Date   

moderated Re: Yahoo Groups exports down again

CW Bill Rouse
 

Mark,

Thanks.

We have our 1500 member database from Yahoo. It is the message history, photos, and files that we need to import. Without those things, a move is not in our future.

Best,

ADM CW Bill Rouse

Amel Yacht Owners Group


moderated Re: Wiki requests

Sharon Villines
 

On Jan 31, 2019, at 9:11 AM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

I guess I'm not understanding what you want here, or why it would be different. The PDFs can be stored in the Files section, then add links in the Wiki. Seems like it adds up to the same thing. Only members have access to the files, so the Wiki could be public if you want, but non-members wouldn't be able to open the files.
This is exactly the reason we don’t allow attachments on an active email list of 3000+. When the attachment is one place and the message somewhere else, they get delinked or set up with different permissions, etc. The attachments get deleted and the message then makes no sense in a year. Easier to require the whole message to be the whole message.

The same thing will happen with a wiki. It’s incredibly frustrating to see links to things that you can’t access or are missing. At least if it is all stored together, you have a chance of creating archives that are useful in 10 years.

For example, I frequently research all mentions of a topic over a period of 20 years. I arrange the messages from 3-5 related lists into one chronological list. This has been incredibly helpful in figuring out the history of decisions related to the HVAC or a pesky neighbor.

But at one point, Yahoo decided without notice to delete all attachments on messages with no way to either save or retrieve them. Suddenly years of documents were gone. Hundreds and hundreds of drafts, photos, etc.

I remain highly leery of Google’s integrated apps and things being entered in one place but stored in another. Better to have no attachments and reference the files for PDFs if that is where they really are.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines, Washington DC
"We're only the light bulbs, and our job is just to remain screwed in.” Bishop Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Wiki requests

Sharon Villines
 

Many months ago I recommended the Google Sites wiki as an excellent model for the "general public" to use. We have residents of a condominium recording and consulting a Google wiki on all things related to the facilities and there have been no problems even with the most recalcitrant users.

But we now have the new and improved Google Sites which is awful. Just awful. I dread the next phone call or email asking Whaaaaaaat? I don’t even like to look for things myself.

The easy WYSIWG is still there but all the menus are hidden. Layers of hidden menus. Takes forever to navigate from one subpage to another to another. The menu has to be opened each time. And some menus are three vertical dots, others a button with an icon, a hamburger, etc. And you have to hover over many just to find them.

I haven’t made a list of things missing but the options are more limited. And it requires you to use Drive, Documents, etc for some things. It automatically saves them elsewhere. Go figure why this and not that. So if you delete one of those appendages you might be deleting pieces of another one.

It’s a perfect bad example of a new powerful streamlined awe-inspiring thus much less useful service you wish you had never gotten started with.

Sharon
------
Sharon Villines, Washington, DC
"As long as you have two or fewer, your ducks are always in a row." The Covert Comic


moderated Re: Wiki requests

Duane
 

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 08:45 PM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
Again I am referring to PDFs that are explicitly used on a wiki page.
I guess I'm not understanding what you want here, or why it would be different.  The PDFs can be stored in the Files section, then add links in the Wiki.  Seems like it adds up to the same thing.  Only members have access to the files, so the Wiki could be public if you want, but non-members wouldn't be able to open the files.

Duane


moderated Re: Wiki requests

Andy Wedge
 

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 06:48 AM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
It's an unnecessary PITA to have to scroll to the end each time when making and saving multiple edits on a LONG page.
I agree it would be nice to have some edit options at the top of a page but failing that, you shouldn't need to spend time scrolling down. CTRL+End will take you to the bottom of the page.

Andy


moderated Re: Wiki requests

KWKloeber
 

Chris
 
Again I am referring to PDFs that are explicitly used on a wiki page. 
Not PDF files that are stored in file space for general viewing/use.
 
-k
 

Virus-free. www.avg.com


moderated Re: extend "claimed by" feature for pending messages to pending members #suggestion

 

No problem. (I’m not in GMF anyway 😊.)

On Jan 30, 2019, at 12:17 AM, Marina <@Biblit> wrote:

Ops! Sorry, I hadn't realized this is Beta group, where you ask for new features. I thought I was replying to Catlady on GMF.

Marina


--
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: extend "claimed by" feature for pending messages to pending members #suggestion

 

As I said (preemptively 😊), the work shift idea would not work in our group. Thanks for the suggestion.

On Jan 30, 2019, at 12:14 AM, Marina <@Biblit> wrote:

So it would be
convenient if pending members could be "claimed," just as editing off a
pending message is claimed, to prevent other mods from trying to go into their
page and set it up.
In my group we have a "workshift", i.e. each moderator has an assigned day (occasionally we have 2 moderators on the same day). If a moderator for any reason wants/needs to follow a specific pending member, he/she leaves a note in the Notes section of that member's page.
Before handling pending members (especially those who have been on the pending list for some days), moderators check their Notes section.
I don't know if this would work with your group. Hope this helps, anyway.
Best,
Marina


--
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: extend "claimed by" feature for pending messages to pending members #suggestion

Marina
 

Ops! Sorry, I hadn't realized this is Beta group, where you ask for new features. I thought I was replying to Catlady on GMF.

Marina


moderated Re: extend "claimed by" feature for pending messages to pending members #suggestion

Marina
 

So it would be
convenient if pending members could be "claimed," just as editing off a
pending message is claimed, to prevent other mods from trying to go into their
page and set it up.
In my group we have a "workshift", i.e. each moderator has an assigned day (occasionally we have 2 moderators on the same day). If a moderator for any reason wants/needs to follow a specific pending member, he/she leaves a note in the Notes section of that member's page.
Before handling pending members (especially those who have been on the pending list for some days), moderators check their Notes section.
I don't know if this would work with your group. Hope this helps, anyway.
Best,
Marina


moderated Re: extend "claimed by" feature for pending messages to pending members #suggestion

 

I fully support this idea for very similar reasons. I have/had a member 'holding' because I wanted to check with support about connecting an older membership with the prospective membership that was submitted. Before I could get a response back from support, the other moderator approved the membership, wiping out a chance to work through potential duplication and the member losing control of their content.

Just as with message approvals, generally there's no problem and having multiple moderators keeps things flowing better. But when something like this happens it's just terribly frustrating.

Dano

----- Original Message -----

With my moderators taking over more of the responsibilities, we have found ourselves in the conundrum of what happens if two mods concurrently try to approve or reject a pending member. Mostly they are approved, but in our group, the approval process includes setting their Display Name, Notes page, and Auto-signature based on answers to their questionnaire. So it would be convenient if pending members could be "claimed," just as editing off a pending message is claimed, to prevent other mods from trying to go into their page and set it up.
. . . . . .

(Preemptively, in case someone is going to suggest having only one active moderator at a time: that would not work in our case.)
--
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 extend "claimed by" feature for pending messages to pending members #suggestion

 

With my moderators taking over more of the responsibilities, we have found ourselves in the conundrum of what happens if two mods concurrently try to approve or reject a pending member. Mostly they are approved, but in our group, the approval process includes setting their Display Name, Notes page, and Auto-signature based on answers to their questionnaire. So it would be convenient if pending members could be "claimed," just as editing off a pending message is claimed, to prevent other mods from trying to go into their page and set it up.

We are meanwhile resorting to sending each other messages saying "I'm handing xyz pending member." The problem with that is that another mod will see see the member's questionnaire response in their email BEFORE they see the "I'm handling" message, so this does not really remove the problem.

(Preemptively, in case someone is going to suggest having only one active moderator at a time: that would not work in our case.)
--
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: Wiki requests

Chris Jones
 

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 06:48 AM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
PDFs
  • Could reside in a Wiki space, rather than in the Files space.
  • Could be hidden so they are available to only the wiki viewers or mods.
As an option, perhaps. We have several pdfs for members' use in the files section of the group I moderate (and others I know), and we wouldn't want to lose that facility.

Chris


moderated Re: Site updates #changelog

 

On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 7:03 PM Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:

I found an earlier changelog reference to testing it (#13683) but I'm
not finding any discussion of what it does. I tried looking at tinymce
for a clue, but I have yet to find much in the way of usage info there.

The clean links feature does the following:

- For links whose text is just the URL itself (ie <a href="www.test.com/a/b/c/e/d/esdasdas/dads/asdasd/">www.test.com/a/b/c/e/d/esdasdas/dads/asdasd/</a>), it changes the text to just the domain (<a href="www.test.com/a/b/c/e/d/esdasdas/dads/asdasd/">test.com</a>
- For all links, it looks for those tracking query parameters and removes them. The full list of query params it removes is:
"utm_source", "utm_medium", "utm_term", "utm_content", "utm_campaign", "utm_reader", "utm_place", "utm_userid", "utm_cid", "utm_name", "utm_pubreferrer", "utm_swu", "utm_viz_id", "ga_source", "ga_medium", "ga_term", "ga_content", "ga_campaign", "ga_place", "yclid", "_openstat", "fb_action_ids", "fb_action_types", "fb_ref", "fb_source", "action_object_map", "action_type_map", "action_ref_map", "s_l", "_hsenc", "mkt_tok", "hmb_campaign", "hmb_source", "hmb_medium", "fbclid", "spReportId", "spJobID", "spUserID", "spMailingID", "utm_mailing", "utm_brand", "CNDID", "mbid"

The text replacement feature was requested by a couple of enterprise groups that have classifieds groups. Being able to clean up the links makes the messages much more readable. The removal of query parameters was a separate request and I combined the two into one feature.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Change handling of banned vs. removed members somehow? #suggestion

 

Another funky thing is that the "removal" I just described (where it asks "Remove this member from the group?" even though they've already been removed through the banning, and even though I did the removal from the Banned Members list) does not get logged. 
--
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: Site updates #changelog

 

Mark,

* CHANGE: In the edit pending message page, moved the clean links
button from the advanced toolbar to the main toolbar. Also, it now
removes all 'utm_' tracking query parameters from all links.
Perhaps it should be next to the Insert Link button, for clarity.

I found an earlier changelog reference to testing it (#13683) but I'm not finding any discussion of what it does. I tried looking at tinymce for a clue, but I have yet to find much in the way of usage info there.

Shal


moderated Re: Change handling of banned vs. removed members somehow? #suggestion

Termicat
 

Ah, okay, thanks so much!
 
Termi
 
 
 
 

----- Original Message -----
From: J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...>
Reply-To: <main@beta.groups.io>
To: <main@beta.groups.io>
Sent: 1/27/2019 5:39:01 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Change handling of banned vs. removed members somehow? #suggestion

"Past members" is only available in premium groups.

On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 5:30 PM Termicat <termicat@...> wrote:
Where do I find the past members list?
 
Termi
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...>
Reply-To: <main@beta.groups.io>
To: <main@beta.groups.io>
Sent: 1/27/2019 4:14:18 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Change handling of banned vs. removed members somehow? #suggestion

Bottom line, my request is to clean this whole area up somehow. At minimum, I think a "banned" member should show up in "past members" without having to specifically remove them from the banned list after the banning, and then ban them AGAIN from the "removed members" list.
--
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: Change handling of banned vs. removed members somehow? #suggestion

 

"Past members" is only available in premium groups.


On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 5:30 PM Termicat <termicat@...> wrote:
Where do I find the past members list?
 
Termi
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...>
Reply-To: <main@beta.groups.io>
To: <main@beta.groups.io>
Sent: 1/27/2019 4:14:18 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Change handling of banned vs. removed members somehow? #suggestion

Bottom line, my request is to clean this whole area up somehow. At minimum, I think a "banned" member should show up in "past members" without having to specifically remove them from the banned list after the banning, and then ban them AGAIN from the "removed members" list.
--
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: Change handling of banned vs. removed members somehow? #suggestion

Termicat
 

Where do I find the past members list?
 
Termi
 
 
 
 

----- Original Message -----
From: J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...>
Reply-To: <main@beta.groups.io>
To: <main@beta.groups.io>
Sent: 1/27/2019 4:14:18 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Change handling of banned vs. removed members somehow? #suggestion

Bottom line, my request is to clean this whole area up somehow. At minimum, I think a "banned" member should show up in "past members" without having to specifically remove them from the banned list after the banning, and then ban them AGAIN from the "removed members" list.
--
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: Change handling of banned vs. removed members somehow? #suggestion

 

Another thing is that a member's "date joined" gets set to the date they were banned under the circumstances I just described. Which is incorrect. It's taking the date they were added to the "banned members" list and using it as the date they joined the group.


On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 4:14 PM J_Catlady via Groups.Io <j.olivia.catlady=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:
Bottom line, my request is to clean this whole area up somehow. At minimum, I think a "banned" member should show up in "past members" without having to specifically remove them from the banned list after the banning, and then ban them AGAIN from the "removed members" list.
--
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