Yes; firstly see what Duane said. Then see J_Catlady's it really needs to say "New Topic". If there had to be a name change (and no, I'm not suggesting one!) it might be clearer if New Topic read New

Agree with Duane, it really needs to say "New Topic." In case you're still confused, you can think of topics as threads (they are, as Duane says, "collections," but they're threaded collections). --

Messages are the individual messages that are sent/posted. Topics are a collection of messages that are (or should be) related. New Topic is for starting a new collection. It used to say New

Is there a difference between messages and topics? Because my group finds having a menu item that says "Messages" and then you create a "New Topic" vs a "New Message" to be confusing. Can we change

Stan, With all due respect, simple posts stating “I agree” (with sufficient quotation to identify WHAT is being agreed with or to) and “I disagree because…” are vital and appropriate

I would like to suggest that the Charter Rules for this group be added to the beta.groups.io Wiki. It would help educate newcomers to the group, and remind veterans of the group, about the rules of

I found this thread in a message search to see if it had been covered before. Could "responded to poll" be added as an activity in the logs (group's member activity log, and individual member activity

Any plans to add triggers to the database functionality? Even something simple like being able to send an email when a new row is added? Chris

As noted in this thread, some email clients or services prepend "[External]" to the subject when a message arrives from outside the organization. This helps recipients avoid being tricked. (E.g the

Hello From limited testing, it would appear that the message "Your chat will be created when it's approved by the moderators." pops up after creating a chat, only if the user chose to notify the group

I agree, it's not always necessary to see all columns at the start. One may wish to include certain information in the database for the sake of completeness even though that data is not the main

Oh, right! Haha. -- 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

No, that's not what I meant. If someone with the title of moderator is doing all the work, but has to go away for a while, (s)he needs to be able to promote someone to *moderator*. If the *owner* is

Ronaldo, My only concern is with this: I'm not yet convinced that there's a benefit to having separate classes of owner (original/founder versus other) that outweighs the complexity/confusion that it

When I set up one of my groups I deliberately made both moderators owners. This has now come in useful as the original owner is now in a care home, quite unwell and unable to moderate. I also ensure

I think there might be a lot of conflation of terms in this thread. Not sure. But I can say that it's confusing enough even without that happening. ;) -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the

My comments were based on what was written, not what might have been meant. If it meant owner rather than moderator then I think I agree with you. :) Chris

Of course, I am talking about if chosen before the owner gets hit by a bus. If the owner is gone and a successor must be chosen, then all bets are off. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the

If you substitute the word "owner" in the ro-esp message, which is what I think(?) was meant there, then I agree with that. An owner *should* have the power to uniquely appoint a successor. This is

Well yes, and, er, no. If it is necessary to appoint a successor then that ought really to be a collaborative decision taken by all the managers of a group, not just the person who is standing down.