moderated Suggestion: Ability to send PM from a member's profile page #suggestion


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

I have not actually encountered a situation prior to today where this would have mattered to me, but now I have, and I'll use the actual example.

Mark has locked the topic on disallowed groups, and although I know that I could e-mail to support@groups.io to contact him directly, many a random member would not.  I clicked through to his profile thinking, "Oh, I'll just send a PM, as what I'd like to tell him really isn't support related," but that option does not exist.

On many (and I'd say most) other sites that support a web interface similar to groups.io, if one clicks through on a member name to their profile, one of the functions available there is to send a private message (PM) to said member if they have not blocked private messaging.

It appears that certain groups do, in its entirety, but most don't.  If the feature is available, and the option is blocked by the member, it would be nice if the profile page indicated that PMs are not accepted in place of the PM link or button, though that's not essential.

Since you can't reply to a locked topic my usual, "Reply then use the private button," technique will not work for those.
--

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


 

Brian,


I clicked through to his profile thinking, "Oh, I'll just send a PM, as what I'd like to tell him really isn't support related," but that option does not exist.

Agreed, the Email button (available on member entries in the Directory) ought to be duplicated in the actual profile page.

That's bugged me before, especially since there's no way to easily get to the entry in the Directory if one got to the profile from a message.
Shal


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Shal,

           An additional factor, unless I'm just inventing this from the whole cloth, is that group owners can choose to have private directories, in which case there's no way to establish off-group contact with a member who is not averse to same with ease.

           And before anyone jumps in and says, "But we don't want people talking outside the group," the ability to make a group have a private directory or to disable even access to member profiles appears to be built in to Groups.io, so you can set things up already to prevent this.  I'm talking about groups where its entirely reasonable that one might wish to contact another member privately about something, whether group related or not.

--

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


 

An alternative (although not very aesthetic) that would solve this particular problem is to have an option "lock topic except for private replies" (which would be disabled in a group that disallows private replies). However, you'd then run into the problem - discussed here aeons ago - that in the current UI, you have to first click "reply" and only after that, click "private."
--
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


 

Actually now that I think about it, that's the same as being able to mark a topic "reply to sender," which I suggested in a previous thread should be an option and which Mark said he now wants to implement.
--
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,

An additional factor, unless I'm just inventing this from
the whole cloth, is that group owners can choose to have private
directories, in which case there's no way to establish off-group
contact with a member who is not averse to same with ease.
Correct. The Directory can be limited to Moderators and Owners, or may be disabled entirely.

Shal


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

And when you add in the figleafing of e-mail addresses in the forum interface, it becomes a real nightmare.

I cannot count the number of times where someone has, through the e-mail interface, offered an e-mail address that I still have no access to since I have the "No email" option set for all groups I am on, except when testing.  And it does no good at all to switch to e-mail delivery after the fact and then have to ask for it to be repeated again, as that gets annoying to the group at large and the person who's already given the information.

Not that I'm expecting it will change, ever, but I will go on record again that I despise the figleafing of e-mail addresses on the web interface.  We all have spam trapping and it's a myth that any e-mail address is private in any meaningful sense of the word private.  Once it's drifted through cyberspace just by being used to send e-mail it can be sniffed out by anyone wanting to do so.
--

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


Duane
 

On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 11:33 AM, Brian Vogel wrote:
add in the figleafing of e-mail addresses in the forum interface
There was an option added awhile back that can take care of this on the groups you own/moderate.  You can show full email addresses in a group by selecting that option at Settings, Privacy, Hide Email Addresses In Archives.  If the archives are public, non-members will still see the figleaf, but members that are signed in will see the email address.  When the option was added, it defaulted to masking because that's what it had been.

Duane


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 02:38 PM, Duane wrote:
You can show full email addresses in a group by selecting that option at Settings, Privacy, Hide Email Addresses In Archives.  If the archives are public, non-members will still see the figleaf, but members that are signed in will see the email address.  When the option was added, it defaulted to masking because that's what it had been.
Duane,

            Thank you very much for having taken the time to post this.   It's well-nigh impossible to keep up with the many "under the hood" changes at Groups.io, particularly if they're not something one uses with any frequency.

             I hope that this option now defaults to "not masked" for newly created groups.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763 
The terrible state of public education has paid huge dividends in ignorance.  Huge.  We now have a country that can be told blatant lies — easily checkable, blatant lies — and I’m not talking about the covert workings of the CIA. When we have a terrorist attack, on September 11, 2001 with 19 men — 15 of them are Saudis — and five minutes later the whole country thinks they’re from Iraq — how can you have faith in the public? This is an easily checkable fact. The whole country is like the O.J. Simpson jurors.

      ~ Fran Lebowitz in Ruminator Magazine interview with Susannah McNeely (Aug/Sept 2005)


 

Hi All,

An Email button is now shown when viewing a fellow member's group profile page.

Thanks,
Mark

On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 7:37 AM Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 02:38 PM, Duane wrote:
You can show full email addresses in a group by selecting that option at Settings, Privacy, Hide Email Addresses In Archives.  If the archives are public, non-members will still see the figleaf, but members that are signed in will see the email address.  When the option was added, it defaulted to masking because that's what it had been.
Duane,

            Thank you very much for having taken the time to post this.   It's well-nigh impossible to keep up with the many "under the hood" changes at Groups.io, particularly if they're not something one uses with any frequency.

             I hope that this option now defaults to "not masked" for newly created groups.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763 
The terrible state of public education has paid huge dividends in ignorance.  Huge.  We now have a country that can be told blatant lies — easily checkable, blatant lies — and I’m not talking about the covert workings of the CIA. When we have a terrorist attack, on September 11, 2001 with 19 men — 15 of them are Saudis — and five minutes later the whole country thinks they’re from Iraq — how can you have faith in the public? This is an easily checkable fact. The whole country is like the O.J. Simpson jurors.

      ~ Fran Lebowitz in Ruminator Magazine interview with Susannah McNeely (Aug/Sept 2005)


 

I think (ironically) that I was one of the original backers of this feature, or even the first (or one of the first) to suggest it. However, since then the "disable other reply options" was implemented, which I find very useful in preventing (or minimizing) offlist conversations. How will the new PM feature interact, if at all, in groups set to reply-to-group with other reply methods disabled? It seems to water it down.
--
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


 

In fact, here was my original suggestion for the feature, from two+ years ago:
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/9529?p=,,,100,0,0,0::Created,,posterid%3A20540+%2B+PM,100,2,0,2184691

--
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, Oct 19, 2018 at 09:39 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
How will the new PM feature interact, if at all, in groups set to reply-to-group with other reply methods disabled?
Perhaps PM could be automatically disabled if "Remove Other Reply Options" is set ? Or be disabled as a separate group option?
 
--
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


Bruce Bowman
 

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 12:39 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
However, since then the "disable other reply options" was implemented, which I find very useful in preventing (or minimizing) offlist conversations. How will the new PM feature interact, if at all, in groups set to reply-to-group with other reply methods disabled? It seems to water it down.
J,

From what I've observed so far, it seems that the member profile is not available to regular Subscribers (i.e.: there is no link to their profile) if the "receiving" subscriber hasn't yet established a shared profile and/or the group owner has disabled the Directory in the Settings. To that end, I don't [yet] believe this new feature is any more objectionable than the Direct Mail functionality that was added back in April (ref: https://groups.io/g/updates/message/39).

Please let me know if I'm mistaken.

Regards,
Bruce


 

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 04:45 PM, Bruce Bowman wrote:
, it seems that the member profile is not available to regular Subscribers (i.e.: there is no link to their profile) if the "receiving" subscriber hasn't yet established a shared profile and/or the group owner has disabled the Directory in the Settings
I'm not sure. Of course if the user has not established a profile, the profile would not be available to anyone (I'm not sure what you mean by "shared profile"?). However, I don't think it has anything to do with the directory. I think you can just click on a member's profile at the bottom of the member's message, whether or not the directory has been disabled. Making profiles unavailable if the directory is disabled (assuming that's not already the case) would solve the problem, though.
 
--
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


Bruce Bowman
 

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 08:02 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I'm not sure. Of course if the user has not established a profile, the profile would not be available to anyone (I'm not sure what you mean by "shared profile"?). However, I don't think it has anything to do with the directory. I think you can just click on a member's profile at the bottom of the member's message, whether or not the directory has been disabled.
Each profile has a Profile Privacy setting. The default is Moderators and Owners. If I understand correctly, other group subscribers (and the Public) cannot see a profile unless this setting is changed, whether the Directory is enabled or not.

At least that's the way things appear when I log on with a Subscriber account in my own group. If someone were to do the same in a different group and verify this behavior, I would appreciate the sanity check.

Making profiles unavailable if the directory is disabled (assuming that's not already the case) would solve the problem, though.
I agree and would support that.

Bruce


 

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 06:43 PM, Bruce Bowman wrote:
If I understand correctly, other group subscribers (and the Public) cannot see a profile unless this setting is changed, whether the Directory is enabled or not.
I think that's correct, but it does nothing to solve the problem of groups that want to prohibit (or minimize, because you can't completely prohibit) offlist conversation, since it's under the individual members' (rather than the moderator's) control. I would go with tying the PM function to accessibility of the directory.
 
--
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