal, I wonder if an additional option might be to forward to the moderators? I can't think of an occasion when somebody would need to cc in the mods to their reply (although I'm sure other people could come up with a situation where they would) but I could imagine somebody wanting to complain/discuss a particular message with the mods and rather than starting a new mail to the mods' email address, this would be a quick way for them to forward the message in question.

Sue

 


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups AND quoted messages #bug

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 09:26 am, Duane wrote:
So how did those practices become "standard?

 Completely irrelevant to the fact that they are "standard."   I'm not attempting to give a history lesson, but to point out that there are certain deeply ingrained conventions that really do not require reinvention, at all, because:

1.  They are incredibly widely known.

2.  They are used by most without conscious thought at this point.

3.  They do the required job beautifully.

As to Maria's assertions about Google Groups, here's a screen shot taken mere seconds ago.  It says all that needs to be said:

The options given when you hit the "Post Reply" button are Post and Discard.  The act of choosing to reply strictly limits what the nature of that interaction is.  I used Google Groups for a number of years, have been away for quite a while, and what pops up when I dropped in today is pretty consistent with what was there when last I haunted those environs.

I did not claim that absolutely, positively no one else uses what Groups.io is using now, but they are, indeed outliers.

Craigslist is not a web forum in any conventional sense of the word.  Google Groups proves my point, and we already know what Yahoo Groups does.

I'm also, like on the last thread, now out on this one.  For those who want to reinvent a wheel that definitely does not need it, knock yourselves out making your case.  Mine is based on convention, ingrained, well-known and widely employed practice, and complete utility for purpose in the environment under discussion.  There's nothing else I can say nor any stronger case I could make.


--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


locked Re: Testing the test version

Sue
 

Hmm,

Replying to myself here.

I had bookmarked the url but I'm still a bit confused. I had the test url open in another tab and when I clicked it, it took me to the page that shows my groups, using that tab to do so. This means everytime I want to flick back and forth to check what I am seeing between test and live version, I have to open another tab, go to the test url and be again moved to the my groups page.

Obviously now I know I can live with it, but that's not quite how I envisaged a 'toggle' working. Unless I'm still missing something, of course.

Sue


locked Re: Testing the test version

Sue
 

Duane,

Thank you! I didn't realise the url was the switch in itself.


Sue


locked Re: Testing the test version

Duane
 

Just go back to the same link. It will show which version you're on and allow you to switch to the other. I created a bookmark so I can find it easily.

Duane


locked Re: Testing the test version

Sue
 

Hi,

Just testing the test toggle.

Not sure if I've missed something but after clicking the link to move into the test version, then clicking around the site, I can't see any easy way to revert back to the live version except clicking the back button upteen times.

Assuming I've not missed the obvious way to do this, could there be a 'revert' button on every page or something similar, please?

Sue


locked Re: Proposal: New Reply To option

Sue
 

Mark,

I'm all behind in reading messages and this one got lost in the shuffle but huge thanks from me as this is something I've been wanting all along!

Sue


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups AND quoted messages #bug

 

They became standard because they fit the closest with the actual functionality, which evolved to fit the way humans think and communicate. Private message vs forum reply. Different animals. My opinion.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 4, 2016, at 9:26 AM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 09:07 am, Brian Vogel wrote:


Trying to buck well established cultural practices that go well beyond any one
site and the current place and time is a mistake.
So how did those practices become "standard? I think it's because someone decided to use an unconventional way of doing things and it caught on.

Duane


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups AND quoted messages #bug

Duane
 

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 09:07 am, Brian Vogel wrote:


Trying to buck well established cultural practices that go well beyond any one
site and the current place and time is a mistake.
So how did those practices become "standard? I think it's because someone decided to use an unconventional way of doing things and it caught on.

Duane


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups AND quoted messages #bug

 

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 09:20 am, HR Tech wrote:
by web forum, you don't mean  Y! Groups, Google groups, big tent, or even craigslist, I assume.

Y!G is not a good role model (I think we can all agree on that), I personally stay away from Google groups, I've never used Big Tent so I don't know (I do know groups that have moved away from it and into Groups.io), and craigslist is not a counterexample. All it does is send a (non-replyable) notification that a post has been added to the forum.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.