Date   

moderated Re: Meta Suggestion: preferences

KWKloeber
 

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 03:29 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
io can't be improved,
****
I didn't take Bob's comment that way at all -- just that gio is evolving and improving as it evolves  And sit back and enjoy the view..
I don't think that precludes developing excellent preferences about providing preferences, and I hope the range of available preferences do enlarge/become more ever more useful to all group users.  That said, as essentially an email exchange it may evolve to be the ultimate cat's meow, but as a pseudo forum I doubt it can reach a peer level with SimpleForum sites.


moderated Re: #hashtags

 

Ken,

Shal Farley wrote:
Ken,
Ok, but that doesn't explain why ...

If that page needs correction or improvement please do so (that's what wikis are for). Or let's discuss it in GMF.
Shal


moderated Re: Meta Suggestion: preferences

KWKloeber
 

Glenn. I support multi preferences.  Or just ignoring/living with personal preferences/naming conventions, etc. 
But when the menu board says “flavors” but underneath it isn’t flavors, but sizes of all  flavors,
And it’s verboten to use “sizes” twice because it’s used elsewhere (above drink prices) basic confusion reigns ~insert pun~ “across the board.” 
 Or you use cup, and dish, and container for the same object, or quart or 4-cup for the same amount (am I getting 1x32oz or 4x8oz ??) Well the point is obvious. Multiflavorcornfuzion. 
Especially to the customer who is the one that it’s the first time trying to make sense of the menu and there’s 30 customers waiting behind. So s/he throws up the hands and walks out mumbling WTF under the breath. 
It all makes perfect sense to the person who put the board together but possibly not to the customer. 
Has anyone ever gone thru a KFC drive thru and was actually able to figure out the options?
All I want is chicken cuz I can’t eat mashed pots when I’m driving — not all this mishmash on the menu. “Oh we can do that, ask for just chicken
Arrrrrgh!


moderated Re: Meta Suggestion: preferences

 

Yeah but we’re just a bunch of users expressing our preferences, ranging from most naive to most sophisticated points of view (I don’t lump myself in with either of those). All kinds of features are suggested here, ranging from clearly insanely useful to iffy (with, of course, Mark being the arbiter). We are not designing “the preference system” here. We’re asking for features ranging fro sorely needed to pie-in-the-sky to generally-bad-idea-for the product. I’m sure you agree with me in general that not every feature suggested in this forum should just be implemented willy nilly, no matter how objectively helpful or dead-weight, and just made an option. And Mark clearly understands that as well, hence he picks and chooses. Discussions here are just that: discussions. We’re not in a design meeting. 😀


On Aug 30, 2019, at 12:27 PM, Glenn Glazer <glenn.glazer@...> wrote:

On 8/30/2019 11:50, J_Catlady wrote:
That’s great and I would generally agree. A lot of us here, like you, and including me, are (or were at some point) senior se’s and I’m sure you understand that it’s not always just “implement the feature, make it an option, and everybody’s happy.” You take the product as a whole into account. Any particular feature can possibly add or possibly detract from the product.

If that's true, then the preference system is not designed correctly. The whole point is that the product is a variable superset of user preferences, that setting a preference one way for one group does not affect the setting of the preference some other way by some other group. Thus "the product" is not affected as a whole other than to accommodate as many different styles as possible. If groups.io sets in stone some sort of preference, then it loses all of the groups who prefer the preference some other way. So insisting on some setting being some particular way does detract from the product by walling off a potential user base.

Best,

Glenn

--
We must work to make the Democratic Party the Marketplace of Ideas not the Marketplace of Favors.

Virus-free. www.avast.com

--
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: Meta Suggestion: preferences

Glenn Glazer
 

On 8/30/2019 12:19, Bob Bellizzi wrote:
Sit back for another year or so, enjoy the ride and you will see groups.io has no peer

Perhaps I am misreading this, but are you seriously suggesting that groups.io can't be improved? I agree that it is the best system out there, but anything can be made better, even the best thing available.

Best,

Glenn

--
We must work to make the Democratic Party the Marketplace of Ideas not the Marketplace of Favors.

Virus-free. www.avast.com


moderated Re: Meta Suggestion: preferences

Glenn Glazer
 

On 8/30/2019 11:50, J_Catlady wrote:
That’s great and I would generally agree. A lot of us here, like you, and including me, are (or were at some point) senior se’s and I’m sure you understand that it’s not always just “implement the feature, make it an option, and everybody’s happy.” You take the product as a whole into account. Any particular feature can possibly add or possibly detract from the product.

If that's true, then the preference system is not designed correctly. The whole point is that the product is a variable superset of user preferences, that setting a preference one way for one group does not affect the setting of the preference some other way by some other group. Thus "the product" is not affected as a whole other than to accommodate as many different styles as possible. If groups.io sets in stone some sort of preference, then it loses all of the groups who prefer the preference some other way. So insisting on some setting being some particular way does detract from the product by walling off a potential user base.

Best,

Glenn

--
We must work to make the Democratic Party the Marketplace of Ideas not the Marketplace of Favors.

Virus-free. www.avast.com


moderated Re: Meta Suggestion: preferences

Bob Bellizzi
 

Ditto what "J" Catlady said but add lots more years and experiences.
Sit back for another year or so, enjoy the ride and you will see groups.io has no peer
--

Bob Bellizzi


moderated Re: +Owner Email a Preference or a Permission?

 

But a decision still needs to be made about whether mods can choose, on their own, to receive (and/or send) owner messages. I was just pointing out a minor inconsistency with the way things work right now, regardless of what is decided. The fix is easy: change the log entry.


On Aug 30, 2019, at 12:14 PM, J_Catlady via Groups.Io <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

You can call it a bug or an inconsistency. 😀


On Aug 30, 2019, at 12:07 PM, Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...> wrote:

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 02:47 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 10:38 AM, Gerald Boutin wrote:
One: the Permission - That allows the moderator ....
Two: The (Subscription) preference/setting that the Moderator has control of.
 
I wouldn't consider this an inconsistency.
No, it is an inconsistency. If something is a permission, I can't give it to myself. It must be given to me by someone higher up.

You would not call a variable that can be set by either the member or the owner (for example, a member's overall delivery preference) a "permission" just because someone higher than the member (a mod or owner) can set them.

This is just a slight inconsistency, but I think it does hint that during implementation, Mark had on one side of his mind the idea that this setting is actually a permission. Unfortunately, in another part of the implementation (the actual editing of the setting), it behaves as a preference rather than a permission.
 

 I thought we decided a while back that this was a bug, not an inconsistency.

eg) It should be working this way (but it isn't):

eg) Owner sets the permisison (P)
and the Moderator is given the option (O) to accept or not.

Result should be P "AND" O

In any case, it is what it is....

--
Gerald

--
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: +Owner Email a Preference or a Permission?

 

You can call it a bug or an inconsistency. 😀


On Aug 30, 2019, at 12:07 PM, Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...> wrote:

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 02:47 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 10:38 AM, Gerald Boutin wrote:
One: the Permission - That allows the moderator ....
Two: The (Subscription) preference/setting that the Moderator has control of.
 
I wouldn't consider this an inconsistency.
No, it is an inconsistency. If something is a permission, I can't give it to myself. It must be given to me by someone higher up.

You would not call a variable that can be set by either the member or the owner (for example, a member's overall delivery preference) a "permission" just because someone higher than the member (a mod or owner) can set them.

This is just a slight inconsistency, but I think it does hint that during implementation, Mark had on one side of his mind the idea that this setting is actually a permission. Unfortunately, in another part of the implementation (the actual editing of the setting), it behaves as a preference rather than a permission.
 

 I thought we decided a while back that this was a bug, not an inconsistency.

eg) It should be working this way (but it isn't):

eg) Owner sets the permisison (P)
and the Moderator is given the option (O) to accept or not.

Result should be P "AND" O

In any case, it is what it is....

--
Gerald

--
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: +Owner Email a Preference or a Permission?

Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...>
 

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 02:47 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 10:38 AM, Gerald Boutin wrote:
One: the Permission - That allows the moderator ....
Two: The (Subscription) preference/setting that the Moderator has control of.
 
I wouldn't consider this an inconsistency.
No, it is an inconsistency. If something is a permission, I can't give it to myself. It must be given to me by someone higher up.

You would not call a variable that can be set by either the member or the owner (for example, a member's overall delivery preference) a "permission" just because someone higher than the member (a mod or owner) can set them.

This is just a slight inconsistency, but I think it does hint that during implementation, Mark had on one side of his mind the idea that this setting is actually a permission. Unfortunately, in another part of the implementation (the actual editing of the setting), it behaves as a preference rather than a permission.
 

 I thought we decided a while back that this was a bug, not an inconsistency.

eg) It should be working this way (but it isn't):

eg) Owner sets the permisison (P)
and the Moderator is given the option (O) to accept or not.

Result should be P "AND" O

In any case, it is what it is....

--
Gerald


moderated Re: Meta Suggestion: preferences

 

That’s great and I would generally agree. A lot of us here, like you, and including me, are (or were at some point) senior se’s and I’m sure you understand that it’s not always just “implement the feature, make it an option, and everybody’s happy.” You take the product as a whole into account. Any particular feature can possibly add or possibly detract from the product. 


On Aug 30, 2019, at 11:24 AM, Glenn Glazer <glenn.glazer@...> wrote:

So, I've avoided a number of discussions here and on GMF because they seem to boil down to folks arguing about personal preferences of one sort or another.

I work as senior software engineer for a product that has complex server and client components, with an extraordinarily wide range of use cases. We get the chocolate versus vanilla discussions and customer requests all the time. When it comes to preferences and style, there is no one right answer that works for everyone. Welcome to the grand diversity of the human experience.

At work, if we permit a subjective feature in the first place, we enable a switch to turn it on and off or a slider if it isn't a binary. Those that want can have and those that don't aren't required to have it.

This approach completely walks around the whole problem of whether chocolate is "better" or "right" compared to vanilla and pleases the most number of people by stopping ourselves from saying OR when we could be saying BOTH.

Best,

Glenn
Who prefers French vanilla, but is okay with ice cream stores also carrying chocolate flavors.

--
We must work to make the Democratic Party the Marketplace of Ideas not the Marketplace of Favors.

Virus-free. www.avast.com

--
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 Meta Suggestion: preferences

Glenn Glazer
 

So, I've avoided a number of discussions here and on GMF because they seem to boil down to folks arguing about personal preferences of one sort or another.

I work as senior software engineer for a product that has complex server and client components, with an extraordinarily wide range of use cases. We get the chocolate versus vanilla discussions and customer requests all the time. When it comes to preferences and style, there is no one right answer that works for everyone. Welcome to the grand diversity of the human experience.

At work, if we permit a subjective feature in the first place, we enable a switch to turn it on and off or a slider if it isn't a binary. Those that want can have and those that don't aren't required to have it.

This approach completely walks around the whole problem of whether chocolate is "better" or "right" compared to vanilla and pleases the most number of people by stopping ourselves from saying OR when we could be saying BOTH.

Best,

Glenn
Who prefers French vanilla, but is okay with ice cream stores also carrying chocolate flavors.

--
We must work to make the Democratic Party the Marketplace of Ideas not the Marketplace of Favors.

Virus-free. www.avast.com


moderated Re: #hashtags

KWKloeber
 

<<<On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 09:52 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
Ken,
Shal >>>
Ok, but that doesn't explain why
orig subj
orig subj
ended up in different threads/subjects/topics (take your pick <wink> )
They are identical.   
Might the algorithm be updated to also ignore other commonly used? like RE:; [SPAM] etc (mind has temporarily gone blank)--  that an email client or other might tack on to the subject line?


locked Re: suggestion - Consistency (ies)

KWKloeber
 

[avoding over quoting]  Shal, I get your point that's a matter of style, so there's no "rule" as you try to point to.  It's a matter of "direction."  Talking to the screen, the settings are "my" (mine) - I own them, I set them, I control them.  The screen talking back - they are "your"s  -- you own them, you set them - but I abide by them. I would say "you put on YOUR pants" but you would say I put on MY pants.

Note that the confusion complaints aren't by seasoned users that can go to plan B if a menu looks odd or doesn't supply the info or choices one expects,  We can click around and find what we want.  Put their shoes on -- It's those who are afraid that clicking something they aren't supposed to might blow up the world, or at least their laptop. 
Settings can occur in different areas.  Account settings, communication settings, display settings, bla bla.  But subscriptions is what I am subscribed to (a list of them where I can manage them?)  Now, if it were called This particular subscription's settings (opposed to another subscription's settings) then maybe novices could understand that better.  but "subscription" is confusing -- doesn't convey any readably recognizable context as to what comes next in the clicking order.  At least "Preferences" (display, communication, etc) would be recognizable.
But regardless, consistency is the key - when one goes from one screen to another or to a help page, there are different terms for the same items that a novice has to stop and wonder, what's the difference between a post and a message, or a subject and a topic or thread, or bla bla -- they're used interchangeably and I see their point that's it's just plain ol' confusing to them, so therefore frustrating, therefore avoided.


moderated Re: +Owner Email a Preference or a Permission?

 

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 10:38 AM, Gerald Boutin wrote:
One: the Permission - That allows the moderator ....
Two: The (Subscription) preference/setting that the Moderator has control of.
 
I wouldn't consider this an inconsistency.
No, it is an inconsistency. If something is a permission, I can't give it to myself. It must be given to me by someone higher up.

You would not call a variable that can be set by either the member or the owner (for example, a member's overall delivery preference) a "permission" just because someone higher than the member (a mod or owner) can set them.

This is just a slight inconsistency, but I think it does hint that during implementation, Mark had on one side of his mind the idea that this setting is actually a permission. Unfortunately, in another part of the implementation (the actual editing of the setting), it behaves as a preference rather than a permission.
 
--
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: +Owner Email a Preference or a Permission?

Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...>
 

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 01:38 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
To add to the inconsistency and/or confusion: Last night I changed two moderators' subscription options (or email delivery options, whatever you choose to call them) so that they will receive all owner email, and log entries were created to the effect that I "changed their moderator permissions."

So bottom line, it is currently logged as a permission when changed by a group owner, but it *acts* like a subscription option becuase the moderators have the ability to change it themselves. Whatever is decided regarding the desired policy (permission or subscription option), this is currently a slight inconsistency in the system.
--
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

Confusing it can be - no arguments there.

However, the way I look at it, there are two different bits of data that determine how the feature works.

One: the Permission - That allows the moderator ....
Two: The (Subscription) preference/setting that the Moderator has control of.
 
I wouldn't consider this an inconsistency.

--
Gerald


moderated Re: #hashtags

Drew
 

Yes, unfortunately this makes hashtags a lot less useful than they otherwise would be.

For example, there is no point for a moderator to edit a message topic by adding a hashtag to a previously posted message if most of the subscribers participate in the group via email: they will all have received the original un-tagged post and their email followups to the original will be distributed as untagged.

Our group uses hashtags so that subscribers can filter message posts- both in the archive to selectively browse hashtagged topics that they are interested in, but also by email subscribers to mute tags that they don't want to receive. The current hashtag behavior makes the second task a lot less useful than it otherwise would be.

I might as well add a formerly mentioned feature request for hashtags: namely, the ability for online subscribers to mute specific hastagged topics while browsing the archive and filter them from view.

Drew

On 08/30/19 08:23, Technotronic Dimensions wrote:
Nope thats basicly what happened. I thought
the rest of the messages would get the tag if
the 1st message was later assigned a tag.
The replies , as well as the 1st post were all done via email.
Another observation thats related - is the tag gets added to
the subject line multiple times, when there is a reply via email
to a message that has the tag in the subject field already.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Drew" <pubx1@af2z.net>
To: <main@beta.groups.io>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] #hashtags

You added the hashtag to a message post in the archive. If someone replied to that message in the archive the reply would have been hashtagged also; but I think if they replied to the original un-hashtagged post that they received via email it would not carry the hashtag.

At least, that is my impression. I could be wrong about it.

73,
Drew
AF2Z



On 08/29/19 10:28, Technotronic Dimensions wrote:
1st topic didnt have a tag, and I manually added one days later. Few weeks went by, and someone replied,
but the tag on all the subsequent replies to the 1st topic didnt get tied in with the tag forced into the first post.

The 1st topic is completely seperated from all the subsequent replies now. All the subsequent replies are grouped together
but with no tag.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Kloeber via Groups.Io" <KWKloeber=aol.com@groups.io>
To: <main@beta.groups.io>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: [beta] #hashtags


***any of the following subject replies didnt tie in to the 1st subject ***

Are you saying that all of the subsequent posts (after made the hashtag
change) are under one separate/different (non #hashtag) topic??
Or did each subsequent post end up under its own topic (i.e., several posts,
different topics, having the same non-#hashtag subject)?


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com









moderated Re: +Owner Email a Preference or a Permission?

 

To add to the inconsistency and/or confusion: Last night I changed two moderators' subscription options (or email delivery options, whatever you choose to call them) so that they will receive all owner email, and log entries were created to the effect that I "changed their moderator permissions."

So bottom line, it is currently logged as a permission when changed by a group owner, but it *acts* like a subscription option becuase the moderators have the ability to change it themselves. Whatever is decided regarding the desired policy (permission or subscription option), this is currently a slight inconsistency in the system.
--
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: #hashtags

KWKloeber
 

Confused!
Are we saying that adding a #HT in effect editing the topic (- or is that the “thread”? or the “subject”? or the “topic”? — I guess it doesn’t matter if consistently being inconsistent is being consistent <wink>) in effect creates a DIFFERENT thread?  And a msg reply to the old t/s/t doesn’t get hooked up with the revised t/s/t?   If so that seems pretty un handy.   It seems that replies within a reasonable period of time should ignore appended #HTs and get m threaded with the revised t/s/t. 

Or maybe I’m misinterpreting the business rules applied to the email subject lines?


moderated Proposal Automatically expand youtube URLS to Embed Youtube Video

Eric di Domenico
 

Could Video embedding be enabled in MCE? https://www.tiny.cloud/docs/plugins/media/

That way users can post videos and see them directly embedded in posts on the site.

7561 - 7580 of 29459