"notify group" would be by the member posting the photo

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu

Moderation should send a notification (if you choose to get them.) In this case, having a "notify group" option on the moderation page may solve both situations.

I like the moderation idea but I think we're now talking about apples and oranges. My thought was that the option to "notify group" would be by the member posting the photo, in case they wanted to explictly share (or not) the photo. That, of course, is different from the mods getting a notification of the upload, or approving/rejecting the upload, or notifying the group themselves.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu

things that are sneaked into the files or photos

We'd be happy with just notifications to moderators.

Yes, I see now that you're asking for something different. An optional "notify the group" would not solve your problem. Maybe if we're extra nice to Mark we can have both! ;) 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu

We don't want to restrict members from either sort of upload but with certain people we do like to keep a close eye on what they're up to.

I would love optional group-notification of photo uploads, as well, but for the opposite reason: people post photos of their cats to share with group members, but it doesn't really get shared because nobody knows about it unless they purposely start going through the photos pages! I often find the upload in the log and then myself post a message to the group with a link to the cat pic. So giving people the chance to click on "notify members" would be great. (I would even make the notify option the default for photos, since by their very nature, photos are something that people are posting in order to share.) 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu

No objection here. Our group disallows attachments anyway - so either way is
not a problem for us. More important to us would be an automatic notification
that a new photo has been added to the photos section, and the ability to
rearrange photos within albums and to comment directly on photos. Those are
things that we really miss from the Yahoo days. I know those are on the "to
do" list and we are really hoping that they can be accomplished in 2017.

We're well aware of the shortcomings. While I may not be a "sophisticated user" I'm fairly experienced. In fact unless they are older than me (85 & 11/12)and started their hardware/software careers before I did (1956) I don't have many worries about our member sophistication regarding computers. Most don't know what an icon is or a url.

Bob Bellizzi, 85 and still designing/implementing software, websites, etc.

The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation

We're well aware of the shortcomings.  While I may not be a "sophisticated user" I'm fairly experienced.  In fact unless they are older than me (85 & 11/12)and started their hardware/software careers before I did (1956)  I don't have many worries about our member sophistication regarding computers. Most don't know what an icon is or a url.

Bob Bellizzi, 85 and still designing/implementing software, websites, etc.

The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation

Can you side-step it by creating additional accounts (transfer1, transfer2, transfer3

LOL spy-vs-spy ;)
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu

It certainly seems like I'm running up against some sort of rate
limit for accepting invites for the transfer groups.io account.
...
I've tried using a VPN to see if it's just tied to my IP address, but
it's apparently tied to the account.

It's a list we we want members viewing but not copying, it's very  large.

Bob,

        While I understand what you're saying, the file itself does get downloaded behind the scenes for presentation.  A sophisticated computer user can easily determine where that temporary copy of the PDF is stored and then copy and paste it elsewhere.  A really sophisticated user can get around the Adobe protections as well.

         It's going to be downloaded for display no matter how large it is.

         If any one of your members has their browser set up such that PDFs don't display in the browser I know of no way you can prevent them from viewing the PDF in a link that's accessible to them, and that means the file will be downloaded to accomplish that.  Whether they know how to actually save the content such that they can retrieve it later is an entirely separate issue, but if you put it on the web, believe me, it can be saved if someone is determined enough.
--
Brian

To think is to differ.

    ~ Clarence Darrow

Thanks Brian,

It's a list we we want members viewing but not copying, it's very  large.

By setting file properties in Adobe we can prevent saving and printing.

Bob Bellizzi

Bob,

          Make certain that you don't have your browser configured such that it will not display PDF files in the browser.  I actually hate "in browser" PDF displays as a general rule so have Firefox and Chrome configured not to open PDFs in the browser.  If that is how you're set up a download will always be attempted.

          If it will display those from other sites then there may be a bug.
--
Brian

To think is to differ.

    ~ Clarence Darrow

Not working on FuchsFriends premium.  Still wants to download not display (File was created using MS Word SaveAs PDF) The file is in  Doctor List and is doclist2-26-2017

• CHANGE: Clicking on a PDF in Files will display it in the browser now. Still concerned about security issues with other files, tho.

Bob Bellizzi

Changes to the site this week:

• NEW: Sent out emails to premium groups telling them that we will begin recurring charges in the next several weeks.
• CHANGE: Premium plans now support having group aliases (previously this was an Enterprise plan only feature).
• NEW: Send an email reminder to people with credit cards that will be expiring next month.
• BUGFIX: With the Github integration, we were not properly converting pull request comments from markdown to HTML.
• CHANGE: Clicking on a PDF in Files will display it in the browser now. Still concerned about security issues with other files, tho.
• CHANGE: Removed the 'Recently Posted Photos' part of the group home page.
• NEW: New attachments view to see which messages are taking the most space.
• BUGFIX: For edited pending and archived messages, force any plain text parts to be UTF 8 encoded. We were already forcing the HTML parts to be UTF-8, but that ignored plain text only messages.
• CHANGE: The members display is now striped, hoverable and you can click anywhere on a row to get to the member. Hopefully this reduces confusion.
• CHANGE: Improvements to the Subgroups table for groups with large numbers of subgroups.
• BUGFIX: When viewing a member, don't display the Remove button if you don't have permission to remove them (it didn't work before, but we shouldn't have displayed the button anyways).

Have a good weekend everybody.

Mark

J,

           I have no argument with what you're saying if the intention was to make someone's profile unavailable, but I'm not absolutely sure that's the intent.

           Since there is a "Groups.io" profile along with the ability to create group specific profiles I would imagine that one of those (probably the Groups.io profile) is meant to be accessible at least so long as you're a member of  Groups.io if not "in perpetuity."

            There is one forum, on another site, that I ceased to be a member of when I left the club that sponsors it where my profile still exists and can be accessed coming up on four years after my active membership ceased.  I do not object to this as all of that information was public when I was a member and, as far as I'm concerned would always remain public.  That has always seemed to me to be the purpose of a profile on any web-based medium that uses one.

             I will agree, though, that something needs to be changed with the current status quo.  If the intent is to "erase the member's profile" then the ability to click through to said profile should not be possible and that "page not found" should not be displayed.  If the intent is to keep information for the historical record then the profile information should remain accessible and displayed.

             I have no strong feelings about which is "the right solution."
--
Brian

The psychology of adultery has been falsified by conventional morals, which assume, in monogamous countries, that attraction to one person cannot co-exist with a serious affection for another.  Everybody knows that this is untrue. . .

    ~Bertrand Russell

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu