Date   

locked Re: Favicon?

Laurence Marks
 

Michael, Wikipedia is not always an authoritative source.
  1. The "danger" is that someone might create a favicon that looks like a padlock and causes them to think the site is secure. You and I would not do that, of course, on our Groups.io website.
  2. It would be configurable for each group, of course. If you chose not to configure it for your group, there would be no link, and you would be no less secure than you are today.
  3. There's a concern that a favicon in the root would somehow make it easier for malicious folks to compromise the website. Favicons for groups.io would not likely be implemented that way, of course, They would use the alternate syntax that looks something like this:
    <link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="https://groups.io/g/NC-LTRGs/favicon.png" /> which just gets the bad guy to the group that designed the icon. An even more secure option would be to have all the favicons in one spot, referenced by group name or group number, like this:
    <link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="https://groups.io/i/12345favicon.png" />
  4. Wikipedia also mentions that the "rel" attribute mentioned above has not been standardized. There's a difference between what W3C accepts and what browsers implement. That's an argument for purists, not realists. W3C deprecated <b> for bold at least a decade ago, recommending the much-longer-to-type <strong> attribute, but every browser still accepts <b>. Same with the open-in-new-tab link attribute target="_blank". W3C says don't use it, but there are billions of web pages that do, so the attribute will be accepted forever..
  5. There's a longstanding criticism that favicons are inefficient because browsers request them on every web page and are hence wasting bandwidth on every site that lacks them. I'm afraid that horse has already left the barn. There is no way you are going to get Chrome, Edge, Firefox, Safari, Opera, Yandex, Brave, et al. to stop checking for favicons.

--
Larry Marks


moderated Re: Site updates #changelog

Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...>
 

On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 06:42 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 02:20 PM, Christos G. Psarras wrote:
"Posts to this group require approval from the moderators"
I think this would be a mistake. To my ear, it clearly implies that all posts are moderated (even though you hope people will take it to mean "some posts"). I think it is absolutely fine as is, except for one detail, in both this and the statement about a moderated group: wasn't there a language decision made awhile back to use the term "message" instead of "post"?
 
--
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

I think it is most important for the wording to be technically correct and clear. Users that are going to try to cut corners often don't even bother reading the instructions. They just find the path of least resistance.
 
--
Gerald


moderated Re: Site updates #changelog

 

On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 02:20 PM, Christos G. Psarras wrote:
"Posts to this group require approval from the moderators"
I think this would be a mistake. To my ear, it clearly implies that all posts are moderated (even though you hope people will take it to mean "some posts"). I think it is absolutely fine as is, except for one detail, in both this and the statement about a moderated group: wasn't there a language decision made awhile back to use the term "message" instead of "post"?
 
--
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: Site updates #changelog

Christos G. Psarras
 

Hi Mark,

>>> The group home page blurb has been fixed...

In retrospect I should have suggested this in my original post, but anyway, my suggestion is to change the blurb wording on MF groups from "Posts to this group that start a new topic require approval from the moderators" to something technically-correct but a bit more vague and less explicit, to possibly discourage (more) users from hijacking threads. 

For example "New topic posts require approval from the moderators", same meaning as above, technically correct but maybe not as clear to the average user, more than likely they'll either miss the "new" part, or interpret it to mean ALL posts. 

Or even have it be the same as shown currently for a moderated group, "Posts to this group require approval from the moderators", which itself is technically-correct for a moderated group but somewhat vague/less explicit to the average user, as it doesn't specify ALL posts, so therefore it could technically apply to both mod types.  Or alternatively, maybe set the MF blurb to the current less-explicit moderated group blurb, and change the moderated group blurb to be the same but explicit, i.e. add also "All" to the beginning.

It wouldn't stop the die-hard savvy users from doing it (in which case particular member moderation will take care of that), but it may prevent the average not-as-savvy user from putting 2+2 together and starting hijacking threads.

Doing so may also allay fears of the MF setting encouraging hijacking overall, and encourage more folks to use it, as IMO it's a very good compromise between fully-moderated and wide-open, i.e. least-workload moderation and message free-flow, especially for support/technical groups; moderating just the opening topic gives you all the moderation advantages moderated groups have (keeping the group focused/OnTopic/weeding out, editing, categorizing/cataloging/organizing, etc), plus all the unmoderation advantages as well, it greatly reduces moderator time & workload by allowing the subsequent conversation to flow freely, and as a bonus, it benefits online users with a live forum message flow.

Cheers,
Christos


moderated Re: Site updates #changelog

Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...>
 

On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 03:58 PM, Christos G. Psarras wrote:

Gerald,

Oops, mea culpa ... I wasn't aware that there was indeed a problem with MF and "P" (that's what I get by replying to something before preview-skimming the inbox first...), and your original message did not specify if you already had the "P" setting, so I wrongly assumed you had it setup to default and the code was doing the correct thing ...

I wasn't trying to imply (by any means) that you did not know what you were doing, and I hope you didn't interpret it as such!

Cheers,

Christos

 


On 2020-01-18 13:59, Christos G. Psarras via Groups.Io wrote:
Gerald,

>>> Group Owners should be exempt from this. An Owner starting a new Topic either online or via email is moderated.

Group Owners are indeed exempt from this (and other stuff), if they are set correctly.  It's not an issue of Owner/Mod vs Member, it's the way the individual's person setting works, the system just does its thing as it's supposed to do without caring if you are a mod or member.

You have your owner account set to "group default setting", that's why this is happening.

Change your owner (and mods') setting to "override: can always post", and your problem will go away.  That will also bring you closer to admin "best practices", as one should always want their admin stuff have all the power they need AND exercise it without any hindrance.

Cheers,
Christos

Christos,

Implied or not, it turns out it was the case! I had not realized that the Group default applied to a Group Owner.

I have tested again with the 'P' setting and this does resolve my concern. At least I think I have it right this time.

Thanks to you and J for herding me in the right direction.





 
--
Gerald


moderated Re: Column Width Problem

 

On 18 Jan 2020 at 3:26, Chris Jones via Groups.Io wrote:

On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 04:45 AM, Christos G. Psarras wrote:


I've run into similar display issues when doing member maintenance.
Exactly so.

However, having done a bit more investigating it has occurred to me that Mark
may have looked at this and finished up scratching his head wondering what the
problem is because he cannot see it.

It depends not only on the way the column widths are sized but also on the
geometry of the display unit on which the page is viewed. The DU I normally use
(OK; it is now getting elderly rather like me) has a 4:3 aspect ratio. I have
also looked at how a 16:9 aspect ratio DU (my not very often used laptop)
presents that page and with that there is no visible problem.

Now 4:3 DUs may or may not be passé (I genuinely don't know) but for those of
us who don't want to discard them when they are working perfectly well it would
be a major bonus if the column widths could be adjusted at source so that some
of the detail isn't lost when the members list is viewed on a 4:3 rather than a
16:9. As far as I can see there would be no "downside".

Chris
As another 4:3 DU user, I fully agree.

Jim

--
http://jimellame.tumblr.com - My thoughts on freedom (needs updating)
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


moderated Re: Downloadable Groups.io Manual

 

On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 10:24 AM, Samuel Murray wrote:
You can mute a topic, but you can't mute all except a topic.
I would disagree with that slightly. You can set yourself to "following only" and then affirmatively follow only your selected topics, with the rest left unfollowed. That is sort of equivalent to muting everything except the one, or ones, you want.
 
--
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: Site updates #changelog

Christos G. Psarras
 

Gerald,

Oops, mea culpa ... I wasn't aware that there was indeed a problem with MF and "P" (that's what I get by replying to something before preview-skimming the inbox first...), and your original message did not specify if you already had the "P" setting, so I wrongly assumed you had it setup to default and the code was doing the correct thing ...

I wasn't trying to imply (by any means) that you did not know what you were doing, and I hope you didn't interpret it as such!

Cheers,

Christos



On 2020-01-18 13:59, Christos G. Psarras via Groups.Io wrote:
Gerald,

>>> Group Owners should be exempt from this. An Owner starting a new Topic either online or via email is moderated.

Group Owners are indeed exempt from this (and other stuff), if they are set correctly.  It's not an issue of Owner/Mod vs Member, it's the way the individual's person setting works, the system just does its thing as it's supposed to do without caring if you are a mod or member.

You have your owner account set to "group default setting", that's why this is happening.

Change your owner (and mods') setting to "override: can always post", and your problem will go away.  That will also bring you closer to admin "best practices", as one should always want their admin stuff have all the power they need AND exercise it without any hindrance.

Cheers,
Christos



moderated Re: Site updates #changelog

 

On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 10:59 AM, Christos G. Psarras wrote:
Change your owner (and mods') setting to "override: can always post", and your problem will go away.
Right, or as I've been calling it, "P".
 
--
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: Site updates #changelog

Christos G. Psarras
 

Gerald,

Group Owners should be exempt from this. An Owner starting a new
Topic either online or via email is moderated.

Group Owners are indeed exempt from this (and other stuff), if they are set correctly.  It's not an issue of Owner/Mod vs Member, it's the way the individual's person setting works, the system just does its thing as it's supposed to do without caring if you are a mod or member.

You have your owner account set to "group default setting", that's why this is happening.

Change your owner (and mods') setting to "override: can always post", and your problem will go away.  That will also bring you closer to admin "best practices", as one should always want their admin stuff have all the power they need AND exercise it without any hindrance.

Cheers,
Christos


moderated Re: Downloadable Groups.io Manual

 

Comments/discussions about GMF or any other group are NOT appropriate here. No more, please.

Mark


moderated Re: Downloadable Groups.io Manual

txercoupemuseum.org
 

Comments in bold and “< >” below.

WRB

On Jan 18, 2020, at 12:24 PM, Samuel Murray <samuelmurray@...> wrote:

On 18/01/2020 17:57, txercoupemuseum.org wrote:

<snip>

Several issues stand out to me in the overall.  I recently had a message “rejected” because I sent a screenshot self-explanatory to the topic with “???”.

It may be obvious to you what the picture says, but there is a chance that it might not be obvious to someone else.  Saying "???" only tells us that you think something is wrong, and the picture is a clue.

I found that disrespectful.  A simple request for further information could and should have been made.

Well, I'm not criticizing, but: earlier you complain about the large number of messages, and now you find it is okay that in your case, 3+ messages should be posted (the initial unclear message, then the reply asking for clarification, and then the reply) instead of 1.

But it get's worse: if you post a message that people don't understand (or that different people may interpret differently), you're bound to receive not one reply but several replies (either from people who ask for clarification or from people who have different ideas about what it is what you were saying, and then each responding according to his own interpretation).  All of this is a recipe for a multitude of messages.

I fully agree that a picture is worth a 1000 words, but a 1000 words isn't always enough if it isn't the right 1000 words.  Typing a short 2-sentence paragraph explaining what it is that you're trying to say, shouldn't take too much time.

There are times when an *answer* can be given as a single picture, without any text, but a picture alone is seldom sufficient as a *question*.

<In this case you speak without knowledge.  I has asked about the “speech bubble” mentioned in another thread.  I was told to look at the upper right of a web page.  What I saw on that web page was different, apparently I was not visiting it “online”, whatever that means.  Because the specific thing I was directed to was NOT PRESENT, I took a screen shot of it.  If the person to whom I spoke in that thread had looked at my email the problem would have been obvious.  I’m STILL don’t know any more than I did when I asked my question.

Apparently some, if not all GMF advisors/moderators don’t receive screen shots sent...

No, I can confirm that attachments are included in the "message approval needed" message received by moderators (at least, in my test posts).

That doesn't mean that moderators look at the attachments.  I myself ignore attachments if the textual content of the message is lacking.

<This is precisely the specific “culture” I complain of.  Attachments can only be PROPERLY ignored if a question is clear without it, and there is NO way to determine that with certainty without looking.  FUNCTION here should take precedence over  FORM (or convenience).>

Again and again I read repeated good faith attempts by various parties to explain a location or procedure when each side is looking at different screens [online vs offline emails, menus, etc.]

Yes, but that is what happens when the initial posters fail to include sufficient information in their posts.  

<When a screen shot can provide that “specific information” with clarity, it is NOT appropriate to PRESUME information insufficient by ignoring the screen shot.>
 
It means that responders respond to what they *think* the original poster meant, when the original poster thought that he had omitted only that which is obvious.

<Let me put this another way.  An effective responder makes every good faith effort to collect any and all information from a post.  If the responder’s confusion is due to “going through the motions” rather than providing a good faith response, they are NOT doing the “job” their title/position requires.>

Samuel





moderated Re: Downloadable Groups.io Manual

 

Hi All,

It's my intent to have a set of manuals written, and several months ago I set out to hire a tech writer to do that. Unfortunately I wasn't able to find anyone good at the time. I will make another effort. If anyone knows a good tech writer, please have them contact me directly.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Downloadable Groups.io Manual

Samuel Murrayy
 

On 18/01/2020 17:57, txercoupemuseum.org wrote:

I am receiving upwards of a hundred emails in 24 hours from GMF.
First, put yourself on no-mail. Then, use the group only if you need to ask something.

Unfortunately, AFAIK, it is not yet possible to subscribe to a single topic. You can mute a topic, but you can't mute all except a topic. So, if you do ask something, you're going to have to check back via the web site every now and then to see if anyone answered your question, or... you're going to have to go "normal" for a day or two again.

Several issues stand out to me in the overall.  I recently had a message “rejected” because I sent a screenshot self-explanatory to the topic with “???”.
It may be obvious to you what the picture says, but there is a chance that it might not be obvious to someone else. Saying "???" only tells us that you think something is wrong, and the picture is a clue.

I found that disrespectful.  A simple request for further information could and should have been made.
Well, I'm not criticizing, but: earlier you complain about the large number of messages, and now you find it is okay that in your case, 3+ messages should be posted (the initial unclear message, then the reply asking for clarification, and then the reply) instead of 1.

But it get's worse: if you post a message that people don't understand (or that different people may interpret differently), you're bound to receive not one reply but several replies (either from people who ask for clarification or from people who have different ideas about what it is what you were saying, and then each responding according to his own interpretation). All of this is a recipe for a multitude of messages.

I fully agree that a picture is worth a 1000 words, but a 1000 words isn't always enough if it isn't the right 1000 words. Typing a short 2-sentence paragraph explaining what it is that you're trying to say, shouldn't take too much time.

There are times when an *answer* can be given as a single picture, without any text, but a picture alone is seldom sufficient as a *question*.

Apparently some, if not all GMF advisors/moderators don’t receive screen shots sent...
No, I can confirm that attachments are included in the "message approval needed" message received by moderators (at least, in my test posts).

That doesn't mean that moderators look at the attachments. I myself ignore attachments if the textual content of the message is lacking.

Again and again I read repeated good faith attempts by various parties to explain a location or procedure when each side is looking at different screens [online vs offline emails, menus, etc.]
Yes, but that is what happens when the initial posters fail to include sufficient information in their posts. It means that responders respond to what they *think* the original poster meant, when the original poster thought that he had omitted only that which is obvious.

Samuel


moderated Brief downtime around 10:10am this morning #downtime

 

Hi All,

There is some sort of internal networking issue between the instances that make up the Groups.io service, which I am trying to diagnose. Because of this, I had to restart the main database this morning around 10:10am Pacific Time, which required about 30 seconds of downtime.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Site updates #changelog

 

Hi All,

The group home page blurb has been fixed, as well as the issue of P not being respected.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Downloadable Groups.io Manual

 

On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 09:30 AM, Thomas Gruber wrote:
why don’t you set your GMF subscription to „No emails“ or „special notices only“
He could also use Advanced Preferences, muting, following, etc., to cut down on his email. I think the OP brings up multiple issues in one message - overall GMF problems, his problems with the email flood, and the idea for a user manual, all of which are somewhat related.
 
--
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: Downloadable Groups.io Manual

Thomas Gruber
 

Hi,
why don’t you set your GMF subscription to „No emails“ or „special notices only“? That way you stop the flood of emails without ending your subscription.
Thomas


Am 18.01.2020 um 17:57 schrieb txercoupemuseum.org <ercoguru@...>:

I am receiving upwards of a hundred emails in 24 hours from GMF.  As Owner of two groups that have operated decades with very little “moderation” I just can’t afford the time necessary to separate the wheat from the chaff.  So I will soon unsubscribe...I have another life which cannot afford the seemingly ever-increasing time necessary to even skim all these questions and answers.  Too much “noise”.

But I am not one to complain without suggestions for improvement.  GMF advisors/moderators do an amazing job considering the chasm between their incredible experience and comprehension and that of those asking most questions.  Nonetheless, the process needs swift and drastic improvement.  I can read 1000 words per minute with good comprehension, yet find GMF exchanges overwhelming.  

Several issues stand out to me in the overall.  I recently had a message “rejected” because I sent a screenshot self-explanatory to the topic with “???”.  I found that disrespectful.  A simple request for further information could and should have been made.  Apparently some, if not all GMF advisors/moderators don’t receive screen shots sent; or so severely limit attachment size that meaningful discussion of photo size and clarity are unnecessary difficult.   

If this is because of security or data overload, surely Groups.io can and should change such “culture”.  Groups/advisors/moderators exist to prioritize service to members.  Screen shots are the modern “picture” that takes the place of a thousand words.  Again and again I read repeated good faith attempts by various parties to explain a location or procedure when each side is looking at different screens [online vs offline emails, menus, etc.]  

Below Bill Hazel describes the GMF Wiki as “...mostly a huge FAQ since many pages are based on repeat questions on the group.”  The fact that “repeat questions” comprise so much of the current email traffic of GMF identifies the very problems most in need of clarification.  A common and comprehensive “beginner’s” definition of terms commonly used here is usually the “lead-in” to any “instructions” or “operating Manual”.   

Below Bruce Bowman was more to the point stating: "Expecting a single Help page to provide more than a FAQ for total newbies may be unrealistic. What is really needed is a downloadable, groups.io manual.  At one time this was discussed:  (https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/20986).”  Discussion without action resolves nothing.

An enterprise as complex and versatile as Groups.io MUST distill the information necessary for ALL groups joining to thrive jnto an easy to use dynamic form.  No matter how brilliant the product or software, if the average user can’t understand or use it reasonably well, those OPTIONS NOT USED, for that user, do not exist.  Focus on the ball, not the players or the fans.

Compiling and maintaining such Manual(s) should be given appropriate priority as well as intellectual and financial resources in perpetuity.  It should be obvious that a single “manual” would be so intimidating in size and scope as to be useless.  Like Disneyland, such an effort is never done so long as Groups.io capabilities continue to expand.  

To paraphrase what Michael Pavan says below, IMPROVE WHAT RAISES THE [most] QUESTIONS first.  Much of the current unnecessary and unproductive day-to-day “chaff” on GMF will go away as these issues are properly addressed and resolved by adequate documentation and cross reference.  The best manager is the one that organizes his/her areas of endeavor to the point that their services are no longer necessary.

Of greatest need is a “basic” manual describing a “default” map new groups can quickly be operational.  This would introduce definitions of common terms used and cover such fundamental decisions such as “public” or “private” choices (and pros/cons of each), and step-by-step instructions for filling out the Administrative “Settings” page options of “General”, "Privacy", "Spam Control”, "Message Policies”, “Reposting Policies”, "Message Formatting” and “Features”.  The IRS does a pretty good job with its simpler forms and instructions.  A “Decision Tree” such as is frequently used in troubleshooting is another excellent way to show interrelationships when choices are made.  

There could be multiple “intermediate” manuals covering the pros/cons of functions (and warnings) of being “public” or “private, extending and accepting “invitations” (with options, advantages/disadvantages of each, and examples), etc.  In my opinion inherently complex subjects such as optimizing use of each of your present “Features” choices (with options, advantages/disadvantages of each, and examples) should be covered in one or more “complex” manuals.

Best!

WRB

— 

Re: [GMF] Does anyone have a high participation wiki that non-subscribers can view?

On Jan 17, 2020, at 11:43 PM, Michael Pavan <michaelpavan@...> wrote:

On Jan 17, 2020, at 10:45 PM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 08:13 PM, Bill Hazel wrote:

<snip>

The [wiki] here on GMF probably is as good an example as any.  Yes, most of it has been written by a limited group of people, but more are beginning to assist.  I think that's mostly a matter of becoming familiar with how it operates.  Way back when, it started with a couple of simple pages and has evolved as things change.  You could say that it's mostly a huge FAQ since many pages are based on repeat questions on the group.

I think the Wiki has helped.

However the fact that some questions are repeatedly asked really points our what features are not intuitive and/or not well explained where and when users encounter them.
The best solution would be to improve what raises the questions.


Re: [GMF] Groups.io Help Page (was: Adding Display Names to email address in the members list)

On Jan 18, 2020, at 1:11 AM, Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...> wrote:

<snip>

Expecting a single Help page to provide more than a FAQ for total newbies may be unrealistic. What is really needed is a downloadable, groups.io manual. At one time Mark hired a technical writer to prepare one (ref: https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/20986). How far this has gotten is unclear <snip>

Regards,
Bruce


moderated Re: Downloadable Groups.io Manual

 

I assume the post was meant as a feature suggestion (downloadable manual) to be posted in this group, rather than as a direct critique of the volume of GMF emails, which probably more appropriately belongs there (and you can always use advanced options to filter your messages). Either way, I agree with you that a downloadable (and/or other kind of) comprehensive user guide would be great, even though it would not solve all the problems. In my cats group, which is about a specific disease, we get the same basic questions over and over again from new members, even though the information is almost all contained in our set of files. I think it's natural for this to happen. That said, I did unsub from GMF long ago for some of the same reasons you cite. And bottom line, I agree with your suggestion. I think Mark said he hired a tech writer at some point. Hopefully that person is still at work.
--
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: Finding posts by a member

Stan Garfield
 

I would like to see the following enhancement made to message search.

Make it possible to search the first line of messages (that includes the name and email address of the poster). This can either be be default, or as an advanced search option.

The reason for this request is to allow searching for former members who left the group prior to its migration from Yahoo Groups to Groups.io. The email address is present in each message, but it currently not included in what is searched. And these former members do not appear in the Past Member list because they left before the group was migrated. If I can search for the email address the former member used, or by their name, I can locate old posts that they made.