locked Invite flow


 

Hi All,

I've made some changes to the invite system. First, when reviewing outstanding invitations, there is no longer a Reason column, because that only applied to invites that were either Deferred or Failed. The reason why is displayed in those instances only.

I've changed the screen people see when they click on a link in an invitation. It's attached as the screenshot 'Invitation Screen'. I removed the group banner and the text describing the group settings, and added a couple sentences explaining what's going on.

When you click the Join This Group button, your account is confirmed and your subscription is normal, regardless of whether or if you had an account before and regardless of what your subscription status was before (excepting if you were banned). You are also logged into the website. This is the same behavior as before.

I also tweaked the screen seen after accepting an invitation, it's the 'Accepted Invitation' screenshot. I removed the part about setting a password and instead mentioned the ability to have a login link emailed to you.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks,
Mark


 

Much better.

In the first screen, I am very happy that the person now receives an explanation that their login this time is a one-shot deal. Previously, it could be (and was to me, months ago) confusing that they were logged in once, and thereafter would have problems trying to do it because they didn't create a password (and had no idea how to create one).

In the second screen, I think the language is better but I still have two concerns:

(1) Does clicking on "join" proceed to require them to create a password, as it does now? I still don't like that, especially if simply replying to the email (rather than clicking on anything) gets them right into the group, at least as an email subscriber. I am hoping that clicking on "join" makes them an email subscriber (just as replying to the email does), and THEN goes on to give them the OPTION to create a password - rather than making creation of a password (if they don't already have one) a requirement as it is now.

(2) Does simply replying to the email automatically enroll them as an email subscriber, as it does now? If so, I think that should continue to be explicitly stated (as it used to be).

J


 

p.s. "as it does now" should probably read "as it did prior to these changes"


 

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:37 PM, J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

(1) Does clicking on "join" proceed to require them to create a password, as it does now? I still don't like that, especially if simply replying to the email (rather than clicking on anything) gets them right into the group, at least as an email subscriber. I am hoping that clicking on "join" makes them an email subscriber (just as replying to the email does), and THEN goes on to give them the OPTION to create a password - rather than making creation of a password (if they don't already have one) a requirement as it is now.

No. At no time through the invite process is the user asked to create a password.
 

(2) Does simply replying to the email automatically enroll them as an email subscriber, as it does now? If so, I think that should continue to be explicitly stated (as it used to be).


No changes were made to what happens when you reply to an email.

In both cases, replying to the email or visiting the website, a user is created without a password (assuming the user hadn't registered with Groups.io previously on their own). The users created in each case are the same.

Mark 


 

"In both cases, replying to the email or visiting the website, a user is created without a password"

In that case, "You will not be added to this group until you click the 'Join this group' button" should read "..until you click the Join this group button or reply to this email." Right? 

J


 

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:53 PM, J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

"In both cases, replying to the email or visiting the website, a user is created without a password"

In that case, "You will not be added to this group until you click the 'Join this group' button" should read "..until you click the Join this group button or reply to this email." Right? 

"... or reply to the invite email." I'll add it.

Thanks,
Mark 


 

Great. If I could get my grubby little hands into this, I would make it clear that simply hitting "reply" causes them to join the group, and that any actual response they send won't be received. Or something like that. Just in case someone sends a customized invitation with a message that a potential member is tempted to respond to...


 

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:01 PM, J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
Great. If I could get my grubby little hands into this, I would make it clear that simply hitting "reply" causes them to join the group, and that any actual response they send won't be received. Or something like that. Just in case someone sends a customized invitation with a message that a potential member is tempted to respond to...

I have been trying to figure out how to word such a notice. Here's the relevant template code for the invite email. Suggestions for how to word it?
----
To accept the invitation, please reply to this email or click on the following link:

https://{{.Domain}}/g/{{.Group.Name}}/invite/{{.Invite.Cookie}}/{{.Invite.ID}}

If you are not interested, or if {{.Invite.Email}} is not your email address, please ignore this email.
----

Thanks,
Mark 


 

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 04:23 pm, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
To accept the invitation, please reply to this email or click on the
following link:

https://
{{.Domain}}/g/{{.Group.Name}}/invite/{{.Invite.Cookie}}/{{.Invite.ID}}

If you are not interested, or if {{.Invite.Email}} is not your email
address, please ignore this email.
How about adding something like, if you have questions before accepting this invitation, send them to {{.Group.Name}}+owner@groups.io ? (Or the email of whoever sent the invitation.)

JohnF


 

Mark,

To accept the invitation, please reply to this email or click on the following link:
Given that clicking the link doesn't itself accept the invitation (and can't because of the auto-click problem), perhaps something more like:

To accept the invitation please reply to this email, or you may click on the following link to log on at Groups.io and accept the invitation there.

A bit clunky, but I think it parses clearly.

I moved the comma, a bit subtle but it sort-of promotes an email reply as being the more direct (and preferred) means.

-- Shal


 

To accept this invitation, either reply to this message without entering text (be sure to respond to the "confirm" email you will receive), or click on the following link. 

If you are not interested [bla bla … ignore]."

Notes:

(1) If they're going to receive an email requiring them to confirm, I think that should be brought to their conscious attention at this point or else they'll think they're done. I'm still drowning in NC members and am never sure what to tell them to do, because I'm not sure where in the process they failed to confirm.

(2) I would put the entire statement in a place where it's highly visible and noticeable.  

(3) I would avoid the language Shal suggests about "logging in" because I think that's confusing. You, Mark, said that in both cases a user is created without a password. It's true that the system logs the person in on a one-shot basis, but there's no need to emphasize the login. Later they will find that they CAN'T log in on their own, unless they create a password, etc.

(4) The comma is fine IMO.





 

Thanks for the feedback. I've added one sentence and changed another:

----
If you have questions about this invitation, send them to {{.Group.Name}}+owner@groups.io.

To accept the invitation please reply to this email, or you may click on the following link to Groups.io and accept the invitation there.
----

It occurs to me that I could forward on any responses to the invite email to the moderators. That would avoid the issue of people responding to the email with questions. But you could end up with a bunch of emails saying "YES" or "Confirm" or even just empty. Would that be useful?

(J - people responding to invites, either by replying in email or through the website, are automatically confirmed and will not be sent a confirmation email).

Thanks,
Mark


On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:30 PM, J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

To accept this invitation, either reply to this message without entering text (be sure to respond to the "confirm" email you will receive), or click on the following link. 

If you are not interested [bla bla … ignore]."

Notes:

(1) If they're going to receive an email requiring them to confirm, I think that should be brought to their conscious attention at this point or else they'll think they're done. I'm still drowning in NC members and am never sure what to tell them to do, because I'm not sure where in the process they failed to confirm.

(2) I would put the entire statement in a place where it's highly visible and noticeable.  

(3) I would avoid the language Shal suggests about "logging in" because I think that's confusing. You, Mark, said that in both cases a user is created without a password. It's true that the system logs the person in on a one-shot basis, but there's no need to emphasize the login. Later they will find that they CAN'T log in on their own, unless they create a password, etc.

(4) The comma is fine IMO.






 

Mark, I'd vote "no" on forwarding responses to the invite. I think you're right that it would cause confusion and those situations you describe. But in that case I would warn them NOT to include a text response. I think they're going to try to respond with text, and assume the text gets to some eyeballs, unless you're explicit about it. I say this from experience in YG, where you tell people over and over again, "do not reply to this email, just send your response [to the questionnaire, or whatever] to .." and then give them the owner address. I'd say about 75% of them ignore the owner address and reply to the email with the complete questionnaire response. Over and over the questionnaire answers or lost or need to be posted by the owner on their behalves.

I still think it was better WITH your original comma. 

J


 

In reading this over I'm realizing that even warning them not to do it won't make any difference in a lot of cases. You can lead them to instructions but you can't make them drink... It's probably fine any which way at this point. ;)


vickie <vickie_00@...>
 

  Mark, 

I haven't read all the messages on this subject, so forgive me if  I am off with my input
_ If we are talking about the moderator personally sending an invite to the member to   join the group
It's safe to say the moderator is comfortable sending the invite to a member they feel comfortable with.
 why can't they have a link or a button   that once  the member  clicks on it the membership is automatically approved. 

The message should then read
You have been sent an invitation to join  blah, blah group 
 use a join link   or use a button 




Vickie



From: Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io>
To: beta@groups.io
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Invite flow

Thanks for the feedback. I've added one sentence and changed another:

----
If you have questions about this invitation, send them to {{.Group.Name}}+owner@groups.io.

To accept the invitation please reply to this email, or you may click on the following link to Groups.io and accept the invitation there.
----

It occurs to me that I could forward on any responses to the invite email to the moderators. That would avoid the issue of people responding to the email with questions. But you could end up with a bunch of emails saying "YES" or "Confirm" or even just empty. Would that be useful?

(J - people responding to invites, either by replying in email or through the website, are automatically confirmed and will not be sent a confirmation email).

Thanks,
Mark


On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:30 PM, J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
To accept this invitation, either reply to this message without entering text (be sure to respond to the "confirm" email you will receive), or click on the following link. 
If you are not interested [bla bla … ignore]."
Notes:
(1) If they're going to receive an email requiring them to confirm, I think that should be brought to their conscious attention at this point or else they'll think they're done. I'm still drowning in NC members and am never sure what to tell them to do, because I'm not sure where in the process they failed to confirm.
(2) I would put the entire statement in a place where it's highly visible and noticeable.  
(3) I would avoid the language Shal suggests about "logging in" because I think that's confusing. You, Mark, said that in both cases a user is created without a password. It's true that the system logs the person in on a one-shot basis, but there's no need to emphasize the login. Later they will find that they CAN'T log in on their own, unless they create a password, etc.
(4) The comma is fine IMO.








 

Mark,

It occurs to me that I could forward on any responses to the invite
email to the moderators. That would avoid the issue of people
responding to the email with questions.
Ah, I like this idea.

It reminds me that a valued contributor to my GMF Yahoo Group often suggests (when a person is having problems with -subscribe or an Invitation) that the moderator instruct the person to CC their -subscribe command or Invite reply to the moderator's personal email address.

She observes that many problem with -subscribe seem to result from sending the request to the wrong address. And many problems with Invite seem to result from not receiving the invitation or not replying to the it. In either case, if the moderator gets a CC that's information which can help resolve the issue (likewise if the moderator doesn't).

But you could end up with a bunch of emails
saying "YES" or "Confirm" or even just empty.
True. While I'm generally clutter-tolerant (I have all Facebook notifications turned on) I can see where that may not be welcomed by some moderators.

There could be an option on the Invite page for whether replies should be directed to the moderator, the + owner address, or neither. Or that could be made a separate checkbox in each moderator's Subscription (to receive Invite replies).

-- Shal


Sylvester 2007DC <sylvester2007dc@...>
 

This is just so true……………….one size will never fit ALL, LOL!!!!

Changing subject here:
I am having a ‘RASH’ of unsubscribes…………….the link to unsubscribe is directly ‘below’ the link on top (I forget where this shows up at)…………..so I don’t know if they are selecting the wrong link or not….I look at it this way…………..if they did unsubscribe by mistake, they will figure it out….and then let me know…………..


Diane
 
There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach




On Jan 21, 2016, at 12:40 PM, J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

In reading this over I'm realizing that even warning them not to do it won't make any difference in a lot of cases. You can lead them to instructions but you can't make them drink... It's probably fine any which way at this point. ;)


vickie <vickie_00@...>
 

I  agree with you both.


And it won't help if you give them too many steps or  extra explanations  on how to join. 

Join this group - Moderator has notice upon joining with questionnaire or group policies
Invite member - Invite someone to your group and you should feel comfortable  with whom you invite.

Unsubscribe - Allows the member to leave your group

what more do you need?


 

Vickie

 









From: Me and BobbieSue <sylvester2007dc@...>
To: beta@groups.io
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Invite flow

This is just so true……………….one size will never fit ALL, LOL!!!!

Changing subject here:
I am having a ‘RASH’ of unsubscribes…………….the link to unsubscribe is directly ‘below’ the link on top (I forget where this shows up at)…………..so I don’t know if they are selecting the wrong link or not….I look at it this way…………..if they did unsubscribe by mistake, they will figure it out….and then let me know…………..


Diane
 
There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach




On Jan 21, 2016, at 12:40 PM, J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

In reading this over I'm realizing that even warning them not to do it won't make any difference in a lot of cases. You can lead them to instructions but you can't make them drink... It's probably fine any which way at this point. ;)





David P. Dillard
 

This is a frequent happening on Listserv lists. People send subscribe and other command messages to the discussion group members rather than to the address for commands, which is a general address for all lists on the Listserv. It is also ironic that a message requesting a subscription that reaches the members could only come from a member who is already subscribed.



Sincerely,
David Dillard
Temple University
(215) 204 - 4584
jwne@temple.edu

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016, Shal Farley wrote:

Mark,

It occurs to me that I could forward on any responses to the invite
email to the moderators. That would avoid the issue of people
responding to the email with questions.
Ah, I like this idea.

It reminds me that a valued contributor to my GMF Yahoo Group often suggests (when a person is having problems with -subscribe or an Invitation) that the moderator instruct the person to CC their -subscribe command or Invite reply to the moderator's personal email address.

She observes that many problem with -subscribe seem to result from sending the request to the wrong address. And many problems with Invite seem to result from not receiving the invitation or not replying to the it. In either case, if the moderator gets a CC that's information which can help resolve the issue (likewise if the moderator doesn't).

But you could end up with a bunch of emails
saying "YES" or "Confirm" or even just empty.
True. While I'm generally clutter-tolerant (I have all Facebook notifications turned on) I can see where that may not be welcomed by some moderators.

There could be an option on the Invite page for whether replies should be directed to the moderator, the + owner address, or neither. Or that could be made a separate checkbox in each moderator's Subscription (to receive Invite replies).

-- Shal



Linda
 
Edited

Hi Mark,
You wrote:
If you have questions about this invitation, send them to
{{Group.Name}}+owner@groups.io.
 
Some of us have chosen not to receive All Owner Emails:

(Subscription)
Owner Email
All Emails
Receive every message that is sent to {{Group.Name}}+owner@groups.io.
Subscribers Only
Receive only messages sent by subscribers.
None
Receive no messages sent to {{Group.Name}}+owner@groups.io.
In which case, the solution would be as you said:
 "It occurs to me that I could forward any responses to the invite email to the moderators." 
 
Or as Shal said:
There could be an option on the Invite page for whether replies should be directed to the moderator, the + owner address, or neither. Or that could be made a separate checkbox in each moderator's Subscription (to receive Invite replies)."

Personally, I’m clutter intolerant.  My groups are unrestricted.  Anyone with questions can join and can write to the +owner address once they’ve become a member.
 
Linda