Date   

moderated Re: Suggestion for Importing Groups

Duane
 

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 09:15 AM, Janis wrote:
The issue to consider is overloading the servers. Including smaller groups in the bulk imports should help solve that problem.
I don't think it would change anything, other than creating additional lines.  As each message is imported, a certain amount of processing has to be done.  Whether it's from a small group or a large group makes no difference.

Duane


moderated Re: Suggestion for Importing Groups

Janis
 

The experts in the forums advise against moving members separately and my active members are against that idea as I am because we want members to maintain their ownership of their data that is transferred. We consider it important that identity of owners of files and photos is transferred with the members.   Also, the group has already been exported and will have an account.automatically created for them at groups.io. They like that.

We still have our old group intact at Yahoo and able to email the group at Yahoo as always. And Yahoo is still archiving our messages on the message board. We cannot upload photos and files until we are imported.

I have new members that are anxiously awaiting the arrival of the group so that they can participate. We are on hold on Groups.io until transfer is complete.

The. Issue addressed by my suggestions was to speed up the process for everyone.  It is the monster groups that overload the servers. The issue is whether what I suggested CAN be done. Duane addressed that with his comment. The issue to consider is overloading the servers. Including smaller groups in the bulk imports should help solve that problem.



moderated Re: Suggestion for Importing Groups

Janis
 

My group is moving forward in the queue not back so apparently there are not a lot of expedited vroups lately. The monster groups are the problem.


moderated Re: Suggestion for Importing Groups

Janis
 

The suggestion was NOT to jump ahead of members who expedite. You misread and misunderstood!

And it is not driving anyone crazy to wait. It is unfair to have to wait for monster groups. Monster groups are large groups, not expedited groups. 

Additionally, this was addressed to Mark.


moderated Re: Suggestion for Importing Groups

Juulz
 

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 03:15 AM, Duane wrote:
don't know what would happen if everyone suddenly decided to expedite.
Expedited groups go to the head of the line!  I watched out group go from 8 to 9 to 8 to 7 to 8 to 9 to 8.... you get the picture. We are finally imported and everything is in place and working wonderfully! I really wanted to ask Mark for a "point of no return" to lower the anxiety level... but, I didn't... it wouldn't really matter whether you wait at position 11 or at 1, if someone pays to expedite, they cut in line ahead of you. We waited at position #1 for hours, btw. Once our import started, it took about 5-10 minutes for 900 members and 18,000 messages.

My suggestion is to move your members over yourself and allow the group to carry on without the archives while they wait for the import. 

I think Mark has it right. If small groups "jumped the line" for free, it would be terribly unfair to the others, IMO.  It's no fun to wait, but you can always expedite if it's driving you crazy! 


moderated Re: Shal's fifteen minutes...

 

I´ve formatted the article and saved it as a word document.
Is it o.k. to upload it in the files?
Victoria


moderated Re: Split Thread- Is it practice to lose attachments?

dave w
 

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 09:01 PM, dave w wrote:
For reasons of diverging topic, I split a thread but the photos in line were left out, at least their 'code' remains but no pic. IS this usual as I can't find any previous note about this?
Obviously not an ideal situation, which limits the usefulness of the split/ merge functionality,
Then a BUG REPORT it shall be-- seems the sorting problem reported after this could be a corresponding related issue.
I saw that behaviour and just had a WTF moment.
But yes it was there when I typed this October 23.
thanks, davew


moderated Re: Suggestion for Importing Groups

Duane
 

On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 02:52 PM, Janis wrote:
My suggestion is to separate the queues into 3 categories small groups, medium groups (over 500 members) and large monster groups.
While I'm sure everyone is anxious to get their group transferred, I think Mark has found the most equitable procedure - first in, first out.  As I understand it, only a limited number of processes can be done at one time to limit the loading on the system.  It doesn't make any difference if it's a large group or a small group, it's still a process.  For those that feel they can't wait, he's included the option of paying an expedite fee to "jump the line".  I admit that I don't know what would happen if everyone suddenly decided to expedite. ;>)

Duane


moderated Re: email privacy

Ant No
 

Thank you Judy.

Turns out it is a problem so I'll guide the owner to fix it.


locked Re: categorisation

Ant No
 

On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 09:10 AM, Bob Buxton wrote:
I hope this would address the OP's aims, be more flexible and be consistent with the use of hashtags for categorization across the web


If groups used them consistently, didn't abuse them and I could use Boolean operators then maybe. As Ronaldo pointed out tag and keyword abuse is an old game. Harder to moderate than a choose a single cat system.

I think across the web overstates it a bit. Hashtags are relatively new. Heavily focused on social media but admittedly spreading, mostly by the efforts of people trying to sell things. Or so it seems to me.


locked Re: categorisation

Ant No
 

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 04:20 PM, RCardona wrote:
You fail to appreciate the power of groups.io's search function.  You may want to learn how to use it, rather than advocate for the addition of an unnecessary categorization element to it.  

In the group search function, a user may add any number of descriptive keywords that will filter down the results.  There is no need to add boolean search operations.  Simply add a 2nd, 3rd, 4th. . . . etc. . . keyword with a space in between the keywords; and the search function will drill down the results pull.


Yes, I understand how a multi keyword search works. It's a standard function of all search engines. Trust me, you may not but, I do need a way to exclude terms and that's Boolean operators. They were invented for a reason. Not because no one's as clever as Mark and didn't realise they were unnecessary.

You seen to have missed the part where I said I don't always know what I'm looking for until I find it. I did give an example. A real one that happened.

You'll still be able to do things your way. Why do you care if there's another way too. Why want to control other people's choices? I don't want to remove any of yours.


locked Re: categorisation

Ant No
 

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 03:33 PM, ro-esp wrote:
I'm not sure there can be a system that does...without sacrificing your privacy to "artificial intelligence" that is. 


Well the system I propose does. With our  intelligence not AI. It's just a matter of being able to sort the list better so you have smaller chunks to wade through. That's the entire point of the proposal.


locked Re: categorisation

Ant No
 

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 03:33 PM, ro-esp wrote:
Being able to exclude searchterms would be nice, but 20 categories of a thousand groups each
would still leave a lot of wading to do (and I expect groups.io to become significantly bigger).


Agreed Ronaldo. However the numbers are not evenly distributed. Some cats have a massive following. That's the problem. I think I've demonstrated I'm not adverse to some wading.


locked Re: categorisation

Ant No
 

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 03:33 PM, ro-esp wrote:
you would find it by doing a search for a tag that the owner/moderator put in the description.

That assumes I know I want to find it. As I said I didn't and wouldn't have thought to.


locked Re: categorisation

Ant No
 

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 03:30 PM, Juulz wrote:
Determining the correct word choice for each category would be a monumental task in and of itself.

Not really Juulz. Most if the cats are deliberately broad and self evident. Differently enabled is the answer allready out there for the one valid point you make. Not a mammoth task at all.

Getting hung up on semantics kinda misses the point.


locked Re: categorisation

Ant No
 

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 12:15 PM, Bob Bellizzi wrote:
I would suggest that this is for those who wish to do so.
I'm sure some groups would rather remain anonymous


If that's true Bob it would be easy enough to have an anon cat which can't be searched or viewed by any means. Currently that would be an invite only group and you can still find them at the moment but not join.


locked Re: categorisation

Ant No
 

Drew

It's not either or. You can do both. They're not exactly official cats. They reflect what's actually there in the 7000 groups I looked through.

To you the exact kind of radio group you are is important and you can use keywords and tags to define this. To anyone uninterested in radio it's just one big lump with a massive following that buries niche interest groups

Being able to exclude that entire category would be very helpful. The cats are broad on purpose  and based purely  on large group numbers.

A search presumes you have a good idea of what you want to find and that the keywords or tags you use match the ones the group owner used.

Cats and searches are like catapillers and butterflies. They do different things well.


moderated Message search is behind

 

Hi All,

Indexing messages is about 17 hours behind at this point. That means that messages sent last night around midnight Pacific Time are only just now becoming searchable. This affects the per-month display on the group home pages. It may also be responsible for the Emailed Photos sort issue talked about here today.

I made one change that will help, but by the nature of it, won't start helping until probably tomorrow morning. I expect to do further optimizations as well to try to get it under control. I'll keep you posted.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Theft of Yahoo! Group mailing lists ?

 

On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 4:19 PM perlloaderplease via Groups.Io <perlloaderplease=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

Doesn't your Yahoo Transfer process allow for the theft of private group email lists by someone creating a 'ghost' group and doing a transfer request at the same time that the real group owner is doing a transfer request ?

You can only create one transfer request per Yahoo Group.


Mark 


moderated Theft of Yahoo! Group mailing lists ?

YSWT
 


Doesn't your Yahoo Transfer process allow for the theft of private group email lists by someone creating a 'ghost' group and doing a transfer request at the same time that the real group owner is doing a transfer request ?

I.E.

My group makes transfer@groups.io a moderator 

and someone ELSE sends a transfer request OF OUR GROUP...

won't you be sending our mailing list to their groups.io group....