Date   

moderated Re: Hashtag and Topic reply to overrides

Bruce Bowman
 

Wow, Mark. I read this three times and it still left me pretty bewildered! So I've been clicking around a bit and...

On hashtags, I've removed the Reply Only To Sender checkbox and replaced it with a dropdown featuring all possible reply to options (all hashtags with the existing Reply Only To Sender were converted to the new scheme). Also, I've made it so that you can override the group's reply to on a topic by topic basis.
Okay, it's been a struggle, but I think I've finally gotten this part.

If a topic has a hashtag that overrides the group reply to and the topic is also set to override the group reply to, the topic setting takes priority.
That strikes me as sensible.

If there are multiple hashtags for a topic that override the reply to, it is not defined which one 'wins out'.
This is cause for concern, is it not? Can't we make the first hashtag win, or something? Any order of precedence is better than none.

In the /topics page, the dropdown displays the 'effective' reply to, as either set by a hashtag or on the topic itself.
From what I'm seeing, the "effective" reply-to for the topic displays in italics, right?

This can lead to some weird behavior: if you have a hashtag with a reply to, setting 'Use Group Reply To Setting' with the dropdown will never 'stick', because the hashtag is forcing a reply to change in the absence of a topic reply to setting. (You can go to the Edit Topics page and remove the offending hashtag if you wish).
I haven't actually tested this, but if an option from the dropdown isn't going to work, wouldn't it make sense to grey it out or something like that?

If you go to the Edit Topic page, the Reply To setting there is the setting for the topic itself, not modified by any applicable hashtags (ie this is different than the dropdown on the /topics page).
I am confused as to how this drop-down setting is different from the drop-down "override" selections in Topics view. Whatever changes we make to the topic reply-to setting via this page will also override any hashtags, right? 

This is a bit complicated, I know. Please let me know if you see any bugs or have suggestions for improvements.
You bet. I kinda like this but am curious as to where the notion came from (i.e.: I haven't seen any topics on it here in beta). Good luck writing the documentation! 

Regards,
Bruce


moderated Re: Suggestion: Ability to send PM from a member's profile page #suggestion

 

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 04:45 PM, Bruce Bowman wrote:
, it seems that the member profile is not available to regular Subscribers (i.e.: there is no link to their profile) if the "receiving" subscriber hasn't yet established a shared profile and/or the group owner has disabled the Directory in the Settings
I'm not sure. Of course if the user has not established a profile, the profile would not be available to anyone (I'm not sure what you mean by "shared profile"?). However, I don't think it has anything to do with the directory. I think you can just click on a member's profile at the bottom of the member's message, whether or not the directory has been disabled. Making profiles unavailable if the directory is disabled (assuming that's not already the case) would solve the problem, though.
 
--
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: Suggestion: Ability to send PM from a member's profile page #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 12:39 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
However, since then the "disable other reply options" was implemented, which I find very useful in preventing (or minimizing) offlist conversations. How will the new PM feature interact, if at all, in groups set to reply-to-group with other reply methods disabled? It seems to water it down.
J,

From what I've observed so far, it seems that the member profile is not available to regular Subscribers (i.e.: there is no link to their profile) if the "receiving" subscriber hasn't yet established a shared profile and/or the group owner has disabled the Directory in the Settings. To that end, I don't [yet] believe this new feature is any more objectionable than the Direct Mail functionality that was added back in April (ref: https://groups.io/g/updates/message/39).

Please let me know if I'm mistaken.

Regards,
Bruce


moderated Hashtag and Topic reply to overrides

 

Hi All,

On hashtags, I've removed the Reply Only To Sender checkbox and replaced it with a dropdown featuring all possible reply to options (all hashtags with the existing Reply Only To Sender were converted to the new scheme). Also, I've made it so that you can override the group's reply to on a topic by topic basis.

If a topic has a hashtag that overrides the group reply to and the topic is also set to override the group reply to, the topic setting takes priority.

If there are multiple hashtags for a topic that override the reply to, it is not defined which one 'wins out'.

In the /topics page, the dropdown displays the 'effective' reply to, as either set by a hashtag or on the topic itself. This can lead to some weird behavior: if you have a hashtag with a reply to, setting 'Use Group Reply To Setting' with the dropdown will never 'stick', because the hashtag is forcing a reply to change in the absence of a topic reply to setting. (You can go to the Edit Topics page and remove the offending hashtag if you wish).

If you go to the Edit Topic page, the Reply To setting there is the setting for the topic itself, not modified by any applicable hashtags (ie this is different than the dropdown on the /topics page).

This is a bit complicated, I know. Please let me know if you see any bugs or have suggestions for improvements.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Request for more functional move/split #suggestion

Chris Jones
 

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 08:26 PM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
Semantics. 
Ok. 'slightly, inadvertently, drifted off topic."
Ah... not so much a highjack as an "occupational hazard" then.

Chris


moderated Re: Request for more functional move/split #suggestion

KWKloeber
 

On the topic here, I no longer use the split feature, having decided that its pitfalls overcome its advantages. This is because people still respond via email to the old-named email conversation thread and then I have to merge, and merge again, etc. I decided long ago that it wasn't worth it, and I no longer split or even rename threads. Er, topics. :)

Thx, J
That may be the end result (but hope not.)  In this case it's not that extensive and "re-replies" sh/w ould be minimal.

-k


moderated Re: Request for more functional move/split #suggestion

KWKloeber
 

Semantics. 
Ok. 'slightly, inadvertently, drifted off topic."

-k

As a moderator/friend oftentimes laments, "When someone asks 'What time is it?," explaining 'How to build a clock' isn't an appropriate reply."


moderated Re: Request for more functional move/split #suggestion

 

On the topic here, I no longer use the split feature, having decided that its pitfalls overcome its advantages. This is because people still respond via email to the old-named email conversation thread and then I have to merge, and merge again, etc. I decided long ago that it wasn't worth it, and I no longer split or even rename threads. Er, topics. :)
--
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: Request for more functional move/split #suggestion

 

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 11:01 AM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
is it a Topic or a Thread?

It's "topic," but it used to be "thread" and some of the instances didn't get changed. Whenever I see one that Mark missed, I just email him at support to let him know. If you see some now, you could do the same. 
--
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: Request for more functional move/split #suggestion

Chris Jones
 

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 07:01 PM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
e.g., interspersed down a msg history, 3 members hijacked a thread and ONLY THOSE (non-sequential) msgs need be de-hijacked.
If a thread has been highjacked, rather than drifted off - topic, then perhaps the Delete function might be more appropriate.

Relocating "highjack" postings does not do anything to discourage the highjackers; deletion of their posts might get the message across.

A further option, of course, is to put them on moderation, although I accept that it is likely to result in more work for you and any fellow - moderators. 

There are times when being nice is counterproductive, and IMHO your suggested solution is one of them. I'm not suggesting that you be "nasty" instead, but on the basis that "actions speak louder than words" your displeasure is more likely to be recognised if more determined measures are implemented.

Chris


moderated Request for more functional move/split #suggestion

KWKloeber
 

Suggest adding/modifying for better functionality in moving/splitting messages.

Can't find a way to move (merge?) selected messages into their "proper" topic, because it appears to be an "everything newer than, or nothing" type operation. 
e.g., interspersed down a msg history, 3 members hijacked a thread and ONLY THOSE (non-sequential) msgs need be de-hijacked.  Using SPLIT screws up that intention, unless major work is done following up to move things back around that were never needed to be moved in the first place.

I'm thinking, in a dialog from the "Edit" options, checkboxes to choose how many/whichever msgs need to have some operation carried out on them (merge, or move, or reassign to a brand-new topic?

Also, many may find it more helpful if terminology was consistent across the platform and between menus and help/instructions, e.g., is it a Topic or a Thread? (etc.)

Thanks for considering and keep up the excellent work!

-k


moderated Re: Suggestion: Ability to send PM from a member's profile page #suggestion

 

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 09:39 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
How will the new PM feature interact, if at all, in groups set to reply-to-group with other reply methods disabled?
Perhaps PM could be automatically disabled if "Remove Other Reply Options" is set ? Or be disabled as a separate group option?
 
--
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: Suggestion: Ability to send PM from a member's profile page #suggestion

 

In fact, here was my original suggestion for the feature, from two+ years ago:
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/9529?p=,,,100,0,0,0::Created,,posterid%3A20540+%2B+PM,100,2,0,2184691

--
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: Suggestion: Ability to send PM from a member's profile page #suggestion

 

I think (ironically) that I was one of the original backers of this feature, or even the first (or one of the first) to suggest it. However, since then the "disable other reply options" was implemented, which I find very useful in preventing (or minimizing) offlist conversations. How will the new PM feature interact, if at all, in groups set to reply-to-group with other reply methods disabled? It seems to water it down.
--
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: Suggestion: Ability to send PM from a member's profile page #suggestion

 

Hi All,

An Email button is now shown when viewing a fellow member's group profile page.

Thanks,
Mark

On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 7:37 AM Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 02:38 PM, Duane wrote:
You can show full email addresses in a group by selecting that option at Settings, Privacy, Hide Email Addresses In Archives.  If the archives are public, non-members will still see the figleaf, but members that are signed in will see the email address.  When the option was added, it defaulted to masking because that's what it had been.
Duane,

            Thank you very much for having taken the time to post this.   It's well-nigh impossible to keep up with the many "under the hood" changes at Groups.io, particularly if they're not something one uses with any frequency.

             I hope that this option now defaults to "not masked" for newly created groups.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763 
The terrible state of public education has paid huge dividends in ignorance.  Huge.  We now have a country that can be told blatant lies — easily checkable, blatant lies — and I’m not talking about the covert workings of the CIA. When we have a terrorist attack, on September 11, 2001 with 19 men — 15 of them are Saudis — and five minutes later the whole country thinks they’re from Iraq — how can you have faith in the public? This is an easily checkable fact. The whole country is like the O.J. Simpson jurors.

      ~ Fran Lebowitz in Ruminator Magazine interview with Susannah McNeely (Aug/Sept 2005)


moderated Re: thumbing-up messages in a locked thread

 

On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 2:04 PM ro-esp <ro-esp@...> wrote:
I recently saw a locked thread, and noticed I could no "like" any
messages. Is this intentional or coincidence?

This is now fixed.

Thanks,
Mark 


moderated Re: Ability to apply hashtags to group members #suggestion

Jim Higgins
 

Received from J_Catlady at 10/17/2018 06:50 PM UTC:

However, the fact remains that groups.io, unlike, say, Facebook, is message-based rather than profile/user-based. It still would do little or no good for members to be able to "find" other members with those interests.

Yes... and it seems to me that if members want to "find" other members with similar interests in Gio groups they subscribe to it would be as easy as posting a message to the group.

Jim H


moderated Re: Ability to apply hashtags to group members #suggestion

 

I have nothing against letting groups.io members ‘find each other,’ as you put it, but currently at least, there is really no mechanism for that anyway. Group members can access group directories only in groups that have chosen to make it accessible to non-moderators (although in groups where it is accessible, that might be a way for members to find each ofher). There is currently no @ member PM fearure, although that has been requested several times; etc. The whole system is geared on messages, with member profiles almost seeming as an afterthought. If Mark changes that at some point, I could see value in your suggestion.

I envision the hashtags applied to members to be along the lines of identity vs description - e.g. city and state in a group geared towards sales, specialty in a technical group, etc. Using them that way would not create the volleyball vs tennis problem you cite, although of course usage would be up to group moderators (including, as now, which hashtags could be used/applied by non-moderators vs which ones could be used only by moderators). 

Best wishes to you as well.


On Oct 17, 2018, at 3:45 PM, Rob Gordon <rob@...> wrote:

"It still would do little or no good for members to be able to "find" other members with those interests".

Sorry, I just could not possibly disagree more.   I should not have commented on your old post - good luck getting the features you want implemented. 

--
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: Ability to apply hashtags to group members #suggestion

 

"It still would do little or no good for members to be able to "find" other members with those interests".

Sorry, I just could not possibly disagree more.   I should not have commented on your old post - good luck getting the features you want implemented.


Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

dave w
 

And I'd support doing something, even small steps sooner than later.
It will save a few gigs of space overall, which cant be a bad thing.
Stripping ridiculous sig files isn't that great a harm to messages. They're usualy egotistical crap anyway and as I cme from the early 90's of net, many are an 'abuse' of the privilege ( 4 lines max etc.)!
Given the anal-retentive control freaks who seem to manage- sorry 'OWN'  many groups but themselves do nothing to manage anything let alone 'control' member 'message' behaviour and format to the detriment of other members, an 'auto-flush' feature seems quite appropriate!
+1 Bruce and Shal.
Thanks davew

11001 - 11020 of 29625