moderated Option to set expiry date on nomail/special notice
Some people set themselves to "nomail" for an indefinite amount of time (e.g. they no longer want to want to leave, but find it too drastic to unsubscribe, or they want to read via the web but don't want to receive a digest), whereas others do so only for short, set periods of time (e.g. going away on holidays).
Some group owners do not want "sleeping" members in their groups (i.e. members who are on nomail or special notice indefinitely).
So, a suggestion:
Make it possible for members to go nomail for a set period of time only. In other words, when they change their subscription to "nomail", they [can] also set for how many days they want to be nomail, and once that time is over, their subscription automatically reverts to the previous subscription setting (or: to digest).
Also, group owners should be able to *require* that members who want to go nomail, should set a period.
Also (instead of or independent of the previous point), group owners should be able to set a maximum nomail time (if the member wants to be nomail for longer, he has to communicate with the group owner directly to ask for a longer extension).
Also, if a member goes nomail via e-mail and does not specify the length of time that he will be nomail, he should be nomail for only as long as a default amount of nomail duration set by the group owner (which can be the same as the maximum nomail time, or another duration set by the moderator).
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 08:58 AM, Samuel Murray wrote:
Your thoughts?I can only speak for myself, but I am a "no mail" subscriber to numerous groups because I much prefer to work from the web UI. I would not want to have to fiddle about on different groups advising the owner that I wished to stay on "no mail". The exception is the group I moderate where I use email delivery to warn me that a bit of activity is required; I can't be looking at and refreshing the web UI all the time if I am doing something else. As a (co)owner and moderator I would not want to get involved in managing delivery options on a daily basis, so assuming that your proposal would be "optional" it would be an option I would not invoke. I would hate it if some sort of "delivery option management" was forced on to moderators.
What is the intended purpose behind this suggestion? At the moment it looks like a load of complexity for the sake of having more complexity. How members read posts is of little import; it is not in and of itself a measure of their "engagement" which might be better measured by their posts, rather than the means by which they read the posts of others. What's next? A "minimum number of posts per day/week/month/year"?
I'm afraid that I view this idea as an example of the attempts at "control freakery" that seem to arise from time to time; that said I fully accept that others might feel differently.
As a final point I would ask why have you conflated members on no mail or special delivery only with "sleeping members"? I accept that that may be the case, but it should not be automatically assumed that they are one and the same thing.
On 2019/04/11 10:58 AM, Chris Jones via Groups.Io wrote:
I can only speak for myself, but I am a "no mail" subscriber toYes, the reason you mention is one very valid reason to be on "nomail",
and my suggestion is not meant to affect such subscribers.
[It is somewhat unfortunate that users are forced to use the "nomail"
feature for two different things: for saying "I want to read via the web
site" and for saying "I don't want to participate for a while", i.e.
there is no separate settings for people who want to be active
participants but receive no mail, and users who usually want to receive
mail but just not for a short period of time.]
However, for users who typically participate via e-mail, and who set
their account to nomail due to temporary absence (e.g. going away on
holiday), it would be helpful if they don't have to remember not to
forget to set their accounts to normal again.
Also, I have been a member of groups where the group owners frown on
members being nomail for no good reason. In fact, in one group you got
kicked out if you dared go nomail. Some people are sensitive about such
things. A guarantee that the nomail is temporary would help.
Assuming that your proposal would be "optional" it would be an optionYes, it should be entirely optional.
If the group owner does not *require* auto-unnomail, then users are free
to use the feature if the want to, or not.
If the group owner does want to require auto-unnomail, he can set the
maximum nomail time if he wants to set a maximum, or not.
I would hate it if some sort of "delivery option management" was forced on to moderators.Sorry, I'm using "group owner" to mean "moderators".
What is the intended purpose behind this suggestion?For users who use the nomail feature like they use an out-of-office
reply (i.e. to stop receiving mails for a short while), it would be
helpful to be able to set a specified time that they're nomail (in the
same way that you would set your out-of-office reply to be active for a
set period of time).
How members read posts is of little import;...It is not my intention that members who want to read via the web site
should be inconvenienced (although I can see how that may become
possible, if a group owner chooses to set a required time limit on a
group where some users don't want to set their subscription to special
What's next? A "minimum number of posts per day/week/month/year"?My suggestion has nothing to do with setting limits or quotas on
On 2019/04/11 09:58 AM, Samuel Murray wrote:
Make it possible for members to go nomail for a set period of timeJust to be clear: my post contained two suggestions:
1. The ability for users to set a time limit on their own nomail.
2. An few enhancements for #1, relating to moderator options.
Suggestion #2 is not the main suggestion here. Suggestion #1 does not
rely on whether or not there are enhancements for moderators.
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 04:40 AM, Samuel Murray wrote:
1. The ability for users to set a time limit on their own nomail.This would be similar to the proposal in https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/6707300 If there were an additional subscription setting named Vacation, it would be distinct from NoEmail to make it easier to monitor your own status for various groups, as well as to set an automatic time span for it.
On 2019/04/11 02:14 PM, Duane wrote:
This would be similar to the proposal in https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/6707300It is my understanding that that proposal is for an account status ("vacation" would be a good label) that you can set at user account level, which would not affect your subscription setting in individual groups but which would result in you not getting any mail while the vacation setting is active.
Presumably the fact that your account is set to "vacation" status would be visible to moderators of the individual groups that you're a member of.
The advantage here is that it is a single setting that stops your mail in all groups at once. And yes, being able to set an end-date would make sense as well. The disadvantage (if you can call it that) would be that unless you can set any individual groups to override the vacation setting, your vacation status would affect all your groups.
This is not a bad idea, but not quite what I had in mind (due to not being able to set it per group).
If there were an additional subscription setting named Vacation, it would be distinct from NoEmail to make it easier to monitor your own status for various groups, as well as to set an automatic time span for it.That's a nice idea: have a subscription setting (that you can set individually for any or all of your groups) called "Vacation", which [initially] has the same effect as "nomail" but which allows you also set an end-date, so that the vacation status automatically reverts after that date.
It would also solve the issue of the fact that some people use "nomail" because they're away and others use "nomail" because they NOT away.
I suppose another feature which might solve my original issue would be a weekly or monthly digest (or summary, with just subject lines) instead of a daily one. The point is to reduce the number of messages from mailing lists while you're "away".