moderated For "reply only to sender" hashtag, make replies BY THE OP go to the group #suggestion


 

In a group with default replies going to the group, if someone creates a topic with a hashtag set to "reply only to sender," that behavior applies even when the OP tries to send a follow-up to the group.

Example: someone posts a message offering two bags of free fish (this actually happened today - the group member belongs to a sustainable fish coop and often, people don't pick up their fish) set to "reply only to sender" because she doesn't want to disturb the rest of the group with everybody's replies. But then, when the two bags have been taken, she can't let the group know to stop responding except by starting a new topic. If she tries to post such a follow-up as a reply message, it goes only to herself. Which, I maintain, is ridiculous. :)

My suggestion is to fix this by allowing reply messages by the OP to actually go to the group. I haven't thought out the various permutations of this depending on the group's default reply-to setting. (Also, someone posted here recently asking for clarification between "reply to sender" and "reply only to sender" for a hashtag, and I agree that this is crying out for an explanation.)
--
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 like this idea, and I would call it allowing users to make their own "Announcement topic", which only they and moderators are allowed to post to on the group. Anyone else could only reply to the sender by mail. Moderation rules still apply, so if a group moderates all new topics, these would be, too.

JohnF


 

Well, I don't see any reason to exclude moderators from "reply to sender only" in this case. And I would forgo the new name and the new type. It's just a hashtag, which is elegant and easily allows non-mods to create such topics (assuming they can use the relevant hashtag).

On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 9:12 AM JohnF via groups.io <johnf1686=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
I like this idea, and I would call it allowing users to make their own "Announcement topic", which only they and moderators are allowed to post to on the group.  Anyone else could only reply to the sender by mail.  Moderation rules still apply, so if a group moderates all new topics, these would be, too.

JohnF






--
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


 

Also, BYW, “reply only to sender” is not only by mail. It also applies to replies via the web.


On Dec 12, 2021, at 9:35 AM, J_Catlady via groups.io <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:


Well, I don't see any reason to exclude moderators from "reply to sender only" in this case. And I would forgo the new name and the new type. It's just a hashtag, which is elegant and easily allows non-mods to create such topics (assuming they can use the relevant hashtag).

On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 9:12 AM JohnF via groups.io <johnf1686=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
I like this idea, and I would call it allowing users to make their own "Announcement topic", which only they and moderators are allowed to post to on the group.  Anyone else could only reply to the sender by mail.  Moderation rules still apply, so if a group moderates all new topics, these would be, too.

JohnF






--
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


Bruce Bowman
 

Personally, I like the way it already works. If you're careful to get the point across correctly the first time, there should be no need to reply to your own message.

Regards,
Bruce


 

The problem is when you’re offering something and there’s no way to tell the group that the stuff has been taken. Then you can get deluged with replies, each of which you have to respond to individually. I think this is a design flaw. If the OP can reply at all, there’s no need for them to reply to themselves. Which is what the system currently forces on them. They are allowed a single, unique post and that’s it.


On Dec 12, 2021, at 9:45 AM, Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...> wrote:

Personally, I like the way it already works. If you're careful to get the point across correctly the first time, there should be no need to reply to your own message.

Regards,
Bruce

--
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


Duane
 

On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 11:56 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
The problem is when you’re offering something and there’s no way to tell the group that the stuff has been taken.
On my groups, the poster is expected to edit or delete the original message when an item is gone.

Duane


 

That's a great idea. If the OP is a mod they would have to be sure to "save and send" the edit to reach people reading via.
Problem solved.

On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 10:14 AM Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 11:56 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
The problem is when you’re offering something and there’s no way to tell the group that the stuff has been taken.
On my groups, the poster is expected to edit or delete the original message when an item is gone.

Duane


--
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


 

Well, not solved if editing is disabled in the group ... I still think a fix letting the OP post again in the topic would be optimal.

On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 10:50 AM J_Catlady via groups.io <j.olivia.catlady=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:
That's a great idea. If the OP is a mod they would have to be sure to "save and send" the edit to reach people reading via.
Problem solved.

On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 10:14 AM Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 11:56 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
The problem is when you’re offering something and there’s no way to tell the group that the stuff has been taken.
On my groups, the poster is expected to edit or delete the original message when an item is gone.

Duane


--
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


Duane
 

On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 12:54 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I still think a fix letting the OP post again in the topic would be optimal.
For this particular situation maybe.  If I effectively lock a topic, however it's done, I don't want anyone posting to it, not even the original poster.

Duane


 

On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 11:19 AM, Duane wrote:
If I effectively lock a topic, however it's done,
Are you mixing this up with the thread about who can post to locked topics? You do say "effectively lock," but I would not consider a topic with a "reply to sender" hashtag even "effectively locked." The "reply" button is still there - it just goes as a private reply. To me the posting-to-locked-topics thread is a completely separate issue.
 
--
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


Duane
 

On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 02:07 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Are you mixing this up with the thread about who can post to locked topics? You do say "effectively lock," but I would not consider a topic with a "reply to sender" hashtag even "effectively locked." The "reply" button is still there - it just goes as a private reply.
No, it's effectively locked as far as replying to the group.  Yes, you can still use reply, but it goes to the sender.

Duane


 

Yes but it has nothing to do with not letting anyone post to a locked Topic. That was a separate discussion. 

On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 12:36 PM Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 02:07 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Are you mixing this up with the thread about who can post to locked topics? You do say "effectively lock," but I would not consider a topic with a "reply to sender" hashtag even "effectively locked." The "reply" button is still there - it just goes as a private reply.
No, it's effectively locked as far as replying to the group.  Yes, you can still use reply, but it goes to the sender.

Duane


--
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


Andy Wedge
 

On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 05:56 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
The problem is when you’re offering something and there’s no way to tell the group that the stuff has been taken.
On my group we just use a #replytosender hashtag which is moderated. If someone other than the OP replies to the group rather than the sender we can reject the message. If the OP sends an update, we approve it. Simple but effective.

Regards
Andy


 

I need the hashtag to be usable by non-moderators. It's not only moderators who might offer items for sale or free items or who might post other content that's best replied to privately. I'm sure my group is not unique in that.

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 4:19 AM Andy Wedge <andy_wedge@...> wrote:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 05:56 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
The problem is when you’re offering something and there’s no way to tell the group that the stuff has been taken.
On my group we just use a #replytosender hashtag which is moderated. If someone other than the OP replies to the group rather than the sender we can reject the message. If the OP sends an update, we approve it. Simple but effective.

Regards
Andy


--
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


Andy Wedge
 

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 01:40 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I need the hashtag to be usable by non-moderators.
I said the hashtag we use was moderated, not restricted to Moderators.

Regards
Andy


 

My bad, misread that. Still not gonna work for us. First, I don’t want to have to moderate all the free stuff, items for sale threads in the group in question. Second, I don’t want to receive all the private condolences sent to cat owners in my cats group. And I’m sure there are a hundred other use cases.

So simple to just make the fix. People can still have and use all the other workarounds if they love them.


On Dec 13, 2021, at 6:01 AM, Andy Wedge <andy_wedge@...> wrote:

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 01:40 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I need the hashtag to be usable by non-moderators.
I said the hashtag we use was moderated, not restricted to Moderators.

Regards
Andy

--
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


Andy Wedge
 

On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 05:54 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
Example: someone posts a message offering two bags of free fish (this actually happened today - the group member belongs to a sustainable fish coop and often, people don't pick up their fish) set to "reply only to sender" because she doesn't want to disturb the rest of the group with everybody's replies. But then, when the two bags have been taken, she can't let the group know to stop responding except by starting a new topic.
I'm still not seeing an issue that cannot be resolved by using 'Reply To Sender' instead of 'Reply Only To Sender'. 

My suggestion is to fix this by allowing reply messages by the OP to actually go to the group.
By making an exception, this would go against the description of what it actually says it does.  The more exceptions you build in, the more complex things become to keep up with and I'm a firm believer in keeping things simple.

Also, someone posted here recently asking for clarification between "reply to sender" and "reply only to sender" for a hashtag.
That was me on the docs subgroup.

Regards
Andy


 

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 06:40 AM, Andy Wedge wrote:
The more exceptions you build in, the more complex things become to keep up with and I'm a firm believer in keeping things simple.
I agree with you 100% on that. But I really feel that this is not much of an exception, if any, in that it MAKES NO SENSE for the OP to have to reply to themselves. The exceptional thing here is that they are forced into that weird situation if they try to reply to the thread.
 
--
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


Duane
 

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 08:43 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
But I really feel that this is not much of an exception
But it IS an exception, and not one that I'd want to see.  If I wanted to allow members, including the original poster, to reply to the group, I wouldn't set a topic/hashtag to Reply To Sender.  At worst/best, it would need to be another optional setting.

Duane