Topics

moderated Feature requests/Canny after two weeks


Simon Hedges
 

Hi,

 

I think that tagging would be good to distinguish between bugs, new features, and other types of email.  But less good, I think at enabling progress on reporting on specific bugs and new features.

 

For example how are features to be accurately identified for progress tracking (e.g. when we have dozens of emails with titles like “improve reporting” or “adding users” or “poll improvements” or “better colours”, some of which are about precisely the same thing, and some of which are not, and each potentially with several replies?  And probably some of those emails will have several suggestions in, some of which may get picked up for improvements, and some not. 

 

How will it be possible to search for a list of the currently requested features, any response to them, and a likely priority order?

 

I run a software development team, and the thought of enabling my users to track progress on the changes they request without a structured bug/feature list, gives me the heebie jeebies.  We use Jira, which is fine, but very expensive for any significant number of users (i.e. more than 10), so I’m absolutely not suggesting that.  But maybe the groups.io database function could be used to work in conjunction with the emails – whereby emails are used to submit requests for new features, but a database entry is used (maintained by the change manager) as the master status for that feature.

 

Just a suggestion.  I do like a list.

 

Simon

 

From: main@beta.groups.io <main@beta.groups.io> On Behalf Of RCardona
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2019 6:54 PM
To: main@beta.groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Feature requests/Canny after two weeks

 

I concur, consolidating all functions to the beta group and "canning" Canny makes the most sense.

RC

On 12/26/19 12:02 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

Hi All,

 

So, it seems that some people are using Canny to submit feature requests and that it can be a useful tool for doing so. I do see a few drawbacks:

 

- There are still a bunch of posts to beta that would be more appropriate instead as Canny feature requests.

- There is no notification of new posts to Canny on beta. So it can be difficult to know when new things are posted to Canny.

- People who don't run premium groups cannot post to Canny.

 

I can address the second issue with a custom email summary sent to beta on a regular basis, but that will require some development effort on my part. My main problem with Canny is with the first issue; people will still post feature requests on beta, and the discussion about those feature requests will still happen on beta.

 

I thought of another way we could address this, using just the beta group and hashtags. We could use a designated hashtag for feature requests (and maybe another for bugs). That would make it easy to address the first issue above; if someone posts a feature request without the correct hashtag, I can just add it. To view all feature requests, just filter on the hashtag. The one main thing that doesn't provide is the ability to sort by popularity (ie likes). However, I could add something like that to the search results page (he says without thinking it through completely).

 

(Also, I would add 'status' hashtags, like #closed, #planned, etc)

 

What do you think? I'm willing to continue using Canny if you all think it's a good solution. Or we could switch to something like my proposal. Or something else if someone has a better idea.

 

Thanks,

Mark (still on vacation)

 


 

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 04:28 PM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
mark has basically reinforced that being an opinion-oriented battle group isn’t the purpose
If you read back, you will see that what Mark actually said was not to dispute someone's feature idea and to let him do that. In this thread he has specifically asked for opinions. Yet opinions are getting shut down just on the basis that they are opinions and we shouldn't be expressing them. To paraphrase the politicians, that's a process argument, not a factual one. No one has yet actually argued why total moderation on GMF is so crucial, in response to a number of us (three, so far) who have dared express our opinion that it change from moderated to NuM. 

I'm done here. Don't take future silence for agreement.
 
--
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
Note on an occupational hazard: I comment frequently in beta based on my desire for the betterment of groups.io as a product. Only a fraction of the time are my comments and suggestions specifically a matter of self-interest. Don't assume the latter when the former may be the case.


KWKloeber
 

>>> that's not what I thought this group was for.<<<


you are correct, and if you read back mark has basically reinforced that being an opinion-oriented battle group isn’t the purpose nor is it helpful to the masses.  It’s humorous  how members will opt out, until/unless it’s time to defend the same opinion (again).  And some are gio developer wannabees who have the ‘best’ opinion as what’s the best for gio.  I’m not talking pluses and minuses of genuine improvements (in the eye of the beholder.)  I’m talking pseudo experts who ought to just start their own group or their own forum application/platforms and they can dictate what’s best for their own members. 


 

Duane,

Please don’t characterize the expressing of opinion and of a desire for change as “complaining”, and tell people, me or anyone, that we “shouldn’t complain.” If that were true, if nobody should express a desire for change, as for example if there’s a feature of groups.io they don’t like  they should be quiet and not complain because after all, they “have lots of choices,” then beta would not exist.


On Dec 26, 2019, at 4:03 PM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 12:24 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Group Help doesn't really have critical mass.
Have you used it?  If not, then the "critical mass" will never be reached.  That group was actually here before GMF and I try to mention both when someone asks for help.  Folks already have a choice of how much moderation they're willing to accept.  Whether you choose not to use the Group_Help group or not, you shouldn't complain about GMF when there are other options available.  With something over 4 million users now, the site should be able to support several assistance groups.

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
Note on an occupational hazard: I comment frequently in beta based on my desire for the betterment of groups.io as a product. Only a fraction of the time are my comments and suggestions specifically a matter of self-interest. Don't assume the latter when the former may be the case.


Duane
 

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 12:24 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Group Help doesn't really have critical mass.
Have you used it?  If not, then the "critical mass" will never be reached.  That group was actually here before GMF and I try to mention both when someone asks for help.  Folks already have a choice of how much moderation they're willing to accept.  Whether you choose not to use the Group_Help group or not, you shouldn't complain about GMF when there are other options available.  With something over 4 million users now, the site should be able to support several assistance groups.

Duane


 

In the matter of expressing opinions, Mark has asked for our thoughts on how to allocate messages between the groups. You are free to express yours as well, including your opinion that the rest of us should express ours.
Have a good day.


On Dec 26, 2019, at 3:26 PM, Charles Roberts <croberts@...> wrote:


YES.........what he said!
 
I'm getting real tired of some people rehashing their personal opinions about how they think things should be run.....that's not what I thought this group was for.
 
My two-cents
Chuck
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Duane
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2019 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Feature requests/Canny after two weeks

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 03:03 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I believe that GMF is actually shooting itself in the foot by insisting on moderation of every message, even by long-term, highly knowledgeable group members.
It sounds to me like you (or anyone that disagrees with the GMF policies) should start a help group that you can run the way you want.  Once you do, you can notify Mark and he can decide if he should add it to the recommendations on the home page of this group.

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
Note on an occupational hazard: I comment frequently in beta based on my desire for the betterment of groups.io as a product. Only a fraction of the time are my comments and suggestions specifically a matter of self-interest. Don't assume the latter when the former may be the case.


 

Duane,

I think you know that’s unrealistic. GMF is already doing the job, minus the one detriment (IMO). There’s neither a need, nor even enough space, to drive a second group like Group_Help, let alone a third one.

 I simply think that I and some others are able to make substantial contributions towards helping others asking for information (I’ve peeked into GMF recently and several instances of wrong info posted, or info lacking - I’ve seen sent one or two of these to Shal offlist), and would sincerely like to do so, but are put off by the moderation.

 I don’t understand why you are so wedded to it. I’ve discussed this with Shal many times in the past, and IIRC he was strongly considering it at a couple of points (but I’ll let him speak for himself), and in the end would not let go of moderation. 



On Dec 26, 2019, at 3:20 PM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 03:03 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I believe that GMF is actually shooting itself in the foot by insisting on moderation of every message, even by long-term, highly knowledgeable group members.
It sounds to me like you (or anyone that disagrees with the GMF policies) should start a help group that you can run the way you want.  Once you do, you can notify Mark and he can decide if he should add it to the recommendations on the home page of this group.

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
Note on an occupational hazard: I comment frequently in beta based on my desire for the betterment of groups.io as a product. Only a fraction of the time are my comments and suggestions specifically a matter of self-interest. Don't assume the latter when the former may be the case.


Charles Roberts
 


YES.........what he said!
 
I'm getting real tired of some people rehashing their personal opinions about how they think things should be run.....that's not what I thought this group was for.
 
My two-cents
Chuck
 

----- Original Message -----
From: Duane
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2019 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Feature requests/Canny after two weeks

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 03:03 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I believe that GMF is actually shooting itself in the foot by insisting on moderation of every message, even by long-term, highly knowledgeable group members.
It sounds to me like you (or anyone that disagrees with the GMF policies) should start a help group that you can run the way you want.  Once you do, you can notify Mark and he can decide if he should add it to the recommendations on the home page of this group.

Duane


Duane
 

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 03:03 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I believe that GMF is actually shooting itself in the foot by insisting on moderation of every message, even by long-term, highly knowledgeable group members.
It sounds to me like you (or anyone that disagrees with the GMF policies) should start a help group that you can run the way you want.  Once you do, you can notify Mark and he can decide if he should add it to the recommendations on the home page of this group.

Duane


 

Larry,

I’m glad you agree with me on the undesirability and non-necessity  of GMF moderation, although I have different reasons and can’t comment on the substance of yours. However, I think your move to groups.io will be something you’re glad you did. As they say in Casablanca: Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow. But soon, and for the rest of your life. 😊


On Dec 26, 2019, at 2:11 PM, Laurence Marks <marks@...> wrote:

I'm a newbie. My experience started when I began to transfer a Yahoo group to G.io several weeks ago. It has been a very disappointing experience.

I'm with J.Catlady. There is no good reason to moderate [GMF]. Some of my posts with worthwhile information have been rejected by moderators for arbitrary reasons.

What was supposed to be a simple, automatic transfer process turned out to be lacking the most important feature--transfer of attachments. So I started working with an outside developer on a complete solution. After G.io ceased offering transfers (December 5), when others posted seeking a solution, I mentioned the alternate solution, only to be taunted by the moderator.

If anyone believes that solution is "vaporware", just visit NC-LTRGs@groups.io | Topics

 and you can see how well the transfer with attachments has worked.

I won't get into my disappointments with [beta] here. Maybe another time.

Larry



--
Larry Marks

--
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
Note on an occupational hazard: I comment frequently in beta based on my desire for the betterment of groups.io as a product. Only a fraction of the time are my comments and suggestions specifically a matter of self-interest. Don't assume the latter when the former may be the case.


Christos G. Psarras
 

I also agree that GMF should be NuM; specialized tech support groups like it can benefit from not being moderated always.  I can maybe see a partial reason that GMF is (still?) moderated since anyone can join, but the NuM functionality can take care of that.

Cheers,
Christos


On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 04:03 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
It’s actually very simple. And of course I’m letting it be: It’s not my group. But as we are discussing here the future disposition of the three categories of messages, it would seem that the form taken by GMF, the official “unofficial” help group as espoused by Mark, is relevant to the discussion. I believe that GMF is actually shooting itself in the foot by insisting on moderation of every message, even by long-term, highly knowledgeable group members. NuM avoids all that with a single click - and also avoids all the other problems of moderation (message delays causing asynchronous misunderstandings, etc.).
 
Very simple to eliminate all of the extra work, misunderstandings, delays, etc. 


Laurence Marks
 

I'm a newbie. My experience started when I began to transfer a Yahoo group to G.io several weeks ago. It has been a very disappointing experience.

I'm with J.Catlady. There is no good reason to moderate [GMF]. Some of my posts with worthwhile information have been rejected by moderators for arbitrary reasons.

What was supposed to be a simple, automatic transfer process turned out to be lacking the most important feature--transfer of attachments. So I started working with an outside developer on a complete solution. After G.io ceased offering transfers (December 5), when others posted seeking a solution, I mentioned the alternate solution, only to be taunted by the moderator.

If anyone believes that solution is "vaporware", just visit NC-LTRGs@groups.io | Topics

 and you can see how well the transfer with attachments has worked.

I won't get into my disappointments with [beta] here. Maybe another time.

Larry



--
Larry Marks


 

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 01:00 PM, David Grimm wrote:
I've been a Groups.io owner for almost 2 years, been in both GMF and this group the whole time and this is the first mention I've ever seen about Group_Help.
Which proves my point. No matter how many times, or in how many places, Group_Help is referred to or mentioned, I don't think it will be able to gain the critical mass that GMF has accumulated, for many reasons (most of them good, lest anyone think I mean otherwise). There is simply not that much for space for two groups with essentially the same function. (Yes, yes, GMF is supposed to be for group owners and Group_Help for the general public, but that distinction is really in name only, from what I've seen.)
 
--
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
Note on an occupational hazard: I comment frequently in beta based on my desire for the betterment of groups.io as a product. Only a fraction of the time are my comments and suggestions specifically a matter of self-interest. Don't assume the latter when the former may be the case.


 

It’s actually very simple. And of course I’m letting it be: It’s not my group. But as we are discussing here the future disposition of the three categories of messages, it would seem that the form taken by GMF, the official “unofficial” help group as espoused by Mark, is relevant to the discussion. I believe that GMF is actually shooting itself in the foot by insisting on moderation of every message, even by long-term, highly knowledgeable group members. NuM avoids all that with a single click - and also avoids all the other problems of moderation (message delays causing asynchronous misunderstandings, etc.).

Very simple to eliminate all of the extra work, misunderstandings, delays, etc. 


On Dec 26, 2019, at 12:54 PM, RCardona <rcardona3451@...> wrote:

Sorry, but that isn't as simple as you seem to make it out .  Let it be as is. 

On 12/26/19 3:27 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 12:21 PM, RCardona wrote:
GMF should continue being a moderated group. . . it is important for it to remain a semi-organized entity with knowledgeable folks at the helm
Sorry, that can be accomplished by making it NuM. I was not going to comment further, but being a semi-organized entity with knowledgeable folks at the helm does not require a group to be strictly moderated.
 
--
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
Note on an occupational hazard: I comment frequently in beta based on my desire for the betterment of groups.io as a product. Only a fraction of the time are my comments and suggestions specifically a matter of self-interest. Don't assume the latter when the former may be the case.



--
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
Note on an occupational hazard: I comment frequently in beta based on my desire for the betterment of groups.io as a product. Only a fraction of the time are my comments and suggestions specifically a matter of self-interest. Don't assume the latter when the former may be the case.


David Grimm
 

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 01:24 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Group Help doesn't really have critical mass.

I've been a Groups.io owner for almost 2 years, been in both GMF and this group the whole time and this is the first mention I've ever seen about Group_Help. It might have more 'critical mass' if it were more widely suggested as a source when some of the newbie questions get asked in both GMF and beta.

Dave


RCardona
 

Sorry, but that isn't as simple as you seem to make it out .  Let it be as is. 

On 12/26/19 3:27 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 12:21 PM, RCardona wrote:
GMF should continue being a moderated group. . . it is important for it to remain a semi-organized entity with knowledgeable folks at the helm
Sorry, that can be accomplished by making it NuM. I was not going to comment further, but being a semi-organized entity with knowledgeable folks at the helm does not require a group to be strictly moderated.
 
--
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
Note on an occupational hazard: I comment frequently in beta based on my desire for the betterment of groups.io as a product. Only a fraction of the time are my comments and suggestions specifically a matter of self-interest. Don't assume the latter when the former may be the case.



 

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 12:21 PM, RCardona wrote:
GMF should continue being a moderated group. . . it is important for it to remain a semi-organized entity with knowledgeable folks at the helm
Sorry, that can be accomplished by making it NuM. I was not going to comment further, but being a semi-organized entity with knowledgeable folks at the helm does not require a group to be strictly moderated.
 
--
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
Note on an occupational hazard: I comment frequently in beta based on my desire for the betterment of groups.io as a product. Only a fraction of the time are my comments and suggestions specifically a matter of self-interest. Don't assume the latter when the former may be the case.


RCardona
 

I was referring to error reporting and feature requests in consolidating all functions to the beta group, thus the canning of Canny. 

In no shape or form should there be a help request aspect to the beta group.  Sorry for any confusion. 

GMF should continue being a moderated group. . . it is important for it to remain a semi-organized entity with knowledgeable folks at the helm since Mark doesn't play a large role there.

RC

On 12/26/19 2:46 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 10:54 AM, RCardona wrote:
consolidating all functions to the beta group and "canning" Canny makes the most sense
Except for possibly canning Canny, which I support, and/or reverting to allowing bug reports in beta, which I would also support (but have no strong feelings about), that is almost certainly not going to happen. I believe (and hope) that help questions will always stay in another arena. GMF is too developed, and beta too dedicated to features rather than help, for GMF to go away. However, GMF being a moderated group is what I find problematic. 
 
--
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
Note on an occupational hazard: I comment frequently in beta based on my desire for the betterment of groups.io as a product. Only a fraction of the time are my comments and suggestions specifically a matter of self-interest. Don't assume the latter when the former may be the case.



 

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 12:02 PM, Bill Burns wrote:
I've seen no evidence of any bias in the moderation.
I'm not talking about bias of any kind. 
And I think this has gone too off-topic into why I personally don't join moderated groups. So I won't be responding further on that issue, except to mention that I've received at least one offlist message from someone saying they agree with me that GMF should not be moderated.
That's all, folks.
 
--
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
Note on an occupational hazard: I comment frequently in beta based on my desire for the betterment of groups.io as a product. Only a fraction of the time are my comments and suggestions specifically a matter of self-interest. Don't assume the latter when the former may be the case.


Bill Burns
 

On 12/26/2019 2:51 PM, Chris Jones via Groups.Io wrote:
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 07:46 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
However, GMF being a moderated group is what I find problematic. 
Why, exactly?

Chris

What I was wondering too.  In my 20 months on this list, contributing occasionally and reading (or at least glancing at) every post, I've seen no evidence of any bias in the moderation.
-- 
Bill