moderated Groups.io Message Editor #suggestion


Jim Higgins
 

When replying to a message via Groups.io online, I'd like to see all addresses to which that reply will go plainly visible and editable before the reply is sent. Figleafing in conformance with group settings is OK.

Currently the address(es) a reply is directed to are not visible.

Jim H


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 02:30 PM, Jim Higgins wrote:
reply will go plainly visible and editable before the reply is sent.
Why?   If you are part of a typical conversation group on a service such as this one replies can, and should, always go to all current members of the group.

You can't do this via the e-mail interface and shouldn't be able to, either.

Private responses can go to one or more members of your choosing, but replies to a conversation group should always go to all members of the group.  If you want a side group then do that by e-mail.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 
     Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

          ~ H.L. Mencken, AKA The Sage of Baltimore


Jim Higgins
 

Received from Brian Vogel at 9/20/2018 06:56 PM UTC:

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 02:30 PM, Jim Higgins wrote:
reply will go plainly visible and editable before the reply is sent.
Why? If you are part of a typical conversation group on a service such as this one replies can, and should, always go to all current members of the group.

Groups can be set up to reply only to sender, therefore it must be Gio's opinion that your opinion above isn't shared by Gio. Nor was it shared by Yahoo Groups. Nor is it shared by group owners who have chosen to set up their groups to reply to sender rather than to the entire group.

And... unless I'm recalling incorrectly, a feature was recently added to allow a sender to insert a "Reply-to:" header that could direct a reply to a 3rd party who is neither the sender nor even a member of the group. I think we should have an opportunity to see exactly where any response is going so we can decide whether or not to send the response.


You can't do this via the e-mail interface and shouldn't be able to, either.

I shouldn't be able to see where my response is going? Seriously?!!!!!!

It's precisely because I can't do this via the web interface that I'm requesting this feature to be added. I can see who I'm replying to when I create a reply in my home email client (as I am now), why not via the Gio message editor also? It's "standard" in any email client I've ever seen that the person creating a response can see the address to which he is responding. And being able to do so is even more important when the ability exists to put any darn thing someone wants to into a "Reply-to:" header.


Private responses can go to one or more members of your choosing, but replies to a conversation group should always go to all members of the group. If you want a side group then do that by e-mail.

Not all groups are "conversation groups"... and with the ability to insert a"Reply-to:" header we have lost the ability to expect that responses are limited to group, sender or moderator (or some combination of those). If there is going to be an unexpected reply-to address added to a reply, I want to know what it is before sending that reply.

Why would you object to that?

Jim H


Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...>
 

I am 100% against this idea. It is already too easy for users to harvest other user's email addresses and is not necessary for communication of information.

--
Gerald


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 09:33 PM, Jim Higgins wrote:
Not all groups are "conversation groups"... and with the ability to insert a"Reply-to:" header we have lost the ability to expect that responses are limited to group, sender or moderator (or some combination of those).
This is a case where the type of group is completely, utterly irrelevant.   If you want what you say you want then manage a private mailing list within your e-mail client.

Groups are meant, whether conversation/announcement only to go to ALL MEMBERS of a group when you reply to the group.  You, for any you, don't get to pick and choose and shouldn't be able to via the group mechanism itself.  You have lots of other very easy methods to carry on private conversations with select group members.

I just don't get why people want to circumvent the core feature of a medium that has been in existence as long as this one.  I've been around since the days of Usenet.  You never got to "pick and choose" who you were responding to when you sent a reply to a group message or created a new message going out to the group.

I, as a member of a group, have every right to expect that anything not sent as a private message is going out to the group, not the members of your choosing (for any you, not you personally).
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 
     Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

          ~ H.L. Mencken, AKA The Sage of Baltimore


 

I actually agree that this is currently a big problem. My group is set to reply-all, but often, topics are set to private-reply. In that case, as well as when someone purposely selects "private reply" in a reply-all (i.e., default) topic, you can't see the addressee when you reply.

This has resulted in numerous cases of private replies going to the wrong person. Some people don't realize that "private reply" means you're replying to the person whose post you are directly under, and mistakenly assume that their reply is going to the OP. Even if they do realize, some people goof and reply underneath the wrong message. 

I strongly agree that adding the addressee would be a boon by reducing (if not entirely eliminating) this kind of error.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 07:35 PM, Gerald Boutin wrote:
 It is already too easy for users to harvest other user's email addresses
Even if I agreed with that (which I don't), once you actually send the private reply, if you've checked "bcc me" you automatically see the email address you've sent it to anyway. You just see it after sending rather than before, which I find really unhelpful. Adding the addressee for the writer to view beforehand only adds to convenience and fewer errors, and does nothing to make "harvesting" email addresses easier.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 09:54 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
You just see it after sending rather than before, which I find really unhelpful.
In fact, after I've sent any private reply, I immediately look for the bcc afterwards in my inbox (I *always* use the bcc for precisely this reason), anxiously hoping that I sent it to the right person. A couple of times, I haven't. It's currently a real PITA.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

Hold on, I'm re-reading the OP and I meant to limit my agreement strictly to private replies. If what's being discussed is showing all the addressees any time the reply is to the group, I think that's a dealbreaker. I'm not sure I understand what's originally being proposed.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Jim Higgins
 

Received from Gerald Boutin at 9/21/2018 02:35 AM UTC:

I am 100% against this idea. It is already too easy for users to harvest other user's email addresses and is not necessary for communication of information.

You didn't read my original feature request very carefully.

I said, "Figleafing in conformance with group settings is OK."

That wouldn't display any more of an email address than is already displayed as the "From:" address in every message we receive.

Jim H


 

Are you really proposing to display all 3,000+ or 20,000+ email addresses in those kinds of large groups??? I guess there would be ways of doing it without hogging the screen. But I’m not crazy about the idea, for many reasons. I do think showing the address in the case of private replies would be very helpful.

On Sep 21, 2018, at 8:20 AM, Jim Higgins <HigginsJ@sc.rr.com> wrote:

Received from Gerald Boutin at 9/21/2018 02:35 AM UTC:

I am 100% against this idea. It is already too easy for users to harvest other user's email addresses and is not necessary for communication of information.

You didn't read my original feature request very carefully.

I said, "Figleafing in conformance with group settings is OK."

That wouldn't display any more of an email address than is already displayed as the "From:" address in every message we receive.

Jim H



--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

I also see that you are proposing the list be "editable." I think this is a dealbreaker. It would essentially allow users to pick and choose whom they want to send group messages to, and this is really a whole new feature that does not seem in keeping with the product.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Toby Kraft
 

I agree with J (again)
"Reply to Group" means exactly that.  Anything else would seem to be a break in the social contract between groups.io and groups it hosts.
Toby


 

Exactly, break in the social contract. Good term.


On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 10:31 AM Toby Kraft <toby@...> wrote:
I agree with J (again)
"Reply to Group" means exactly that.  Anything else would seem to be a break in the social contract between groups.io and groups it hosts.
Toby


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 01:44 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Exactly, break in the social contract.
I won't take one ounce of credit for the phrase being used here, but boy did it cross my mind last night. 

There are certain conventions/contracts very strongly entangled with certain media.  Groups, whether "announcement only" or "conversation" have been, since day one, understood to send any message intended for the group to the whole group.  One does not get to pick and choose who gets what messages, except for private messages.

If people can't accept the social contract inherent in a "groups media" then they had ought not be using it.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 
     Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

          ~ H.L. Mencken, AKA The Sage of Baltimore


 

On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 01:14 PM, Brian Vogel wrote:
If people can't accept the social contract inherent in a "groups media" then they had ought not be using it.
Another way of putting it: the proposed idea violates the whole model that groups.io is based on.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Duane
 

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 01:30 PM, Jim Higgins wrote:
When replying to a message via Groups.io online, I'd like to see all addresses to which that reply will go plainly visible and editable before the reply is sent. Figleafing in conformance with group settings is OK.
How about if the masked email address is all that's shown (non-editable) AND only after you select Private (or it's a Reply-To-Sender group)?  That way you could make sure it's going to the person you expect it to.  If it's wrong, you could Discard and try again.

Duane


 

On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 01:58 PM, Duane wrote:
How about if the masked email address is all that's shown (non-editable) AND only after you select Private (or it's a Reply-To-Sender group)?  That way you could make sure it's going to the person you expect it to.
That's all great and would solve the problem I mentioned. However, it does not really have to be masked in this case. Once you actually hit "send," you see the complete email address anyway (unmasked) as long as you check "bcc me." So there's no point in masking it in this case, IMO.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 01:58 PM, Duane wrote:
or it's a Reply-To-Sender group
also, or if it's a Reply To Sender topic, via a hashtag (in which case "Private" and "Reply to Sender" appear in the compose box automatically, just as in a Reply to Sender group).
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Jim Higgins
 

Received from Brian Vogel at 9/21/2018 03:44 AM UTC:

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 09:33 PM, Jim Higgins wrote:
Not all groups are "conversation groups"... and with the ability to insert a"Reply-to:" header we have lost the ability to expect that responses are limited to group, sender or moderator (or some combination of those).
This is a case where the type of group is completely, utterly irrelevant. If you want what you say you want then manage a private mailing list within your e-mail client.

You need to go back and reread my original proposed feature request... as it has become painfully obvious that you either never understood it or else irrelevent conversation creep has distorted your memory of it.


Groups are meant, whether conversation/announcement only to go to ALL MEMBERS of a group when you reply to the group.

You keep saying that (and sayin gthat and saying that), but in doing so you're repeatedly ignoring the FACT that I've restated several (way too many now) times... namely that Groups.io permits establishing groups where the reply default is to the sender of the message, NOT to the entire group. You're simply repeatedly expressing that opinion on a service (Groups.io) that at very the highest level doesn't support your opinion.


You, for any you, don't get to pick and choose and shouldn't be able to via the group mechanism itself. You have lots of other very easy methods to carry on private conversations with select group members.

REREAD MY ORIGINAL PROPOSAL! I don't want to carry on a private conversation. I want to know, if I compose a reply on the Gio site, where that reply is going. The reply address can be figleafed, but I want to know it's there and if it's not the only reply address, be able to delete it. If it's the only one and I don't want to reply to it, I can abort the reply.

I didn't like the earlier suggestion, since implemented as far as I can recall, allowing folks to insert their own "Reply-to:" headers... and my feature request is my way of being able to "opt out" of replying to those "Reply-to:" addresses that I now can't even see are there is composing a reply via the Gio interface.


I just don't get why people want to circumvent the core feature of a medium that has been in existence as long as this one.

You only think some sort of core feature is being circumvented because you refuse to understand that we already have groups in which all replies go only to the original sender, not to the group. You argue that that's not how "groups" should work, but the reality is that "Reply to Sender" (not to the entire group) is one option for how they do work on Gio if the group owner sets them up to do so.


I've been around since the days of Usenet. You never got to "pick and choose" who you were responding to when you sent a reply to a group message or created a new message going out to the group.

Really? I've been around since then also and I was always able to "pick and choose." I was always able to read an article ("messages" are called "articles" on Usenet) from let's say "newsgroup.one" ("groups" on Usenet are called "newsgroups") and before sending a reply I could (as pointless as it may seem) change the newsgroup being sent to to "newsgroup.two" or whatever. I could also add additional newsgroups to the reply. I could also respond via email or via both Usenet and email. In fact, via both was the preferred reply method in the earlier days, but is seriously frowned upon now. And for messages sent to several newsgroups, I could choose to reply to some subset of the original newsgroups, or to add additional ones of my own. If you couldn't do this, then you had one heck of a lousy news reading program.


I, as a member of a group, have every right to expect that anything not sent as a private message is going out to the group, not the members of your choosing (for any you, not you personally).

I expected a reply to a Gio message to go to the group, sender, moderator (or some combination of those) up until the feature allowing senders to insert their own "Reply-to:" header was added. I didn't want that feature because we can't see when it's being used. My feature request would let us see when it's being applied. As such, in light of the ability to insert "Reply-to:" headers that direct replies to somewhere you currently can't see when composing a reply via the Groups.io interface - rather than just to the entire group - I'd think you'd be in favor of this feature request.

Remember... figleafing of that soon to be (hopefully) visible reply address would be per the owner's settings for the group. Or they can all be figleafed regardless of owner settings.

Jim H