Date   

locked Re: Why is there a 2 beside "New Topic" in my left menu? #bug?

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

The ticker did increase when the last message was a draft and decrease after being sent.

I also quite like that the Drafts navigation only appears when draft messages are actually present.  Otherwise it's just clutter, but I will add that it's clutter I'd prefer be a permanent fixture rather than going back to the combined New Topic with hidden drafts button.
--
Brian

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


locked Re: Why is there a 2 beside "New Topic" in my left menu? #bug?

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 03:30 pm, J_catlady wrote:
just noticed the Drafts tab and am loving it.

Seconded.  I have just created a test draft and this acts precisely as I would expect it to.

This message was also "drafted" and the ticker went up, just as it should as well.  Now lets see if it goes down once I hit the "Send to Group" button in the production system.
--
Brian

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


locked Re: search within message view returns threads #bug?

 

Another alternative is to do this only if "revelance" view is selected.

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Why is there a 2 beside "New Topic" in my left menu? #bug?

 

just noticed the Drafts tab and am loving it.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Why is there a 2 beside "New Topic" in my left menu? #bug?

 

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

I've never liked this setup either.  Either the navigation should read "New Topic/Drafts" (way less preferable) or there should be navigation strictly for "New Topic" and another for "Drafts" which shows the number, if greater than zero, of the drafts you have.


I have separated out the Drafts into its own menu link. It's only displayed if there are any drafts. Please let me know what you think.
 

P.S. Does anyone else consider it "something that needs to be fixed" that if a hashtag is a part of a Subject that involves a question, and the question mark is not separated from the hashtag, that the hashtag is not recognized as a hashtag?  This thread being the second example in the last week or two that pops immediately to mind.

I've made that code smarter. It will ignore question marks and exclamation marks at the end of hashtags when parsing subject lines now. 

Thanks,
Mark 


locked Re: search within message view returns threads #bug?

 

Mark,

Would you consider doing the new order only if the search was initiated from threads view? These new results are so inconvenient that they're driving me crazy now. I would like to continue see the most recent posts containing the the search term at the top. That is no longer happening!

Begging here. If you have to put threads at the top, maybe do that only from threads view?

Thanks for your consideration.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: After making a poll can you be sent back to "messages" #suggestion

 

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 5:42 PM, HR Tech via Groups.io <m.conway11@...> wrote:

I just made a poll in our test group and noticed that after i was done it kept me on the new poll page as if i needed to make another.

Instead, can it send me back to "messages"?


Done!

Thanks,
Mark 


locked Re: Testing the test version

 

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:

I've been keeping a browser tab aside for the /test page, using the back button immediately after switching modes (and then refreshing the page so it shows my current mode). I kind of wish it didn't dump me Your Groups page, and refreshed itself instead. 
 
Done.

Thanks,
Mark 


locked Re: search within message view returns threads #bug?

 

p.s. It was fine before! What happened???
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: search within message view returns threads #bug?

 

Ok. So by "thread matches," you mean threads with the term in the title? I have no problem with that because to me, having the term in the title is the same as having it in the post. (And I thought you *already* included all threads that had at least one post containing the term. So this change seems unnecessary?)

What I don't like is the threads with the term in their titles always grouped at the top. This is resulting in very old matches at the top, which is counter-intuitive when I have my sort order set to "date." 

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Search in mobile message view

Maria
 

In mobile while in message view you can only search by message  number.

can we search by search term there too?

Maria 


locked Re: search within message view returns threads #bug?

 

Mark,

I was just about to post that "search" is broken this morning and missing lots of posts. Then I saw this. Not sure I like it. I'll do some more searching.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: search within message view returns threads #bug?

 

Hi Shal,

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:

Actually, I think that would be less confusing. That is, I don't think it is duplicative to show the Subject match (once) and each of the body matches (even when those bodies are part of the same thread as the subject match).

Also, I would group all Subject matches ahead of body matches, with the relevance or date sort applied within each group. Maybe that should be an option, but I find it odd to have them intermingled even when the bold face (in test version) tells me where the match is.

And (again) when the user clicks on "Date" please don't flip the date sort order unless Date was already the selected order. I find it jarring when I'm in relevance order and I click on Date (newest first) to have it flop to oldest first.


Ok, I've made these changes in search:

- Thread matches are always included, even if there's also a message match.
- Thread matches are always grouped at the top, before message matches, regardless of search ordering.
- When toggling between Relevance and Date, it should now remember your last date sort and display that.

Thanks,
Mark 


locked Re: Missing the HTML/Markdown/Plain control in New Topic and Reply #bug

 

Mark,

Missing on purpose, in my goal to simplify things a bit.
I suspected that might be the case.

Do you find yourself switching post types often?
"Often" is kind of dubious, since the vast majority of my replies & posts are by Email. But yes, when posting via the web I do commonly switch formats to use HTML in a reply.

Another option is to put that toggle under a button in the formatting toolbar (aka, "the ever expanding toolbar").

I've suggested recently that the "Insert Quote" and "Add Attachment" buttons move to the toolbar even for Plain Text and Markdown modes (and a toolbar be present in those modes, consequently). So this seems a natural relocation.


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


locked Re: Missing the HTML/Markdown/Plain control in New Topic and Reply #bug

 

Shal,

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Shal Farley <shalfarley@...> wrote:

When in the test version on desktop I'm not seeing any control to set the message body format - HTML, Markdown, or Plain Text.


Missing on purpose, in my goal to simplify things a bit. I believe that the vast majority of people always post using whatever post preference they set (generally HTML), and having that extra control is superfluous at best and confusing at worst. Am I wrong? Do you find yourself switching post types often?

Thanks,
Mark


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:09 am, HR Tech wrote:
That's easy to solve: you make PM's opt in. 

 Actually, I'd make the PM default something that the group owner sets as part of setting up the group.

While I understand Duane's position, and actually share it for the most part, when it comes to being able to be private messaged the majority of setups are that it is on by default and off if the user turns it off.  This is another of those situations where I think that the most common presumption takes precedence over personal likes/dislikes so long as the user has ultimate control.  I know a lot of people who'd be really PO-ed if they found out that others were unable to PM them by default unless that had somehow been made very, very clear at the time of signing up or been a forced choice setting as part of signing up.

Here's a screen shot from another forum I use regularly of the detailed options for private messaging and what they call visitor messaging, which is a bit like a message wall:


--
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

Maria
 

Duane

That's easy to solve: you make PM's opt in. 

And by PM's - in this context- I'm not taking about replies to posts, which one opts into via participation. 

Maria



locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups

Duane
 

I really hate having to opt out of things. I know it's common place a lot of places to set things up that way, but really irritates me. I figure if I want to be involved in something, I can look to see if it's possible and/or sign up for it.

Duane


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups

 

Maria,

Here you go. See attached. I hope I translated your proposal accurately.
Thanks! Looks great. The only thing missing (I belatedly realize) is an mockup of the initial page, prior to the user clicking one of the three choices, with the original message showing but no composition tools yet. In that image only the More menu would be open, showing the location of the other two choices.

I see a problem using the member's profile instead of the word "sender"
(length varies/ there could be multiple "marias" - just hard to create a
fixed width button if the content is variable ...
I get both of those concerns, but it seemed to me that in the usual case the added clarity of naming the replyee (now my favorite non-word) may outweigh the occasional awkwardness. Perhaps the button can be fixed at a generous width, with longer names truncated as necessary.

- and think that it would be sufficient to have some explanatory text
under saying that your reply will go from "your email @ domain" to the
sender/author.
I think that's a great feature in your mockup, but I think I'd do both.

Also I'd prefer if reply language were consistent on web/digest and emails.
I'll have to go look at that, but perhaps the link can say the same thing.

I also am a bit concerned about these drop up menus on mobile...but who
knows...
Yeah, I'm not as versed in mobile. I started with much the same idea, but using radio buttons in the compose window rather than the More menu. In this case I was trying for something that would meet the "Select who first" model and the More menu made a lot more sense to me than putting the radio buttons in the bar beneath each message.

Any way, here is your proposal translated visually. I hope that's helpful.
Yes! And again, thank you very much.


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


locked Re: Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups

Maria
 

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 06:08 am, J_catlady wrote:
Full confession: I didn't read through Shal's entire proposal, and I didn't read this entire mockup, because I see right away that the user - again, as now - must first click on "reply" before making their choice of addressee/recipient. 

That's fixable in Shal's proposal, if instead of "reply" it says  arrow+"reply to group" (if that's the default. Vice versa if default is to sender) and then you would have the reply to sender option (or vice versa if default is sender) in the "more" menu.

That would make you decide before the composition window opens who you are writing to (although you could change your mind midway).

Same as in the 2nd mock-up shared previously, and in the 1st one the choice was more flexible as to the when you decide if you want to bypass the group default, but it was either one or the other - not both choices there equally, and you could change your mind midway.

As a side thought and it probably belongs in the thread about PM's, but it's been touched upon here: I think there are subtleties worth being mindful of with regards to private messages/PM's. A PM can come out of the blue (uninvited) and unrelated to a thread, whereas a private reply / reply to sender is a "Reply" - a response to a specific thread and conversation one has opened themselves up to via participation.

I am on one group ( a custom made email group/forum platform) where part of one's profile includes a checkbox which you unclick if you want to opt out of PM's. I'd imagine giving folks the option to opt out of that isn't a bad idea, but it probably should not interfere with receiving "replies" to one's posts or comments in threads.

Maria