|
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
·
|