"(this reminds me of a future feature I'd like to add, something that helps people create summaries of threads)"

Missed this before, but it sounds very interesting.  Seems like it would be quite useful to some of the type sof groups I have been in.

Hi John,

Thank you for commenting.  I am more familiar with the Mac than I am with the PC, although, I can handle Windows XP, to a certain extent.  I will pass along your suggestion. 

If there are any groups.io users who use the Google Chrome browser with Window 8.1, I hope you will also pass along any helpful tips.

Donna

I think a dedicated database section is best as well.  In addition to it's popularity and familiarity, the tools that can be leveraged in a database-exclusive section would not be restricted by any wiki-related considerations, which would make both features more flexible.  I personally don't need sortable tables in a wiki, though it's a fun idea.  If I needed that level of power in relation to a group wiki, then inserting a link on the wiki page to the relevant group database page would be just fine. Since links can already be set to open in new windows, no back and forth navigation is required of the user. Easy enough.

Another thought is that while "wiki" conveys a clear idea of the concept you are aiming for, it also carries certain expectations with it, such as a certain style of edit history, markups, etc. It may also carry stigma for users who wouldn't know how to code one, expecting more difficulty than WYSIWYG. I would prefer to see the WYSIWYG interface retained if possible, as it is much easier to work with.  Perhaps what you are really making with this section is not a true "wiki", and should thus have a different name?  Its "wiki-esque", but regular wiki admins may be disappointed that the regular markup features aren't there. I think for example that Google Groups calls their version "pages", if I recall correctly.  Similar functions to a wiki, but all wysiwyg.  

It's a new animal, you can give it a new cage. :)

I would also agree the wiki would work fine as a "links" area, and offers a more versatile way to display *some* data in tables, but ultimately, from what you describe, it sounds like it's going to create undesirable work and possibly restrictions on both features, and so the better power lies in separation. At least for now.  

As for my own usage needs, I am just waiting to be able to insert pictures in the wiki section.  That will be all the toy I need for some time.

Thanks for all your thoughtful work on this.

6a. Easy yahoo group transfer instructions
From: Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 13:58:43 PST

All,

I've just put up a draft of the instructions for how the easy Yahoo Groups
transfer will go:

https://groups.io/static/transfer

Please let me know what you think. Are the instructions clear? Am I missing
anything?

3a. RE: [beta] Replying to messages

Judy:

Mark, will replying in the reply box allow that reply to show at the top
of the message or do you at least have an option?

From: CatWoman <diana@catsandme.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 08:01:53 PST

On 1/22/2015 10:39 PM, J. Faulkner wrote:

It allows me to reply at the top so when someone reads my reply, they
see it first and don?t have to hunt for it further down in the message.

If you are talking about a message - and "top posting" - I disagree.

I know that is the "new way" - most mail clients have the default as
top posting, but my problem with that is that in order to find out
what the person is replying to - I have to go search the message.

If you put just the specific thing you are responding to on top,
then you read that first, and then the response, as you see here.

It's a more natural way to read than response first.

From: Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 10:04:20 PST

Reply directly to the sender

When clicking on reply, possibly scroll up slightly to expose the reply box.

Sure

Having a poll-feature would be nice too

So, if we get an email, with a message-id in the references list that
we've never seen before, we think we've gotten an out of order reply,
and that we should expect to see the original message at some point.

We put a 'placeholder' message in the database that corresponds to this
message we haven't seen before. It's empty, and it doesn't show up in
archives, but it does have a message number. When we see the original
message, we replace the placeholder with the original, and we're good.

What happened in this case is that Shal replied to an email in a
different group. Therefore, his message had in the references a
message-id that the group owlperch had never seen.

Interesting information. And in many ways I agree. :)

However, the people we are trying to bring over here will be completely confused by tje term archive. Add that to the fact that every thing else says message number, message so and so, this message or that one, and well, messages is still the best fit.

Brenda

I looked through the logs. At 12:46am pacific time, we received an
inbound smtp connection from RoadRunner. In the one connection, both
emails were sent, one after the other. The beta message was sent first,
owlperch was second.

I prefer "Messages" to "Archives" as well. Archives comes from the
listserv practice where it's assumed everyone gets mail, and no one has
to look at old messages unless they're really wanting to look at OLD
messages. Messages is better when there may be some people who don't
get mail and just want to read on the web.

Dianna, you might want to read all of my messages on this subject. I didn't say to code it so that's what happens. I said to give us capability to reply at the top of that message or at the bottom.