Date   

locked Re: Reply to both Group and Sender?

 

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 07:57 am, J_catlady wrote:
consider making their groups moderated

oops, I meant "unmoderated"  
--
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: Reply to both Group and Sender?

 

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 12:56 am, Shal Farley wrote:
in groups where members are for the most part moderated it can allow for prompt replies to questions,

This can be a blessing and a curse. If moderators want timely responses to messages and more real-time-like conversations, then perhaps they can consider making their groups moderated, or making sure that moderators approve posts quickly. Duplicate messages can be confusing and annoying to group members.  
--
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: Reply to both Group and Sender?

 

Agree here again with Maria. And speaking as a former member of a moderated yahoo group, receiving the individual email before the group email was very confusing as well as annoying. I'd answer the individual email before realizing it was the "individual one," and then without realizing it would get into a private conversation with the person who sent it, which in many cases I would have avoided. Then when the group (moderated) reply came through, I didn't feel like bothering to answer all over again. And that's not mentioning the mess that was occurring in inbox.

If Groups.io does implement this, then hopefully the individual "version" of the (same) message would be labelled as such (as private replies are now), to mitigate confusion.

--
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: Reply to both Group and Sender?

Maria
 

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:30 pm, Jeff Powell wrote:
but that misses the point of how to change a conversation from being with the entire group to being with just one person in the group.

Maybe I am missing something here, but why not just use the "private" toggle button so you switch the reply to "just one person in the group" and you get the message history?

Maria


locked Re: Reply to both Group and Sender?

 

Mark,

If the sender is in the group, they already get a copy of the message if
the message is sent to the group. How would this be different?
What Jeff said: his use case is as an aid to members that receive the messages as individual email, giving them a clean copy of both the group and sender address in the To field of their reply, which they can then trim to suit.

It has the disadvantage of mandating that the user take that extra step of trimming out the destination they didn't want on every reply (unless reply to both is actually desired).

I suggested two use cases, one of which relates to J's supposition: in groups where members are for the most part moderated it can allow for prompt replies to questions, where timeliness is an issue.

In Yahoo Groups some groups resorted to this as a matter of practice owing to the long processing delays afflicting their messages; even those not held for moderation. Presumably this use case won't occur here.

It can also be useful as a kind of poor-man's reply notification in groups where members are for the most part reading on digest or on the web (special notices, no email).

Shal


locked Re: Reply to both Group and Sender?

Jeff Powell <jrpstonecarver@...>
 

Hi Mark,

This is a very deliberate choice on our part over on the old Yahoo group. You are quite right, of course, that the sender is in the group, so they get a copy of the message, but that misses the point of how to change a conversation from being with the entire group to being with just one person in the group.

When the group can be configured to "Reply to both Group and Sender", you wind up in an email compose window with the message addressed to both.

Then you can edit the TO line to change where you want the reply to go. To just one person in this case... the person who wrote the message you're replying to.

Ours is a neighborhood discussion group. In most - but not all - cases we want replies to go to the entire group. However, taking some discussions off on the side is just fine, so people need a way to reply to just the sender but that includes the message for context.

Consider:

If things are setup to reply to the group, you get a compose window with context (good) but no address for the OP in the TO line, so I have to dig that up somewhere, copy, paste, and delete the group address.

If things are setup to reply to the sender, you get an email with context (good) and the address in question, but in our group that isn't the normal reply path. As I say, in most cases replies are supposed to go back to the entire group. That means that this would require people to edit the TO line and insert the group address the vast majority of the time. That would be bad.

If you use the "reply to sender" or "reply to group" links at the bottom of the message, there is no message body included for context, and those links aren't even present if the message you're replying to was in plain text format.

Having a "reply to group and sender" option makes the act of moving a conversation from the group to just one person much simpler, particularly for those who are less technical.

I hope I have described that accurately.

--jeffp



locked Re: Locked Topics

 

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Nightowl >8# <featheredleader@...> wrote:

Am  I missing something here? Clicking on the reply link doesn't do anything, but I thought it wasn't supposed to be there at all.

I've changed it to say Locked instead of Reply.

Thanks,
Mark 


locked Re: Special Handling of Image Attachments #suggestion

 

Hi Brenda,

You hit a bug. The picture button should not have been displayed in the editor for groups that don't allow attachments. I've fixed it.

Thanks,
Mark

On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Nightowl >8# <featheredleader@...> wrote:
Okay, I finally succeeded in posting the car photo in Hollow Tree.

Here are some things to note:
When I successfully posted the photo in GMF, some saw it, but one person says they didn't Any ideas why?

I had to not only change my posting preference in my profile to HTML, but I also had to set the group not to strip attachments. Fortunately, when I put everything back to Plain Text and Strip, the photo stays there.

I concur with John that it can be confusing, so I agree with John's suggestions about images only or telling you pictures aren't allowed.

Thanks, sorry for all the confusion,

Brenda





locked Re: Reply to both Group and Sender?

 

p.s. the agreement was in response to Maria - forgot to quote her
--
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: Reply to both Group and Sender?

 

I agree totally. I hate it when this happens (or used to happen - I don't frequent them any more) in yahoo groups. It's confusing and also can be a bit annoying. The person who posted to both you as an individual as well as the group seems to expect a personal reply. Sometimes (often) I'm not inclined to reply that way. And either way, the email threads can get very confusing.

"Messy option" is a good description. For me, it's one of those "features" of Yahoo that Groups.io is better off not duplicating.
--
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: Reply to both Group and Sender?

Nightowl >8#
 

Jeff Powell wrote:>>I hope that makes sense. It's disturbingly difficult to discuss this sort of stuff in writing.<<

Thank you for stating something I've been struggling with for quite awhile.

I'm pretty good with computers, but I'm not an expert, and often times I struggle to understand a post in here, or explain what I need or want in the right terms.

So I appreciate and thank this group and it's owner for their patience in helping unravel the issue when I can't explain it right.

And of course, I appreciate my husband John, who also helps me figure something out when it's over my head. :)

Sometimes layman's terms are easier to understand. ;)

Brenda


locked Re: Reply to both Group and Sender?

Maria
 

I wouldn't avail myself of this option in our groups. For a few reasons:

1- If members are set to individual emails and/or digest and someone sends a message to the group+to them(if they are the original poster/sender) they get the message 2x in their inbox (?)

2- The rare times our members do this on Y! (by accident mainly) it becomes confusing when the replies also are "reply all" and perhaps shouldn't be because it's drifted to a private message more than a group one. We've had instances of the sender not realizing the group had been cc'd.. etc.

3- It's so messy in moderated groups if the group reply for any reason needs to be declined or edited - yet the private one is sent.. it creates so much trouble when moderating replies.

Mark - to answer your question, I think that the Yahoo! option that allows a reply to be sent to both sender and group at same time is perhaps intended for those groups where folks are mainly on "no email" or where messages are moderated (so the reply is sent instantly to sender rather than with a moderated delay - but so that if the reply is also useful for the group it's also on the archive..?). 

I find it a messy option and would think that if something is urgent/time sensitive and one wants to bypass a recipients settings, they should send an offlist message separately? I've always felt the group+sender dual reply option is awkward.

Maria



locked Re: Reply to both Group and Sender?

 

If the group is moderated or the member is on moderation, the reply to the individual would go out immediately and regardless of moderation. That's one effect. I can't think of others. Maybe the fact that 'no email' users would still get the message in their email?

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 6, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:

The group's Reply To option currently allows you to select from "Group", "Sender", and "Moderator". So as I understand it you propose adding "Group and Sender" to that drop-list.

<Feel free to read the following using a 'dumb guy' voice, because I'm sure I'm missing something>: If the sender is in the group, they already get a copy of the message if the message is sent to the group. How would this be different?

Thanks,
Mark 

--
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: Reply to both Group and Sender?

 

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:

The group's Reply To option currently allows you to select from "Group", "Sender", and "Moderator". So as I understand it you propose adding "Group and Sender" to that drop-list.

<Feel free to read the following using a 'dumb guy' voice, because I'm sure I'm missing something>: If the sender is in the group, they already get a copy of the message if the message is sent to the group. How would this be different?

Thanks,
Mark 


locked Re: Special Handling of Image Attachments

Laurence Taylor
 

Shal, many thnaks for your explanation of the variois ways of
attaching/inserting/including pictures.

I'm sure it never used to be this complicated!

--
rgds
LAurence
<><
...
Generic Brown Label Tagline


locked Re: two different sets of trailing links on messages?

 

jeffp,

I don't know what we will do about that. And at this point I don't even
know how Yahoo handles that, nor how our current user base deals with it
should they do the same thing.
We're straying off-topic for beta@, but the short of it is that Yahoo's default now is (but hasn't always been) to convert plain text messages to HTML when sent, and use HTML formatted footers.
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/GroupManagersForum/conversations/messages/59130

I, for one, prefer that plain text messages stay plain text.

I'd like it even more if they were presented in a nice monospaced font (Lucida Console, DejaVu Sans Mono, Letter Gothic) rather than in a variable font that ruins my ASCII art. But that battle seems lost.

Shal


__
//\\ Plain Text Campaign | Remember -
\\// No HTML/RTF in email | You can't get malware from plain text!
XX No Word docs in email | No one has ever said "I can't read that
//\\ Respect open standards | plain text email you sent."


locked Re: two different sets of trailing links on messages?

Jeff Powell <jrpstonecarver@...>
 

Ugh. That's not good.

I don't know what we will do about that. And at this point I don't even know how Yahoo handles that, nor how our current user base deals with it should they do the same thing.

In any case, that is a problem. Some percentage of our users use those links, but now they won't be present in some cases, when the email they are replying to happens to come from someone using a plain text email tool. I get to figure out how to explain that to the users, many of whom are, shall we say, not tech savvy.

Whee.


locked Re: two different sets of trailing links on messages?

 

jeffp,

One person posted a test message to the group, and the following is a
screen capture of the various links appearing after her post. She tells
me she posted this from inside the groups.io UI, not via email:

[plain-text footer]
As you've already discovered, that's a footer to a message in plain text. She could have sent it from an email interface (most have a means to send plain text, even if it isn't the default). Or she could have sent it from the Groups site if she's set her profile to use plain-text posting.

That looked all wrong, so I tried several things, and others have
replied to her post as well. Those posts all have trailing links that
look like this:
And that's a formatted (HTML) footer.

The formatting differences are necessitated by the fact that plain text cannot hide the URL for a link: so the URLs are shown in full.

Whether you see those URLs as plain text (which you must copy/paste) or as links you can click on depends on your email user interface. Most will detect and "linkify" URLs that are present in plain text messages. Some won't.


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


locked Re: two different sets of trailing links on messages?

 

jeffp,

Given those links differ, I think the plain text versions need to be
updated to reflect the other options. At least they need to include the
reply to sender and reply to group links in them.
Formatting aside, those are the only two missing from the plain text.

Those two were deliberately omitted because they are mailto: links.
https://groups.io/g/beta/message/7843

Testing revealed that not all email interfaces would correctly linkify mailto: links. Some wouldn't linkify them at all. Some, including Gmail and Yahoo mail would linkify the mailto: but wouldn't pick up the Subject parameter.
https://groups.io/g/beta/message/7733

Shal


locked Re: two different sets of trailing links on messages?

Jeff Powell <jrpstonecarver@...>
 

I think this has been narrowed down more deeply, and the issue is really a bug.

It turns out that the original message that caused my confusion wasn't posted from the UI. It was sent from a plain text email client. Given that information and a bit of additional testing we have confirmed that:

  • Emails to a group that come from plain text email clients get trailing links that look like those in pic1.png (attached to the OP above).
  • Emails to a group that come in HTML format get trailing links that look like this in pic2.png (also attached above).

Given those links differ, I think the plain text versions need to be updated to reflect the other options. At least they need to include the reply to sender and reply to group links in them.

I have updated the zendesk ticket I opened with this information. With luck it will be fixed quickly. It's probably pretty simple if I had to guess, and just an oversight.

--jeffp

18681 - 18700 of 29453