Date   

locked Re: Ignore User #suggestion

 

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 02:58 pm, Brian Vogel wrote:
 It's a rare need/want, but one that I as the person who has to do the reading should be alone in exercising.  

That's absolutely correct, since nobody can actually force anyone to read something anyway. If I am determined to ignore all posts by some member xyz, putting their posts in front of my face and just forcing me to scroll through them is not going to change that. 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

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


locked Re: Ignore User #suggestion

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 01:31 pm, J_Catlady wrote:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:45 pm, Ro wrote:
I consider the ignore user feature to be in the same category as Mute Thread.

That's my take on it as well.  

That's effectively what it is, but at the granularity of a user rather than a thread.   I almost never mute threads because, unless they're "pure flame" threads, a number of the contributions are worth reading.

There have been several unfortunate incidents on a couple of groups I participate in that ultimately resulted in a given user being banned.  I would have put those rare birds on "ignore" status long before enough ammunition had been evidenced to have them banned.  It's a rare need/want, but one that I as the person who has to do the reading should be alone in exercising.  Shal has pointed out how this works when you put in e-mail filters that send certain messages straight to the Junk folder.  This would be the web-interface equivalent.

I should also note that unless something has changed the "Mute thread" function works in e-mail digests.  I remember discussing that with Mark and working out a kink or two in regard to that.  There is no reason that "ignore user" filtering could not be applied in precisely the same way as "mute thread" filtering is already applied when constructing the digest for a given user.  They're already constructed on a user level secondary to the mute thread function.

From a philosophical standpoint I adamantly feel (and know others do not) that the choice of whether to mute a thread or ignore a user rests with one person and one person only:  the individual group member.  No one has the right to tell me I simply must read everything from everyone, whether that's existing group custom or not.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


locked Re: Ignore User #suggestion

 

Maria,

Different perspectives. I see the ability to disable this option - if
it ever is offered- as a need, not a want. And not knowing the
dynamic of our group, I can imagine that’s hard to understand that
perhaps.
Count me among those who've failed to imagine why you feel this need.

Do the group members entirely or predominantly read via the group's Messages pages? If not, do you have a group rule against putting a block in one's email UI against another member? Would a group rule against using the equivalent web feature suffice in place of an option to disable it?

Shal
https://groups.io/g/Group_Help
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


locked Re: Ignore User #suggestion

 

Brian,

That really depends. If a post is made in the role of moderator I
would presume there already exists a way to force visibility.
There's the Special Notice feature a moderator can use. Currently that really only has meaning for members that read by email, but I can't think of any reason it wouldn't be an appropriate choice for this purpose as well.

Shal
https://groups.io/g/Group_Help
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


locked Re: Ignore User #suggestion

 

Brian,

I believe it is essential for a place holder to appear and have seen
things like, "Ignored content from poster <insert ignored poster name
here>" as the entry (or entries) in a thread when an ignored poster
has posted.
I agree with that. The message could appear as a normal message (usual display of From, Message#, and Date/Time, but the message body replaced.

On a couple of more sophisticated sites there's even been a toggle
that will allow you to view/hide an individual post that has been
replaced with this placeholder text if you so desire.
Perhaps the ellipsis button used to hide quotes would serve this function too.

Shal
https://groups.io/g/Group_Help
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


locked Re: Ignore User #suggestion

 

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 01:05 pm, HR Tech wrote:
Neither Y!groups, nor Google, nor FB groups offer this feature,

I don't think it's comparable. Some sites allow you to "follow" someone. Here, the default is that you're following *everyone*. There's no way to selectively follow people. The feature would essentially provide selective following, as other sites do, by allowing you to "unfollow" selected people.

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

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


locked Re: Ignore User #suggestion

 

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:45 pm, Ro wrote:
I consider the ignore user feature to be in the same category as Mute Thread.

That's my take on it as well.  
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

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


locked Re: Ignore User #suggestion

Maria
 

Different perspectives. I see the ability to disable this option - if it ever is offered- as a need, not a want. And not knowing the dynamic of our group, I can imagine that’s hard to understand that perhaps. But it’s simply not compatible with our group for too many reasons to get in to here.

Neither Y!groups, nor Google, nor FB groups offer this feature, btw. Separately, not a single one of our members has ever requested this in over a decade. We wouldn't use it and would want, and need, to disable it.

Not arguing whether it's something that might be beneficial in other groups or whether it's a good idea. Just not a good fit for our group.

Maria


locked Re: Ignore User #suggestion

 

Not sure what you mean. I don't think there's currently a way to force visibility of any post in particular, especially since all posts are currently visible.???  But yes, having that would satisfy what I would need ... er ... want if the ignore feature is made a setting.:-)
J

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 31, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:07 pm, J_Catlady wrote:
I think, though, that the group should have a setting to disallow 'ignoring' posts by moderators

 That really depends.  If a post is made in the role of moderator I would presume there already exists a way to force visibility.  Group announcements by the group owner or moderators occur on groups I participate in and they don't appear to be "ignorable" under any circumstances.  If they are, then I'd turn your request around and give moderators an option to mark a post they make as "unignorable" by the software itself so it must be seen.

Moderators in their role as "just another group participant" don't deserve any consideration beyond that given to any other group member.  In their role as moderator they must be given consideration.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

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


locked Re: Ignore User #suggestion

 

I agree with Brian on wants vs needs and the expression thereof here. :-)
J

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 31, 2016, at 12:41 PM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:32 pm, HR Tech wrote:
it's not applicable in our groups

Maria, that's for the reader to decide, not the group owner, no matter the group.  There are things that reside with the individual.  Using an ignore user feature is one of those.  It harms the group owner not one bit in 99.99999% of situations.

There are lots of times where I think the group owner's decisions can and should hold sway.  This will never be one of them, and that opinion needs to be considered in any design decision just as yours does.  What you have is a "want," not a "need."   I'll be the first to say that an ignore user feature is, in and of itself, a "want" not a "need."
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

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


locked Re: Ignore User #suggestion

Ro
 

I consider the ignore user feature to be in the same category as Mute Thread.  As a USER, I certainly want to be able to mut threads that are of no interest to me. I do this here in Beta, and I do it in my cat groups when they start discussing which cat food to feed, which makes my eyes cross.     Being able to mute a user can also keep you from going crazy, although I really dont see an issue with deleted such posts unread, but many dont have that restraint. And of course, on digest that doesnt work.  


Ro

with Silk gazing over the fence, and Sally, Handy, Feliz &  Police Kitty patrolling in the Great Beyond.





From: beta@groups.io <beta@groups.io> on behalf of Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 12:41 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Ignore User #wishlist #suggestion
 
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:32 pm, HR Tech wrote:
it's not applicable in our groups

Maria, that's for the reader to decide, not the group owner, no matter the group.  There are things that reside with the individual.  Using an ignore user feature is one of those.  It harms the group owner not one bit in 99.99999% of situations.

There are lots of times where I think the group owner's decisions can and should hold sway.  This will never be one of them, and that opinion needs to be considered in any design decision just as yours does.  What you have is a "want," not a "need."   I'll be the first to say that an ignore user feature is, in and of itself, a "want" not a "need."
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


locked Re: Ignore User #suggestion

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:07 pm, J_Catlady wrote:
I think, though, that the group should have a setting to disallow 'ignoring' posts by moderators

 That really depends.  If a post is made in the role of moderator I would presume there already exists a way to force visibility.  Group announcements by the group owner or moderators occur on groups I participate in and they don't appear to be "ignorable" under any circumstances.  If they are, then I'd turn your request around and give moderators an option to mark a post they make as "unignorable" by the software itself so it must be seen.

Moderators in their role as "just another group participant" don't deserve any consideration beyond that given to any other group member.  In their role as moderator they must be given consideration.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


locked Re: Ignore User #suggestion

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:32 pm, HR Tech wrote:
it's not applicable in our groups

Maria, that's for the reader to decide, not the group owner, no matter the group.  There are things that reside with the individual.  Using an ignore user feature is one of those.  It harms the group owner not one bit in 99.99999% of situations.

There are lots of times where I think the group owner's decisions can and should hold sway.  This will never be one of them, and that opinion needs to be considered in any design decision just as yours does.  What you have is a "want," not a "need."   I'll be the first to say that an ignore user feature is, in and of itself, a "want" not a "need."
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


locked Re: Ignore User #suggestion

Maria
 

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:57 am, Brian Vogel wrote:
That being said, I don't see how this should ever be a group owner decision.  Individual users should have the absolute right to block content that they do not wish to see from specific users.  It saves a boatload of grief on groups where there are participants that just get on each other's nerves.

I see your point but it's not applicable in our groups. So we'd need the option to disable this if it were ever to become an option.

Maria


locked Re: Ignore User #suggestion

 

I think, though, that the group should have a setting to disallow 'ignoring' posts by moderators. 
J

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 31, 2016, at 11:57 AM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 09:49 am, HR Tech wrote:
but i've seen it used inappropriately and create confusion with threads.

 Any tool can be misused.  That being said, I don't see how this should ever be a group owner decision.  Individual users should have the absolute right to block content that they do not wish to see from specific users.  It saves a boatload of grief on groups where there are participants that just get on each other's nerves.

One of the things I don't like, though, on many sights with an ignore feature is that they make it look as though posts from the ignored do not even exist in a thread.  I believe it is essential for a place holder to appear and have seen things like, "Ignored content from poster <insert ignored poster name here>" as the entry (or entries) in a thread when an ignored poster has posted.  It gives the user a direct indication that content is there that they cannot see.  On a couple of more sophisticated sites there's even been a toggle that will allow you to view/hide an individual post that has been replaced with this placeholder text if you so desire.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

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


locked Re: Ignore User #suggestion

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 09:49 am, HR Tech wrote:
but i've seen it used inappropriately and create confusion with threads.

 Any tool can be misused.  That being said, I don't see how this should ever be a group owner decision.  Individual users should have the absolute right to block content that they do not wish to see from specific users.  It saves a boatload of grief on groups where there are participants that just get on each other's nerves.

One of the things I don't like, though, on many sights with an ignore feature is that they make it look as though posts from the ignored do not even exist in a thread.  I believe it is essential for a place holder to appear and have seen things like, "Ignored content from poster <insert ignored poster name here>" as the entry (or entries) in a thread when an ignored poster has posted.  It gives the user a direct indication that content is there that they cannot see.  On a couple of more sophisticated sites there's even been a toggle that will allow you to view/hide an individual post that has been replaced with this placeholder text if you so desire.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


locked Re: Ignore User #suggestion

Maria
 

I hope that when and if this is pursued more, that it's provided as an option that a group owner can opt out of.

I get why this feature could be useful - but i've seen it used inappropriately and create confusion with threads.

I would opt out of this feature for our groups.

Maria


locked Re: Site updates #changelog

 

On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:
Mark,

> * BUGFIX: Fix daylight savings issue in calendar, where times on Nov
>   6 were off by one hour. Remind me to never write a calendar again.

LOL!  I *did* warn you...   ;-)
https://groups.io/g/beta/message/23


Ha! I had forgotten about that.

I am glad that I wrote the calendar feature. I think there would have been much greater headaches relying on a third party integration for such an integral feature. 

Mark


locked Re: Two factor authentication now supported

 

On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Jeff Powell <jrpstonecarver@...> wrote:

I am a big fan of 2 factor auth, but...

I am also using auth via google here on groups.io. When I go to enable 2 factor auth it wants me to enter my password.  That makes no sense in my case, and I am definitely not entering my google password into the groups.io system, so...

Does 2 factor only work for those with local signons?

Right. It's asking for your Groups.io password, not the password from any other service. Right now, two-factor authentication only works if you have a Groups.io password set.

There's no technical reason why I couldn't support people who login using Facebook or Google, it's a question of security and being conservative in what I roll out with it. If there's demand, I'll definitely consider adding it.

Thanks,
Mark


locked appearance of hash tags in subject lines

 

This morning I've noticed a few anomalies with how hash tags appear in message/topic titles, and I'm wondering how this was designed. This may be a bug (or bugs), or it may not:

1. The order of the tags is not always the same in the topic title as it is in the message title.

2. Sometimes the order is alphabetical, sometimes it's not.

3. The email version of a message title may contain tags that don't appear in either the topic or message view onlist.

Mark, I am reporting this here rather than as a bug to support because my impression is that this may need a slight tweak in the design and I'm not sure what was intended. I actually had a case of all of three of these this morning, but I've already rectified (3) by making the tags match so sending you the example to support would not do much good (although I could still do that if you want).
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

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

16101 - 16120 of 27741