Me, neither! -- 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

J wrote: The vet in my group was (and possibly is still) in their group. Maybe I’ll reach out to him. I already sent a message to the owners, J. I hope they will read it. There haven´t

Right. Me, too, several years ago. I eventually gave up. -- 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

Shal, I know Yahoo was sold and bought and sold again in the last year. I also know that every time Microsoft does a Windows update, we lose the ability to see the photos in the albums in

Thanks for the info, Bruce but we will need to see the photos when we go to the albums. I know over in yahoogroups under attachments it was listed the way you described for the photos as files. Not

I can assure you that many involved in yahoo groups for many years do not believe the news yet and are confident that yahoo will not do what they said they will... And I actually got told off in a

Ah; I see! Ofcom is the Telecom Regulator*. Oftel was its predecessor, and related only to telephone communications. Chris *This includes broadcast television.

I don't live in the UK, sorry about that. From my reading, I thought it was that Ofcom was a telco. Whatever it is, I think there's likely to be more of this, of people relying on

Sorry, but IMHO your subject ("Headline!") is rather wide of the mark, and the supposed link to Ofcom in the Twitter feed is to a telco, not Ofcom. Chris

In fact, they were the first group I thought of when I heard the news yesterday. But I have no way to reach them any more because I no longer even go near yahoo. The vet in my group was (and possibly

J wrote: (And the people doing the late transfers should be charged a penalty anyway. :) Well, there are some who were comfortable until that Yahoo message showed up on the front pages which is only

He seriously needs to charge extra for the spate of rushed transfers; I wasn't kidding about that. He could use the money to hire some drones to do the transfers. (And the people doing the late

J wrote: The only facts I have to back this up are my ongoing experiences on this beta group, and as a GIO member, for several years, but I can tell you this: that is just not going to happen. I

p.s. Scott: apologies for assuming in my previous post that you were a brand-new member here. I see now that you've actually been here for awhile, so you already know what I know. Wish I could give

The only facts I have to back this up are my ongoing experiences on this beta group, and as a GIO member, for several years, but I can tell you this: that is just not going to happen. I think even the

I am a member of one more Y!G that is considering moving to GIO. The owner is also considering Google Groups. This group has been around for nearly 20 years (almost as long as my own). A valid

Forgive the offtopic, but I thought people here would be interested in this bit of news: https://twitter.com/erincandescent/status/1184587323599736837 Best, Glenn

Yes, I agree. Albums inside of albums - as we have with folders inside folders- would be a welcome addition for my groups. Thank you Margo for your message. Jennifer

My suggestion is to charge double for this now!:-) -- 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. -

Margo -- I totally agree that this would be a handy feature. Just FYI, if you check the box for "allow photos in files" you can have nested photo albums in the files section. Unfortunately this does