On 09/01/2020 20:54, RickGlaz-WEB wrote:

It sounds like your members edit to move the thread forward or
some reason I do not understand...

Speaking for myself, on other online forums, if editing is allowed, I make good use of it to continuously refine my post. I want my post to make a good impression to readers who read it, and in many web-based forums, most readers don't read the post within seconds after it is created. I sometimes add paragraphs to clarify things, or I delete paragraphs that I feel detract from the central message that I was aiming for. So, yes, my posts may change significantly after people responded to my post, but that's their own fault for not quoting.

I do not regard making edits to a post, even significant edits, as malicious. Sure, there will always be people who change their post to say the exact opposite, after lots of folks "liked" their post or posted "I agree", but forum designers should have thought about that before they allowed editing.

A nice touch is if anyone can see a history of edits. Or, people can write a comment about why they edited the post, and if a moderator feels that their reason isn't valid or is misleading, they can take action against that user, if they care enough.

The fact is that users who are used to editing on other platforms may edit on Groups.io without realising that it has unintended, devastating consequences for mail users.

An alternative idea to re-posting the entire edited message would be that Groups.io post a short notice, "So-and-so edited this message, click this link to see the latest version of this message", ONCE ONLY (even if the user edits his message several times) to alert other users that the message that they see in their mail programs is not the one that the poster intended them to respond to.

Samuel

How would anyone know what was edited or when?
In a Group I'm in, I try to never edit, or limit it to one time to
correct a significant typo or an error/mis-communication.
Something that should not stand/stay in the archives.

It sounds like your members edit to move the thread forward or
some reason I do not understand...

Rick

Hi,
I am a new group owner. I am already a bit frustrated and disappointed that every single time a member edits a message, another e-mail goes out to hundreds of members again, and again, and again. It got noisy fast, and I had some members already quit.

If I unmoderate a member, I already trust them. I personally see no reason that a trusted, unmoderated member can't have the "Save Without Sending" button, too. People are used to Facebook Groups, which allow members to edit their own messages. I don't like the idea of turning editing off, because people like being able to edit spelling, typos, etc.. And I think accurate content in the database is important.

As a group owner, I'd like to have full control over the buttons my members can use in my own group, like "Save Without Sending".

Scott, Owner of GCH1-Discussions

For some lists I monitor the attachment image storage for storage that has gotten out of control.  It is not possible to review and search all attachments conveniently.

For example, video files eat up a lot of space and are not subject to the size limitations for image attachments, they don't show-up in the e-mail photo album, very cumbersome to find

and when found it is impossible for an owner/moderator to strip the attachment and save the message.

Before taking Draconian messages, it would be prudent to analyze what files are found stored as attachments and perhaps ban/restrict certain file types that are currently stored in attachments,

but are not controlled by current image size restrictions.

I really need to be able to move Topics to Subgroups, too. Our "main" group is for general discussion. And we use Subgroups to group specific genetic discussions and with only a subset of interested members. If a Topic is started in our "main" group that is specific to just a piece of a gene, I need to be able to move it to the appropriate Subgroup. Otherwise, the main group will get too broad and noisy, and some members will unsubscribe if the get too many Subgroup-type detailed e-mails.

Thanks,
Scott Chase, Owner of the "GCH1-Discussions" Group

I support that request. It would be very helpful in one of my groups which uses
a lot of small files with frequent updates to some of them.

--
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

On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 02:17 AM, Duane wrote:

Not to get too far offtrack, but it might be better if the Out Of Space choice said "Bounce Messages With Attachments" to make it clear.  As is, "Bounce Messages", sounds like all messages would be bounced (though I know they wouldn't.)

I've made this change.

Thanks, Mark

If attachments are going to be deleted when allotted space is met, is there a way that inserted images can retain the name of the image that is being inserted? Right now if you insert an image in the body of the message and then go to retrieve it from the group's site, it shows up as a number and not the name of the image. The attachments I am showing in this email shows what I am talking about.   The image with the 0 as it's name was inserted in the body of the email and saved from the inserted graphic. The image with the tags name was retrieved from the attachment.   In many cases the artist of these images want the file name to stay as it was written. But saving it from the body of the email right now doesn't do that.   Leeni

On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 09:21 AM, D R Stinson wrote:

In my experience, this is the source of much of the wasted space. We have members who read and share by email, and they just click on reply. The result is the duplication of the same image a number of times. Even if the system just checked for the same image more than once in a thread would be an improvement.

Yes!
 
--
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 would really not like to have log entries for individual attachments deleted, ever. It would serve no purpose in my group and could just deluge the log. So if individual entries could not happen at all, or be a group option, that would be great.
--
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, Jan 8, 2020 at 05:29 AM, Bruce Bowman wrote:

Mark -- Thanks for the heads-up...such is generally my understanding of how the "Out of Space" setting was intended to function. I'm assuming the extra 5% is to allow file and photo uploads to continue to work?

Yes, that's correct.

What happens if 95% of your quota is being used by other items -- would ALL of the group's attachments then be deleted? Not saying that's wrong behavior, but want to clarify.

Yes, all attachments would be deleted.

Also, will upload restrictions now be enforced at the quota level (exactly 1 GB, 10 GB, etc)? In the past, some have reported substantial "grace storage" before such uploads were actually inhibited.

Yes. The "grace storage" was only for attachments, because this process wasn't working. It's always been the case that if your group is over the limit, you could not upload additional photos or files.

Thanks, Mark

How about deduplication first? Eliminate multiple instances of
the same file . . .

Right, that too would be very valuable. If I understand it correctly
your idea is roughly equivalent to (3) here:
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/15545

In my experience, this is the source of much of the wasted space. We have members who read and share by email, and they just click on reply. The result is the duplication of the same image a number of times. Even if the system just checked for the same image more than once in a thread would be an improvement.

I also agree as well about posters who put a small image in their signature. By itself they add very little, but they can add up quickly and some posters don't understand they're not saved with the message, but separately. I'm wondering if any image in a signature shouldn't be stored in a members profile where it could be accessed by the system, and all images otherwise in signatures be deleted automatically.

Another 2¢ worth.

Dano

On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 08:49 AM, J_Catlady wrote:

The request is inapplicable to them.

I should say the request *as stated* is inapplicable to them. There's nothing preventing having an optional update notification for Group Guidelines, if Mark sees fit to implement that. But I'd say it's in the "don't hold your breath category." The request as stated here is a five-second fix.
 
--
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, Jan 8, 2020 at 08:46 AM, Ann Wild wrote:

I agree as well.  I have updated our Guidelines several times

I'm talking about Files, not Member Notices. There's already an update date at the bottom of the Guidelines and members don't see any "upload date" for Member Notices anyway. The request is inapplicable to 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

I agree as well.  I have updated our Guidelines several times of late, but having the old original upload date remaining is misleading to readers.  My only option is to add the update date in the description.  But readers may miss that.

Larry,

How about deduplication first? Eliminate multiple instances of the
same file--perhaps even annotating the messages to indicate where the
file has been retained--reducing space with no loss of information.

Right, that too would be very valuable. If I understand it correctly your idea is roughly equivalent to (3) here:
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/15545

The only downside I can think of is what Bruce mentioned: it may be too much to implement and test before this sweep.

Shal

Now that the Yahoo debacle is over, can we get the database options updated so that a member can post their address and hide it from all but the owner/moderators and the database creator?  This would REALLY help when we have group buys or someone is providing a product to the members.  Thanks, Dale

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 06:58 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

In two weeks, for those groups that are over their limit, attachments will be deleted to get each group under the storage limit. Attachments will be deleted from the oldest messages first. The text in the messages will not be deleted, just the attachments themselves. I will delete enough attachments to get the group to 95% of their storage limit. After that, the process will run nightly to keep each group under their storage limit.

Mark -- Thanks for the heads-up...such is generally my understanding of how the "Out of Space" setting was intended to function. I'm assuming the extra 5% is to allow file and photo uploads to continue to work?

What happens if 95% of your quota is being used by other items -- would ALL of the group's attachments then be deleted? Not saying that's wrong behavior, but want to clarify.

Also, will upload restrictions now be enforced at the quota level (exactly 1 GB, 10 GB, etc)? In the past, some have reported substantial "grace storage" before such uploads were actually inhibited.

In this context I hope we can focus on completion of the bug-fix (and minimizing its "surprise factor" on existing groups currently over quota) before attempting to introduce new, indirectly-related features. It seems as if this thing could get complicated enough without going down that road.

My $0.02,
Bruce

--
Larry Marks