I also did a test, but using All Day, repeating every 1 day.  Here's what I got:

"test" Reminder

If the When would show just the first Date without time/zone for All Day events, I think it would be more clear, though not precise.  I had the reminder set for 2 minutes, so it came in at 23:58 Sunday night.  Adding a choice button on the reminder to send by email or send to group archives would be my preferred choice.  By choosing send to group archives, even those on No Email would see it posted in the group.  Would send to group archives be the preferred default for most people?  Would there be events where this wouldn't be preferred?

I like having all the options to start, repeat interval, etc.

I noticed that the Event was deleted from today on the Calendar.  This makes sense since it's already happened, but there may be instances when I'd like to keep it on there for future reference.

I have another test pending using the group name in the Where field, just to see what it looks like.  I'm thinking that using an event name of "Monthly groupname" would look a little better and more clearly explain what it was.  That should show up as "Monthly groupname" Reminder, so leaving the location blank would make more sense to me in that case.

Duane

David,

I clicked on your tiny url link and got taken to a blank page, even though the url appeared to be the same as the full url in your message.  Now, I understand what my friend from the Yahoo group is seeing.  This is the first time it has happened to me with groups.io.

Donna

Should we change the name Archives to Messages?

_._,_._,_

I believe that social logins (ie. login via Google or Facebook) are some of the most important features that this site could have.

1. Social logins are convenient for users who forgot their password.
2. Many people use a password manager. If they aren't at their computer, then they can't log into Groups.io.
3. Social logins reduce the friction in signing up for a site.
4. Groups.io bills itself as a "modern" alternative to Yahoo/Google groups. Social logins would help create this branding and hence increase the sign up rate.

This is actually a rather cool idea. I would love to see a real API, but even this feature would make certain integrations much easier.

An interesting question - should there be some visual indication that certain links are external services so that user's know they are going off-site?

I agree with Shal. I would be very disappointed if Groups.io became limited by what Yahoo Groups was. Bringing groups over from Yahoo groups would provide a short term boost for the site, but in the longer term Groups.io needs to develop into its own service.

One point worth remembering is that Yahoo Groups made the decision to drop the database feature, presumably based on metrics of its use. Now this doesn't automatically mean that this was a good decision - even if only a small number of groups are affected, perhaps these were some of the most important groups on the site.

However, it's worth considering a few points:

1. In most cases, the admins maintain the databases, and don't need to provide edit access to normal members. An external service could work well in this scenario.
2. Yahoo groups doesn't offer the databases feature any more, so Groups.io doesn't necessarily need to offer this feature to convince people to switch over as long as it is better than Yahoo groups in other ways. Groups.io definitely is better in many ways.
3. Wikis provide much of the same features. If Mark adds features like sorting, then this would close most of the gap. Some people have more trouble adapting to technological change than others, but if they need a feature enough, they are likely to learn how to use it.
4. Once the feature is added, it needs to be maintained. Further, removing a feature that has been added will annoy a large number of users and reduce the trust of user's who don't even use that feature because a feature that they need may be removed in the future. Therefore, it seems that if a database feature were to be added, it should only be added when it becomes clear that such a feature is necessary. The Wiki will work well for most small groups, larger groups are more likely to need the specific functions of the database. Since there aren't large groups on Groups.io, this need isn't clear.
5. A generic API would solve this use case and so many others.
6. Re the alternative of spicing up the Wiki: The ability to sort tables in a Wiki is cool, even there was a separate database feature as well, so the effort of going down this path wouldn't be wasted.

For all these reasons, I'd strongly recommend against implementing a database feature at a current time.

Hey,

I'm actually quite curious about the use case for a "scheduled files" feature.

- Chris