Date   

moderated Re: To improve the Address Confirmation email #suggestion

 

On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 12:19 pm, Shal Farley wrote:
I agree with symmetry, but would do it the other way (defer until after confirmation in both cases).
I'm fine with that as well.

But I still see a problem with either method, namely: once the person already has a groups.io account, it is confusing for the confirmation email to refer to their interest in groups.io in general, rather than only to the specific group. In fact, as was also discussed in the prior thread, the confirmation email in days past was sent out ONLY if the person as yet had no account. Now it is sent anyway, in order to refer to the specific group. But I think the reference to groups.io as a whole, and the creation of an account, should be left out if the person already has a groups.io account.

In other words, the confirmation message, when starting to be used for specific groups, added the reference to the group. But the reference to groups.io as a whole was (wrongly, I feel) left intact rather than having two versions - one to confirm interest in a groups.io account if it doesn't already exist, and another to confirm ONLY interest in the particular group if the person already has an account.
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: To improve the Address Confirmation email #suggestion

 

J,

That's true only if the person applies via email. If they apply via
the web, both are sent out at once -
I completely forgot about that detail, thanks for the reminder!

and (as may be recalled in a prior thread about this) I personally
would prefer that to happen in both cases, for symmetry.
Right. I agree with symmetry, but would do it the other way (defer until after confirmation in both cases).

Shal


moderated Re: To improve the Address Confirmation email #suggestion

 

On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 11:57 am, Tom Vail wrote:
I would suggest that the email above be the first one sent and the group's Pending Message be sent AFTER the email has been confirmed.
But this IS the way it works now for join requests via email. I think Shal has already pointed that out. (And I personally don't like it and have already complained about it in a former thread, requesting that the behavior be the same in both cases - web requests and email requests.)

If you send both at the same time, one is likely to be ignored 
That IS the way it works now for join requests via email. I don't know whether "likely to be ignored" is right or not. You may be right. I personally don't care which way it's done, as long as it works the same way for both web and email join requests.

My point is that IMHO there is not enough at this point.
We can agree on that.
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: To improve the Address Confirmation email #suggestion

Tom Vail
 

J,

I think you need to reread my suggestion.  It says:

"I would suggest that the email above be the first one sent and the group's Pending Message be sent AFTER the email has been confirmed.  If you send both at the same time, one is likely to be ignored plus the pending message allows the group to communicate what they want to their members." (emphasis added)

I was not talking about the way it works now, but the way I suggest it should work.

As to the "goofy" comment, I'll let that slide.  But, there is a fine line between not enough and too much information/text in developing user interfaces.  My point is that IMHO there is not enough at this point.

Peace,
Tom


moderated Re: To improve the Address Confirmation email #suggestion

 

On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 10:56 am, Tom Vail wrote:
You will receive an additional email from them with more details once your email address has been confirmed.  
The suggestion to include more info in the confirmation email is good, but the additions are goofy. First, the above is not true if the person is applying via the web, because in that case, the pending notice is sent at the same time, not "once your email address has been confirmed."

Second, whether or not they interact with the group via the web or via email has nothing (zero) to do with whether they apply to join via the web or via email. Your add about that makes it sound like there is a connection when there's not.

I could go on. I think the simpler, current message is superior to a bunch of additional text that is erroneous and/or confuses more.
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: To improve the Address Confirmation email #suggestion

Tom Vail
 

I 100% agree that the terms should be defined in the help pages, but I also think there should also be a short explanation in the initial email.  Maybe something like this (suggestions in bold and/or strikethrough):


-------------------------
Hello,

Thank you for your interest in the [Group email address replace group email address with group title] group at Groups.io. If you did not request or do not want to join [Group email address title], please ignore this message.

The next step is for you to confirm your email address to activate your account with Groups.io.  This will not activate your membership with the [group title] group if they require your membership to be approved by a real person.  You will receive an additional email from them with more details once your email address has been confirmed.  

There are two ways to interact with Groups.io groups:

     If you only want to send and receive email messages from [Group email address title], reply to this email to confirm your email address and activate your membership.

  • Messages will be sent to you at [their email address] 
  • Send messages to [group email address]

     If you want to use the resources and read messages on the [group title] website, please click on the link below to confirm your email address, set up a password, and choose other subscription settings:

      [Comfirm account link]

If you have any questions, please contact the [group title] group moderator at [group moderator email address].


Cheers,
The Groups.io Team
---------------------------

I would suggest that the email above be the first one sent and the group's Pending Message be sent AFTER the email has been confirmed.  If you send both at the same time, one is likely to be ignored plus the pending message allows the group to communicate what they want to their members.

What J noted as the "confirmation email" is really the initial email sent.  I just tested it, and the email I got back after confirming the email address looks like this:

---------------------------
Hello,
 
Thank you for confirming your account. You will now receive messages from the groups you are subscribed to. If any of the groups you subscribed to require approval before joining, you will be notified when that happens.
 
Cheers,
The Groups.io Team
---------------------------

While this is okay, I would again suggest there be a different message go out for restricted groups, so they know what to expect.  And as J suggested, the group title be added to the message as well.   Also, the message says "You will now receive messages from the groups you are subscribed to" while is true, they will only be receiving this message while confirming their email address from their first group.  So maybe a better way to say it would be:  

      You will now receive messages from the [groups title], as well as any other groups to which you subscribe. 

Peace,
Tom


moderated Re: To improve the Address Confirmation email #suggestion

 

On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 07:07 am, Tom Vail wrote:
3 terms here, which to the uninformed, could well be used interchangeably...account, membership, subscription.  
I 100% agree that this is very confusing and is crying out for clarification somewhere. Actually, the "Definitions" section of the Help pages (which I helped write, or in some cases, edited after seeing a draft by others) has a definition for "Account," but not the other two terms. So adding those might be a start.
 
as J pointed out, that is not the way it works for a web application.
This has been discussed at some length in another thread, where I personally argued that the two notices should be sent simultaneously for both web and email join requests. Apparently they are sent simultaneously for web requests but sequentially for emailed requests in case the emailed request was spoofed. I think Shal was agreeing there that this is not a high risk (although I may be misremembering and I don't remember the details - it was a recent thread and would be easy to find), and as I recall he was agreeing that the pending notice could be sent simultaneously in that case, as well. From my point of view, they should either be sent simultaneously in both cases or sequentially in both cases. It's the lack of symmetry, including and especially in what the group moderator sees about a join request, that bothers me.

it would be nice if the message they received was customized to the group they were becoming a member of
This is referring to the confirmation email, right? The confirmation email does include the group name, which I think is enough customization. It is customized TO the group, but don't think the email should be customized BY the group. I think it should be uniform. Here's what it looks like (barring formatting):

Hello,
Thank you for your interest in Groups.io and the group [GROUP NAME]. To complete your subscription, please reply to this email.If you did not request - or do not want - a subscription to this group, please accept our apologies and ignore this message               Cheers,The Groups.io Team
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: To improve the Address Confirmation email #suggestion

Tom Vail
 

Shal,

You used 3 terms here, which to the uninformed, could well be used interchangeably...account, membership, subscription.  You know this system well, and obviously, are doing a good job in trying to help.  But put yourself into the position of a Yahoo Form member who just got moved to Groups, and likely doesn't even really understand why (even though they have been told Yahoo is imploding) nor understand anything about Groups.  You can not expect them to understand the difference in terms without some explanation.  So you are right, I think the distinction between them need to be explained more clearly for the user, especially during the initial process for the new user.

It sounds like from your note that the system was intended to send the Pending message after the person replies to that initial message. That would help in the process greatly, but as J pointed out, that is not the way it works for a web application. Resolving that will go a long way in resolving this whole problem. But as John mentioned above, it would be nice if the message they received was customized to the group they were becoming a member of, and even nicer if we could add to or modify that message since it will be the first message they receive from Groups.

Peace,
Tom


moderated Re: To improve the Address Confirmation email #suggestion

 

On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 08:34 pm, Shal Farley wrote:
The Pending message is deferred until after the person replies to that initial message, or clicks through the link to Confirm their account.
That's true only if the person applies via email. If they apply via the web, both are sent out at once - and (as may be recalled in a prior thread about this) I personally would prefer that to happen in both cases, for symmetry.
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: To improve the Address Confirmation email #suggestion

 

Tom,

Replying to the message does not activate the account if it is a
restricted group. This is misleading the user, ...
Actually it does activate the account. An account is not the same as a membership.

What it doesn't do is approve their membership in (aka subscription to) your group. I think what you're looking for is to have that distinction more clearly made.

Maybe a better option is to send out an email to _just _confirm the
email address, and then once that is received, send out the group’s
Pending Subscription message. This would present a more logical flow
for the user and give more control of the communication with their
users.
Please explain how your proposal differs from how it works now. The Pending message is deferred until after the person replies to that initial message, or clicks through the link to Confirm their account.

Shal


moderated Re: I'm back!

Ginny T.
 

Welcome back, Mark and I hope that you had a great vacation. Now try to get some sleep!
Ginny T.
--
Ginny T.  gttemari21@...
========
TemariKai.com


moderated Re: Default membership to the update group

Tom Vail
 

It is not really a hardship, but just one more “button” to push which will take folks to a place where most people don’t need/want to go.  And when they do, then they have to figure out how to get back.

 

As you suggested, it is likely a hold-over that may have lost its usefulness.  IMHO, when designing a system, the KISS principle always works the best.  Keep it very simple for the basic user, and then allow the more advanced opt-in to additional features.

 

Peace,

Tom

 

 

From: <main@beta.groups.io> on behalf of Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...>
Reply-To: "main@beta.groups.io" <main@beta.groups.io>
Date: Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 5:23 PM
To: "main@beta.groups.io" <main@beta.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [beta] Default membership to the update group

 

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 02:20 pm, Tom Vail wrote:

If it is an FAQ, and not being emailed, then why have them be members?   It just confuses the not-so-savvy user, which I would guess it the vast majority.

I think it's a throwback to the time when groups.io was smaller and Mark may have needed a way to contact everybody about system issues. As the service has grown its utility has no doubt diminished and I agree that it may be time to abandon the notion.

What I'm struggling to understand is exactly what hardship it is causing. Your subscribers aren't getting emails and they don't have to visit the Updates group if they don't want to. I have not personally had a single person in my group make any inquiries about this. So what's the problem?

Thanks,
Bruce


moderated Re: Default membership to the update group

Bruce Bowman
 

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 02:20 pm, Tom Vail wrote:
If it is an FAQ, and not being emailed, then why have them be members?   It just confuses the not-so-savvy user, which I would guess it the vast majority.
I think it's a throwback to the time when groups.io was smaller and Mark may have needed a way to contact everybody about system issues. As the service has grown its utility has no doubt diminished and I agree that it may be time to abandon the notion.

What I'm struggling to understand is exactly what hardship it is causing. Your subscribers aren't getting emails and they don't have to visit the Updates group if they don't want to. I have not personally had a single person in my group make any inquiries about this. So what's the problem?

Thanks,
Bruce


moderated Re: Default membership to the update group

Tom Vail
 

If it is an FAQ, and not being emailed, then why have them be members?   It just confuses the not-so-savvy user, which I would guess it the vast majority.

 

We need to remember that we, those who discuss these issues and ask these questions, are not the “normal” user.  As a moderator I think it is my job to make the system as easy to use, and require the least amount of technical expertise as possible for the end user.  What we “techies” think is either cool or interesting, or just nice to know, for the most part is unnecessary to most unless they require it to accomplish the task they are trying to accomplish.

 

Peace,

Tom

 

From: <main@beta.groups.io> on behalf of Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...>
Reply-To: "main@beta.groups.io" <main@beta.groups.io>
Date: Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 1:23 PM
To: "main@beta.groups.io" <main@beta.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [beta] Default membership to the update group

 

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 11:36 am, Tom Vail wrote:

Is it really necessary to have every user to be a member of the "Update" group?

This is beginning to become an FAQ.

The #changelog hashtag in the Updates group has the "no email" flag set. This means that one must log in and manually go to the Updates group to read it. It is not being emailed to your subscribers.

Hope this helps,
Bruce


moderated Re: LISTSERV #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 02:49 pm, Michael Dunn wrote:
Any chance we might see LISTSERV import added someday...? thx
Hmmm...the original Bitnet Listserv was just a remailer that ran on the old IBM VM mainframes. It did not store messages or allow people to archive files/attachments and such (beyond the basic functionality necessary to accumulate enough to form a daily digest). That being the case, if you have a list of email addresses it is already possible to upload that as a CSV file into the Direct Add or Invite box and get people into the group.

If newer versions of the LSoft product have more capabilities, please enlighten us (or at least me).

Thanks,
Bruce


moderated Re: Default membership to the update group

Bruce Bowman
 

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 11:36 am, Tom Vail wrote:
Is it really necessary to have every user to be a member of the "Update" group?
This is beginning to become an FAQ.

The #changelog hashtag in the Updates group has the "no email" flag set. This means that one must log in and manually go to the Updates group to read it. It is not being emailed to your subscribers.

Hope this helps,
Bruce


moderated Re: Default membership to the update group

 

Plus, there are never (or hardly ever) any "updates" posted there. So it's pretty much moot. :)

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Bob Bellizzi <cdfexec@...> wrote:
anyone can opt out by sending an email to updates+unsubscribe@groups,io
--

Bob Bellizzi

Founder, Fuchs Friends ®
Founder & Executive Director, The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation



--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Default membership to the update group

Bob Bellizzi
 

anyone can opt out by sending an email to updates+unsubscribe@groups,io
--

Bob Bellizzi

Founder, Fuchs Friends ®
Founder & Executive Director, The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation


moderated Re: I'm back!

Joseph Hudson <jhud7789@...>
 

Welcome back, and have fun playing catch-up.

On May 3, 2018, at 1:17 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:

Hi All,

I'm back from vacation. I'll be working through Yahoo Group invites (there are just under 400 of them to go through) and support emails, and then back to GDPR stuff. I hope to launch a full group export feature before the end of the week, replacing the existing archive export function.

Jetlagged, Mark


moderated Default membership to the update group

Tom Vail
 

Is it really necessary to have every user to be a member of the "Update" group?  Maybe we are unusual, but the vast majority of our users don't have any interest in system updates.  I would suggest that a button be added to the Subscription page for membership to the Update Group, and the default be NO.  That way those who are interested can opt-in, and the rest can blistfully go on unconserned about updates and what they might be.

Leave the update information to the moderators and those who have an interest.

For what it is worth.
Tom

13921 - 13940 of 30684