Date   

moderated Re: Why not allow Edit w/o resending

 

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
I don't believe meta discussions belong in beta.
I agree but it's hard not to get dragged in when someone calls you a dictator. And hard to be "done" when these kinds of comments continue.

That's it, I'm now going to gag myself.
 
--
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: Why not allow Edit w/o resending

 

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 08:21 AM, Barbara Byers wrote:
"There are days I feel like I'm surrounded by second-graders.."

I agree that name-calling should be off limits, and personally would not have used that term. But name-calling also includes your (offensively) referring to some of us as as dictators.

in the tech world, nothing is ever really settled. Barb
That is very true and as a former software engineer, I'm well aware of it. But (a) there are degrees of "settled," and (b) people new to a situation need to make some effort to familiarize themselves before stomping on what already exists. Someone here - I forget who - even asked "what's editing" and then wondered why any group would disable it, which to me is incredibly jaw-dropping, and that was apparently not even realizing that it's been disabled in beta by none other than Mark himself. Anyone want to open THAT topic again? I'm sure there are a ton of newcomers here with better ideas now, because a year has gone by and nothing is ever settled....
 
--
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: Why not allow Edit w/o resending

 

FWIW,

[Ironically addressing the meta topic]

I don't believe meta discussions belong in beta.

Beta is Groups.io's official product suggestion box. As such the primary audience for all postings here is Mark, and his time is valuable to all of us. The secondary audience would be the OP, to offer information, refinements, constructive criticism (of the suggestion) and/or elicit additional detail about the suggestion and its use case(s).

All else is chaff.

To fret that a suggestion might undo something that was already fought for is first cousin to fretting that it might be too difficult to implement - it doesn't give Mark nearly enough credit for knowing his product's history and design.

I think Barbra's point is spot-on: In a customer service forum having newbies and old-timers alike revisit old topics is both unavoidable and healthy. Attempting to quash other people's suggestions is toxic.

I think the words "fight", "battle", and "litigate" speak volumes. I think we'd all be a lot happier, less exhausted, and more productive if no one took an adversarial approach to other people's suggestions. At least not in this venue.

Therewith I too am "done". Please slap me about off-list, if you feel so inclined.

Shal


moderated Re: Why not allow Edit w/o resending

KWKloeber
 

(BTW, before adding to this, I searched "relitigate" and found no prior discussion or new member/new user code of conduct) otherwise I would have threaded there. :-)

Just look at how much time and effort has been spent on this, the "issue/topic: how to address an old issue/topic."  
So, I'll submit (then shut up and grab an eggnog) that it might have been considerably easier, simpler, and more courteous to merely point out that <the issue> was visited before and to check it out <LINK> (if someone REALLY wants to be helpful.)

Searching for pre-litigation of such an "obviously helpful and overlooked (IMHO) feature" <smile> was not on my radar.  Different folks, different perspectives, 'eh?

Why not everyone just go to their dresser, select a fresh pair of underwear (that isn't twisted up in a bunch,) and slip them on before jumping into the sword thrashing, swash-buckling, posts?  It's probably just holiday season stress, 

When a newbie asks an "it's obvious, so how come?" question, I will (more than not)  <link> them to the thread or the <photo album> or <files> that help them figure out the "how come?" of their question, or problem.  
Sometimes I "nudge" older members (membership, not age) to just go search (or I throw up the search URL, but NOT find it for him/her.) 
Sometimes after being reminded of their resources (somewheres around the 10th time, give or take), I admit that I do get a little testy and strongly remind them where the resources reside (for their own looking and taking.) 
But most the time I remind myself that just about everyone (ok, math isn't my forte') is on there to be helpful, not just to be a PITA or suck others dry.

My point being, just like a <smile> vs a >frown< in the final count, it's easier to be helpful than not, and yes, there are some (at least come across as such) attitudes of better-than-thou, or I'm-a-moderator-wannabe, or our-time-is-more-valuable, type replies, whether or not intended as such.

Everyone have a great set of Holidaze, wherever/however you celebrate them.
I can't wait to tear into the still-folded-in-the-wrapper and not yet twisted-into-a-bunch, underdrawers that are (wishfully) in my stocking.


moderated Re: Identically named topics

Jim Higgins
 

Received from J_Catlady at 12/19/2018 02:21 AM UTC:

Jim, game of telephone. They would be allowed, but not allowed to start new threads. And Mark has done the programming necessary to detect this situation. Or I'm misunderstanding your question. It does not seem to be rocket science...???

Yep, telephone... That sounds like the most practical approach.

Jim H


moderated Re: Why not allow Edit w/o resending

Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...>
 

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:08 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
There is no attitude of scorn. But the stated purpose of beta is to suggest and discuss new features. Not to incessantly revisit done features and ask why they are the way they are, which is a lot of what has gone on here. I don't think there's any such thing as a "foolish question," as you put it. But I do think that basic questions about current features belong in GMF, as Mark has said time and time again. An "attitude of scorn" seems more evident in those using the term "dictator" to express our opinions, and in not respecting all the time and effort that went into deciding past issues.

It's always dangerous to say that I will not comment further in a thread. But I will try my best to do that here, even in the face of further possible (and, IMO, inappropriate) insults.
--
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 disagree with your interpretation of the purpose of the group. I am going by what is on the home page of the group.

Group Description

"A group to discuss the Groups.io service and how it can be improved"

 
--
Gerald


moderated Re: Why not allow Edit w/o resending

Barbara Byers
 

"There is no attitude of scorn."

Really?  To quote a previous message, "There are days I feel like I'm surrounded by second-graders.." I also think there is quite a bit of trying to shut down discussions by using the "we've already decided that" statements. It really doesn't make new owners feel welcome.

I do appreciate folks who have been around a while and hashed through many issues with Mark. But in the tech world, nothing is ever really settled. Barb


moderated Re: Why not allow Edit w/o resending

 

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 07:57 AM, Barbara Byers wrote:
Mark can decide what to shut down and what to revisit, and he seems fairly tolerant of recurring debates.
Barb
Well, he has already shut down the debate about the feature being discussed here and expressed his dissatisfaction with "relitigation." And now I'm done.
 
--
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: Why not allow Edit w/o resending

 

There is no attitude of scorn. But the stated purpose of beta is to suggest and discuss new features. Not to incessantly revisit done features and ask why they are the way they are, which is a lot of what has gone on here. I don't think there's any such thing as a "foolish question," as you put it. But I do think that basic questions about current features belong in GMF, as Mark has said time and time again. An "attitude of scorn" seems more evident in those using the term "dictator" to express our opinions, and in not respecting all the time and effort that went into deciding past issues.

It's always dangerous to say that I will not comment further in a thread. But I will try my best to do that here, even in the face of further possible (and, IMO, inappropriate) insults.
--
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: Why not allow Edit w/o resending

Barbara Byers
 

We are not talking about issues "aging well" or not. We are talking about issues from within the past two or three years.
-- 
J

But Groups.io has grown exponentially in the last 2 or 3 years - so I wouldn't expect something that might have been "settled" for 50 owners might still be "settled" for 1000 or 10,000, or whatever the current number might be.  And who decides if something is settled "forever", which is what you seem to be implying?  Other than Mark, of course.  I get a bit tired of the folks who have been around the longest acting like they get to dictate what is worthy of change and what is not.  The attitude of scorn about new group owners really isn't warranted.  Yes, there are some basic and perhaps even foolish questions, but we also have some really good ones.  But again, Mark can decide what to shut down and what to revisit, and he seems fairly tolerant of recurring debates.
Barb


moderated Re: Why not allow Edit w/o resending

 

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 06:35 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
but that the meta-conversation about relitigating (as Mark put it) or bringing up old topics (as Barbara put it) is not yet closed. 
the operative word being "yet." 
 
--
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: Why not allow Edit w/o resending

 

In responding here, I'm assuming that the topic of the feature itself is closed (per Mark's exhortation), but that the meta-conversation about relitigating (as Mark put it) or bringing up old topics (as Barbara put it) is not yet closed. 

I don't think there's anything wrong with "bringing up old topics." But as Dano said, I think that newer people should make some effort to understand the issues, and gain some familiarity, when an already "litigated" issue comes up. A few people in this thread have jumped in to ask that people explain to them, here in beta, why a certain feature is the way it is, and then, before even understanding, jump in and state that they're for or against it. They are completely unaware of the months-long, unbelievably exhaustive debates that went on prior to their arrival, and Mark's ultimate decision.

You don't revisit every feature of a piece of software when someone new shows up. They're expected to make some effort to understand and gain familiarity before criticizing the work that went on before they got here. If someone has a great idea, I am *always* all for it, even if I turned out to be wrong, recently in the past.

Like Barbara, I also don't get tired of the "umpteenth new person" who brings up the "removed due to spam" issue. Because that is still an unresolved issue. But resolved, decided upon, EXHAUSTIVELY explored and debated issues in the past, about things that are basically working fine, and whose change are just a matter of opinion, and about which ALL possible opinions have already been explored (and they have - I defy anybody new here to come up with a new angle) - these issues are different.  And people have been entering some of these threads very naively (I use the word in the best sense, although I will avoid Dano's term kindergarteners) and jumping in, asking "why" and expecting the old-timers to take the time to educate them all over again. It's very possible for them to look up these issues in past threads here, instead of simply and blatantly contradicting the status quo in a rootless way, and asking others to summarize what in many cases was a months long and highly complicated debate. I don't feel it's being a "dictator," as Barbara puts it, to ask, expect, or hope that they would do so before jumping in.

We are not talking about issues "aging well" or not. We are talking about issues from within the past two or three years.
--
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: Happy Holidays!

Barbara Byers
 

Happy Holidays!  Thanks for all of your hard work on Groups.io, my little groups are doing wonderfully here.

Barb


moderated Re: Why not allow Edit w/o resending

Barbara Byers
 

Just a comment on bringing up "old" topics.  As Groups.io grows rapidly and adds new groups and owners, it is the nature of the growth that topics will be brought up again, and that as the dynamics change, the majority of members may want to revisit the way something is done.  I do feel like there are folks that want to control everything and have a quasi-dictatorship, and others who simply want a collective group where people can do what they wish (within reason), and everything in between. And of course there is a spectrum to it, so there are folks in the middle too, who want a few controls but not everything.

Personally I get tired of hearing from the umpteenth new person about the bouncing of members when they delete a message from their spam, and I didn't like it at first either, but I came around to it.  It's part of the good problem of the product growing rapidly.

But sometimes an idea doesn't age well, even if it was all battled out years ago, things do sometimes change, and sometimes new members do have good ideas that might even be better.  Just my .02

Barb


moderated Re: Why not allow Edit w/o resending

 

Hi Dano,

It's nice to hear from you!
--
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: Identically named topics

 

Barbara,

I think it's fine the way it was.
I concur. The original thought process Mark mentioned still seems sound to me.

The only reason the same doesn't uniformly apply to emailed posts is because email interfaces vary: not all of them mark replies as such using the standard header fields In-Reply-To and/or References.

So when an email posting arrives without such marking, Groups.io has to rely on other signals - currently a combination of Subject match and age of the most recent match.

Shal


moderated Re: Why not allow Edit w/o resending

 

J_Catlady wrote:
"... It’s frustrating to spend time and energy to fight so hard for something, and not just personally but with a genuine interest in the product; get a decision from Mark; and then have to fight the same battle over again with newcomers who have not had a chance to even familiarize themselves with the reasoning that went behind the original decision."
_______________________________

J, You're not alone in your frustration. You joined beta not too long after I did and we remember years of past discussions. I used to be much more active in beta, but any more it seems as though there's just no quick way to repost the history of efforts to find resolutions. And if one does that, there are a dozen other ideas that other people have decided to rehash in the mean time, even though they don't understand (or possibly even know the existence of) past threads and history. I've found myself skimming threads or ignoring some because of that frustration. I'm concerned that things I worked for might be undone by people who don't understand, but I'm losing enthusiasm for defending things from the new people who don't care about past reasoning.

I am so very thankful for Mark's passion to groups.io, and his patience and insight into what groups potential is. We seem to have a lot of very tech savvy newcomers here who don't understand that some of us fought for the ability to keep things *very* simple for our groups. My groups are plain text and don't even allow hashtags because they're just noise to our members. We're focused primarily on historical subjects, and those older members and their memories are priceless - we don't want to risk losing them to frustrations with technology. I pay for two premium groups just so I can have the additional moderator abilities to help them when they get messed up and sideways.

For those who still remember our roots, please don't give up. I haven't, but it gets harder as more newbies appear wanting to reinvent the wheel their own way. There are days I feel like I'm surrounded by second-graders and they all have boxes of matches. *sigh*

Dano


moderated Re: Why not allow Edit w/o resending

KWKloeber
 

Re: Bringing up an old, scabbed-over wound.  

Excuse me for caring, but YES, sometimes newcomers do see a missing feature that makes sense, or conversely one that doesn't make sense, and possibly should be revisited.

And just as other forums say, there's always the DELETE button or just IGNORE the message -- or just don't feel as though you must get back into the fray.  No one is forcing anyone to explain a position, or forcing them to revisit anything themselves specifically.  One does so because one CARES, and so does the newcomer bring up what one might see as being a commonsense feature because of the same reason.

Personally. we have no need for a gazillion hashtags on a topic, but if one needs it, who one group to say that another owner cannot/should not be able -- if it is technically viable and Mark is willing to implement it?  


moderated Re: Why not allow Edit w/o resending

KWKloeber
 

If you think it will cause trouble in your groups don't enable it (allow members to edit without re-send), or enable it and require such edits be moderated, or don't allow members to edit at all.
 
Shal
EXACTLY!  Why believe it's proper to impose ONE owner's or ONE group's preference onto everybody? 
It's the old story that 99% of the rules are made for 1% of the people.  Simple - just don't allow it if YOU don't want it. 
Adults that can edit their posts needn't be treated like other kindergarteners.


moderated If your users cannot log in

 

Hi All,

This just came up and I hadn't seen it before, so I thought I'd pass this along. If any of your members are having problems logging in, using an iPhone/iPad, in addition to making sure they have cookies enabled, make sure their browsers are not set to private browsing. That deletes cookies after every visit and forces them to log in each time.

I'll also add this to the help after vacation.

Mark