For the record, I am loving the new push notification functionality. No longer do I have to go into the site, or check my email, to see that there's a message pending approval, etc. It just alerts me, quickly, efficiently, and unobtrusively. And if there is any particular hashtag I want to keep close tabs on, I no longer have to keep checking on that, either.

I don't see any problem with people not liking them because they have to be proactively turned on. I do see an urgent need to be able to turn off the message notifications, however. Shal's crazy-brilliant idea of setting the tags to "moderated," as well as to "no email," should work for most people meanwhile.
--
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

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 05:38 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

Please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions.

I've just discovered a serious problem with these notifications.  They all bypass the group setting of moderating all messages.  It's causing mayhem for several group owners.

Thanks,
Duane

Dave,
just to avoid misunderstandings: The above citations are Duane´s words. I cited them twice unintentionally and I fully underline them. In my message I then tried to specify the requirements of my groups.
Victoria

And there has been a flurry of postings on here as well, most of which
I deleted.... The only notifications I NEED are new membership requests
for approval and the linked 'new member' one. I don't care if somebody
has added a new file or photo, if it is important they will comment in
the relevant message thread. Or for that matter loads of long
#hastags-yourfavouriteextension which just makes subject lines long for
no reason.

Dave

On 19 Jun 2020 at 1:47, Victoria via groups.io wrote:

I did an informal survey of some of my members.  No one wants any/all
these notifications sent to them.  They don't care what goes on behind
the scenes, they just want useful information that is posted to the
group that may help them with problems.  Even as a moderator/owner,
there are very few that I'd want to see, mostly when something on the
group is changed - photos added, wiki page added/changed, file uploaded,
messages edited, etc. (and then via email, not instant browser
notifications) - but not notify the whole group.  There's already been a
flurry of complaints on GMF due to the notices being sent to the groups.

http://davesergeant.com

I did an informal survey of some of my members.  No one wants any/all these notifications sent to them.  They don't care what goes on behind the scenes, they just want useful information that is posted to the group that may help them with problems.  Even as a moderator/owner, there are very few that I'd want to see, mostly when something on the group is changed - photos added, wiki page added/changed, file uploaded, messages edited, etc. (and then via email, not instant browser notifications) - but not notify the whole group.  There's already been a flurry of complaints on GMF due to the notices being sent to the groups.

 

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:08 AM, Duane wrote:

"I  did an informal survey of some of my members.  No one wants any/all these notifications sent to them.  They don't care what goes on behind the scenes, they just want useful information that is posted to the group that may help them with problems.  Even as a moderator/owner, there are very few that I'd want to see, mostly when something on the group is changed - photos added, wiki page added/changed, file uploaded, messages edited, etc. (and then via email, not instant browser notifications) - but not notify the whole group.  There's already been a flurry of complaints on GMF due to the notices being sent to the groups."

I  was quite surprised to realize that notifications of all kinds are now sent to the group. I wanted to see what had changed and tested it by uploading a file. I then realized that all of a sudden the little check box "notify members" was checked by default, the opposite of what was the standard all these years. So now, if one doesn´t uncheck it, every little upload or change is being sent to the group. This is not very appropriate, in my opinion.

The requirements of many moderators and owners - as I understand them - is the option to be notified when a member or another moderator uploads a photo, a file, a database or a wiki information, which is something that could be added to the rest of the notifications.

In my humble opinion all of these notifications for moderators should be optional (and owner´s privilege to set them), just like the rest of them. And the "notify members" check box for the uploading of files, photos and so on should stay empty so that they can be checked if desired.
Victoria

Sandi,

PLEASE, find a way so that our members are not bombarded with Wiki
updates.

It's not perfect, but as a stopgap you can set the Wiki notifications to No Email, or put them on moderation and delete them in Pending. See:
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/wiki/21482

Shal

Our group is under an umbrella of a Parent Non-Profit. We are in the midst of updating 2020 content as well as proofing.
I am disturbed that 28 Wiki notifications were generated just TODAY! I did not see anything to check or uncheck to avoid members being notified.
PLEASE, find a way so that our members are not bombarded with Wiki updates. 
I am about ready to delete the entire Wiki site rather than to finish the Project of updating them.
Wiki was one of the most attractive features and overnight it has become a nightmare. 

--
Sandi Dickenson
ASG Volunteers Group.

Michael,

I called no names.

I never thought you did.

My intent was to be anything but impudent, impertinent, insolent,
cheeky, audacious, or in any way rude.

I was applying that label to my own statement, not to anything you said.

I do disagree with the notion that anyone needs more training,

On the contrary, if a member doesn't know how to use the available features, then they can use more training.

Which was my point: a member who finds the additional email traffic unwelcome has an existing way to turn them off. But at the same time I recognize that many of those same people don't want to be bothered with having to deal with it. Which is why I labelled my response "impudent" - it doesn't show due respect for the other person's concerns and circumstances.

If a Group Owner wants an option off, what is the need for some
members to turn those on?

It is exactly what you said: "some people might like these Notifications." When the group owner disables the feature for all that imposes a worse user experience on the members who would like the feature.

Isn't the Owner supposed to be able to decide that for each of their
groups.

There is always a bit of tug-of-war between what group owners want to control, and what members want to control for themselves. The question is whether the service can find a healthy balance between these competing needs and wants.

In proposing a default muting scheme I am looking for such a balance: address the immediate need to tone down the surprise, provide a way for owners to pre-set members' preferences as they deem best, yet allow the members to change it if they so desire.

Shal

On Jun 18, 2020, at 3:49 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@gmail.com> wrote:

Michael,

While these Notifications might be informative and perhaps useful to
some, the additional email traffic they generate is unwelcome for many
people, especially if their Inbox is already very busy.

Impudent response: sounds like your members need to learn what the Mute link in the message footer is for.

I called no names.
My intent was to be anything but impudent, impertinent, insolent, cheeky, audacious, or in any way rude. I was acknowledging that some people might like these Notifications.

I do disagree with the notion that anyone needs more training, rather than Groups.io's features should be selectable to best suit all users.
Won't Groups.io be more successful if it is more user-friendly (easier to use) than not?

Why shouldn't Group Owners be able to customize their groups to best suit their participants?

Why insist everyone needs to use all features?
If so, why is it possible to choose/unchoose some, but not others?
And if not, what is wrong with easy, suitable controls to turn off undesired features, rather than having to undergo tedious workarounds?

In fact I don't have a problem with having a group option to Mute the new system notification hashtags for all members, as each new hashtag is implemented. Retroactively perhaps for the three recent ones (#file, #photo & #wiki).

If a Group Owner wants an option off, what is the need for some members to turn those on?
Isn't the Owner supposed to be able to decide that for each of their groups.

But I wouldn't do that to the well established #cal-xxx hashtags.

I believe the #cal-xxx hashtags started about 2 years ago - that doesn't mean that there are satisfactory controls for them yet...

Again, Groups/Owners/members may desire some, all, or no hashtags.

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 01:20 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

users can check a box to turn a hashtag into a web/app notification.

I was so late to this party that the above just struck me. I didn't realize, until looking more closely at my group's hashtag page just now, where I was at first perplexed to see that they ALL have the notification box, that you can now get push notifications for any hashtag. This is WAY more brilliant than I thought. Kudos, Mark.
 
--
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

Bob,

Demands to people we are trying to help won't sit well and will likely
increase optional unsubscribes plus those for marking messages as
spam.

Of course!

I certainly wasn't advocating that anyone respond impudently to their membership. That label was intended as mark that statement as having a point, but one that would probably not often be welcome.

Many groups here serve their stakeholders at the stakeholders'
pleasure even though we are truly attempting to help them.

That's exactly the case with my PTA group, and I think it is a reasonable attitude to strive for in many types of groups.

Shal

Mark,

I appreciate the discussion on notifications. It's clear some
additional controls/changes are needed. Please keep the discussion
going.

https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/25444

A suggestion for #wiki-notice

In the body text of the notification include the Reason text (from the "Write a small message here explaining the edit. (Optional)" box). If any.

Bonus points: include a link to the Compare Revisions page for this version versus the last one notified. (I've been wanting this in message edits too).

Shal

Hi All,

I've made a couple small changes. The following notification hashtags have been changed:

• #file is now #file-notice
• #photo is now #photo-notice
• #chat is now #chat-notice
• #wiki is now #wiki-notice
• #poll is now #poll-notice

Also, in the Hashtags page, I've changed the Edit link to Mute/Notify or Follow/Notify, depending on your subscription settings.

I appreciate the discussion on notifications. It's clear some additional controls/changes are needed. Please keep the discussion going.

Thanks, Mark

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:49 PM, Shal Farley wrote:

Impudent response: sounds like your members need to learn what the Mute link in the message footer is for.

Demands to people we are trying to help won't sit well and will likely increase optional unsubscribes plus those for marking  messages as spam.
Many groups here serve their stakeholders at the stakeholders' pleasure even though we are truly attempting to help them. 


 
--

Bob Bellizzi

>> Now, if you wanted to needlessly increase complexity, give owners a switch to set their global/list preference to create a setting during a random time frame which they must manually set and reset. I wouldn't... but you're the Captain.

By "random time frame," I meant the owner would set or unset at will... Not of course by a time decided upon by a random number generator... 🤨🤣

As said, I doubt I'd create this added option - but I defer to others. For the meantime, less more. I'd stick with the YahOops convention we're used to.

As said, a mere notification ~'*tends* to be poor' because members create poor File Names.

*I* will often notify, but I would name well and it would be during the context of a discussion, usually with me pre-announcing that a File is coming. Most members on most lists do not operate at this level of clarity.

Random swear words? Hmmm.
🙃

BillSF9c

Yes, locked by default or even by constraint, I’ve suggested that in one of these threads. And I think that edit options on these notification tags should generally be restricted to what’s meaningful for them.

--
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

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 08:49 PM, Shal Farley wrote:

I'm not exactly sure what form such a control might take.

I am going to take Shal's comment out of its original context to raise another related point: should Notification Hashtags be Locked by default?

IMHO replies to Notifications make no sense, but at present there is nothing to stop members sending them. The content of an individual upload or wiki edit may warrant some discussion, but the Notification of that upload or edit is not an appropriate place for that discussion because the subject line gives no clue about the actual content.

Chris

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 05:32 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

 

Why wouldn't you want your members to know about files being uploaded? Isn't the whole point of uploading files being that your members can then access them?

Hi Mark,

I have similar reasons to J's comments. I can upload files at various times that can be background or historical information and I don't want a notice going out for each one. I may send a separate note out to members with summary what's been done and a link to where they can find information.  At times we struggle to keep our members in Groups.io due to the volume of emails they receive. Despite best efforts to offer support and help them understand the array of options available to them to control email volumes, many of them it seems either don't have the time or inclination to learn. Their initial reaction from what they see as unnecessary and unwanted emails is either to unsubscribe from our main group or start marking messages as spam because they just want them to stop.

When we loaded our 1000+ club members into Groups.io in April last year there was an initial push back and numerous people unsubscribed so we only had 90% of our members on the system. Over time, through phone calls and online demonstrations we have persuaded many to give Groups.io another look so we are now at 96%. I feel that the recent changes can cause a sudden increase in system generated emails which is likely to cause some people to leave (again). The trouble is that when they leave, they leave with a negative impression of Groups.io which is a pity as so many here are trying make the user experience better.

It has been mentioned on this group several times before (by Shal IIRC)  that changes should fit into the category of 'least surprise'. I'm not sure that the notification changes do and some of the comments posted on GMF tend to back up that point.

I would just add that I do appreciate all the effort that goes into Groups.io and the generally rapid response to queries and bug fixes. I'm sure many here feel the same despite the recent barrage of emails.

Thanks,
Andy