Date   

moderated Sometimes, clicking Like causes a draft message to be saved #bug

Samuel Murrayy
 

Hello
As described here and in subsequent messages:
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/message/26331

When clicking "View/reply online" in a digest, and then clicking "Like", it sometimes causes a draft to be saved.  I could not repeat this all the time, but does sometimes create a draft.

I suggest two things:

1. No draft should be saved when the "reply" field is empty.
2. The "View/reply online" link in a digest should be just "View online", and should go to a page that shows only the message (without automatically opening a reply field).  It is obvious that you can reply online because there is a very clear "reply" link when you view the message online.

Samuel


moderated Re: Feature requests/Canny after two weeks

txercoupemuseum.org
 

I respect your expressed opinions and would hope to deserve inclusion among those described in your last sentence.  But we must not let any "pursuit of perfection” blind us to how very good the existing “product” already is.  

There ARE circumstances necessitating financial discrimination.  When Yahoo went into meltdown, the leader of Groups.io quickly understood he couldn’t continue “business as before”.  He acted in a timely manner to secure the funding necessary to successfully ride that tiger.  His organization is unarguably more capable and better “positioned” for the long run as a direct result of his competence.  

Those who take the time to frame and submit a specific “suggestion” may or may not be aware that their perspective is seldom the same as the Groups.io people whose burden it is to glean from what is said precisely what is actually meant; and how difficult (expensive, in a coding sense) this will be to achieve.  The average quality of “suggestions" decreases as overall quantity (and the labor expended dealing with them) increases. 

Reading Donald Rumsfeld enlightened me that (with apologies to any inaccuracy): “There are things we know and things we don’t know.  But there are also things we don’t know we know and things we don’t know we don’t know.”  In such context, yes, most of us “throw our dice” in relative ignorance with the very best of intention(s). 

In the end, whatever is “requested” or “suggested” is ultimately acted upon in some manner or ignored.  It is either “approved” or it is not.  The words used do not change the reality.  

WRB

— 

On Dec 30, 2019, at 3:04 AM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 12:45 AM, txercoupemuseum.org wrote:
Every “feature request” is indistinguishable from a complaint about the existing product to either resolve or ignore.  It is entirely appropriate that practical "feature requests" from PAID groups of reasonable size receive priority.  
For little individual desires, for help/support, and possibly for bug fixing, then yes, I agree that people with premium groups should have priority. But as an owner of a premium group, I think I can legitimately say that I disagree that I and my paying fellow groups should get priority in having our feature suggestions implemented or considered (I am purposely calling them suggestions, not requests). I, and I know that some others here as well, frequently make comments and suggestions based on wanting groups.io to be a good product, not only because we want some particular feature for our own particular groups. Go figure. 
 
--
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

kr402
 

someone making a suggestion is simply that someone making a suggestion,
regardless of the type of group they are in.



moderated Re: Feature requests/Canny after two weeks

 

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 12:45 AM, txercoupemuseum.org wrote:
Every “feature request” is indistinguishable from a complaint about the existing product to either resolve or ignore.  It is entirely appropriate that practical "feature requests" from PAID groups of reasonable size receive priority.  
For little individual desires, for help/support, and possibly for bug fixing, then yes, I agree that people with premium groups should have priority. But as an owner of a premium group, I think I can legitimately say that I disagree that I and my paying fellow groups should get priority in having our feature suggestions implemented or considered (I am purposely calling them suggestions, not requests). I, and I know that some others here as well, frequently make comments and suggestions based on wanting groups.io to be a good product, not only because we want some particular feature for our own particular groups. Go figure. 
 
--
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

txercoupemuseum.org
 


I think we need to consider some simple facts.  Between group hosting providers NONE seems to have a monopoly on MOST popular “features”.  

Paid group funds pay ALL Groups.io bills and are the sole source of associated salaries/profits.  That means paid groups FINANCIALLY SUPPORT the presence and operational expenses of all unpaid groups at present.

Of all the ideas thrown on the wall before Mark by unsung geniuses, VERY VERY FEW “stick”.  In the majority of cases there is already some way to accomplish almost anything truly necessary with the many tools presently available.  Related efforts of unpaid volunteers do NOT mean that these good people consider their considerable contribution(s) without value.  

People today live in a society so affluent that few perceive the very real difference between a “want” and a “need”.  Because there are NO unpaid group dollars, is it not obvious that feature requests from paid groups ARE “more valid” when apportioning clearly finite resources.    

Every “feature request” is indistinguishable from a complaint about the existing product to either resolve or ignore.  It is entirely appropriate that practical "feature requests" from PAID groups of reasonable size receive priority.   

Perhaps a forum could be established specifically for unpaid groups where their genuine unmet “needs” could be identified and debated SEPARATELY.  If ANY were to result in a specific and collectively agreed “scope of work” to present to Mark, I’m sure he could and would estimate funding necessary to make it happen.  Just as at the post office, faster service costs more.

This would quickly separate the “wheat” from the “chaff”.  We don’t go to the grocery store or the car dealership to convince those there how deserving we are.  We go out into the world and trade our time in some form for money to exchange for what we need AND can afford.
I suggest this path to be the most reasonable and practical “equity” possible between the two types of groups.  

In each case, such “new features” as thus emerge CAN then made available to one and all (or not), as deemed appropriate by management.   

Best!

WRB

— 
 


On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 12:03 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
What do you think?


moderated Re: Feature requests/Canny after two weeks

 

On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 10:14 PM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
Are requests from paid groups “better” / “more valid” than from unpaid?
That is a very good point and one that occurred to me as well. There can be owners of unpaid groups who've been around a long time and are very familiar with the product and capable of making extremely valuable suggestions based on a deep knowledge and understanding of what is and isn't already there. And on the other hand there can be owners of paid groups (especially for the first year after the yahoo rescue) who are totally new to groups.io and will tend to make less informed suggestions, at least for awhile. And everything in between. There is no correlation between having a premium group and being capable, for whatever reason, of making really useful suggestions.
 
--
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

KWKloeber
 

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 12:03 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
What do you think?
i think any method that eliminates, or separates, unpaid groups from contributing feature requests is both inefficient and harmful to the desired end result.  Are requests from paid groups “better” / “more valid” than from unpaid?  Besides, the added overhead having to deal with two paths seems inefficient.  No reason not to use one group for both paid/unpaid requests.  As far as bugs, aren’t we SUPPOSED TO use “support@“?

why the need to clog up a forum for those?
I find #s to be not much more than a P.I.T.A. (though can go with any flow.). But if there’s truly some need to differentiate/separate why not a (should b) group beta-feature requests and a group beta-bugs?


moderated Re: More attachment size selections requested

Duane
 

On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 09:00 PM, Glenn wrote:
They have to wait for the download, before they can see it. With an attachment, it is already downloaded.
Seems to me they're waiting either way.  Actually a bit longer for attachments due to the overhead.  Either can be done in the background, if wanted.

Duane


moderated Re: More attachment size selections requested

Glenn
 

On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 07:08 PM, Duane wrote:
In that case, the file pops up immediately when the browser opens.

It's a large file, remember? They have to wait for the download, before they can see it. With an attachment, it is already downloaded.


locked Re: renaming GMF

 

This is not appropriate for beta. Closing.

Mark


moderated Re: Non-permitted groups

Stephen Cowley <stephen.cowley@...>
 

Hi Mark,

Yes, there have to be rules, but these reflect the nature of any real discussion if they are phrased in a way that reflects the views of a reasonable person (legal term). So I suggest that you consider including "the advocacy of violence or illegality by other ideologies" in point 4 as a definition. At present, all your examples are American and some/all probably ephemeral.

All the best
Stephen Cowley


moderated Re: Feature requests/Canny after two weeks

 

I've been around here for a while now; just about two weeks shy of five years if beta's records are correct. I've learned a lot and I occasionally throw a comment into a discussion. Some days it doesn't get thrown back! And yes, I'm one of those people who pay for Premium groups. Right now three of them, but I hope to convert one back to regular in another year or so. I also have a few regular groups that are not real active. I try not to pester support, as they have enough to do already. Beta and GMF have handled 95% of my needs quite simply and effectively.

I haven't looked at Canny. It's just one more thing I haven't had time for. I try to keep up with beta, and generally do well enough, although I often get in at the end of discussions. What's important here for me is that I DO routinely read beta. And I try to browse all the beta posts, because I know that thread drift will often obscure a good idea.

If I find what I think might be a bug, I bring it to GMF first. If I get feedback that there's a reason for something, I like to know first before bothering Mark with it. For me, GMF acts as that filter. And I'd prefer that enhancements be discussed here in beta rather than Canny - because I know I won't make it there.

I don't use hashtags, but could use them here, I guess, if I have to, I suppose, eventually. Having a menu of primary hashtags would help that, or a responder to my few original posts could add a hashtag.

As for GMF, it is what it is. Don't screw around with renaming it and confuse the thousands who come looking for assistance. The worst thing you can do to a successful business is rename it. As for Group Help - sorry, never heard of it before this. And knowing the knowledge base that's on GMF, I'll keep going there - AND coming here.

Dano


moderated Re: @ Susan B/renaming-thread

 

Ronaldo

One can also close the thread, as Mark has done on others.
And PS I’ve been moderating and owning for 27 years.

Susan B

On Dec 29, 2019, at 9:36 AM, ro-esp <ro-esp@dds.nl> wrote:


2b. Re: renaming GMF
From: Susan B <doggiesmail@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 22:26:36 CET
Could we stop discussing changing this group’s name and go back to discussions of groups.io issues? I think it is past time for Mark to close this thread!!

Susan, a thread ends when nobody contributes to it anymore. Netiquette says that you don't have a discussion about whether to discuss a topic, and especially not on-list

On groups.io, if you are fed up with a thread, you can simply click "mute this topic", and be done with it

groetjes, Ronaldo



moderated @ Susan B/renaming-thread

ro-esp
 

2b. Re: renaming GMF
From: Susan B <doggiesmail@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 22:26:36 CET
Could we stop discussing changing this group’s name and go back to discussions of groups.io issues? I think it is past time for Mark to close this thread!!

Susan, a thread ends when nobody contributes to it anymore. Netiquette says that you don't have a discussion about whether to discuss a topic, and especially not on-list

On groups.io, if you are fed up with a thread, you can simply click "mute this topic", and be done with it

groetjes, Ronaldo


moderated Re: Non-permitted groups

 

On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 01:17 PM, Charles Roberts wrote:

DLTDHYITA.....

I would like to apologize for approving this message. This is not the type of atmosphere I'd like to foster here on beta. Thanks to the people who called me on this. I was wrong.

Mark


moderated Re: Feature requests/Canny after two weeks

 

Mark,
I like your idea.

Susan B

On Dec 28, 2019, at 6:09 PM, Jim Fisher <ejf@jimella.co.uk> wrote:

I just want to register my support for this proposal to use Beta as you
describe and drop Canny. It has the added advantage that anyone on Beta who
happens to spot a problem with a proposal can draw attention to it, whereas on
Canny access is restricted so fewer eyes are looking for possible snags.

Jim Fisher

On 26 Dec 2019 at 9:02, Mark Fletcher wrote:

Hi All,

So, it seems that some people are using Canny to submit feature requests
and that it can be a useful tool for doing so. I do see a few drawbacks:

- There are still a bunch of posts to beta that would be more appropriate
instead as Canny feature requests.
- There is no notification of new posts to Canny on beta. So it can be
difficult to know when new things are posted to Canny.
- People who don't run premium groups cannot post to Canny.

I can address the second issue with a custom email summary sent to beta on
a regular basis, but that will require some development effort on my part.
My main problem with Canny is with the first issue; people will still post
feature requests on beta, and the discussion about those feature requests
will still happen on beta.

I thought of another way we could address this, using just the beta
group and hashtags. We could use a designated hashtag for feature requests
(and maybe another for bugs). That would make it easy to address the first
issue above; if someone posts a feature request without the correct
hashtag, I can just add it. To view all feature requests, just filter on
the hashtag. The one main thing that doesn't provide is the ability to sort by
popularity (ie likes). However, I could add something like that to the search
results page (he says without thinking it through completely).

(Also, I would add 'status' hashtags, like #closed, #planned, etc)

What do you think? I'm willing to continue using Canny if you all think
it's a good solution. Or we could switch to something like my proposal. Or
something else if someone has a better idea.

Thanks,
Mark (still on vacation)



--
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: Feature requests/Canny after two weeks

 

I just want to register my support for this proposal to use Beta as you
describe and drop Canny. It has the added advantage that anyone on Beta who
happens to spot a problem with a proposal can draw attention to it, whereas on
Canny access is restricted so fewer eyes are looking for possible snags.

Jim Fisher

On 26 Dec 2019 at 9:02, Mark Fletcher wrote:

Hi All,

So, it seems that some people are using Canny to submit feature requests
and that it can be a useful tool for doing so. I do see a few drawbacks:

- There are still a bunch of posts to beta that would be more appropriate
instead as Canny feature requests.
- There is no notification of new posts to Canny on beta. So it can be
difficult to know when new things are posted to Canny.
- People who don't run premium groups cannot post to Canny.

I can address the second issue with a custom email summary sent to beta on
a regular basis, but that will require some development effort on my part.
My main problem with Canny is with the first issue; people will still post
feature requests on beta, and the discussion about those feature requests
will still happen on beta.

I thought of another way we could address this, using just the beta
group and hashtags. We could use a designated hashtag for feature requests
(and maybe another for bugs). That would make it easy to address the first
issue above; if someone posts a feature request without the correct
hashtag, I can just add it. To view all feature requests, just filter on
the hashtag. The one main thing that doesn't provide is the ability to sort by
popularity (ie likes). However, I could add something like that to the search
results page (he says without thinking it through completely).

(Also, I would add 'status' hashtags, like #closed, #planned, etc)

What do you think? I'm willing to continue using Canny if you all think
it's a good solution. Or we could switch to something like my proposal. Or
something else if someone has a better idea.

Thanks,
Mark (still on vacation)



--
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


locked Re: renaming GMF

Chris Jones
 

On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 09:04 PM, Christos G. Psarras wrote:
I also do think that GMF could be renamed to better reflect its non-ties to GIO
Duane's post should have been quite enough to explain the history behind the name "GMF". That apart, the group's name is under the control of its Owners (& Moderators, I dare say!) not Groups.io. As far as I can see Mark is perfectly content with the way things are, and I strongly suspect that most of the GMF's subscribers are as well. Changing the name is likely to cause more confusion than it could ever resolve.

Chris


moderated Re: Feature requests/Canny after two weeks

 

Gerald, 

I see. But Freeloader is not a humorous term. Maybe you can adopt Catlady’s term  “non-Premium” groups. 

Susan B


On Dec 28, 2019, at 3:18 PM, Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...> wrote:

On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 03:54 PM, Susan B wrote:
“Freeloaders??” Wow. That’s pretty rude!! 

 
Hi, Susan.

I hoped that everyone would realize that I meant this in jest. I assume you probably did as well, at least I hope you did.

By the way, I am definitely a "freeloader" myself and I also like to think that I have a good sense of humor. However, for some reason, a lot of people still seem to miss even my best attempts at humor.

 --
Gerald


locked Re: renaming GMF

 

Could we stop discussing changing this group’s name and go back to discussions of groups.io issues? I think it is past time for Mark to close this thread!!


On Dec 28, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Christos G. Psarras <christos@...> wrote:

I also do think that GMF could be renamed to better reflect its non-ties to GIO, plus more closely align itself with the forgotten group, Group-Help.  Personally, if you are going to have Group_Help, to me Group_Managers_Help seems a logical choice as it "associates" both groups together, one for regular users (primarily), the other for admins.mods (primarily). 

One observation,

>>> Lastly, if the name were changed, there would be nothing to prevent someone else from starting a group with the current name, thus making it even more confusing.<<<


Not quite correct, all one has to do is create a placeholder group with the pertinent info, set it to not visible/closed, etc, and nobody can create the same group, at least with the same address.


Cheers,
Christos

6281 - 6300 of 29448