Date   

moderated Re: Reply to Sender

 

Bruce,

Are you sure about that? Here are the original threads on this subject, from way back in 2016. I've just briefly skimmed it, but some of the exact same concerns and suggestions were brought up then (some of which were implemented, some of which weren't), with the same complaints as now, and it looks like Mark never explicitly weighed into it -

preventing reply to group/sender mixups:
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/2185296?
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/2182742

prefix 'offlist' to private replies:
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/2193803

--
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: Reply to Sender

Bruce Bowman
 

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 10:40 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
There was some reason this wasn't done at the beginning. I wanted the same kind of thing, but it couldn't be implemented and I don't remember why.
The button was set up this way to gently discourage subscribers from using something that was not intended to be the primary reply mode of the group. You mileage may vary, but I find it difficult enough to follow lengthy threads [like this one], even when all the associated messages are right there in front of me.

Regards,
Bruce


moderated Re: Reply to Sender

KWKloeber
 

If you recall, YahCHOO! used a more descriptive way (via the pull down) which I think (CRS) were these options:

Reply to group
Reply to sender (or possibly it was or included the username or masked e-dress)
Reply to group and sender
Reply to (group owner?)

“Private reply”?
“Private message”?
James Bond-ish “To your eyes only”?

Thoughts. 

Ken


moderated Re: Reply to Sender

Maria
 

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 10:40 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 07:32 AM, Noel Leaver wrote:
. Replace the greyed out Private button on the right by a Private check box on the left above the reply button. 
There was some reason this wasn't done at the beginning. I wanted the same kind of thing, but it couldn't be implemented and I don't remember why.
 
--
I can't remember either. But check boxes on mobile web and apps are not a good experience.
Re: the term "offlist" ( i am having dejavú) it's not a term the demographic in our groups would relate to at all and groups.io is SO much more than a listserv.
I think we kicked around the ideas Direct ( as in DM) or Private and it was agreed that private worked.

Again, have yet to get a complaint about this aspect of the interface - and more importantly no embarrassing private messages intended as such going to the group as a result.


moderated Re: Reply to Sender

Maria
 

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 10:26 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 07:19 AM, Barbara Byers wrote:
I hardly ever use the web interface to send messages
If you did it more often you'd quickly get used to it.
Exactly!


moderated Re: Reply to Sender

Sarah k Alawami
 

To me it's fine. This is howmost forums I've ben on work so I'm used to the change and have ben usign this for 2-3 years on groups.io when I visit the web interface which is rare, maybe 2-3 times a year.

On 27 Mar 2019, at 7:30, Barbara Byers wrote:

I would agree with showing all or part of the email address for the same reason, to show it's going to the right person.  

Now that I played around with it, I'm OK with how it works, it's just the "Private" isn't very intuitive.  Could it be labeled "Private Reply"  or something like that?  Just thinking out loud.

Barb

 


On 2019-03-27 10:22 AM, J_Catlady wrote:

I remember arguing the same as Noel when the feature first came into being. I wanted people to be able to (i.e., have to) click "private" before even composing their reply. The thread is probably easily locatable. It was another big one. As I vaguely recall, it came to being this way because of implementation issues. But I agree with Maria that at this point, it rarely causes problems.

I do wish that the email address, or at least part of the email address, where the private reply is going could be visible or even partly visible. It always makes me vaguely nervous to send private replies because I never see that 100% confirmation I need to see that I haven't screwed up and addressed it to the wrong person. But this is probably a separate topic.
--
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: Feed view now the default

 

Jeremy,


But unfortunately not the - presumably related - issue of the 'Your Groups' link at the top of Topics and Hashtags views, which now seems to have rather random effects as to where you go:
 
What Your Groups link? I'm not seeing any such on the Topics or Hashtag views.

Unless you mean the Your Groups drop-list in the logo bar. I've not seen any misbehavior with it. But then I almost always use it to pick a specific group. Until yesterday I'd quite forgotten it has a Manage My Subscriptions item at the bottom. Is that what you mean? If it was broken it seems now to be fixed.

Shal


moderated Re: Reply to Sender

 

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 07:51 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 07:47 AM, Noel Leaver wrote:
Even Offlist would be clearer in my view
Oh, sorry, I think you were referring to the button. I wouldn't mind the button being changed to "Offlist" either. Then the button name and the word at the front of the message would match.

I also argued awhile back that the message body itself start with and identifying word like "offlist" or "private." It frequently happens that I get a private message from someone and have no idea it's private, because the message is threaded within the topic in my emails. I then answer the message, assuming my message is going to appear onlist, and only when my reply doesn't post do I belatedly realize the message was private. I consider myself a savvy user and if this is happening to me, it's probably happening to others. I've even had some unpleasant communication problems because of this misunderstanding.
 
--
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: Reply to Sender

 

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 07:47 AM, Noel Leaver wrote:
Even Offlist would be clearer in my view
Agreed. I always change the subject title by hand by adding that word to the "Private [original subject title]" line
 
--
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: Reply to Sender

Noel Leaver
 

> So I agree that the button name could (but not necessarily should) be changed to "Reply to Sender". 

Even Offlist would be clearer in my view.

Noel


moderated Let linked attachments have their original names

Samuel Murrayy
 

Hello

[I posted a similar message to GMF.]

Our group just received its first e-mail with attachments, and the attachments are linked to at the bottom of the e-mail, like thus:

Attachments:
Copyright Article.pdf: https://groups.io/g/mygroup/attachment/64461/0
Infographic - Copyright Amendment Bill March 2019 (5)_10.pdf: https://groups.io/g/mygroup/attachment/64461/1
NOVUS_Mail__Guardian_2019-03-15_NTEzMjA3NTca_1376.pdf: https://groups.io/g/mygroup/attachment/64461/2
When I view the e-mail in my e-mail program, and click a link, my browser prompts me to save the file with the name "0", "1" or "2", instead of the attachments' actual names. For me personally, this is only a bit annoying, but I can imagine it must be frustrating for non-geek users who don't know about file extensions, since file "0" etc. won't show up as a PDF file on their desktop.

What can be done about this, and/or what causes it?

I use Thunderbird and Opera. Copy/pasting the link in the browser doesn't change this behaviour.

When I visit the actual message on the web, then I can download the attachments using their actual names by clicking on the attachment icons, so that's one workaround, I suppose.

Thanks
Samuel


moderated Re: Reply to Sender

Sharon Villines
 

On Mar 27, 2019, at 10:32 AM, Dave Sergeant <dave@davesergeant.com> wrote:

When I receive a 'private' email it gives the impression that the
sender was sharing something with me that I should keep to myself and
not even mention in the group.
“Private" also gives the impression that the main list is “public,” that anyone can read the message if you don’t post privately.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
TakomaDC@Groups.io
"Neighbors Talking to Neighbors”
Takoma Park DC and MD


moderated Re: Reply to Sender

Noel Leaver
 

> There was some reason this wasn't done at the beginning. I wanted the same kind of thing, but it couldn't be implemented and I don't remember why.
 
If not possible, changing the button colour to not grey would be an improvement.

Noel 


On 27 March 2019 14:40:02 GMT, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 07:32 AM, Noel Leaver wrote:
. Replace the greyed out Private button on the right by a Private check box on the left above the reply button. 
There was some reason this wasn't done at the beginning. I wanted the same kind of thing, but it couldn't be implemented and I don't remember why.
 


moderated Re: Reply to Sender

 

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 07:32 AM, Noel Leaver wrote:
. Replace the greyed out Private button on the right by a Private check box on the left above the reply button. 
There was some reason this wasn't done at the beginning. I wanted the same kind of thing, but it couldn't be implemented and I don't remember why.
 
--
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: Reply to Sender

 

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 07:32 AM, Dave Sergeant wrote:
Reply
to Sender and a less dramatic word in the reply subject line would be
far better.

I think people are mixing up the name of the button, which could reasonably be changed from "private" to "reply to sender," with the subject line of the message, which currently begins with the word "private" but could not be reasonably be changed to "reply to sender." I do agree that the word "private" for the subject line sounds TOO private. I usually append the word "offlist" to the subject line, which has the effects of both removing the weirdness of the word "private" and takes my reply out of the email thread for the onlist topic. (The word "private" currently appended unfortunately - IMO- keeps the private reply within the group topic in my email, which tends to be confusing.)

So I agree that the button name could (but not necessarily should) be changed to "Reply to Sender". And the subject title could possibly be changed to add "offlist" instead of "private." I think both changes would be slight improvements. 
--
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: Reply to Sender

Noel Leaver
 

> I disagree re: obscurity. I think the reply interface was updated (2016?) to the current layout for replies. We have had very few accidental group replies as a result of the layout. I think it helps tremendously with that and mirrors the private reply option on a few other widely used platforms. Especially on a mobile screen, it's very easy to locate. 

I can see it helps you, but some of my users are on unable to find and use the feature. All the other platforms I use have a Reply to sender option rather than Private - including group.io when using email Further, as someone who normally uses email when I tried to find the option on the web screen it took some time, if was average user I would have given up and assumed it did not exist.

> I can see how with large desktop screens it may feel too far away, not sure there is a fix for that

I think my last suggestion is a good solution. Replace the greyed out Private button on the right by a Private check box on the left above the reply button. It would be much more obvious and I don't think would make it more likely for people to use it by accident.

Noel


moderated Re: Reply to Sender

Dave Sergeant
 

When I receive a 'private' email it gives the impression that the
sender was sharing something with me that I should keep to myself and
not even mention in the group. In most cases it is nothing such. Reply
to Sender and a less dramatic word in the reply subject line would be
far better.

Dave

On 27 Mar 2019 at 7:19, Barbara Byers wrote:

Just wondering why it is called "Private" rather than "Reply to Sender"?

http://davesergeant.com


moderated Re: Reply to Sender

Barbara Byers
 

I would agree with showing all or part of the email address for the same reason, to show it's going to the right person.  

Now that I played around with it, I'm OK with how it works, it's just the "Private" isn't very intuitive.  Could it be labeled "Private Reply"  or something like that?  Just thinking out loud.

Barb

 


On 2019-03-27 10:22 AM, J_Catlady wrote:

I remember arguing the same as Noel when the feature first came into being. I wanted people to be able to (i.e., have to) click "private" before even composing their reply. The thread is probably easily locatable. It was another big one. As I vaguely recall, it came to being this way because of implementation issues. But I agree with Maria that at this point, it rarely causes problems.

I do wish that the email address, or at least part of the email address, where the private reply is going could be visible or even partly visible. It always makes me vaguely nervous to send private replies because I never see that 100% confirmation I need to see that I haven't screwed up and addressed it to the wrong person. But this is probably a separate topic.
--
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: Reply to Sender

 

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 07:19 AM, Barbara Byers wrote:
I hardly ever use the web interface to send messages
If you did it more often you'd quickly get used to it. This is one of those things that people learn the first time around. But it could benefit from some user documentation for sure.
 
--
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: Reply to Sender

 

I remember arguing the same as Noel when the feature first came into being. I wanted people to be able to (i.e., have to) click "private" before even composing their reply. The thread is probably easily locatable. It was another big one. As I vaguely recall, it came to being this way because of implementation issues. But I agree with Maria that at this point, it rarely causes problems.

I do wish that the email address, or at least part of the email address, where the private reply is going could be visible or even partly visible. It always makes me vaguely nervous to send private replies because I never see that 100% confirmation I need to see that I haven't screwed up and addressed it to the wrong person. But this is probably a separate topic.
--
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

8981 - 9000 of 29450