Date   

moderated Re: wording of the confirmation-request

Michael Pavan
 

On Jan 17, 2020, at 4:15 PM, J_Catlady <@J_Catlady> wrote:

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 01:10 PM, Michael Pavan wrote:

unless it is a Restricted Membership group with an active Pending Subscription Member Notice, then it should say:
"Your request to join this group may expire in 14 days if you do not reply to the <Pending Subscription Member Notice's name>"
Good idea in theory, but I would not add that, even if there is an active pending notice, because even if there is one, it may not require a response. It's conceivable that some groups simply send a pending notice informing the member that they are acting on the application in some way, shape, or form, possibly giving out some interim info, etc. Their membership decision may or may not include responses from an emailed questionnaire.
Good point, as there currently is not a good feature to require answers for applicants.
The current Pending Member feature is used by some as an "Additional Information to join required" while others use to provide "Additional Information to applicants"

This reaffirms that there needs to be an additional Member Notice type created so that the 'opposite' uses are no longer commingled, which would support the additional clarity needed in the 'confirmation-request', and a better applicant screening process than current cumbersome workarounds.


moderated Re: Search function for Member Directory #suggestion #done

 

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 11:27 AM, Bill Hazel wrote:
Each choice should be adequately defined since not everyone is a nerd.
LOL.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Feature requests/Canny after two weeks

 

Whoops. Didn't mean to send that blank reply to Bob's message (I completely agree with everything he said).

Mark


moderated Re: wording of the confirmation-request

 

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 01:10 PM, Michael Pavan wrote:

unless it is a Restricted Membership group with an active Pending Subscription Member Notice, then it should say:
"Your request to join this group may expire in 14 days if you do not reply to the <Pending Subscription Member Notice's name>"
Good idea in theory, but I would not add that, even if there is an active pending notice, because even if there is one, it may not require a response. It's conceivable that some groups simply send a pending notice informing the member that they are acting on the application in some way, shape, or form, possibly giving out some interim info, etc. Their membership decision may or may not include responses from an emailed questionnaire. 
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: wording of the confirmation-request

Michael Pavan
 

Gerald,

On Jan 17, 2020, at 12:33 PM, Gerald Boutin <@gboutin> wrote:

Perhaps there should also be two other pieces of info:

1. Timeout: Specify how long before this expires
Yes, but will would-be subscribers understand:
"Your request to join this group will expire in 14 days, unless you request has been claimed by a group Moderator or Owner"...

I'd like to see it say:
"Your request to join this group may expire in 14 days"
"Please address any questions to: <GROUPNAME+owner@groups.io>"

unless it is a Restricted Membership group with an active Pending Subscription Member Notice, then it should say:
"Your request to join this group may expire in 14 days if you do not reply to the <Pending Subscription Member Notice's name>"
"Please address any questions to: <GROUPNAME+owner@groups.io>"

*I'm not sure if "Please address any questions to: <GROUPNAME+owner@groups.io>" is already included - I didn't create a new (unknown to Groups.io) email address to test this.


2. Not you: What to do if you didn't want this (eg - ignore)
Already happens, it says something like:
"If you are not interested, or if <yourname@yourdomain> is not your email address, please ignore this email."

Michael


moderated Re: Search function for Member Directory #suggestion #done

Duane
 

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 01:27 PM, Bill Hazel wrote:
(No default selected)
If no choice was made, when saving the settings, the default would be opt out.
That doesn't make sense to me.  If there's no default, the default becomes opt-out?

Duane


moderated Re: Feature requests/Canny after two weeks

Bob Bellizzi
 

What I hear is that we all would like not only a system for inputting change requests but a method of tracking them and, when they are complete, a simple way to know they are completed.

That's all good but what's missing from it from my perspective are some other steps;

  • Each issue/bug  that Mark accepts could have the subject modified with a Hashtag of "Bug"  followed by a number that is a unique ID, e.g. "#Bug 5385", that indicates Mark has decided to  work on it.  That would give us simple way to keep track of what's in process and what's not.
  • When Mark considers the Bug/Change/Whatchamacallit complete, one or more authors of the request would be informed by Mark and allowed to perform Testing which would include a review summary of the proposed (changed) documentation
  • When complete the testers would issue a final Signoff reply, adding a #Complete or #Reject reply message.  (or whatever is decided for hashtags)
Documentation of how the change/feature works is desirable and a link to that documentation should become part of the information provided when the item is signed off by the testers.  
This doesn't preclude hashtag use for each  step but assigning a number makes searching/tracking progress much easier.

l'm sure Mark tests his changes but no one person or group can possibly cover every variation.
--

Bob Bellizzi


locked Re: Hashtags for single messages (not topics) #suggestion

 

Ken,

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 11:25 AM Ken Kloeber via Groups.Io <KWKloeber=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

As I've lamented before - left coast reasoning.  LOL.   G explicitly stated (and I believe that J and C are missing that point) -- NOT add a tag to a Topic.  


This is the second time that I can recall that you've used the (apparently) pejorative term "left coast reasoning". I don't know what that's supposed to mean, but I do know that the judging intent of that phrase does not fit in this group. Because of that and because of the entirely unhelpful hyperbole in your recent messages, I have set your account on moderation.

Also, I have locked this topic, because nothing constructive is coming out of it at this point.

Mark


moderated Subscribe from Web response page from groups.io #suggestion

John Pearce
 

Our group requires someone to tell us something about why they are interested in our group before we approve.  Member notices are active and edited appropriately and are sent to them explaining what we want to know, and to explain that they must reply to the email as this part of the process is automated.  All notices are working as verified by my testing.   However with the folks who request to join via the web days go by before people respond if at all.  Many just age out after 14 days.  I have a test ID that I use to subscribe and unsubscribe to see what happens as well as testing what users see with various email options.  I used that to subscribe via the web and the response page from groups.io does NOT mention that they should check their email as some groups require a response via email before they can join.  Could that be added to the response page?  It appears that many people don't use email much and rely on the web interface to read messages.  It might also be helpful to move them to a page where they could fill out their response immediately but at least a notice to check their email.


moderated Re: Search function for Member Directory #suggestion #done

Bill Hazel
 

I agree that a member search function is needed.

As far as the opt in/opt out debate, I would think that would be a group's decision.

The way I would handle it is to make the Owner/Administrator choose between an empty radio button choice. (No default selected)
If no choice was made, when saving the settings, the default would be opt out.
The reason I say empty would, I think, subconsciously make the Owner/Administrator at least think about it.

Each choice should be adequately defined since not everyone is a nerd.


locked Re: Hashtags for single messages (not topics) #suggestion

KWKloeber
 

>>>On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 02:17 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 11:14 AM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
NO, C's method does not create a tag on the individual message.  And the 1st line above doesn't make logical sense anyway.  One cannot tag an individual message by creating a new message. 
If effectively does this by creating a new thread out of the single message, as I explicitly said.
. <<<

As I've lamented before - left coast reasoning.  LOL.   G explicitly stated (and I believe that J and C are missing that point) -- NOT add a tag to a Topic.


locked Re: Hashtags for single messages (not topics) #suggestion

 

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 11:20 AM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
no one cannot currently add a tag to a msg body.
Of course not, which is the point I've been trying to make from square one. You are adding special symbols to imitate or effectively create a tag. I'm giving you kudos for the creativity. Don't put it down.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


locked Re: Hashtags for single messages (not topics) #suggestion

KWKloeber
 

>>>On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 03:57 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
Of course you can add tags to message bodies<<<

PS - no one cannot currently add a tag to a msg body.  One can add or edit some text into it that could later be searched on, but that is not adding a hashtag from a defined set, using a function (pull down, or radio button, or whatever feature/function would be added to gio to accomplish this.)  By that reasoning, one does not need any gio function that adds hashtags to a Topic, one could always instead add some text string that could be searched on later. 


locked Re: Hashtags for single messages (not topics) #suggestion

 

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 11:14 AM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
NO, C's method does not create a tag on the individual message.  And the 1st line above doesn't make logical sense anyway.  One cannot tag an individual message by creating a new message. 
If effectively does this by creating a new thread out of the single message, as I explicitly said.
Your method of inserting special symbols into an individual message may be useful but I think falls short of Susan's original request. That's for her to say. 
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


locked Re: Hashtags for single messages (not topics) #suggestion

KWKloeber
 

>>>On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 04:19 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
But Christos's suggestion actually created a hashtag on the individual message by creating a single-message new thread. Since your reply was a response to his and mentioned a "better" way, the impression was that you thought your method of editing an individual message would accomplish the same thing. I think we're now on the same page that it doesn't.<<<

NO, C's method does not create a tag on the individual message.  And the 1st line above doesn't make logical sense anyway.  One cannot tag an individual message by creating a new message.  That is creating a whole new message/thread/topic. 
Anyone can do that with no change to the system that currently exists. It's called copy/paste/send.  That (IMO) defeats the purpose of tagging a single message within an existing thread, which is (IMO) what G had requested.  I don't comprehend why folks try to find workarounds to suggestions/requests that don't meet the desire of the original request/suggestion. It's an ailment of this group. It occurs continually and it's so dang flustrating that I have simply turned off notifications   It makes my head explode.  It's like "I don't see merit in the request/suggestion. so I'll suggest something else that shows why it doesn't need to be implemented."  I'm not saying that's the intent -- but that's how it oftentimes comes across, intended or not.


>>>and mentioned a "better" way, the impression was that you thought your method of editing an individual message would accomplish the same thing.<<<

The "better way" referred to, was a better workaround to accomplish what G requested (since C's steps do not accomplish what she requested.)
I will leave it to G to tell me that I'm misinterpreting her request/suggestion, but note her topic was to 'tag a single message,' not 'start a new thread w/ a tag on it'.

>>>Of course you can add tags to message bodies.  I, too, suggested simply using the search function as a workaround. I don't think that's the gist of the original request. <<<
1) One does not need to gist or reinterpret anything.  Just reference G's messages.  "add a hashtag to content that already exists".  No magic here - She simply wants a way to add tags that can be associated with Indv messages and presumably if implemented, it would display in a box not on a NEW message, but on the original indiv message (the tag being chosen from a mod-created set of tags.)  Where?  Who cares - displayed underneath the topic?  In the body?  In a footer? other options?  No, she did not request specifically to embed the tag as the 1st line of the message body (but that is certainly one option.)  I am suggesting a temporary method for G to accomplish what she desires during the interim (or maybe it will need to be the permanent way if not implemented.).
2) No she cannot "simply" search.  How would you currently search this group to locate all the first messages of each thread, without embedding something into each first message?

If G wanted to start a new identical topic except w/ a tag added, with one message in it, I am sure she understands she could do that, but that's not what she asked for.  Y'all are not addressing her desire - to wit: "add a hashtag to content that already existsnot, start a new message/thread (because that will not modify the existing content -- it posts new content and a new topic, which then the tagged message is outside the original thread and then the sequence and everything else gets discombobulated. 

Some examples G cited were:
"#bestof" (presumably marking something like the best answer to the question raised in this thread)
"the first message in a topic"  (presumably being able to search for all the initial posts that occurred over any range of messages and/or topics.)   
Unless the original message stays intact/within the thread, there is little benefit to another method (like adding hashtagging a different/new one, albeit exact copy of the message body.)


moderated Re: wording of the confirmation-request

 

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 09:33 AM, Gerald Boutin wrote:
What to do if you didn't want this (eg - ignore)
That's already there.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: wording of the confirmation-request

Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...>
 

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 10:40 AM, Samuel Murray wrote:
On 17/01/2020 15:35, J_Catlady wrote:

I have mentioned here a couple of times that I think another aspect of
the confirmation request wording is misleading. namely, the word
"complete."
Aah, yes. So...

------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your interest in Groups.io and the group
"WHATEVER". Please reply to this e-mail to confirm your
e-mail address.
------------------------------------------------------

Samuel
Perhaps there should also be two other pieces of info:

1. Timeout: Specify how long before this expires
2. Not you: What to do if you didn't want this (eg - ignore)
 
--
Gerald


moderated Re: wording of the confirmation-request

Samuel Murrayy
 

On 17/01/2020 15:35, J_Catlady wrote:

I have mentioned here a couple of times that I think another aspect of the confirmation request wording is misleading. namely, the word "complete."
Aah, yes. So...

------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your interest in Groups.io and the group
"WHATEVER". Please reply to this e-mail to confirm your
e-mail address.
------------------------------------------------------

Samuel


moderated Re: wording of the confirmation-request

 

I have mentioned here a couple of times that I think another aspect of the confirmation request wording is misleading. namely, the word "complete." The email directs the person to reply in order to "complete" their membership ("To complete your subscription, please reply to this email.") I feel the word "complete" may lead pending members of a restricted group to mistakenly think that replying to the confirmation email is a sufficient condition to complete their membership, whereas it is actually only a necessary one and they still need to return our questionnaire. We get a lot of members who need to be contacted offlist about the questionnaire, or be resent it several times, even after they've affirmatively confirmed. I think the word "complete" is too strong and the sentence should be replaced with something like "To confirm your interest in joining this group" or "To confirm that you have requested this subscription." Something like that.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: wording of the confirmation-request

Samuel Murrayy
 

On 17/01/2020 15:12, ro-esp wrote:

I'm talking about joining over email.
In GMF someone complained that people don't hit reply but send a message to GROUPNAME@groups.io.
My suggestion is to replace the "please reply to this email" with "please reply to this message".
FWIW, the thread in question is:
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/topic/69689947

==

My suggestion is to change this:

------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your interest in Groups.io and the group
GROUPNAME@groups.io. To complete your subscription,
please reply to this email.
------------------------------------------------------

to this:

------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your interest in Groups.io and the group
http://GROUPNAME.groups.io. To complete your subscription,
please reply to this email.
------------------------------------------------------

or to this:

------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your interest in Groups.io and the group
"ACTUAL NAME OF THE GROUP". To complete your subscription,
please reply to this email.
------------------------------------------------------

Samuel