|
Disallow concurrent "special notices" and "following only"
#suggestion
#bug
Absolutely. But when the UI design leads to a user thinking things operate differently than they actually do, the manual doesn't help.
|
Absolutely. But when the UI design leads to a user thinking things operate differently than they actually do, the manual doesn't help.
|
By
Peter Cook
· #28122
·
|
|
Disallow concurrent "special notices" and "following only"
#suggestion
#bug
Or, something like Delivery = how you get it = individual, digest, or summary. Filter = what you get = none, special notices only, all, following only, following only + first message also, or followin
|
Or, something like Delivery = how you get it = individual, digest, or summary. Filter = what you get = none, special notices only, all, following only, following only + first message also, or followin
|
By
Peter Cook
· #28067
·
|
|
Disallow concurrent "special notices" and "following only"
#suggestion
#bug
So, again: email delivery, message selection, and replies all determine which messages get to your inbox. So why not make them all part of the same block of settings?
|
So, again: email delivery, message selection, and replies all determine which messages get to your inbox. So why not make them all part of the same block of settings?
|
By
Peter Cook
· #28064
·
|
|
Disallow concurrent "special notices" and "following only"
#suggestion
#bug
I've tested this and special notices still get delivered. There is no way not to get special notices that I can find when No Email is disabled.
|
I've tested this and special notices still get delivered. There is no way not to get special notices that I can find when No Email is disabled.
|
By
Peter Cook
· #28062
·
|
|
Disallow concurrent "special notices" and "following only"
#suggestion
#bug
But her point is that that's not how it works - if someone is set to Special Notices Only, they get, well, special notices only. If they want more than special notices, they use individual, digest, or
|
But her point is that that's not how it works - if someone is set to Special Notices Only, they get, well, special notices only. If they want more than special notices, they use individual, digest, or
|
By
Peter Cook
· #28060
·
|
|
moderated
Poll participation by non-account holders
#suggestion
That's part of the purpose of beta.
|
That's part of the purpose of beta.
|
By
Peter Cook
· #28022
·
|
|
moderated
Poll participation by non-account holders
#suggestion
The same value to the group, minus the negativity, could have been delivered with "That's not correct, Tom. Every member of a group (hosted by Groups.io, that is!) has an Account, even if they don't r
|
The same value to the group, minus the negativity, could have been delivered with "That's not correct, Tom. Every member of a group (hosted by Groups.io, that is!) has an Account, even if they don't r
|
By
Peter Cook
· #28014
·
|
|
Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
It's pointless to sit here and debate whose assumptions are correct. One of three things is true: Mark will implement his pricing changes on the 18th, or he won't, or he's still considering input. I'd
|
It's pointless to sit here and debate whose assumptions are correct. One of three things is true: Mark will implement his pricing changes on the 18th, or he won't, or he's still considering input. I'd
|
By
Peter Cook
· #27821
·
|
|
Subscribers leaving before pricing change
#misc
Feel free to join in: https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/message/36333 Pete
|
Feel free to join in: https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/message/36333 Pete
|
By
Peter Cook
· #27817
·
|
|
Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
I thought that was very clear as well. However, there are some comments here that seem to imply otherwise. Here's one: https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/27536 Mark, it would be helpful to hear fro
|
I thought that was very clear as well. However, there are some comments here that seem to imply otherwise. Here's one: https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/27536 Mark, it would be helpful to hear fro
|
By
Peter Cook
· #27816
·
|
|
Subscribers leaving before pricing change
#misc
Now you've got me wondering whether I should issue a pre-emptive reassurance to my members. I'm going to take this over to GMF. Pete
|
Now you've got me wondering whether I should issue a pre-emptive reassurance to my members. I'm going to take this over to GMF. Pete
|
By
Peter Cook
· #27813
·
|
|
Subscribers leaving before pricing change
#misc
I have to agree with Robert. Considering the amount of confusion that ensued after Mark's original post, I wouldn't consider saying anything to my members until I knew if, when, and exactly how they'd
|
I have to agree with Robert. Considering the amount of confusion that ensued after Mark's original post, I wouldn't consider saying anything to my members until I knew if, when, and exactly how they'd
|
By
Peter Cook
· #27811
·
|
|
locked
Pricing Changes
#update
Just one last point. My comment is really a response to some posts on this thread that seem to imply that Mark is entitled to cover his costs, or maybe make a little money for his efforts. That's fine
|
Just one last point. My comment is really a response to some posts on this thread that seem to imply that Mark is entitled to cover his costs, or maybe make a little money for his efforts. That's fine
|
By
Peter Cook
· #27534
·
|
|
locked
Pricing Changes
#update
Shal, I was being glib, of course, and I'm not inferring any particular purpose or set of values on Mark's part based on this thread. What I should have said is simply that it's been obvious for quite
|
Shal, I was being glib, of course, and I'm not inferring any particular purpose or set of values on Mark's part based on this thread. What I should have said is simply that it's been obvious for quite
|
By
Peter Cook
· #27533
·
|
|
locked
Pricing Changes
#update
Of course not - particularly since you raised the possibility on this forum just over a year ago.
|
Of course not - particularly since you raised the possibility on this forum just over a year ago.
|
By
Peter Cook
· #27476
·
|
|
locked
Pricing Changes
#update
Ellen, it's in the first message of the thread, here: https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/27191 "For groups upgraded after Monday, January 18th, 2021 at 9am Pacific Time,..." {Pete
|
Ellen, it's in the first message of the thread, here: https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/27191 "For groups upgraded after Monday, January 18th, 2021 at 9am Pacific Time,..." {Pete
|
By
Peter Cook
· #27451
·
|
|
locked
Pricing Changes
#update
Sorry, here: https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/27191
|
Sorry, here: https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/27191
|
By
Peter Cook
· #27448
·
|
|
locked
Pricing Changes
#update
Ellen, here are the details: https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/2719 . Pete
|
Ellen, here are the details: https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/2719 . Pete
|
By
Peter Cook
· #27447
·
|
|
All photos show "Taken" date as 12/31/1969
#bug
Every photo in every album in my groups (including some taken yesterday) have a "Taken" date of 12/31/1969. Discussed on GMF - https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/message/35939 . Pete
|
Every photo in every album in my groups (including some taken yesterday) have a "Taken" date of 12/31/1969. Discussed on GMF - https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/message/35939 . Pete
|
By
Peter Cook
· #27444
·
|
|
locked
Pricing Changes
#update
For the purposes of planning, I am going to assume that - as is generally the case - Mark means what he says. Pete
|
For the purposes of planning, I am going to assume that - as is generally the case - Mark means what he says. Pete
|
By
Peter Cook
· #27422
·
|
