moderated suggested change to use hashtag to control sending megs #suggestion


KWKloeber
 

Suggest a function, such that adding a #TAG such as #admin_only;  or #Alist_only -- that would limit/control to whom the message would be turned around (posting on the website is not addressed here.)  The msg would be turned around to only mods/owners or a wider use, those on a pre-defined member "list A", in this example.)


 

Not clear how this would work. What would happen when one of those people replies to the message?
Suggest using a subgroup instead.
--
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


KWKloeber
 

Replying to wasn't the focus, but of course, options could be "to sender"  or "no replies" or to the "sent-to group" only.
subgroups seem too clunky/restrictive to simply send msgs to admins or the like.

For example, for whatever reason say a group has 4 lists (sometimes members changing), admins, renters, buyers, tire-kickers. 
A SG for each is not useful because it involved subscribing/unsubscribing, and there could be cross-listing (there could be two (but not the same) admins on each list, or there could be plain old members on 2 out of the 4 lists, and 2 on another list, and so on.

thx
K


On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 11:37 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Not clear how this would work. What would happen when one of those people replies to the message?
Suggest using a subgroup instead.
--
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


 

That makes sense. But how will you deal with the message list?


On Jan 27, 2020, at 9:13 PM, Ken Kloeber via Groups.Io <KWKloeber@...> wrote:

Replying to wasn't the focus, but of course, options could be "to sender"  or "no replies" or to the "sent-to group" only.
subgroups seem too clunky/restrictive to simply send msgs to admins or the like.

For example, for whatever reason say a group has 4 lists (sometimes members changing), admins, renters, buyers, tire-kickers. 
A SG for each is not useful because it involved subscribing/unsubscribing, and there could be cross-listing (there could be two (but not the same) admins on each list, or there could be plain old members on 2 out of the 4 lists, and 2 on another list, and so on.

thx
K

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 11:37 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Not clear how this would work. What would happen when one of those people replies to the message?
Suggest using a subgroup instead.
--
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


KWKloeber
 

>>>. But how will you deal with the message list?<<<



J - unsure what you’re asking. Clarify?


On Jan 27, 2020, at 9:13 PM, Ken Kloeber via Groups.Io <KWKloeber@...> wrote:

Replying to wasn't the focus, but of course, options could be "to sender"  or "no replies" or to the "sent-to group" only.
subgroups seem too clunky/restrictive to simply send msgs to admins or the like.

For example, for whatever reason say a group has 4 lists (sometimes members changing), admins, renters, buyers, tire-kickers. 
A SG for each is not useful because it involved subscribing/unsubscribing, and there could be cross-listing (there could be two (but not the same) admins on each list, or there could be plain old members on 2 out of the 4 lists, and 2 on another list, and so on.

thx
K

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 11:37 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Not clear how this would work. What would happen when one of those people replies to the message?
Suggest using a subgroup instead.
--
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


 




 


KWKloeber
 

 
>>>On Tue Jan 28, 2020 10:25 AM; ro-esp wrote:
Subject: Private: Re: [beta] suggested change to use hashtag to control sending megs #suggestion
 
>  the message would be turned around 
what does that mean? (please answer on-list)
                         groetjes, Ronaldo<<<
Ronaldo,
It means that your email to a group doesn't get delivered directly to members.  GIO is an email bounce service -- A very busy Nome inside reads your message and types it out onto another piece of paper and mails it to members (opposed to reading the message on the website GUI.)

My suggestion is that a #TAG in the email subject could be used to set (determine) which members the message is sent (turned around) to. 
(excuse the preposition.)


ro-esp
 

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 11:05 PM, Ken Kloeber wrote:


  the message would be turned around
what does that mean?
It means that your email to a group doesn't get delivered directly to members. 
then why send it?

GIO is an email bounce service
I don't think so. If I send a message to a group, I want it to be forwarded, not bounced back

-- A very busy Nome inside reads
your message and types it out onto another piece of paper and mails it to
members (opposed to reading the message on the website GUI.)
Do you mean gnome?

My suggestion is that a #TAG in the email subject could be used to set
(determine) which members the message is sent to.
So any subscriber would have to visit a list of allowed hashtags and pick which ones to (not) follow?
Sounds like it makes sense. I have no experience with hashtags, and don't know how they are used in groups.io now

groetjes/ĝis, Ronaldo


Bob Bellizzi
 

After reading the previous original plus 6 replies, I feel we need to identify a few things first.
What is Groups.io?  It is an entity that provides the ability to build online groups that may also function as mailing lists.

Ken, what you are asking for is the ability to have preset list to allow members of a group at groups.io to send emails to a subset of the members of a group (or subgroup?).
To me that is the current definition of a subgroup.
Or, much more simply, it is the definition of a mailing list i.e.a list of people's email addresses kept as a single unit on or available to one's own computer(s).

As J's postings and the lack of  conversation/interest about the subject indicate to me:
Your idea/suggestion is quite incomplete, lacks clear & complete definition.
Why complicate groups.io's current operating mode with this "feature" when it's easily defined through functions in current email applications?

Bob Bellizzi 


KWKloeber
 

Ronaldo 
no, no, no.  No member would be required to pick from hashtags.  Merely, if, just say for example, a message was to be sent to only one select group, the members in that group could be in a list that IDs  them as part of that group.  Simple exampe

say there’s 25 moderators. 

thr could be on a list, for example I’ll call it “mod-list” 
I’m suggesting a feature that using a hashtag, a post could be easily directed to that list and only that list. 

so a topic might look like this example (I’m using a different tag symbol $$ just so it’s obvious). 

Special meeting notice $$mod-list. 

(“message body”)

the message would be sent out to everyone on the “mod-list”. 

the lists could be for any purpose or purposes that any group found helpful for their use. It would make sense to limit the number of lists to a reasonable number (say 5 for example).)


KWKloeber
 

Bob 

the suggestion wasn’t meant to be perfect, and I’m sure others could have stated it more clearly the first time  

virtually any message circulation function could be handled by exchanging emails among a defined list. So why join Gio?  Just “reply all”. 

this is just a suggestion that would be very easy to direct msgs to certain lists of group members that would be clunky doing it via subgroups. Could it be done via subgroups? Sure, but one could also say why hashtags?  Just create a subgroup for different groups of topics. That’s an absurd example but it meant just to point out that anything can be done another way, even if that other way is more clunky.   

(Believe it or not one of our Y! group members got fed up and started his own site a few yrs ago — and set up separate message exchanges for about two dozen types of topics (essentially hashtags). Mannnn what a PITA mess that turned out to be.)