Date   
locked Re: Searching archive

 

Hmm, it does appear there's a bug there. I'll fix it.

Thanks,
Mark

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Frances <travel@...> wrote:
Hi again

It seems that the Archive search box for a specific group operates differently if you search by thread view or by message view.

If I go to a specific group, and search for the word hashtags in Thread View, I only get results from that specific group. This is what I would expect..

If I search for the word hashtags in Message View, I get results from all groups - I think only from all that I belong to.
Not a problem, but I think you should have something that tells the user what results he or she will get.

Frances




-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

Mute This Thread: https://groups.io/mt/3355?uid=3
Change Your Subscription: https://groups.io/org/groupsio/beta/editsub?uid=3
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/org/groupsio/beta/leave
Group Home: https://groups.io/org/groupsio/beta
Contact Group Owner: beta+owner@groups.io
Terms of Service: https://groups.io/static/tos
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


locked Re: suggestion: subgroups (was private hashtags) #suggestion

 

Mark,

 Hmm. At first blush doesn't feel like it should be a #hashtag thing, but
 maybe a groupname+subgroup@groups.io thing. Hashtags are more for
 archive organization and muting.
 
 Anyone else have any thoughts on subgroups?

Well, the owners and moderators of a group are a natural example of a sub-group; one partially supported via the groupname +owner@groups.io address. The usual reason that Yahoo Group moderators create a separate group for the mods/owners is to keep an archive of the messages, and possibly files and other resources, which isn't available via the +owner email forwarding.

Another take on that idea would be to make the groupname+subgroup addresses (including +owner) fully instantiated groups, but with lowered (different) join ceremony. Specifically the +owner subgroup would come into existence automatically, and members promoted to moderator or owner role could be joined to it by virtue of that promotion.

Other subgroups could be created ad-hoc by a moderator (with that privilege) or an owner, and the moderator/owner would be able to selectively add members to the subgroup without the overhead of invitation. I don't think it should be possible to join the subgroup(s) without being a member of the root group. It could be an option in each subgroup whether members can see the existence of the subgroup; and joining could be controlled by an option with the usual three choices (any root member can join, any root member can request membership, membership by anointment only).

Hmm... there's a namespace collision problem with +subscribe, +unsubscribe or any future email commands. There are probably other problems, I haven't thought this through for longer than it took to type this.

-- Shal

locked Re: Threads

 

Mark,

If someone sends a completely new email (compose instead of reply) that
happens to have the exact same subject as another thread, it's still
considered a new thread. The system figures this out by mainly by
reference information encoded in the email headers by everyone's email
programs. There is no time component.
Hmm, using the absence of the In-Reply-To or References fields to mark a new thread has the problem that neither field is mandatory. I don't know if there are any major email services/clients that don't support one or the other (or both), but that was the usual motivation for using "Or" logic rather than "And" (the subject matches or the field matches an existing member of the thread).

But maybe that's no longer (much of) an issue. I like the way using "And" neatly solves the "stale thread" problem without having an ad-hoc time limit.

-- Shal

locked Re: Threads

ro-esp
 

markf@corp.groups.io sendis:

Frances,

Here's how a thread happens. Someone sends a message. Others reply to that
message, or to other replies. All of those are in one thread. If someone
replies, but changes the subject, then that becomes the start of a new
thread.
that's how it should be

If someone sends a completely new email (compose instead of reply)
that happens to have the exact same subject as another thread, it's still
considered a new thread.
That could be somewhat problematic when someone replies to part(s) of a digest, wouldn't it?

groetjes, Ronaldo


--
http://www.esperanto.net http://www.moneyasdebt.net

locked Re: Threads

 

From all the data I've seen (mainly the email corpuses I assembled when I started working on groups.io back in January), In-Reply-To and/or References are more or less universally supported by email clients, and have been for at least a decade. So, I'm pretty comfortable relying on them. Plus, I'm not crazy about having an arbitrary time factor.

Mark

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Shal Farley <shal@...> wrote:
Mark,

> If someone sends a completely new email (compose instead of reply) that
> happens to have the exact same subject as another thread, it's still
> considered a new thread. The system figures this out by mainly by
> reference information encoded in the email headers by everyone's email
> programs. There is no time component.

Hmm, using the absence of the In-Reply-To or References fields to mark a new thread has the problem that neither field is mandatory. I don't know if there are any major email services/clients that don't support one or the other (or both), but that was the usual motivation for using "Or" logic rather than "And" (the subject matches or the field matches an existing member of the thread).

But maybe that's no longer (much of) an issue. I like the way using "And" neatly solves the "stale thread" problem without having an ad-hoc time limit.

-- Shal



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

Mute This Thread: https://groups.io/mt/3357?uid=3
Change Your Subscription: https://groups.io/org/groupsio/beta/editsub?uid=3
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/org/groupsio/beta/leave
Group Home: https://groups.io/org/groupsio/beta
Contact Group Owner: beta+owner@groups.io
Terms of Service: https://groups.io/static/tos
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


locked Re: Threads

 

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:27 AM, ro-esp <ro-esp@...> wrote:

If someone sends a completely new email (compose instead of reply)
that happens to have the exact same subject as another thread, it's still
considered a new thread.

That could be somewhat problematic when someone replies to part(s) of a digest, wouldn't it?

You cannot reply to digests on groups.io, the replies are blackholed (ideally they should bounce back; it's on the todo list).

Mark

locked Re: suggestion: subgroups (was private hashtags) #suggestion

 

I hadn't thought about the +owner parallel. That makes me like the group+subgroup@groups.io idea more. I agree with you about being about directly add people from the group into the subgroup; that makes sense.

I will put this on the TODO list.

Thanks,
Mark

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Shal Farley <shal@...> wrote:
Mark,

 Hmm. At first blush doesn't feel like it should be a #hashtag thing, but
 maybe a groupname+subgroup@groups.io thing. Hashtags are more for
 archive organization and muting.
 
 Anyone else have any thoughts on subgroups?

Well, the owners and moderators of a group are a natural example of a sub-group; one partially supported via the groupname +owner@groups.io address. The usual reason that Yahoo Group moderators create a separate group for the mods/owners is to keep an archive of the messages, and possibly files and other resources, which isn't available via the +owner email forwarding.

Another take on that idea would be to make the groupname+subgroup addresses (including +owner) fully instantiated groups, but with lowered (different) join ceremony. Specifically the +owner subgroup would come into existence automatically, and members promoted to moderator or owner role could be joined to it by virtue of that promotion.

Other subgroups could be created ad-hoc by a moderator (with that privilege) or an owner, and the moderator/owner would be able to selectively add members to the subgroup without the overhead of invitation. I don't think it should be possible to join the subgroup(s) without being a member of the root group. It could be an option in each subgroup whether members can see the existence of the subgroup; and joining could be controlled by an option with the usual three choices (any root member can join, any root member can request membership, membership by anointment only).

Hmm... there's a namespace collision problem with +subscribe, +unsubscribe or any future email commands. There are probably other problems, I haven't thought this through for longer than it took to type this.

-- Shal


locked Site changes on 10/16/14 #changelog

 

Changes to the site today:

- Several issues involving message processing for plain text only groups were fixed.
- Email with multiple text parts in multipart/mixed or multipart/related chunks was not processed correctly, leading to only the last part being shown. That's been fixed.
- Improved stripping of Groups.io footers from replies.
- A couple of tweaks to the website HTML.
- Addition of groupname+owner@groups..io address in email footers (actually happened Tuesday afternoon)..

Mark

locked Re: Threads

 

Mark,

You cannot reply to digests on groups.io, the replies are blackholed
(ideally they should bounce back; it's on the todo list).
In Yahoo Groups the "Fully featured" digests each message has a mailto: link that allows one to reply to that message. The mailto: URL syntax allows them to provide To, Subject, and even body text, but I don't know that it could allow the placement of a In-Reply-To or other arbitrary field.

The other option for the reader of a digest is a link to reply via the web site. That brings one to the message in the archive, possibly with the reply compose window already open. That could work, as the normal reply would have the necessary field.

-- Shal

locked question

Cherrill <cdjamieson@...>
 

Under Privacy on  our new group, we have a choice of Listed in Directory, publicly viewable archives or private archives.  

Does publicly viewable archives mean that all the people on the group can view the archives or that every single person who has a group on groups.io can view the archives.  

I would like the archives to be viewable only to our members; but it gives me a warning each time I click on that one that it is not reversible.  

Secondly, we are having a bit of trouble with our cover photo.  We think we have it at 900 x 300 but its cutting off the hairdos of the ladies.  Can you offer some advise on how to get it the correct size??

thank you

Cherrill
"the most important thing in life is to learn how to give out love and to let it come in"



locked Re: Threads

Frances
 

You can't reply to the whole digest email, but it looks like you have set it up so you can reply to a specific message in the digest.  I clicked on the Reply to this Message. in the email and it works as long as you are signed in to Groups.io on the web.
If you are not, you don't see the "groups reply" button.
It would be useful if it brought you to a login screen if you weren't already logged in, then you can login and then go to the specific message. Each message does have its own URL, so this should be possible! 

locked Re: question

Linda
 

Hi Cherrill,
Publicly viewable Archives can be seen by the public-at-large.  If you want to confine viewing to the members of your group, you will have to show that you understand that the decision is irrevocable. 
A cover photo at 900 x 300 will fit correctly IF you do not have your screen zoomed to make it easier to read.  In other words, the photo will not adjust to the adjustment you make for your individual viewing habits.  Try zooming out and you will not have the hairdos cut off.Hope that helps,
Linda

P.S.  Please use more specific words for you Subject.  "Question" doesn't help at all.  Thanks.

locked Re: Threads

 

Good point! I've changed it so that if clicking the Reply link from a digest (all digests from now on, since it's a slightly different URL), it will make sure you're logged in first. It will also open the reply box and set focus to it.

Thanks,
Mark

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Frances <travel@...> wrote:
You can't reply to the whole digest email, but it looks like you have set it up so you can reply to a specific message in the digest.  I clicked on the Reply to this Message. in the email and it works as long as you are signed in to Groups..io on the web.
If you are not, you don't see the "groups reply" button.
It would be useful if it brought you to a login screen if you weren't already logged in, then you can login and then go to the specific message. Each message does have its own URL, so this should be possible! 


locked Re: question

Cherrill <cdjamieson@...>
 

thank you for your reply.
I have changed the settings on the group to private archives.

I have 3 computers, the hairdos are cut off on all 3 including the Apple.  To my knowledge, my screens are not zoomed, however, hopefully anyone else looking at our home page will be able to see it all.

Cherrill




On Oct 17, 2014, at 9:19 AM, Linda <lin.zine@...> wrote:

Hi Cherrill,
Publicly viewable Archives can be seen by the public-at-large.  If you want to confine viewing to the members of your group, you will have to show that you understand that the decision is irrevocable. 
A cover photo at 900 x 300 will fit correctly IF you do not have your screen zoomed to make it easier to read.  In other words, the photo will not adjust to the adjustment you make for your individual viewing habits.  Try zooming out and you will not have the hairdos cut off.Hope that helps,
Linda

P.S.  Please use more specific words for you Subject.  "Question" doesn't help at all.  Thanks.


locked Site #changelog

 

Changes pushed to the site today:

- Fix for search on groups message page, and fixed an HTML escaping issue with the search indexes.
- Tweaked snippets in group search to show more of the group description.
- Links in digests to reply to messages now require the user to be logged in, and they display the reply box by default now.
- Switched to a different HTML editing widget that works better, especially for paragraphs and blank lines.
- Improved error messages on group post.

Mark

locked about invites

ro-esp
 

When we (moderators) send someone an invitation to join our group, or simply add them, will they be able to read the description of the group without logging in?


groetjes, Ronaldo

--
http://www.esperanto.net http://www.moneyasdebt.net

locked about contacting the mod of a group

ro-esp
 

markf@corp.groups.io sendis:


- Addition of groupname+owner@groups.io address in email footers (actually
happened Tuesday afternoon).
I can see the "contact group-owner" button, but when I click it my computer asks me to configure that email-program that I never use. That is very unpractical. If I'm using webmail, especially when I'm on someone else's computer, I want to send messages from my webmail.

Would that be possible/programmable?

and wouldn't it be more honest to call it "contact the moderator(s)"


groetjes, Ronaldo



--
http://www.esperanto.net http://www.moneyasdebt.net

locked Re: about invites

 

Ronaldo,

The group home page, at https://groups.io/org/groups.io/GROUPNAME is always viewable, even for people not logged in, and that contains the group description. The invite emails themselves should probably include the group description. I've added that to the todo list.

Thanks,
Mark

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:30 PM, ro-esp <ro-esp@...> wrote:
When we (moderators) send someone an invitation to join our group, or simply add them, will they be able to read the description of the group without logging in?


             groetjes, Ronaldo

--
http://www.esperanto..net  http://www.moneyasdebt.net



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

Mute This Thread: https://groups.io/mt/3855?uid=3
Change Your Subscription: https://groups.io/org/groupsio/beta/editsub?uid=3
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/org/groupsio/beta/leave
Group Home: https://groups.io/org/groupsio/beta
Contact Group Owner: beta+owner@groups.io
Terms of Service: https://groups.io/static/tos
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


locked Re: about contacting the mod of a group

 

Ronaldo,

We could configure it to point back to groups.io, and have it use our webmail client to send a message to the owners. But you'd still have to log into groups.io to do that. Would that be better than what's there now?

Thanks,
Mark

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:38 PM, ro-esp <ro-esp@...> wrote:
 markf@corp.groups.io  sendis:


- Addition of groupname+owner@groups.io address in email footers (actually
happened Tuesday afternoon).

I can see the "contact group-owner" button, but when I click it my computer asks me to configure that email-program that I never use. That is very unpractical. If I'm using webmail, especially when I'm on someone else's computer, I want to send messages from my webmail.

Would that be possible/programmable?

and wouldn't it be more honest to call it "contact the moderator(s)"


                                     groetjes, Ronaldo



--
http://www.esperanto..net  http://www.moneyasdebt.net



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

Mute This Thread: https://groups.io/mt/3856?uid=3
Change Your Subscription: https://groups.io/org/groupsio/beta/editsub?uid=3
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/org/groupsio/beta/leave
Group Home: https://groups.io/org/groupsio/beta
Contact Group Owner: beta+owner@groups.io
Terms of Service: https://groups.io/static/tos
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


locked Re: about contacting the mod of a group

Laurence Taylor
 

On 18/10/2014 01:38, ro-esp wrote:

I can see the "contact group-owner" button, but when I click it my
computer asks me to configure that email-program that I never use.
That is very unpractical. If I'm using webmail, especially when I'm on
someone else's computer, I want to send messages from my webmail.
That's a setting in your browser. You need to set it to whatever your
default email is. Or, change your PC's default email setting to your
webmail.


--
rgds
LAurence