Mark -- Multiple people have reported that their calendar page has suddenly gone blank today. Me, too.

Attached is a screenshot.

Regards,
Bruce

I strenuously disagree. Dealbreaker. 

--
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

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 11:03 AM, billsf9c wrote:

I madeva pill a d do nitbsee a nirmak option

As I recall, Mark decided to remove the nirmak option.

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 11:03 AM, billsf9c wrote:

Tied, or Seporate, must be, allowing members to See or Not See, who voted how.

Do. Or not do. There is no try.
                                                   -- Yoda

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 10:03 AM, billsf9c wrote:

Tied, or Seporate, must be, allowing members to See or Not See, who voted how.

If you don't select "Only moderators and poll creators can view results and responders, regardless of whether the poll is open or closed." or "Do not show who responded to the poll.", then everyone will be able to see how each person voted at any time.  If you select "Only display results when the poll has closed. Moderators and poll creators can always view results." it will do as it says.  I believe that answers your concern, but I'm not sure.

Duane

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 11:03 AM, billsf9c wrote:

TWO options then, which I thought had existed, are missing, from;

I see all of those options when I create a poll.

Pete

Thanks for the entertainment! I needed that. :) Seriously.
--
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 run very open lists, membership-wise.
I madeva pill a d do nitbsee a nirmak option, ti allow members to see poll results as we go.

Tied, or Seporate, must be, allowing members to See or Not See, who voted how.

TWO options then, which I thought had existed, are missing, from;

Additional Options

On 12-04-2020 13:25, Mark Fletcher wrote:

On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 6:53 AM Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

Based on your (Mark's) reply at https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/27017 I've done a little further checking (with assistance from Shal).  It turns out that if anyone has made a payment for a group, none of the other owners can see the View/Change Plan page without entering a CC number to set themselves as payor, removing the original payor.  Until a payment is made, any owner can see the page.

Yep, you're right. I had mis-read my own source code (I blame my glasses). Here was my thought process:
- Only the person 'on the hook' to pay for the group should be able to change the group plan.
- If you want to set yourself as the person paying for the group, we need a credit card. That's how it works when you initially upgrade your group. If we don't have a credit card, we can't charge you....
Hope this makes sense.

Not completely.

While there is rational for requiring a CC to CHANGE a group's status, all owners should be able to VIEW a group's status including the name/ID of the current "payor". In addition, there should be a clear notice and distinction between just entering CC info ("You will not be charged until ...) and an actual billable transaction. There have been numerous examples of problems and confusion over payments and conversions when the original payor is unavailable.

BTW, mouse-over context sensitive help (or a help link), would be a tremendous boon the GIO UI.

Art

Folks have recently commented on the requirement to log in after clicking the unsub link in a message footer. This is problematic for those members who never use the web interface; you have to train them on how to log in just so they can leave.

This could be circumvented by changing it to a mailto: link to the +unsubscribe address. That way they can confirm their desire to unsub by responding to the confirmation email without ever having to log in. This already has precedent in the existing "Contact Owner" link, and should be fairly straightforward to implement for html messages. It may be more problematic for plain-text...I haven't fully thought that through yet.

Thoughts welcome...
Bruce

Shal, thank you clarifying the consistency question is about "when" I get notified -- I agree.

Sorry, I couldn't resist this:

Mark,

Why do I have to care or think about all the various reasons why I
as an owner/moderator am sent/not sent apply or confirmation message?

You don't have to care about why. Or when. You can just handle them as needed.

My use case (which I believe is common): As an owner/moderator, I want
to get a notification when someone applies to join my group and/or
confirms.

You will, if you've opted to. The consistency question has to do with "when".

I think the proper way to look at the system behavior is that the +subscribe email user hasn't actually requested to join your group until they respond to the confirmation request from Groups.io.

That point of view is based on the fact that Groups.io ignores any unconfirmed email commands, as if they never happened (except +help and +owner, as mentioned previously). Not only do the group managers not get a notice of a pending member until then, but also the address isn't added to the Pending Members list, nor is the command even logged in the group's Activity log*.

To paraphrase the social media meme, where concerns the email commands like +subscribe: "confirm or it didn't happen".

I'd like to be able to turn these notices off or on at the group
level.

Not sure what you mean by "at the group level".

In each group you own or moderate, you can choose if and how you'll be notified by selecting the desired option for "Pending Members", in the Moderator Notifications panel of your Subscription page in that group.

Shal
*I happen to be sympathetic to the notion that failing to even log it may be a problem, notwithstanding the possibility of a spambot flooding the groups's Activity log.

>>> "I believe that was implemented so that others couldn't submit subscription requests using your email address."
>>> That makes sense for stand-alone groups.

It does for subgroups as well, for the same reason; due to the inherent insecurity of email it would be easy for someone, anyone for that matter, to "subscribe" another member to the subgroup without them knowing or asking for it; obviously they would have to know group & member specifics, but think about it for a minute, it would be akin to anyone being able to subgroup-DirectAdd someone.  If I knew your group specifics and knew you were a member and your address, nothing then could stop me from spoofing your address and subscribe you through email to all the subgroups, and you wouldn't have a clue, for a while anyway until you got the welcome notices.  The chance of this happening or the reason why it would doesn't matter, it could be a prank or something serious/nefarious, without that confirmation email there is a wide-open hole ready to be exploited.

Email is insecure, being online requires the account to be logged in hence more secure therefore we can relax a bit.

If your objective is to prevent the confirmation email, and you're sending out main-group messages with subscribe links to the subgroups, how about having the links to their home pages instead, and tell folks to click on Join?  Yes I know, it still doesn't address email-only preferred users, they still would have to do the extra step.  But for the rest, work-wise it's easier and faster to click once to go to the group home then click Join and be done, and then they are on the subgroup's pages and can start exploring right away. 

Or alternatively, if the subgroups are announcement groups, you could have a single link to the main group's "Subgroups" link in your message, where all the available subgroups are presented and the members can then join the ones they want to.

Cheers,
Christos

This further shows the need for cleaning up the whole confirmation process, especially in regards to precautions taken due to possible spammers and bots (as I think is implied as the reason here).
--
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

On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 09:48 AM, Mark Murphy wrote:

Are web subscribe requests less likely to come from spammers and bots?

Yes, that has been known to be the case. But so what? The issue of the confusion-causing inconsistency remains.
 
--
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

On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 05:54 PM, Shal Farley wrote:

I believe it is intentional, because hobgoblins and spambots. That is, all email commands (except +help and +owner) require confirmation before they do anything, +subscribe follows the majority.
https://groups.io/helpcenter/membersmanual/1/additional-information/standard-group-email-addresses

The intent is to keep the group managers (and unrestricted groups) from being flooded by spambot-generated +subscribe requests.

After re-reading Shal's comment about no notice sent to owner/mod when subscribing via email from non-gio account, I understand why it may be set up this way. Are web subscribe requests less likely to come from spammers and bots?