Date   

locked Re: Transfering archives of lists hosted on Freelists?

 

Hi Joseph,

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 3:39 PM, Joseph Lee <joseph.lee22590@...> wrote:

With the number of lists moving to Groups.IO growing (especially from Yahoo! Groups), I was wondering if you can support transferring message archives from lists hosted by Freelists.org. I ask because there is a group that I moderate at Freelists that wish to join an existing Groups.IO group as a subgroup. Please let us (Freelists users) know if you need more information.


If you can get me the archives in mbox format, then I can definitely import them.

Cheers,
Mark 


locked Transfering archives of lists hosted on Freelists?

 

Hi Mark and others,

With the number of lists moving to Groups.IO growing (especially from Yahoo! Groups), I was wondering if you can support transferring message archives from lists hosted by Freelists.org. I ask because there is a group that I moderate at Freelists that wish to join an existing Groups.IO group as a subgroup. Please let us (Freelists users) know if you need more information.

Thanks.

Cheers,

Joseph


locked Re: questions (suggestions?) re "status" and "reason" columns in invitations

Ro
 

Not so oh semi-learned one!  I sent an invite this am.  Its gone.  It doesnt show accepted, it shows there are no outstanding invites. Nothing. Its gone into la la land.  However, if I try to resend it, it does show an error message, "pending subscriber".  I think it would be good if there were another way to know this besides trying to resend the invite.

WAIT!  I found the pending approval in the Members section.  Hmmm.   I really think a NOTICE needs to go to the owner/mods that the person has accepted the invite and is awaiting approval.  We shouldnt have to keep checking and checking to see that.   Or should it be "see this"??    Frankly, if we send an invite, why do we need to approve?  why would an mod/owner send an invite to someone they didnt want in their group?  Approval needs to be AUTOMATIC. 

I guess thats ALL I can legitimately capitalize here, which is DISAPPOINTING. 

So

1.  Pending invites is not helpful, doesnt show "accepted
2.  shouldnt have to go to Members to see pending approvals, owners/mods should get a notice that invite was accepted
3.   Really, an invite shouldnt NEED acceptance, but should automatically be accepted.  But perhaps others disagree?   Perhaps you invite those you are not sure you want in your group??  Oh, I know, you might still want them to fill out member forms.   perhaps a check mark when sending the invite allowing auto acceptance...??


RobiWanCatNobi

with Sally and Silk auto-accepting snacks,  and Handy, Feliz &  Police Kitty patrolling in the Great Beyond with tons of humanoids pending approval,,,hey,,,not YOU buster.....you are outta here!!




> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 14:51:19 -0800
> Subject: [beta] Re: questions (suggestions?) re "status" and "reason" columns in invitations
> To: beta@groups.io
> From: txpigeon@...
>
> Status will show if it's sent or accepted. If there are no problems, either will say success. Once in awhile if I go check them right after sending some, I'll see something else in reason, though I don't remember exactly what it is. I had asked Mark about it and it usually just means there's a delay at the email server for some reason. On one of mine, the email address was "busy" on the server, so IO automatically tried later and it went through.
>
> The invitations stay until you remove them. This was a request from some of us users. You can select all that have accepted and use the "Remove invitation" on the drop down box under them. It's useful if you invite a bunch of folks and are marking them off of a list as they accept. I did it that way when I invited about 100 all at once. I believe there's an item on the TODO list to remove them after some length of time.
>
> Duane
>


locked Re: questions (suggestions?) re "status" and "reason" columns in invitations

Duane
 

Status will show if it's sent or accepted. If there are no problems, either will say success. Once in awhile if I go check them right after sending some, I'll see something else in reason, though I don't remember exactly what it is. I had asked Mark about it and it usually just means there's a delay at the email server for some reason. On one of mine, the email address was "busy" on the server, so IO automatically tried later and it went through.

The invitations stay until you remove them. This was a request from some of us users. You can select all that have accepted and use the "Remove invitation" on the drop down box under them. It's useful if you invite a bunch of folks and are marking them off of a list as they accept. I did it that way when I invited about 100 all at once. I believe there's an item on the TODO list to remove them after some length of time.

Duane


locked Re: Photos and attachments from group site

Ro
 

thanks!


Ro

with Sally and Silk applauding Mark for 5 seconds, then going back to sleep and Handy, Feliz &  Police Kitty patrolling in the Great Beyond where nothing is attached.





Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 13:37:44 -0800
Subject: Re: [beta] Photos and attachments from group site
From: markf@corp.groups.io
To: beta@groups.io

Hi Ro,


Thanks,
Mark

On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Ro <recarlton@...> wrote:
Having successfully moved my group, people on the website, not direct email, want to attach photos/files, or do in line photos to their posts.   Can this be made available please?  for now, it seems it can only be done via direct email.  I have checked settings already and have attachments allowed. 


Ro




locked Re: Photos and attachments from group site

 

Hi Ro,


Thanks,
Mark

On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Ro <recarlton@...> wrote:
Having successfully moved my group, people on the website, not direct email, want to attach photos/files, or do in line photos to their posts.   Can this be made available please?  for now, it seems it can only be done via direct email.  I have checked settings already and have attachments allowed. 


Ro



locked Re: "ownership"

 

On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:
I had a member add an item to the calendar.  I made a small revision as a moderator.  Now she can't back in to edit the event.  Is this a result of the recent change for "ownership" of things - files, photos, etc.?

This was a bug. If you edited an event, you 'took ownership' of it, even if it wasn't your event. That's been fixed, and calendar events now have the same permission model as files and photos.

Thanks,
Mark 


locked Re: Lost passwords, no passwords and reset password, oh my

 

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 11:44 AM, JohnF via Groups.io <johnf1686@...> wrote:
In general, I like the concept of allowing sign-in-via-email as proposed, and I think it will help reduce confusion.

The main thing I can think of that could go wrong is if an email provider goes out of business (or otherwise stops delivering Groups.io mail for any reason), and a user wants to switch to another email provider.  If that user doesn't have a password and can't log in via Facebook or Google+, is there any way to accomplish that?

In that specific case, no, they're out of luck. But if your email provider goes belly up, the modern Internet user is going to have a lot of problems.

I just pushed this to the site. Please let me know what you think.

Thanks,
Mark 


locked Re: can only be logged in under one email address in same browser?

 

Still, in the prior scenario and question (multiple accounts, same browser), gmail can do this, right? it would be nice to be able to switch between multiple accounts within the same browser just as gmail allows you to. But I think the "accept invitation" issue is more pressing.


locked Re: can only be logged in under one email address in same browser?

 

Ok. That makes sense. 

Here's something else, though: I sent an invitation to an email address that I know has never created a password. I clicked on "accept invitation" and was taken to the group's home page. So far, so good; at that point, the email address could have clicked on "log in," But it decided not to. As a result, the email address was IN NO WAY subscribed to the group, even by email.

It seems now that clicking on "accept invitation" requires creation of a password in order to even result in email subscription. It does not subscribe the member to the group; the member shows up as "sent" in the outstanding invitations panel, and does not show up as a member.

I think this needs to be clarified (or possibly it is still changing). As I understand it, at this point, from an invitation:

(1) replying to the invitation email subscribes the member to the group (as an email subscriber); but

(2) clicking on "accept invitation" does NOT subscribe the member to the group in any way, even just as an email subscriber. Instead, the invitee is taken to the group's page and MUST log in to be able to join (or subscribe). I think this is non-intuitive and should have an explanation in the invitation. I would think, as an invitee, that clicking on "accept invitation" does MORE than replying to the email, not less. Right?

J




locked Re: can only be logged in under one email address in same browser?

 

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:29 AM, J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

It seems that you can only be logged in as a single email address within a single browser. Correct? Is there any way to change that?

I'm not actually sure that that is technically possible. I use two different browsers for that.

Mark 


locked questions (suggestions?) re "status" and "reason" columns in invitations

 

I've got five rows in my "outstanding invitations" table. I'm confused. In the "status" column, four of these say "accepted" and in the "reasons" column, they say "success." Question #1: if the invitations have been accepted, why are these in the "outstanding invitations" table?

In the fifth row, which is the one actually outstanding invitation, has "status" = "sent" and "reason" = "success." Question #2: I'm not sure what the words "reason" and "success" mean in this table in general, and whether other words might be more clear. What are the possible "reasons"? Why is "success" a "reason" for either "sent" or "accepted"?

J


locked Re: Signature LInes

 

> If it's not on the TO DO list, how can some people have one? Some

> posters in here have a signature line. How are they doing that?

 

Maybe they're adding it manually when they compose their message. It's certainly easy enough to do. Even simpler, compose in a word processing program that automagically adds it and then just paste it into a message.

Dano


locked Re: can only be logged in under one email address in same browser?

 

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:29 am, J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@gmail.com> wrote:
It seems that you can only be logged in as a single email address within a
single browser. Correct? Is there any way to change that?
I think being able to log in as more than one user in a single browser would be really confusing. If I was in as two users, then I opened a new tab and went to a bookmark for a group, which user should that tab be?

If you want to be two users logged in at the same time on the same computer for test purposes, use two different browsers.

JohnF


locked Re: Lost passwords, no passwords and reset password, oh my

 

In general, I like the concept of allowing sign-in-via-email as proposed, and I think it will help reduce confusion.

The main thing I can think of that could go wrong is if an email provider goes out of business (or otherwise stops delivering Groups.io mail for any reason), and a user wants to switch to another email provider. If that user doesn't have a password and can't log in via Facebook or Google+, is there any way to accomplish that?

There might also be paranoid individuals who would want to block this feature. True, if you could monitor someone's email, you could also get access to their account via the change password feature, but that would be detectable because the old password wouldn't work anymore. If you could send, use, and delete non-password login links, you could impersonate someone for extended periods of time without detection. Again, this is more theory than realistic.

JohnF


locked Re: disable allowing "respond" to invitation email resulting in subscribing #suggestion

 

"in the case I tried, the system said that IT HAD LOGGED ME ON even without my doing anything.

I do have to say that at least now the system tells you that it did that. Originally, you were logged on without being informed of it. That was my first first point of confusion with the joining process. The notification is a step in the right direction.

J


locked Re: disable allowing "respond" to invitation email resulting in subscribing #suggestion

 



On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:
 an invitee can simply
> respond to the email in order to subscribe.

Right. Currently that's the best (only?) way to subscribe without setting a password.
 
I think "accept invitation" also allows that. So allowing the reply to subscribe them seems a redundant option. 

> But I think that's misleading, especially since there's also an "accept
> invitation" button. The presence of the button leads me, as the
> recipient, to believe that I must click on the button to accept. Not
> just respond to the email.

Perhaps the text could be clarified to help the invitee understand that they may choose either method. And that reply by email is the way to avoid setting a password (though that may soon change, per Mark's passwords thread).
 
Yes, the ground is changing underneath us. I simply would like this issue to be part of Mark's consideration. 

> ... but I would add this as something to think about: whether or not you
> want to make simply responding to an invitation email result in
> subscribing the person to the group.

There are likely circumstances where being able to accept by email is needed, or highly desirable - for example if the invitee has email access right now, but web access would be inconvenient.
But even from an email they can click on "accept invitation." 

And in the case I tried, the system said that IT HAD LOGGED ME ON even without my doing anything.
 



locked Re: disable allowing "respond" to invitation email resulting in subscribing #suggestion

 

J,

I re-read the invitation email (the one I sent to myself later, as a
test), and I do realize now that it does say an invitee can simply
respond to the email in order to subscribe.
Right. Currently that's the best (only?) way to subscribe without setting a password.

But I think that's misleading, especially since there's also an "accept
invitation" button. The presence of the button leads me, as the
recipient, to believe that I must click on the button to accept. Not
just respond to the email.
Perhaps the text could be clarified to help the invitee understand that they may choose either method. And that reply by email is the way to avoid setting a password (though that may soon change, per Mark's passwords thread).

... but I would add this as something to think about: whether or not you
want to make simply responding to an invitation email result in
subscribing the person to the group.
There are likely circumstances where being able to accept by email is needed, or highly desirable - for example if the invitee has email access right now, but web access would be inconvenient. Being away from home, using my mobile device, might be such a circumstance. Connecting by web uses more data, and there could be other restrictions.

-- Shal


locked Re: HTML digest mockups

 

Mark,

I've been working on HTML digests. Attached are two mockups. Do you have
a favorite?
Overall I prefer Digest 2, except I'd rather have the Topic list at the top and the links at the bottom left justified.

Mostly this is because I can find the body of the messages easier in Digest 2. I like the ruling line between messages, not so much the shorter one between the header info and the body of each message; but I do appreciate the white space separating them.

cf message 1a. in Digest 1, where the body got completely merged with the header and footer. It takes a bit to discern that there's even a message body there.

I also like that the per-message links are de-emphasized in Digest 2. That helps guide the eye to the message body as well.

I'm not a fan of the "Read More" in Digest 1. Nor of the big blue bar as the messages header. That could thinner, even a ruling line, but the tilted envelope graphic in the center isn't bad.

I do like the link coloring in message bodies of Digest 1.

Looking at message 2a I like the paper-clip icon and indent of the attachment links in Digest 1 - those help distinguish them from links that might have been in the message body. On the other hand, I also like the attachment thumbnails of Digest 2.

Something to consider, in either format, in the Topic list have a one-line extract of the leading message of each thread. More like the Threads view in the group. That might help a lot in groups where members habitually use generic subjects like "help" or "this is new".

-- Shal


locked disable allowing "respond" to invitation email resulting in subscribing #suggestion

 

I sent someone an invitation to a group. In the customized message, I said she could email back if she had any questions. I didn't realize at that point that simply responding to an invitation email results in subscribing the person to the group. This person may now email me back with questions, and instead find she's been subscribed to the group.

I re-read the invitation email (the one I sent to myself later, as a test), and I do realize now that it does say an invitee can simply respond to the email in order to subscribe. But I think that's misleading, especially since there's also an "accept invitation" button. The presence of the button leads me, as the recipient, to believe that I must click on the button to accept. Not just respond to the email.

Maybe this is part of the whole join/invitation process that's currently being re-thought, but I would add this as something to think about: whether or not you want to make simply responding to an invitation email result in subscribing the person to the group.

J