Date   

moderated Happy Holidays!

 

Hi All,

I will be on holiday starting tomorrow, returning January 3rd. I will be monitoring the site as usual, but responses to email and support will be slowed. The next #changelog email will be sent on Friday, January 4th.

I hope you all have a happy holiday season!

Mark


moderated Re: Add permalinks to Wiki pages

 

Mark,

Currently there is a link icon on wiki pages, which points to the URL for the wiki page (with the wiki title).

Yes, that one I want immutable.
It seems that there'd be confusion with two different kinds of permalinks. 

I wouldn't have an icon for both types. I was thinking that going forward the title links one would only get via copying the address bar while visiting the wiki page. In any case I don't want to break any existing title links.

Maybe I need to do what Wikipedia does: changing the title of a page is a bit more of a process and generates redirect URLs from the old title to the new title.

That's an idea too. But a part of my annoyance with the title links is that many users don't think of the title in terms of it being used for access. So they make long ones, with punctuation and whatnot. In addition to changing them without thinking.

Maybe instead of a serial number for the permalink, allow the page creator to assign a Page Name (which becomes its permalink) with a short text, required to be group-unique; explicitly distinct from the page Title. I try to treat them that way anyway. That text could have URL-compatible character rules so that you don't subsequently have to deal with encoding them (and we don't have to deal with the ugliness of URL-encoded punctuation in the URL). A little like the distinction between a Group Name (aka email address) and a Group Title.

Shal


moderated Re: Hashtags

Jeremy H
 

My thought (for what it's worth) is that the optimal position would be for there to be an overall limit that is as high as technically possible (based on groups.io and e-mail technologies), and a limit that can be set for each group by its owner, based on their consideration of what is desirable for their group, from zero up to the overall limit.

Jeremy


moderated Re: Add permalinks to Wiki pages

 

Shal,

On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 1:12 PM Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:

I'd like to have permalinks on wiki pages.

Currently there is a link icon on wiki pages, which points to the URL for the wiki page (with the wiki title). It seems that there'd be confusion with two different kinds of permalinks. 

Maybe I need to do what Wikipedia does: changing the title of a page is a bit more of a process and generates redirect URLs from the old title to the new title.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion

ro-esp
 

Ken, I'm losing track here. What is editing, and why do we need it?

What does it have to do with the topic of this thread?

If people quote (intersperse) properly, a missing message becomes less of a problem. If the first message in a thread is deleted, I guess it should show "message deleted by author", and the *moderator(s)* should have the right to delete the entire thread - especially if the whole thing is based on a stupid misunderstanding, or obviously unimportant.



groetjes, Ronaldo


moderated Re: Identically named topics

 

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 09:26 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
I also tested it via email with the same result. Will retest.
Mark, the email ones do thread. My mistake.
 
--
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

 

Allowing members to edit and save without sending would be 10 times worse. We have been over and over and over this years ago. Please let's not do it again!
--
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 Why not allow Edit w/o resending

KWKloeber
 

I have no clue why a grp would not allow msgs to be edited, but that’s none of my business!  But, not allowing members to Edit, and choose to Save w/o Resending to the grp seems counter productive.  

There’s many times I fix a simple typo or faux pas, and save w/o bothering the members w/another email.  If it’s critical/important then I resend. But my understanding is that common folk don’t have that option?  Only to resend an edited msg. 
Extending that option not to resend to the masses (with owner option to allow it) would seem to be a valuable enhancement

ok, let ‘er rip. 

Ken


moderated Re: Identically named topics

 

Good point and is probably the reason Mark changed it in the first olace. Maybe he should now change it back? (I myself have no opinion and only started this thread in response to comments by Ken and Gerald in another thread.)


On Dec 18, 2018, at 12:41 PM, Barbara Byers <babmay11@...> wrote:

I think it's fine the way it was.

I know it's happened a few different times that folks in my group may have used the same topic name as a previous post unintentionally, where you would NOT want it threaded on to the previous posts.  Something like "Action Alert" or "Meeting tomorrow".  Yes it's sloppy naming because it isn't very specific, but I would agree with you, if someone posted it as a NEW Topic post, then I would also assume they did it intentionally.  I guess I always assumed I would use a reply function if I wanted the post to be in the same thread.  But that's me.

Barb

 


On 2018-12-18 12:23 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:51 AM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
Currently, members can start an infinite number of topics with the same name. Should this be allowed, or should messages bearing the same name as an already existing topic be threaded into that topic?

If you're referring to messages posted via the website, then this was by design. The thought process being that someone using the 'New Topic' post feature definitely wanted a new topic. This was different than messages received via email, where we did try to merge them into existing topics.
 
I've changed it so that if someone posts a new topic via the web, it's treated the same as if we had received an email, and should be combined to an existing, recent topic of the same name.
 
Thanks,
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


moderated Re: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion

KWKloeber
 

J

My point (between the lines) - is if a group prohibits editing, a member could simply copy, start a new topic, paste, edit, send. To email users it would appear to be an identical [edited] message.


moderated Re: Identically named topics

Charlie McB
 

Perhaps if people see the effect of using ambiguous topics then they'll be more specific next time.  On my neighborhood group a topic of "Lost dog" may or may not be a brand new topic.

I do support Mark's change to make the web and email interfaces behave the same.  Regardless of whether it's a new topic or threaded to an old topic, it's less confusing when the two routes give the same results.

                -- Charlie

On 12/18/18 3:41 PM, Barbara Byers wrote:

I think it's fine the way it was.

I know it's happened a few different times that folks in my group may have used the same topic name as a previous post unintentionally, where you would NOT want it threaded on to the previous posts.  Something like "Action Alert" or "Meeting tomorrow".  Yes it's sloppy naming because it isn't very specific, but I would agree with you, if someone posted it as a NEW Topic post, then I would also assume they did it intentionally.  I guess I always assumed I would use a reply function if I wanted the post to be in the same thread.  But that's me.

Barb

 


On 2018-12-18 12:23 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:51 AM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
Currently, members can start an infinite number of topics with the same name. Should this be allowed, or should messages bearing the same name as an already existing topic be threaded into that topic?

If you're referring to messages posted via the website, then this was by design. The thought process being that someone using the 'New Topic' post feature definitely wanted a new topic. This was different than messages received via email, where we did try to merge them into existing topics.
 
I've changed it so that if someone posts a new topic via the web, it's treated the same as if we had received an email, and should be combined to an existing, recent topic of the same name.
 
Thanks,
Mark 



moderated Re: Identically named topics

Barbara Byers
 

I think it's fine the way it was.

I know it's happened a few different times that folks in my group may have used the same topic name as a previous post unintentionally, where you would NOT want it threaded on to the previous posts.  Something like "Action Alert" or "Meeting tomorrow".  Yes it's sloppy naming because it isn't very specific, but I would agree with you, if someone posted it as a NEW Topic post, then I would also assume they did it intentionally.  I guess I always assumed I would use a reply function if I wanted the post to be in the same thread.  But that's me.

Barb

 


On 2018-12-18 12:23 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:51 AM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
Currently, members can start an infinite number of topics with the same name. Should this be allowed, or should messages bearing the same name as an already existing topic be threaded into that topic?

If you're referring to messages posted via the website, then this was by design. The thought process being that someone using the 'New Topic' post feature definitely wanted a new topic. This was different than messages received via email, where we did try to merge them into existing topics.
 
I've changed it so that if someone posts a new topic via the web, it's treated the same as if we had received an email, and should be combined to an existing, recent topic of the same name.
 
Thanks,
Mark 


moderated Re: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion

Barbara Byers
 

I agree, why shouldn't members be allowed to delete their own stuff?  I like Mark's idea of have something that says "message deleted".

Barb

 


On 2018-12-18 12:48 PM, Shal Farley wrote:

Mark,
 

I stand on the side of preserving a member's option to delete any or all of their contributions (Messages, Photos, Files, etc.).
 
I understand J's point about the license terms in Groups.io's TOS, but that's one of the few things I'm dissatisfied with about Groups.io. I much preferred the Yahoo TOS in that regard: it explicitly terminates the license if either the user or Yahoo deletes the content.
 
Shal
 


moderated Re: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion

 

It's just another minor issue. Mark's suggestion to void the message deals with that one aspect, and that one aspect alone.


On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:03 PM Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:
J,

Don’t forget that deleting a message from a thread makes it impossible to then lock or moderate the thread.

If that's still a problem it is a different one. And Mark has already suggested a solution: void the message rather than delete it entirely.
Shal


--
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: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion

 

J,

Don’t forget that deleting a message from a thread makes it impossible to then lock or moderate the thread.

If that's still a problem it is a different one. And Mark has already suggested a solution: void the message rather than delete it entirely.
Shal


moderated Re: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion

 

"action by Customer Care was policy, not a requirement of the TOS"
Shal, according to your own post, Y!G/s TOU differs from groups.io precisely in the requirement of the system to remove any user content at user request. The mechanism is not really relevant. And now, Y!G fails to comply with that.

J

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:59 AM Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:
J,

But they HAD TO ASK,

There was no need to ask anyone if they were still a member or could get back in.
whether group owners or support. No real difference. 

I think there's a big difference between asking a cooperative group owner to approve a membership if needed, versus having to resort to Customer Care to deal with an intransigent or AWOL one.

If Mark changes the TOU, he would also be stuck with being legally required to take down any user content, any time, at the user’s request. 

No. Again: action by Customer Care was policy, not a requirement of the TOS.

Shal


--
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: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion

 

J,

But they HAD TO ASK,

There was no need to ask anyone if they were still a member or could get back in.
whether group owners or support. No real difference. 

I think there's a big difference between asking a cooperative group owner to approve a membership if needed, versus having to resort to Customer Care to deal with an intransigent or AWOL one.

If Mark changes the TOU, he would also be stuck with being legally required to take down any user content, any time, at the user’s request. 

No. Again: action by Customer Care was policy, not a requirement of the TOS.

Shal


moderated Re: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion

 

Here’s a possible solution. Change the ‘delete’ button to ‘request deletion of this message’ and pass the request on to the moderators to handle appropriately.

Don’t change the TOU because of resulting legal quagmire.

Don’t forget that deleting a message from a thread makes it impossible to then lock or moderate the thread. For that reason alone, I never delete messages from active threads. I just redact the message. This is another strong reason not to allow members to simply delete their messages by themselves.

Havoc.


On Dec 18, 2018, at 11:45 AM, J_Catlady via Groups.Io <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

But they HAD TO ASK, whether group owners or support. No real difference. 

And now, they have no recourse whatsoever. So they’re out of compliance. If Mark changes the TOU, he would also be stuck with being legally required to take down any user content, any time, at the user’s request. 


On Dec 18, 2018, at 11:18 AM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:

J,

Shal, whatever the case, Y!G is currently out of compliance with its own TOU.

I don't read the TOS as requiring action by Customer Care; that was a matter of policy. Consistent with the TOS, but not a direct requirement.
They have to ASK.

My point is that they shouldn't need to ask anyone. In Y!Groups needing to involve Customer Care only came about when dealing with intransigent or AWOL group owners.
Shal


--
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


--
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: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion

 

But they HAD TO ASK, whether group owners or support. No real difference. 

And now, they have no recourse whatsoever. So they’re out of compliance. If Mark changes the TOU, he would also be stuck with being legally required to take down any user content, any time, at the user’s request. 


On Dec 18, 2018, at 11:18 AM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:

J,

Shal, whatever the case, Y!G is currently out of compliance with its own TOU.

I don't read the TOS as requiring action by Customer Care; that was a matter of policy. Consistent with the TOS, but not a direct requirement.
They have to ASK.

My point is that they shouldn't need to ask anyone. In Y!Groups needing to involve Customer Care only came about when dealing with intransigent or AWOL group owners.
Shal


--
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: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion

 

J,

Shal, whatever the case, Y!G is currently out of compliance with its own TOU.

I don't read the TOS as requiring action by Customer Care; that was a matter of policy. Consistent with the TOS, but not a direct requirement.
They have to ASK.

My point is that they shouldn't need to ask anyone. In Y!Groups needing to involve Customer Care only came about when dealing with intransigent or AWOL group owners.
Shal