Topics

moderated (from beta) Bulk reminders for NCs #suggestion


 

Samuel,

But I (for example) am subscribed to many lists ... and it takes quite
a while for me to realise if I no longer get messages ... or if my
subscription didn't go through.
If you, at a given address, have ever received a group message then you aren't NC status. It is an address-specific confirmation, unrelated to any particular group subscription.

Presumably you'd pay more attention if it were your first Groups.io subscription, or the first one at a given address.

Shal


 

Shal,

I think I understand what you’re saying here, and if so, that’s incorrect. Each specific group membership requires a response to a confirmation email, even if the person is already in other groups. But perhaps I misunderstand what you’re trying to say?

On Mar 3, 2019, at 12:59 AM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@gmail.com> wrote:

Samuel,

But I (for example) am subscribed to many lists ... and it takes quite
a while for me to realise if I no longer get messages ... or if my
subscription didn't go through.
If you, at a given address, have ever received a group message then you aren't NC status. It is an address-specific confirmation, unrelated to any particular group subscription.

Presumably you'd pay more attention if it were your first Groups.io subscription, or the first one at a given address.

Shal


--
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


 

Shal, I've been playing around with my test group and test members, and I may need to strike my last comment from the record. It seemed for a time that confirmation emails were sent for every group a groups.io member wanted to join. (I know that originally, confirmation emails were sent only if a person had no groups.io account.) But I need to play around with this some more. The confirmation email I sent to beta yesterday, as someone's requested sample (I think Bruce was the one who expressed interest in seeing a sample), was from a test email address of mine which has had a groups.io account for years, but which was sent a confirmation email upon requesting membership in my test group, even though the email address already had a groups.io account. However, now, after posting my message contradicting your comment about this, I am unable to reproduce this configuration. I'll try again in the morning.


On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 1:50 AM J_Catlady via Groups.Io <j.olivia.catlady=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:
Shal,

I think I understand what you’re saying here, and if so, that’s incorrect. Each specific group membership requires a response to a confirmation email, even if the person is already in other groups. But perhaps I misunderstand what you’re trying to say?
> On Mar 3, 2019, at 12:59 AM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:
>
> Samuel,
>
> > But I (for example) am subscribed to many lists ... and it takes quite
> > a while for me to realise if I no longer get messages ... or if my
> > subscription didn't go through.
>
> If you, at a given address, have ever received a group message then you aren't NC status. It is an address-specific confirmation, unrelated to any particular group subscription.
>
> Presumably you'd pay more attention if it were your first Groups.io subscription, or the first one at a given address.
>
> Shal
>
>
>


--
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




--
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


 

J,

Each specific group membership requires a response to a confirmation
email, even if the person is already in other groups. But perhaps I
misunderstand what you’re trying to say?
I may have my terminology, or process, mixed up.

I'm thinking of the email address confirmation, relating to clearing NC status.

That's unrelated to confirming an email +subscribe command, which would be per group. I don't expect that members using the Request button on the web would need to confirm their join request.

Too late at night for me. I'm only up to see the Crew Dragon dock to the ISS on NASA TV livestream.

Shal


 

On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 02:16 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
I'm only up to see the Crew Dragon dock to the ISS on NASA TV livestream.
I'm up now, for better or for worse. Some issues for the morning:

1. It's possible the test email address is not (in my tests tonight) receiving the confirmation emails because they're getting lost. That happened a lot in the past, and was discussed here at great length, and may still be happening from time to time.

2. If a confirmation email is sent for each group, and the person already has a groups.io account, then I think the pending notice does not even get sent to the mods of the group until the person confirms, only if the person applied via email. This was something I remember complaining about here in the past, because as a group owner, I'd like to at least know a request came in, even if the person had not yet confirmed the membership request - especially since the confirmation emails (at least at that point) were getting lost in several demonstrable instances.

3. I would like to get clarified under exactly what circumstances a pending member shows up in the pending member list as NC. It seems to be the intent that they're NC only if both (a) they applied via the email subscribe command and (b) they failed to respond to the confirmation email; but that they're never marked as NC if they applied via the web and already have a groups.io account. That seems inconsistent and puzzling, and confusing to mods.

I hope this can be clarified once and for all. Not sure whether this is a topic for beta but it came up in the past in the context of my (?) request to see pending members even if they have not yet confirmed - just mark them as NC. Why put them in pending and mark them as NC if they've applied via email, but not put them in pending at all if they applied via the web? This used to be the case. It may or may not have changed by this point.

Maybe Mark will jump in here and clarify this. Or maybe in the morning things will magically be clearer. :-) For now, I just wanted to put these out there.
 
--
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


 

J,

2. If a confirmation email is sent for each group, ... then I think
the pending notice does not even get sent to the mods of the group
until the person confirms,
I think that description is correct, for +subscribe by email, regardless of whether the person has an account already.

3. ... It seems to be the intent that they're NC only if both (a) they
applied via the email subscribe command and (b) they failed to respond
to the confirmation email;
While they would be NC at this point, they wouldn't yet be listed in the group's Pending Members list, per (2). I think the +subscribe path never leads to an NC listing in the group's Pending list because confirmation is required before they are listed.

but that they're never marked as NC if they applied via the web
and already have a groups.io account.
If they've already confirmed their address in their account they are not NC.

I believe the sequence that leads to them showing as NC in a group's Pending Members list is when they are entirely new to Groups.io and Request membership via the web. They will go through the sign-up process, which will send them a confirmation email (or they may choose to request a login link), but a group moderator might see them in the group's Pending list before they respond to the confirmation request email.

That seems inconsistent and puzzling, and confusing to mods.
As I recall, the reason for not listing the person as Pending in (2) is that the +subscribe email command might come in from a spam source or other type of bot. That could potentially flood the group moderators with spurious notices and spurious addresses in their Pending list. Requiring that the address be confirmed as "real" first helps prevent that.

That same flood of spurious addresses could conceivably happen by way of web sign-up, but that would require that the crooks develop bots specific to manipulating Groups.io's web interface. If that ever happens Mark may have to change the web flow so that those also don't become pending until confirmed. But until such time there is benefit to listing them so that the group mods can help them resolve their NC status.

Hatch open, ISS astronauts have visited inside the Crew Dragon (yay!), and they've retrieved some of the cargo it brought up for them. I wonder if it has "new car smell"?

Shal


 

On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 05:42 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
I believe the sequence that leads to them showing as NC in a group's Pending Members list is when they are entirely new to Groups.io and Request membership via the web. They will go through the sign-up process, which will send them a confirmation email (or they may choose to request a login link), but a group moderator might see them in the group's Pending list before they respond to the confirmation request email.
Yes, I've just (re-)confirmed all of that. What still bothers me about this is that mods sometimes see NC members in the pending list, and other times, just because the person applied via email rather than web, don't even know that there's a membership request at all. The inconsistency bothers me, not just because of the inconsistency per se, but because I think it's misleading to mods. If it's not possible (or is undesirable) to put a web-requesting virgin member into the pending list before they confirm, then I think it might even be preferable to also leave email-requesting virgin members out of the pending list as well until they confirm. You've already tried to answer this below ("there is benefit to listing them so that the group mods can help them resolve their NC status") but that same benefit seems to apply in the other scenario, so why let mods see one kind of request and not the other, just based on the method the person used to request membership? 

Maybe I just need more caffeine again. ;)

Hatch open, ISS astronauts have visited inside the Crew Dragon (yay!), and they've retrieved some of the cargo it brought up for them. I wonder if it has "new car smell"?

I should have watched it instead of trying to go back to sleep. Instead I kept jumping up and making notes like "check the activity log and match against the date of the confirmation email" lol.

Even if it has a new car smell, I bet they couldn't smell it through their helmets or whatever. :)
--
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 think the bottom line is that this is all very messy, one way or the other. And people are confused by it on an ongoing basis. And when you throw premium groups and restricted groups into the mix, where the former can confirm members on their own and the latter often receive responses to pending notices (making NC completely unnecessary anyway), things get even more messy. I think cleaning this area up should at least be put on the Todo list.
--
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


Chris Jones
 

On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 02:11 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I think the bottom line is that this is all very messy, one way or the other.
Having done a bit more "research" I have to agree. IIRC Mark's last "definitive description" of the sequence was in message 16380 of 19th March 2018, but no matter how many times I read it I finish up scratchng my head if only because from the perspective of a moderator's web UI (on a restricted group) web and email applications are treated differently in terms of when they make their first appearance. We then have the rather silly situation whereby the NC status remains even if the Pending Subscription message gets a proper response.

Having said that my support for  NC status being a standard filter on members remains.

Chris


 

On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 09:09 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
We then have the rather silly situation whereby the NC status remains even if the Pending Subscription message gets a proper response.
Yes, exactly. But the problem (I'm guessing) is that there's no realistic way, at least currently, for groups.io to know which groups require a response to the pending notice. It is conceivable that you could come up with a method for distinguishing such groups from the "non pending-response required" groups somehow, by having a separate category, and doing away with the confirmation email for those groups.

BTW, it's not only that the NC status remains in such groups for members who are groups.io "virgins" (my own term for not being in any other groups yet). It's that everyone, whether groups.io virgins or not, who requests membership in such groups is required to return not only the pending questionnaire but ALSO the confirmation email.
 
--
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 Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 09:24 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
everyone, whether groups.io virgins or not, who requests membership in such groups is required to return not only the pending questionnaire but ALSO the confirmation email.
And in the case where the person applies via the web and is a non-groups.io virgin, I think you could get the even weirder case where they could return the pending questionnaire, but if they don't also return the confirmation email they don't even show up in the pending list! (Still scratching my head around that one and will try to run a test today)
 
--
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 Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 09:34 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
if they don't also return the confirmation email they don't even show up in the pending list! (Still scratching my head around that one and will try to run a test today
Or, more hopefully, the pending notice isn't sent until after they confirm. So scratch that.
In fact i will try to write up some documentation for the current state of this whole thing, without judgment - just the facts as we know them. I'll run it by a few key people including Mark.
 
--
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 Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 12:09 PM, Chris Jones wrote:
We then have the rather silly situation whereby the NC status remains even if the Pending Subscription message gets a proper response.
The incorrect assumption here is that the Pending Subscription notice consists of some kind of questionnaire. In the case of my primary group, this notice is nothing more than a notification that we are reviewing their application. A response is neither necessary nor desirable.

Regards,
Bruce


 

On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 09:52 AM, Bruce Bowman wrote:
The incorrect assumption here is that the Pending Subscription notice consists of some kind of questionnaire. 
Hey Bruce, I'm not assuming that at all. I was distinguishing "pending response required" groups from "non pending-response-required" groups. And that's precisely the issue I mentioned: there's currently no way set up to distinguish between those. There's a way to see which groups have an active pending notice and which ones don't, but as you point out, that's not the issue.

So what I was suggesting (as only part of cleaning up the current mess) is the possibility of a way to distinguish between the groups that require a response to a pending notice and those that don't.
 
--
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 Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 09:55 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
a way to distinguish between the groups that require a response to a pending notice and those that don't.
In fact there's not even any terminology yet to refer to those two categories. Maybe (at some point, as part of an overall re-design) there could be a new setting to indicate that the group requires a response to a pending notification (possibly better-termed a "questionnaire" or whatever). For those groups, the questionnaire would be sent out immediately and the confirmation email could be dispensed with.  You'd have to come up with a name for the setting. ETc.
 
--
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


Chris Jones
 

On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 05:52 PM, Bruce Bowman wrote:
A response is neither necessary nor desirable.
I would have to disagree there. A bare application contains no information on which a moderator can make a decision about whether or not to admit an applicant to membership. It is only only the basis of an applicant's response to the Pending Subsciption message that a go/no go determination can be made, especially if the P/S message specifically requests further and better particulars from the applicant.

Without that exchange the P/S message ceases to have any meaningful purpose.

Chrsi


 

On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 11:07 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
A bare application contains no information
Right, Chris, right after my last post I realized the same thing and hit myself over the head, thinking, "Wait. What earthly good does having a restricted group do if you don't require at least some information from the applicant?" Maybe some groups just google the email address or something? 
 
--
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 Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 02:51 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
"Wait. What earthly good does having a restricted group do if you don't require at least some information from the applicant?" Maybe some groups just google the email address or something? 
In my main group, you have to join the parent organization (and pay dues) before you are allowed to participate in the discussions. We use the Pending Subscription notice to notify people of this ("please wait while we check our member list"), and to redirect non-members to our web site (where they can download an application).

I suspect there are many other possible scenarios. 

A Yahoo-like questionnaire function that stores user responses has been an often-requested feature. That seems to have been fallen by the wayside. It's nice that folks have found a way to use the Pending Subscription notification to compensate, but...

Regards,
Bruce


 

Bruce,

That makes sense. I knew I'd heard of some similar scenarios. So I think a category of group that requires a response to a questionnaire might make sense at some point, and could bypass the confirmation email.

Yes, the web questionnaire a la yahoo has been requested over and over again since Day One and I know Mark put it on trello at some point. He had a great idea where the questionnaire responses would automatically be loaded into a group-specified database etc. It was a beautiful pie-in-the-sky scheme. :-) 
--
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


 

Chris,

We then have the rather silly situation whereby the NC status remains
even if the Pending Subscription message gets a proper response.
That's an interesting suggestion.

Perhaps the Pending Subscription notice could somehow be used as an alternative to the address confirmation email. I'm not sure what it would take to do that, I think the From (or Reply-To) address in the address confirmation email is specially coded to be unique to the recipient. Something like that might be needed to do this with the Pending Subscription notice.

Shal