Date   

moderated Re: "Reply to Sender" Anomaly #bug

Tom Biggs GFCA
 

@gmail.com@@- as 11 asked asked 1 a



Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device


-------- Original message --------
From: "Chris Jones via groups.io" <chrisjones12@...>
Date: 6/1/22 12:24 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: main@beta.groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] "Reply to Sender" Anomaly #bug

On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 04:44 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I think what you're asking for is a group that only permits messages that start new topics.
Only "in a sense"; please read on!

I think that'd be a different setting from 'Reply To Sender' because oftentimes (in my experience) those groups are fine with replies going to the group, but just want the default to be that replies get sent to the sender.
Strictly speaking "new topics only" already exists, in that if the default reply option is Reply to Sender, and Remove Other Reply Options is checked then (in theory anyway) the only place a reply can go is to the originator of a new topic, and not appear on the web interface as another post under the same topic.

However, that is not how things seem to happen in practice; if for any reason a member wants to reply to the originator but clicks on their email client's Reply All tab then their emailed reply will go to both the originator and the web UI as a post to the same topic. It does not help that for whatever reason Outlook in Win10 (and IIRC Win7 and probably 8 before it) refuses to send to a linked email address without adding to a contacts list first. This happens if the mail user clicks on Reply but not if they choose Reply All. Most frustrating.

Even if Reply to Sender and Remove Other Reply Options are selected the posting address for the entire Group (i.e. the web UI) is still included in the emails sent to members; would removing that be a viable option or might it create other anomalies?

Chris
--
Tom Biggs
GFCA


moderated Re: Member list search errors and inconsistencies #bug

Andy I
 

Another thing that's confusing (to me) is that adding wildcards actually makes some searches fail, when they work without the wildcards.

For example, searching for a name in the Members list returns a result.  Adding a wildcard * before and/or after the same exact name causes nothing to be found!   Is that because the wildcard "*" means there must be at least one non-punctuation character in that position, and if there isn't, it's not a match?

But even this is not consistent.  Trying the same experiment with a different name, causes a different result.  Arrgh!  (hands thrown into the air)

Andy


moderated Re: Member list search errors and inconsistencies #bug

Andy I
 

I'm not Dan --

But I also do find it frustrating, not knowing when to use wildcards and when they aren't needed -- and when searches must be exact and wildcards don't help.  It depends on where you are doing the search.

Trying it just now, searches within Members work and don't need wildcards to find names that include the requested text.

But the same search within the Activity log fails to find a result for a partial match, unless the wildcard * is added.

Other searches I have done (not today) in the Activity log, failed to return any result even when I used wildcards, so apparently there are some parts of the Activity entries that either are not being searched, or for which wildcards do not have the desired effect.  It's confusing not knowing which kind of search you will get.

Andy


moderated Re: "Reply to Sender" Anomaly #bug

Chris Jones
 

On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 04:44 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I think what you're asking for is a group that only permits messages that start new topics.
Only "in a sense"; please read on!

I think that'd be a different setting from 'Reply To Sender' because oftentimes (in my experience) those groups are fine with replies going to the group, but just want the default to be that replies get sent to the sender.
Strictly speaking "new topics only" already exists, in that if the default reply option is Reply to Sender, and Remove Other Reply Options is checked then (in theory anyway) the only place a reply can go is to the originator of a new topic, and not appear on the web interface as another post under the same topic.

However, that is not how things seem to happen in practice; if for any reason a member wants to reply to the originator but clicks on their email client's Reply All tab then their emailed reply will go to both the originator and the web UI as a post to the same topic. It does not help that for whatever reason Outlook in Win10 (and IIRC Win7 and probably 8 before it) refuses to send to a linked email address without adding to a contacts list first. This happens if the mail user clicks on Reply but not if they choose Reply All. Most frustrating.

Even if Reply to Sender and Remove Other Reply Options are selected the posting address for the entire Group (i.e. the web UI) is still included in the emails sent to members; would removing that be a viable option or might it create other anomalies?

Chris


moderated Re: Place based collections #suggestion

 

Matt,
Sounds Iike the NextDoor platform. 

Susan B 

On Jun 1, 2022, at 9:28 AM, Matt Bell <matt@...> wrote:

We're exploring whether groups.io could be used to host many different local conversations. It would be great if someone could register for the top level - say 'Our Plymouth' and then easily connect into the conversation they care about - say homelessness i.e. 3 or more levels/subgroups would be needed without making it too complicated. 

Any chance something like this is being worked on?


moderated Re: Place based collections #suggestion

Matt Bell <matt@...>
 

Hi Andy, thanks for replying. Yes I'm aware of the subgroups and currently use them. I'll try to illustrate by way of an example:

We have many different networks of grassroots organisations in Plymouth. Children & Young People, Environment, Social Isolation, Complex Lives etc etc.Each network has it's own need for sub-groups and oganisations are often a member of more than one network. It would be amazing to be able to put a 'container' across the various networks so an organisation can register and join once but dip in and out of the networks they feel most connected to. 

Hope that makes sense?


moderated Re: Member list search errors and inconsistencies #bug

 

On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 2:31 PM Dan Tucker <antiquetuck@...> wrote:
Along with Duane in his #25822, I'm finding it inconsistent and/or certainly not convenient to have to remember to add the "*" (wildcard/asterisk) to simple 'partial' searches. I was just looking at "Woodward" and "Woody" and attempted a search for "Wood" - led to doing that by not finding "Wood" the first time - and found nothing. I don't know of many 'search functions' that won't automatically assume and find parts of the string without using the wildcard. If nothing else, it could be extremely confusing and non-productive to be putting the wildcards not in the right place for that search.

Sorry, I'm confused. On the /members page for your main group, I did a search on 'wood' and it came up with 3 results, which all looked good. `woody' and `woodward` came up with 0 results, but that also looks ok. Can you give me some more information on what results you were expecting?

Thanks,
Mark 


moderated Re: "Reply to Sender" Anomaly #bug

 

Chris,

I think what you're asking for is a group that only permits messages that start new topics. I think that'd be a different setting from 'Reply To Sender' because oftentimes (in my experience) those groups are fine with replies going to the group, but just want the default to be that replies get sent to the sender.

But an issue with a group set to this new setting would be that it would bounce (accidentally sent) replies to the group. So someone with a poorly designed mail client might end up getting confusing bounce messages from us. Not sure how to address that.

Mark


moderated Re: Member subscription colors #update

 

Andy,

On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 8:53 AM Andy Wedge <andy_wedge@...> wrote:

this is not how I envisaged or suggested this working.  My idea was to make this work as details in a profile do, in that they are immediately cascaded to lower levels when a higher level value is changed.  The way the change is described in the Site Updates message means that if a colour is inherited from the main group when a member joins a subgroup, then it would not be updated again if the colour in the main group was changed.  We would use the colour scheme to denote membership types so a change in the main group would need to be cascaded to all subgroups a member belongs to and we have many members that belong to many subgroups. I would need to write and repeatedly run some automated processed to ensure that everything stayed in sync.

Ok, can we walk through a couple of scenarios so that I understand better what you're describing?

- Subgroup has no default color defined, so color is inherited from the parent group:
  - What happens when I change the color in the subgroup subscription to a different color, then change the color in the parent subscription?
  - What happens when I change the color in the subgroup subscription to a different color, then back to the original color, then change the color in the parent subscription?

- Subgroup has a default color defined:
  - What happens when I change the color in the parent subscription?

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Signature placement driving me crazy again - redux #suggestion #misc

ro-esp
 

On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 01:36 PM, Laurence Taylor wrote:


Janet_Catlady <JanetOliviaCatlady@...> wrote:
If all it really would do is trim excess quotes, I can't wait - as
long as it still recognizes, and doesn't trim, selectively,
intentionally quoted material.
We're not talking about an actual intelligence here. The autotrim simply removes everything under the last unindented line. If you want quote shown, you have to type something other than > below it

Or, have an option that posts with more quoted than original text are
rejected. I've seen that done before and it worked well.
I haven't seen it, and wouldn't choose to use it. Often enough asking a question takes more space than giving the answer

groetjes/ĝis, Ronaldo


moderated Re: Signature placement driving me crazy again - redux #suggestion #misc

 

Hi,

I've looked at J's example message. It's a classic top post, and is something that we can detect and work with reliably. I'm in the middle of several other projects, so I can't work on this now, but I will put it on the TODO list.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Place based collections #suggestion

Andy I
 

On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 09:20 AM, Matt Bell wrote:
We're exploring whether groups.io could be used to host many different local conversations. It would be great if someone could register for the top level - say 'Our Plymouth' and then easily connect into the conversation they care about - say homelessness i.e. 3 or more levels/subgroups would be needed without making it too complicated. 


Matt, are you aware of Subgroups already?

Is your question whether groups can have subgroups?  Groups.io has them.  Or are you asking if subgroups can have multiple levels (e.g., sub-subgroups) with structure?  Or if there is a limit to the number of subgroups?  Or something else?

My understanding is that only Premium and Enterprise groups can have subgroups, so at this point in time, if starting a new group, for it to have subgroups it would not be free (not a Basic group).  I am not aware of a limit to the number of subgroups.  As for structure (levels), they are essentially "flat".  No sub-sub-subgroups.  But I guess you could use creative names to give the impression of levels.

You don't need subgroups to have many different local conversations.  Each topic is its own conversation, and they co-exist, unless you don't want people involved in conversation A to see anything from conversation B.

Andy


moderated Re: Signature placement driving me crazy again - redux #suggestion #misc

 

A p.s. to that: unfortunately, in the collapsed box on the Edited page, her signature was also collapsed into the box. So, the problem remains. But the distinction between what shows up in the Edited display vs in the original message seems to be yet another anomaly.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Signature placement driving me crazy again - redux #suggestion #misc

 

Mark,

I'm going to send you offlist (and post a link to here, for easier access - not accessible unless you're Mark or are in the group) one of the messages from the group member who's been having the problem, the problem being, specifically: when she posts via email and doesn't trim, the quoted text is (sometimes) not collapsed into the green box on the site. The oddity I noticed last night is that in clicking on Edited to see what changes were made, the initial (untrimmed) message DOES show up with the untrimmed text collapsed into the green box. Yet when it posted on the site, it was not collapsed - which was why I edited the message to trim it in the first place. I think if you can figure out what's unique about this message and fix that, this whole discussion is moot. It seems to be some sort of bug.

https://groups.io/g/Feline_Smallcell_Lymphoma/message/35664/1374823

Thanks.

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Signature placement driving me crazy again - redux #suggestion #misc

 

On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 04:36 AM, Laurence Taylor wrote:
Or, have an option that posts with more quoted than original text are
rejected. I've seen that done before and it worked well.
It's a good thought, but sometimes all I want to do is provide excerpt from an outside source. For example, an entire message might consist of "Here's that excerpt from the 2020 study I mentioned yesterday:" followed by a couple of paragraphs from a research paper. Someone here is going to call this a "quirk" or "exception" lol. But this entire problem has lots of cases and situations.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Signature placement driving me crazy again - redux #suggestion #misc

 

On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 05:55 AM, Andy wrote:

But now you have so many quirks and exceptions thrown into this, that I can't follow the train of thought.
Not sure what you mean by "quirks" and "exceptions." There are inherently, if you want to call it that, "quirks" and "exceptions" to this whole problem It did get a little convolute due to the suggestion that failure to collapse caused by adding any text to the bottom was a "bug." I don't consider that a bug. I've tried to say from the start that any proposed fix would have to allow people to intentionally quote - whether text from a prior message, or outside text such as another resource - or I would be opposed to it.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Place based collections #suggestion

Matt Bell <matt@...>
 

We're exploring whether groups.io could be used to host many different local conversations. It would be great if someone could register for the top level - say 'Our Plymouth' and then easily connect into the conversation they care about - say homelessness i.e. 3 or more levels/subgroups would be needed without making it too complicated. 

Any chance something like this is being worked on?


moderated Re: Signature placement driving me crazy again - redux #suggestion #misc

Andy I
 

On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 02:43 AM, Janet_Catlady wrote:
...
No, it doesn't mess that up. The sig still appears correctly at the bottom. ...

You've misread.  That was exactly the thing one was trying to avoid (having to scroll and scroll and scroll and open quoted text and scroll to the very bottom to find the sig).

But now you have so many quirks and exceptions thrown into this, that I can't follow the train of thought.

Andy


moderated Re: Signature placement driving me crazy again - redux #suggestion #misc

Laurence Taylor
 

Janet_Catlady <JanetOliviaCatlady@...> wrote:

'Trim excess quotes' or somesuch.
If all it really would do is trim excess quotes, I can't wait - as
long as it still recognizes, and doesn't trim, selectively,
intentionally quoted material. And as Duane pointed out at the very
beginning of this, I don't know how feasible that is.
Or, have an option that posts with more quoted than original text are
rejected. I've seen that done before and it worked well.

--
rgds
LAurence
<><

The older I get, the smarter I was.
~~~ Random (signature) 1.6.1


moderated Re: Signature placement driving me crazy again - redux #suggestion #misc

 

BTW, fun fact: I searched for one of those wrongly appearing messages by that group member by looking for messages of hers that I'd edited. I found one (saying "reason: trimmed prior posts"), and surprisingly, if you click on "Edited" to see the former and new versions, the former (untrimmed) message displays THERE with the untrimmed prior posts collapsed into the green box. I at first thought, damn, maybe imagined the whole thing. But no. Because there would have been no way I'd have edited the message to trim the prior posts if they hadn't displayed onsite. So something funny is going with that. I will look into this more tomorrow.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu