Date   

locked Re: What is Facebook 2 (was Calendar is live)

 

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Shal Farley <shal@...> wrote:

The other factor that was considered Facebook-like was opening up a reply inline with the message, and not providing for a quote of the original message (marked with the standard plain-text > indentation) in the edit box for the reply. This, alas, is replicated in Groups.io, leaving those who read by email in the dark for context. It also makes it difficult for me to practice my preferred style of interspersed quote and reply when addressing a longer message, or any message with more than one point.

Yeah, that's a missing feature. It's on the todo list.

 
Many of us were more comfortable with a Reply interface that more closely resembled an email message composition window after clicking "Reply".

Not sure I understand. Click Reply and have it refresh to a new window instead of opening up inline?

Thanks,
Mark 


locked Re: Attachments

 

It's easy enough to include links back to the website to view the attachments, and that's on the todo list. 

Thanks,
Mark

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Laurence Taylor <g7mzh@...> wrote:
On 16/11/2014 01:27, Shal Farley wrote:

> The key advantage is that allows members who read the group's archive
> or digest (rather than individual messages) to have access to the
> attachments.

Would it be possible to have an option to include attachments in a
digest? Another (now defunct) list operator used to do this, but I think
if it is to be done it should be an option for the subscriber.

There are groups where I take the digest because I am interested in the
conversations but not in the attachments.

--
rgds
LAurence
<><


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

You receive all messages sent to this group.

Mute This Thread: https://groups.io/mt/9491?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: Message threads versus topics

 

Hmm. I fall into the camp that dislikes the staggered message presentation view like this. I really dislike how Reddit does things, for example.

Is there much demand for a view like this?

We do have an expanded view, which displays messages in pure date order. It's not currently accessible anywhere, except by appending ?expanded=1 to a messages link, like:


If people like that view, I could add a toggle in the messages view.

Thanks,
Mark

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Shal Farley <shal@...> wrote:
Mark,

Looking at the screen shots (for my other reply about Facebook 2) I'm reminded of another feature of classic groups that has been lost in Neo, and not restored by Groups.io: true message threads (as opposed to mere topics).

Groups.io provides a "topic" view, not a "thread" view. The distinction I'm making is that messages in the topic are shown in pure date order, with no indication of which message each may have been in reply to. Classic groups provided a threaded view by way of a hierarchical list of message summaries below each opened message:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shalf/10130165595/in/set-72157636272401705
(note the blue background highlighting the message currently open at the top of the page).

I don't think I would advocate copying that particular implementation in Groups.io; likely it would be more sensible to provide a true "Thread View" as an alternate sort option for an open message topic/thread (versus the existing date sort options).

-- Shal



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

You receive all messages sent to this group.

Mute This Thread: https://groups.io/mt/9671?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: Bug in message formatting - strikethrough doesn't "stick".

 

Shal,

The issue was with what CSS we allow when displaying messages in the archive. We have to 'cook' any HTML messages before displaying them, to ensure that no malicious stuff is presented (javascript pointing to malware, for example). We're very conservative with what CSS is displayed. The HTML widget on the site generates strikethrough using the text-decoration CSS tag, which we were not permitting. I've whitelisted it, and now strikethrough should display.

There are multiple ways to generate strikethrough (it's unclear to me which is best). Your email client probably generated strikethrough using an HTML tag, which we support.

Thanks,
Mark

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Shal Farley <shal@...> wrote:
I wrote:

The strikethrough font attribute doesn't appear to save when editing a message. Bold and color do.

Oh, it doesn't post when creating a new message either.

I take that back. The strikethrough came through in the email, so it must be just a display problem in the archive.

Nope, not as simple as that either. Strikethrough shows in the archive for my message in this (beta) group, which was posted by email. But not in the archive of a message in my test group posted via the group. But it did come through in the email of that same message.

-- Shal



locked Re: questionbcc

Cherrill <cdjamieson@...>
 

Both my message and my co-owners message were sent on Saturday, but I don’t remember what time.
My co-owners message was a picture which shows on our home page because I re-sent it for her on Sunday.  They both were sent bcc to coffeechocolatechitchat@groups.io  as well as our yahoo group.  Both got to the yahoo group but we got notification that both were rejected by .io.  

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



On Nov 17, 2014, at 10:16 AM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:

Hi Cherrill,

I couldn't think of any reason why a message BCCed to a group on Groups.io wouldn't work, and I just tested it with a message to one of my groups, and it worked fine. If you send me the time you sent the message and the name of the group you sent it to, I can look through the logs and tell you why it was rejected (the reason should also be listed in the activity log for your group).

Mark

On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Cherrill <cdjamieson@...> wrote:
 
 
One of my members and I each attempted to send an email via bcc. to our group here at groups.io and our group at yahoo groups.
The one which went to groups.io was rejected for both of us.  So both of us then sent them individually to groups.io and they were accepted. 
 
Is this something which isn't allowed by groups.io to receive an email from the bcc. line ???
 
Thank you
 
Cherrill
 
 





locked Re: Attachments

Laurence Taylor
 

On 16/11/2014 01:27, Shal Farley wrote:

The key advantage is that allows members who read the group's archive
or digest (rather than individual messages) to have access to the
attachments.
Would it be possible to have an option to include attachments in a
digest? Another (now defunct) list operator used to do this, but I think
if it is to be done it should be an option for the subscriber.

There are groups where I take the digest because I am interested in the
conversations but not in the attachments.

--
rgds
LAurence
<><


locked Was away this weekend

 

I was away from the computer for most the weekend. I'm back now and will be going through the backlog of beta messages (and support emails) this morning.

Thanks,
Mark


locked Re: questionbcc

 

Hi Cherrill,

I couldn't think of any reason why a message BCCed to a group on Groups.io wouldn't work, and I just tested it with a message to one of my groups, and it worked fine. If you send me the time you sent the message and the name of the group you sent it to, I can look through the logs and tell you why it was rejected (the reason should also be listed in the activity log for your group).

Mark

On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Cherrill <cdjamieson@...> wrote:
 
 
One of my members and I each attempted to send an email via bcc. to our group here at groups.io and our group at yahoo groups.
The one which went to groups.io was rejected for both of us.  So both of us then sent them individually to groups.io and they were accepted. 
 
Is this something which isn't allowed by groups.io to receive an email from the bcc. line ???
 
Thank you
 
Cherrill
 
 



locked Re: Message threads versus topics

Judy F.
 

Thank you Shal for both explanations.

Judy F.
SW Florida - USA

-----Original Message-----
From: Shal Farley [mailto:shal@roadrunner.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 11:02 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: [beta] Message threads versus topics

Mark,

Looking at the screen shots (for my other reply about Facebook 2) I'm
reminded of another feature of classic groups that has been lost in Neo, and
not restored by Groups.io: true message threads (as opposed to mere topics).


Groups.io provides a "topic" view, not a "thread" view. The distinction I'm
making is that messages in the topic are shown in pure date order, with no
indication of which message each may have been in reply to. Classic groups
provided a threaded view by way of a hierarchical list of message summaries
below each opened message:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shalf/10130165595/in/set-72157636272401705
(note the blue background highlighting the message currently open at the top
of the page).

I don't think I would advocate copying that particular implementation in
Groups.io; likely it would be more sensible to provide a true "Thread View"
as an alternate sort option for an open message topic/thread (versus the
existing date sort options).

-- Shal


locked Message threads versus topics

 

Mark,

Looking at the screen shots (for my other reply about Facebook 2) I'm reminded of another feature of classic groups that has been lost in Neo, and not restored by Groups.io: true message threads (as opposed to mere topics).

Groups.io provides a "topic" view, not a "thread" view. The distinction I'm making is that messages in the topic are shown in pure date order, with no indication of which message each may have been in reply to. Classic groups provided a threaded view by way of a hierarchical list of message summaries below each opened message:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shalf/10130165595/in/set-72157636272401705
(note the blue background highlighting the message currently open at the top of the page).

I don't think I would advocate copying that particular implementation in Groups.io; likely it would be more sensible to provide a true "Thread View" as an alternate sort option for an open message topic/thread (versus the existing date sort options).

-- Shal


locked What is Facebook 2 (was Calendar is live)

 

Mark,

When you say that Groups.io not be turned into Facebook 2, I'm not sure
I understand. Is that because you don't think there should be likes, or
is it something more?
One of the consistent complaints in the Yahoo Groups community about "becoming Facebook" had to do with the style of presenting messages, and authoring replies.

In classic Yahoo Groups the message list had three views available to the user:

"Simple", which showed just the subject, author and date:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shalf/10130300773/in/set-72157636272401705

"Summaries", which added a summary of the content (much as Groups.io's Thread and Message View of the Archives):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shalf/10130179514/in/set-72157636272401705

"Expanded", which showed the whole message bodies:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shalf/10130171945/in/set-72157636272401705

If I recall correctly one of the short-lived redesigns copied Facebook even to the extent of displaying the message archive as a list of topics, with the replies inline under the topic, much as a Facebook status update and its comments.


The other factor that was considered Facebook-like was opening up a reply inline with the message, and not providing for a quote of the original message (marked with the standard plain-text > indentation) in the edit box for the reply. This, alas, is replicated in Groups.io, leaving those who read by email in the dark for context. It also makes it difficult for me to practice my preferred style of interspersed quote and reply when addressing a longer message, or any message with more than one point.

Many of us were more comfortable with a Reply interface that more closely resembled an email message composition window after clicking "Reply".

-- Shal
(Classic Yahoo Groups's web UI could be modelled, in many ways, as simply a group-enhanced webmail MUA.)


locked Re: questionbcc

Cherrill <cdjamieson@...>
 

could someone reply to my message with regard to bcc.

thank you

Cherrill


locked Re: Bug in message formatting - strikethrough doesn't "stick".

 

Jim,

Would strike-through come through anyway in plain text, which is how I
and many others always read email?
Not if you have your email client or service set to show you the text/plain part of a multipart message. My own preference for plain text notwithstanding, I think you "and many others" are a vanishingly small minority, getting smaller all the time.

If it's showing something significant about the edit, another way of
doing it might be more appropriate.
Arguably true of Bold or any other text formatting as well. But that wasn't the point - this was a bug report not a comment on preferred practice.

-- Shal


locked Re: Bug in message formatting - strikethrough doesn't "stick".

 

Would strike-through come through anyway in plain text, which is how I and many
others always read email? If it's showing something significant about the edit,
another way of doing it might be more appropriate.

Jim Fisher

On 16 Nov 2014 at 1:46, Shal Farley wrote:

I wrote:

The strikethrough font attribute doesn't appear to save when editing a message.
Bold and color do.

Oh, it doesn't post when creating a new message either.
I take that back. The strikethrough came through in the email, so it must be
just a display problem in the archive.

Nope, not as simple as that either. Strikethrough shows in the archive for my
message in this (beta) group, which was posted by email. But not in the archive
of a message in my test group posted via the group. But it did come through in
the email of that same message.

-- Shal


--
http://www.jimella.me.uk - my personal web site covering many subjects
http://jimellame.tumblr.com - My thoughts on freedom
http://jimella.wordpress.com - political snippets, especially economic policy
http://jimella.livejournal.com - misc. snippets, some political, some not
Forget Google! I search with https://duckduckgo.com which doesn't spy on you


locked Re: Creeping Facebook

 

Shal,
This one I did test!

There are two links at the foot of the message: "View attachments on the web" and a clickable thumbnail.
On the (Mac) desktop when not logged in to Yahoo, the "View attachments" link led to a view of the group site with a large thumbnail of the photo which could be opened, but without access to the rest of the group data.
The "clickable thumbnail" link gave the same limited view of the group site but also opened the picture.

When previously logged-in the photo was displayed in the same way, but full access to the site was available.

So the desktop behaved by and large correctly.

On my iPhone (not previously logged in) both links gave the Yahoo log-in screen.

When I had logged in to Yahoo, the iPhone displayed the large thumbnail or the opened picture, depending on which link was touched.

I tried the above on both Gmail and Apple Mail on Desktop and iPhone and the results were the same.

So I would guess that what I found is a quirk of iOS?

But many people use predominantly email for group interaction, and it is understandable that having to log in to Yahoo to see a picture is a pain - particularly when they don't know that they only have to do it once and thereafter it will work!

More Yahoo stuff - sorry Mark!

regards,
Ian

On 15 November 2014 23:31, Shal Farley <shal@...> wrote:
Ian,

> "Could I just say hooray for Facebook. I read your same post on the
> Yahoo site, clicked on the attachment, was asked for my password,
> couldn't be bothered, so moved on.

That's odd.

The store-on-site attachments are normally (or have been, I haven't tested recently) available via the email link without signing in. Maybe when they enhanced the handling of images a few months back they broke or forgot about that feature.

-- Shal



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

You receive all messages sent to this group.

Mute This Thread: https://groups.io/mt/9490?uid=309
Change Your Subscription: https://groups.io/org/groupsio/beta/editsub?uid=309
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: Bug in message formatting - strikethrough doesn't "stick".

 

I wrote:

The strikethrough font attribute doesn't appear to save when editing a message. Bold and color do.

Oh, it doesn't post when creating a new message either.

I take that back. The strikethrough came through in the email, so it must be just a display problem in the archive.

Nope, not as simple as that either. Strikethrough shows in the archive for my message in this (beta) group, which was posted by email. But not in the archive of a message in my test group posted via the group. But it did come through in the email of that same message.

-- Shal


locked Re: Editing messages

 

Mark,

Displaying who edited it (or even just Poster vs Moderator) would
require a slight db change. Not a big deal if you guys think it's
important.
Yes I do.

So at least if a moderator comes along and changes my words at least there's evidence for other members to see that I may not have written that stupid (or TOS-violating) thing that is now in my message.

Is there planned to be a one-button "delete all my messages in this group" ability? With moderators able to edit my words I'm not sure I'll ever feel safe leaving any behind. But at least having them marked as to who edited the message will afford me some ability to credibly disavow the message.

-- Shal


locked Re: Attachments

 


On 16 November 2014 03:00, Shal Farley <shal@...> wrote:
> Now I find that setting Yahoo to "no html" means that mails *with* html
> are bounced...

That shouldn't happen, unless the message has no text/plain part.

I just re-tested this in my test group and verified that a message with both text/plain and text/HTML parts is accepted by a group set to "Plain Text" - the text/plain part posts and the text/HTML part is discarded.

​Hi Shal,

​I changed my group to text only and got complaints from the membership - so I changed it back again. Unlike you I didn't test it myself - mea culpa - so perhaps it was a temporary glitch. But now I've dangled pictures in front of them, it's unlikely they'd go back to  plain text.

Mark - sorry to discuss Yahoo problems on a IO-orientated forum - but perhaps it illustrates the mistakes that IO shouldn't make?

regards,
Ian


--


locked Bug in message formatting - strikethrough doesn't "stick".

 

Oops:

The strikethrough font attribute doesn't appear to save when editing a message. Bold and color do.

Oh, it doesn't post when creating a new message either.

-- Shal


locked Re: Editing messages

 

Mark,

I've just pushed to the site the ability to edit archived messages.
Also, the Edit and Delete buttons now also appear when viewing messages
in the Inbox view. Let me know if you see any issues.
I strongly believe that each edit should cause the message to be re-sent by email. Otherwise the email-only members are in the dark.

In fact, as things stand even those who read by web are in the dark, unless they happen to stumble upon the edited message. So maybe the edited message needs to have its date/time stamp replaced by the date/time of the edit. Or maybe be able to sort the archive by either the original or the last edited date/time.

As things stand, one might question what benefit there is to being able to edit a message, if no one but the person who made the edit knows that it happened. Just "correcting the record" might be benign, but it can also be corrosive if done in the dark.


Let me put this bluntly: I don't want to be a member of any group where a moderator might decide to "correct" my words, and I'm left none the wiser.

The ability to edit a message while pending can be abused (and almost certainly has been), but at least I as a member receiving messages (or monitoring recent posts in the archive) have an opportunity to notice such behavior and take appropriate action (ask why, unsubscribe, file a TOS violation, etc.).


On the flip side, I'm fairly sure that some group owners (myself included in some cases) will feel strongly about the sanctity of their groups' message archive. They'll either want an option to turn off message editing or a wiki-like way to view the prior revision(s). Or both.

There's also a question of using edit to bypass message moderation. Perhaps committing the edit to the archive should require moderator approval under the same terms as new posting by that member. That could work slickly with a wiki-history.

At the very least, moderators might want a notification when messages are edited. Obviously needed if the edits are held pending, but arguably also needed if the message doesn't get re-sent.


Chris Leong wrote:

What if there was a note indicating that the message had been edited by
a particular user on a particular date? That might curb potential
abuse.
I think a re-send will also curb potential abuse: it fully exposes any attempt at being underhanded.

Such as posting a message that says "people who read by email are the smart ones" then immediately editing it to read "people who read by email are dinosaurs". Or vice-versa.

-- Shal