Date   

moderated Re: Member Data Improvements request #suggestion

John Wirtz SF
 

I’m no database developer but un-defined fields could cause problems as they would be likely contain incompatible data from group to group, i.e. numbers, text, etc.

Normally, when setting up field properties, it is wise to specify the type of field content.

 

My rationale is that most people will be happy to supply First and Lastnames along with their email addresses.  Anymore then that (addresses etc) become more controversial from a data protection point of view.

The “mandatory” is easy,.  In the field properties, one can set an option to not a allow a ZERO VALUE.  Just needs a toggle to switch it on or off in line with the group owner’s preference.

 

Anyway, over to the developers….

 

John
SFSS Group

 

 

.

 

From: main@beta.groups.io <main@beta.groups.io> On Behalf Of Duane
Sent: 07 April 2020 20:26
To: main@beta.groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Member Data Improvements request #suggestion

 

On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 11:57 AM, John Wirtz SF wrote:

Desirable additional fields would be

Something that I just thought of.  Instead of having dedicated fields added, how about having 5(?) extra fields in the member record that could be used by group management for whatever purpose they want.  (It would be up to them to keep a list of what it represents.)  I'm sure there are some groups that would want 30, but 5 seems like a reasonable number and can contain a lot of information if used wisely.  That also might make it more likely to be implemented since it could cover a lot of applications instead of a few specifics.  I don't know how difficult it would be to make them mandatory for a group where they're used though.

Thanks,
Duane


moderated Re: Member Data Improvements request #suggestion

Christopher Warrington
 

On 2020-04-07 at 9:49:03 AM, John Wirtz SF <john@...> wrote:

Desirable additional fields would be:
- Title (mandatory field, drop down (Mr, Mrs, Ms, Dr, etc)
- Firstname (mandatory field)
- Lastname (mandatory field)
I don't think that any of these can be mandatory. Not everyone has a title,
a first name, or even a last name.

--
Christopher W. <lists@...>


moderated Re: Member Data Improvements request #suggestion

Duane
 

On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 11:57 AM, John Wirtz SF wrote:
Desirable additional fields would be
Something that I just thought of.  Instead of having dedicated fields added, how about having 5(?) extra fields in the member record that could be used by group management for whatever purpose they want.  (It would be up to them to keep a list of what it represents.)  I'm sure there are some groups that would want 30, but 5 seems like a reasonable number and can contain a lot of information if used wisely.  That also might make it more likely to be implemented since it could cover a lot of applications instead of a few specifics.  I don't know how difficult it would be to make them mandatory for a group where they're used though.

Thanks,
Duane


moderated Member Data Improvements request #suggestion

John Wirtz SF
 

Email Distribution Groups – General observations

The main purpose of such a group is to enable us to be able to reach all our subscribers (also customers) from a single email address with messages delivered directly to their email client inboxes.

Despite popular opinion, Facebook has never been an effective replacement for email groups.

We are ex users of “egroups” and “Yahoo Groups”

So, why do we favour the use of email groups?

Running a small business with limited resources, the group is ideal to send targeted messages to our subscribers, straight to their email client inboxes.

Once the site is set up – the manual is a great help – the group needs little maintenance.

The most onerous task is subscriber management.

Like most small businesses, we have a developed customer database. 

In an ideal world, I’d like to manage customer group subscriptions to the group from our own database – I am very wary of duplication – and have a dedicated table synced to a MYSQL type table on Groups.io either directly or to the subscriber’s database.  Failing that, links between these data sets could exist internally to the group.io between the database section and the subscriber’s database table.  The table facility in the database section already exists.

The current problem is that the main subscriber’s listing doesn’t carry enough fields against which to filter and search records. 

Desirable additional fields would be:

- Title (mandatory field, drop down (Mr, Mrs, Ms, Dr, etc)

- Firstname (mandatory field)

- Lastname (mandatory field)

These fields would make searches and filtering a lot easier and by consequence would greatly ease the subscribers maintenance process. 

Our own policy is to not allow anonymous membership as it is always those who are likely to mis behave thinking they are immune form recognition.  At present we are forced to use the “display Name” field to record that information and it cannot be made mandatory.  Searches are not instant as we have first and lastname in a single field.

I realise it is possible to download a “csv” file but even this requires two steps from the groups site.  Once downloaded, one has to split columns and carry out other manipulation before the data is ready for use.

As a general comment, I am always a little surprised that after many years of experience of open communications across the internet, social media and forum platforms allow anonymous membership. 

Concluding, I would like to see improvements in the subscriptions data table – additional fields - and syncing of internal and external data tables.

I would add that it’s refreshing to know that one can reach out to those who are empowered to make changes and improve the site.

John Wirtz
Owner SFSS Group

 


moderated Re: Digest sent before member accepted #bug

 

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 7:56 AM Marv Waschke <marv@...> wrote:
On April 4, a user requested membership to our restricted, private archive group, received our standard reply asking for more information. Before replying, the as yet non-member received a message digest from the group. They mentioned this in their reply. I approved the request for membership. The logs show the request and acceptance, but no email delivery is recorded. I believe both the delivery of the digest and the absence of a log record of the delivery in the Email Delivery History are defects. The group is trollope.groups.io. The member is EJP.


The logs cycled before I was able to look at any possible digest delivery (I've increased the log retention on those logs now). But I went through the code and I don't see how that could have happened. 

Please let me know if you see something like this again.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Site updates #changelog

 

I could do without both the “active topics” and the ugly hashtag thingy. I get really tired of someone trying to direct what I do and don’t read and engage with. This seems to be happening on a lot of platforms in attempts to be more “social”. 

For those folks who prefer to be controlling with their group members, enjoy. Just give the rest of us the option to not opt in (and make it an “opt in” rather than an “opt out”).


Patti


moderated Re: Digest sent before member accepted #bug

Chris Jones
 

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 04:05 PM, Marv Waschke wrote:
Could that have affected the digest sending logic?
Only time will tell...
(Sorry!)

Chris


moderated Re: Digest sent before member accepted #bug

Marv Waschke
 

I just noticed Duane's comment on Time Zones. The digest was sent across the international date line. Could that have affected the digest sending logic?
Best, Marv


moderated Digest sent before member accepted #bug

Marv Waschke
 

On April 4, a user requested membership to our restricted, private archive group, received our standard reply asking for more information. Before replying, the as yet non-member received a message digest from the group. They mentioned this in their reply. I approved the request for membership. The logs show the request and acceptance, but no email delivery is recorded. I believe both the delivery of the digest and the absence of a log record of the delivery in the Email Delivery History are defects. The group is trollope.groups.io. The member is EJP.
Best, Marv Waschke


moderated Display member time zone #suggestion #done

Duane
 

While I was checking this morning to see if digests were being delivered (based on a question I was looking into), I noticed that some members didn't get one.  Then it dawned on me that they aren't in the same time zone as me (used as the group default) so will get theirs later/earlier.  In cases like this, it would be really handy if there were a notation in their member record of which TZ they have selected.  I wouldn't want to be able to change it, just see it.  Maybe next to or just below the Joined date.  Due to some areas not having an official abbreviation, showing them in UTC might be best.

Thanks,
Duane


moderated Re: Site updates #changelog

Bruce Bowman
 

On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 02:22 PM, William Ellis wrote:
I understand people's reluctance to change something that they "see no value" but for those of us with groups where it would be a plus - why not.
IIRC, the main concern expressed with the new homepage wasn't so much the addition of an "Active Topics" div, but that the big "Top Hashtags" buttons tend to dominate the layout. In turn, the current hashtag layout is difficult to tap/navigate on mobile devices.

If the new layout was implemented in conjunction with a setting to hide the "Top Hashtags" div entirely, I believe this might go a long way toward resolution of the deadlock.

Regards,
Bruce


moderated Re: Site updates #changelog

 

Mark;

How about giving the Admin of a group the right to upgrade the home page?  I understand people's reluctance to change something that they "see no value" but for those of us with groups where it would be a plus - why not.

I don't know what it is like to do something like letting people select and I am sure it is more work than rolling it out everywhere.

We.


moderated Re: Site updates #changelog

Duane
 

On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 10:24 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I would still like to roll it out everywhere because I think it's a superior experience.
Will it be an option or mandatory?  I still have the same reservations about the new page layout as when it was originally announced.

Thanks,
Duane


moderated Re: Site updates #changelog

Andy Wedge
 

On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 06:35 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I made a mistake and forgot to remove that from the list before I posted it.
If it was just a mistake then no problem. At least we understand the discrepancy between the changelog and what actually changed. Hopefully the changes to the homepage and the Zoom integration can be rolled out shortly.

Many thanks,
Andy


moderated Re: Site updates #changelog

 

On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 9:27 AM Andy Wedge <andy_wedge@...> wrote:
I've seen the previous discussions on the hompage changes and the recent release and rollback of the zoom integration. I am still perplexed by the fact that these changes were included in the changelog when in fact they had not been released. How many of the others in this week's list are like this?


(Many snarky responses typed and deleted).

I made a mistake and forgot to remove that from the list before I posted it.


Mark


moderated Re: Digest generation problem #bug

Jim Avera
 

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 04:12 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Is anyone else encountering missing messages in digests?
I think I've received a couple of "digests" containing only a single message in the past week.


moderated Re: Site updates #changelog

Andy Wedge
 

On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 04:24 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
 
The new home page is still only on beta and a couple other groups. I'd like to roll it out everywhere, but when I proposed that awhile ago, there was ... consternation. I would still like to roll it out everywhere because I think it's a superior experience. I will probably enable it for all new groups starting next week.
 
 
The homepage(s) look the same as before (they don't look like beta) and I don't see an option to define a new calendar event as a Zoom meeting.

I had to turn it off when I realized it only worked for my Zoom account until I had it approved by Zoom. That process is on-going.
I've seen the previous discussions on the hompage changes and the recent release and rollback of the zoom integration. I am still perplexed by the fact that these changes were included in the changelog when in fact they had not been released. How many of the others in this week's list are like this?

I'd like to see the homepage changes on my group and we will certainly make use of the Zoom integration once it is approved.

Andy


moderated Re: Site updates #changelog

 

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 11:43 PM Andy Wedge <andy_wedge@...> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 04:58 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
  • NEW: Added a search bar to the new group home page/did some rearraigning of the page (as seen on beta@).
  • NEW: Added Zoom integration to the calendar. You can now set up Zoom meetings when you create new events.

I'm seeing no evidence of these changes on my group/subgroups.

The new home page is still only on beta and a couple other groups. I'd like to roll it out everywhere, but when I proposed that awhile ago, there was ... consternation. I would still like to roll it out everywhere because I think it's a superior experience. I will probably enable it for all new groups starting next week.

 
The homepage(s) look the same as before (they don't look like beta) and I don't see an option to define a new calendar event as a Zoom meeting.

I had to turn it off when I realized it only worked for my Zoom account until I had it approved by Zoom. That process is on-going.

Mark 


moderated Re: GIO in the long term

Peter Cook
 

Under the heading of "there are no guarantees in life," I'd add that Google has shuttered (or marginalized) well over a hundred services. And some are on life support. If they decide groups doesn't support their core business, it'll likely be gone. Whatever you choose, I'd make sure it gives you the ability to export the content in the event you need to migrate again.

Pete


moderated Re: Site updates #changelog

Thomas Gruber
 

Hi Andy,
My understanding of „new group home page“ is that this change is only applied to new groups - i.e. any groups created from today onwards.
I can imagine that some group owners wouldn‘t want their existing home pages to be changed automatically.
Let‘s see what Mark says. 

Thomas

Am 04.04.2020 um 14:05 schrieb Andy Wedge <andy_wedge@...>:

On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 12:27 PM, Duane wrote:
No, it doesn't.  It says the change was made to "the new group home page" which hasn't been rolled out to any group other than beta.
The way it reads to me is that the change has been rolled out so that it now looks the same as beta. If it is just a change to beta, I don't see the point on including that on a general release note which is also posted on the Updates group which is the 'Official announcement group for updates to the Groups.io service' (taken from the group homepage) and has 1.25 million members. Purely from a business point of view, it doesn't make sense to do that.

In the past, other changes have been made just on beta and those of us in the group have had chance to test them before they are rolled out to all and included on the changelog.

Andy