shal I haven’t a clue about updating the page, or it’s incorrect at all. You referred me to that page in reply to my question why two subject lines, identical, would end up in different threads.

Changes to the site this week: CHANGE: The email bounce returned when sending a message to a group you're not subscribed to had a link to the /join page, which if you are logged in, would bounce you

Funny about the food menu analogy. The best pizza place where I live (Berkeley) serves one kind of pizza each day and that’s it. The only choice you have to make is how many slices you want. (Also,

**** I didn't take Bob's comment that way at all -- just that gio is evolving and improving as it evolves And sit back and enjoy the view.. I don't think that precludes developing excellent

Ken, If that page needs correction or improvement please do so (that's what wikis are for). Or let's discuss it in GMF. Shal

Glenn. I support multi preferences. Or just ignoring/living with personal preferences/naming conventions, etc. But when the menu board says “flavors” but underneath it isn’t flavors, but sizes

Yeah but we’re just a bunch of users expressing our preferences, ranging from most naive to most sophisticated points of view (I don’t lump myself in with either of those). All kinds of features

Perhaps I am misreading this, but are you seriously suggesting that groups.io can't be improved? I agree that it is the best system out there, but anything can be made better, even the best

If that's true, then the preference system is not designed correctly. The whole point is that the product is a variable superset of user preferences, that setting a preference one way for one

Ditto what "J" Catlady said but add lots more years and experiences. Sit back for another year or so, enjoy the ride and you will see groups.io has no peer -- Bob Bellizzi

But a decision still needs to be made about whether mods can choose, on their own, to receive (and/or send) owner messages. I was just pointing out a minor inconsistency with the way things work right

You can call it a bug or an inconsistency. 😀 -- 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. -

I thought we decided a while back that this was a bug, not an inconsistency. eg) It should be working this way (but it isn't): eg) Owner sets the permisison (P) and the Moderator is given the option

That’s great and I would generally agree. A lot of us here, like you, and including me, are (or were at some point) senior se’s and I’m sure you understand that it’s not always just

So, I've avoided a number of discussions here and on GMF because they seem to boil down to folks arguing about personal preferences of one sort or another. I work as senior software

Ok, but that doesn't explain why orig subj orig subj ended up in different threads/subjects/topics (take your pick <wink> ) They are identical. Might the algorithm be updated to also ignore other

[avoding over quoting] Shal, I get your point that's a matter of style, so there's no "rule" as you try to point to. It's a matter of "direction." Talking to the screen, the settings are "my"

No, it is an inconsistency. If something is a permission, I can't give it to myself. It must be given to me by someone higher up. You would not call a variable that can be set by either the member or

Confusing it can be - no arguments there. However, the way I look at it, there are two different bits of data that determine how the feature works. One: the Permission - That allows the moderator

Yes, unfortunately this makes hashtags a lot less useful than they otherwise would be. For example, there is no point for a moderator to edit a message topic by adding a hashtag to a previously