moderated Keep homepage message history counts when messages are deleted #suggestion


Andy Wedge
 

Hi Mark,

the message history counts on a group's home page are reduced if a message is deleted so they are not so much a historic record of how many messages were posted but just a count of messages currently in archive. For groups that clear out messages now and then for whatever reason, this makes the group look less active (and maybe less attractive) than is really the case. If there is a need to just show current message totals on the home page, then I think 'Message History' is a bit misleading.

Regards
Andy


 

I don’t care how active or “attractive” my group looks based on the message count or any other count, and I prefer accuracy. Would you also keep the numbers of past members as if they were current members, to make your group look “more attractive”? 
--
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 I
 

With messages, I think that the number of messages there have been, should be the correct one to use.

With membership, I think that the current number of members is the correct one to use.

I personally also do not care how many messages my groups have had.  But if someone is examining your group, they probably want to know how active it is.  It's good to know whether the group had 5000 messages annually, versus 2 messages annually because the rest were cleaned out.  It's a measure of group activity and should not simply count how many messages are currently stored on the site.  In fact that is how it is labeled - "Most Active" or "by Activity".  I agree with Andy Wedge.  Activity should count all messages, whether deleted or not.

One could use the current message number as an indication of how many messages the group has had.  I don't think there is a topic number that would serve the same purpose for counting topics.  Maybe the "activity" level can be changed to show the number of messages created, rather than the number of topics still stored on the site.

Andy I


 

Who periodically deletes all their messages? And why? 

Regardless of this odd (to me)behavior, if a group deletes all their messages for a given month but the count still shows 300 messages, that would be very misleading to someone searching for messages in the particular month.


On Oct 26, 2022, at 9:20 AM, Andy I <AI.egrps+io@...> wrote:

With messages, I think that the number of messages there have been, should be the correct one to use.

With membership, I think that the current number of members is the correct one to use.

I personally also do not care how many messages my groups have had.  But if someone is examining your group, they probably want to know how active it is.  It's good to know whether the group had 5000 messages annually, versus 2 messages annually because the rest were cleaned out.  It's a measure of group activity and should not simply count how many messages are currently stored on the site.  In fact that is how it is labeled - "Most Active" or "by Activity".  I agree with Andy Wedge.  Activity should count all messages, whether deleted or not.

One could use the current message number as an indication of how many messages the group has had.  I don't think there is a topic number that would serve the same purpose for counting topics.  Maybe the "activity" level can be changed to show the number of messages created, rather than the number of topics still stored on the site.

Andy I

--
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


Bob Bellizzi
 

I agree.
This could lead to groups that auto posted and auto deleted just to have high numbers which could be easily implemented.
--

Bob Bellizzi
FuchsFriends@groups.io online  support  group for corneal dystrophy patients & caregivers
The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation 


Brooke Brooks
 

I manage two school groups and we delete messages in the classroom subgroups annually when the class roster changes. There could easily be 100-200 messages for each classroom. That's 23 classrooms and a lot of messages being deleted. I'm not sure if this counts toward the main parent group.


 

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 10:34 AM, Brooke Brooks wrote:
we delete messages in the classroom subgroups annually
But would you care about those messages being included in the message counts, and if so, why? The original reason given was to make a group look more active, attractive, etc.
 
--
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


Chris Jones
 

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 06:34 PM, Brooke Brooks wrote:
I'm not sure if this counts toward the main parent group.
I assume that you are concerned that an obsolete Message Archive could be using up a group's storage allocation.

It doesn't; messages are not included in the calculation of how much storage a group has used. 

Chris.


Andy I
 

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 01:02 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Who periodically deletes all their messages? And why? 

Who knows?  Some groups do things you and I might call unusual.  Some groups do outrageous things like not letting anyone else send messages to them ("announcement only" groups).  Some groups rigorously check and censor virtually all incoming messages.  Some groups suspend messages from new group members, while letting messages from other members pass through without delay.  Each group has its own way of doing things, depending on what it's there for, what the owner wants, and what the messages are for.  The old traditional "mail reflector" groups effectively deleted every message after it was sent - by not saving anything - and that kind of group worked quite well for decades, and still works, for that kind of group.  Some groups save old messages but you can only download them in monthly or yearly chunks and then unzip them   I am not one to tell them that they're doing it all wrong.

Obviously you would not search for old messages in a group that does not retain its messages forever.

Andy


Andy I
 

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 01:36 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
... The original reason given was to make a group look more active, attractive, etc.

In my opinion, it is not necessarily a matter of appearing "attractive" (even though that was mentioned in the original post).  It's being honest about the group's activity level.  When deciding to join a group, I might avoid one that has had almost no messages, as well as one that has more than 100 messages daily.  Either group would not be worth my time, IMO.

Currently, GIO uses the current message count as an indication of "Activity", but that is incorrect and it's misleading.  I think the numbers should be corrected so that they correctly show the level of Activity.  Is that so wrong?

Andy


 

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 11:10 AM, Andy I wrote:
Some groups do things you and I might call unusual.
Of course. I have no problem with that and was just curious. I do have a problem with misleading numbers, as when someone tries to find a message in May 2022 because the site lists there having been 100 of them, and they go look, and there's none.
 
--
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


 

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 09:20 AM, Andy I wrote:
"Most Active" or "by Activity".
There's also a sort by "Most Popular," reflecting membership numbers. So why should that be any different? Why would you count all past messages but not all past members? I see no real, definable difference. And you would not dream of including all past members in the membership count.
 
--
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 I
 

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 02:34 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 09:20 AM, Andy I wrote:
"Most Active" or "by Activity".
There's also a sort by "Most Popular," reflecting membership numbers. So why should that be any different? Why would you count all past messages but not all past members?  ...

I believe I stated that already.  Did you miss it?

Andy I


 

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 11:35 AM, Andy I wrote:
There's also a sort by "Most Popular," reflecting membership numbers. So why should that be any different? Why would you count all past messages but not all past members?  ...

I believe I stated that already.  Did you miss it?
I was referring to the othe Andy's making a distinction between those. I don't see any.
 
--
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


 

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 11:10 AM, Andy I wrote:
Obviously you would not search for old messages in a group that does not retain its messages forever.
Obviously WHO would not search? Might be obvious to the person (mod) who deletes the messages. Not necessarily obvious to a random group member doing a search. And that's the problem.
 
--
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


Brooke Brooks
 

When I trying to educate the board of directors and administration regarding usage it's helpful to know the numbers. I've deleted a couple groups due to lack of activity.


 

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 12:01 PM, Brooke Brooks wrote:
it's helpful to know the numbers.
You mean, the numbers including deleted messages? Then why even delete them?
 
--
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


 

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 8:05 AM Andy Wedge <andy_wedge@...> wrote:

the message history counts on a group's home page are reduced if a message is deleted so they are not so much a historic record of how many messages were posted but just a count of messages currently in archive. For groups that clear out messages now and then for whatever reason, this makes the group look less active (and maybe less attractive) than is really the case. If there is a need to just show current message totals on the home page, then I think 'Message History' is a bit misleading.

That table serves two purposes: to show activity during a given month and also to allow people to jump to that point in the archive.

The counts are generated on the fly from the search cluster. To change it to reflect # messages sent, regardless of whether any were deleted or not, would require a significant change in that. I see this as an edge case, not applicable to most groups, and also something that could lead to a good deal of confusion. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I am happy to change the title from 'Message History' to something else.

Thanks,
Mark 


Andy Wedge
 

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 08:08 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
To change it to reflect # messages sent, regardless of whether any were deleted or not, would require a significant change
I don't think this is worth significant development work.

I am happy to change the title from 'Message History' to something else.
I think something like 'Current Message Counts' would more accurately state what the numbers are.

Regards
Andy

 


 

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 12:35 PM, Andy Wedge wrote:
I think something like 'Current Message Counts' would more accurately state what the numbers are.
The problem with that is if you pan out, it's not just "current." It's historical as well. "Current Message Counts" would be actually incorrect. I think it's fine as is.
 
--
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 Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 08:38 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
it's not just "current." It's historical as well
It's a count of messages that are currently in the archive.

Regards
Amdy


Duane
 

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 02:55 PM, Andy Wedge wrote:
It's a count of messages that are currently in the archive.
How about Message Archive Count(or History) then?

Duane


 

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 01:08 PM, Duane wrote:
Message Archive Count(or History)
Very tortured. Convoluted. A totally unnecessary change, concocted to satisfy the (few?) people worried about not counting deleted deleted messages and confusing to everyone else.
 
--
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


Bob Bellizzi
 

How about "Archived Messages" as the title of the table?

--

Bob Bellizzi
FuchsFriends@groups.io online  support  group for corneal dystrophy patients & caregivers
The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation 


Andy Wedge
 

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 09:55 PM, Bob Bellizzi wrote:
How about "Archived Messages"
Works for me, and the use of "Archive" ties in with Groups.io terminology.

Regards
Andy


 

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 01:55 PM, Bob Bellizzi wrote:
How about "Archived Messages"
I actually like that. Clean, simple, and correct.
 
--
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


 


>>> How about "Archived Messages"

Or "Archived Message History"?

Cheers,
Christos


 

I think “Archived Messages” is better because people can actually click on it to get to the messages. It’s the messages, not just the history of the messages.


On Oct 26, 2022, at 3:01 PM, Christos Psarras <christos@...> wrote:


>>> How about "Archived Messages"

Or "Archived Message History"?

Cheers,
Christos


--
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 Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 11:01 PM, Christos Psarras wrote:
Or "Archived Message History"?
It's the word 'history' that I didn't feel was right. It's not a full history of what's happened on the group, it's the current situation and I think Bob's suggestion of "Archived Messages" sums it up nicely.

Regards
Andy


Andy I
 

Andy Wedge,

It appears you were talking about something different than what I thought you were talking about.

I thought you were talking about the number of Topics, which is shown for every group on the groups Search page, and gives everyone an idea of how active a group may be.  That number is also listed (but not clickable) on any group's main page.  I see now that you were actually talking about the "Archived Messages" block that is at the bottom of the group's main page, which breaks out the message counts by year and month.  That is a different story than what I thought.

I see the Archived Messages block as an index into the saved messages.  It would be confusing (to me) if it showed 740 messages for March 2018, but when I go to March 2018 I can find no messages for that month, or only a few.

Whereas, to me, it makes sense for the "Topic" count to reflect actual past activity even if many of those messages were since deleted.  Different story.

Andy I


Andy I
 

Speaking of which, I guess Mark has already changed the name of that section from "Message History" to "Archived Messages".

Andy


Duane
 

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 06:53 PM, Andy I wrote:
I guess Mark has already changed the name of that section from "Message History" to "Archived Messages"
Yes, except on this group. ;>)

Duane


Chris Jones
 

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 06:34 PM, Brooke Brooks wrote:
...we delete messages in the classroom subgroups annually when the class roster changes. There could easily be 100-200 messages for each classroom. That's 23 classrooms and a lot of messages being deleted.
Although this topic is not strictly about bulk deletion it is worth pointing out that Mark provided what amounted to a bulk deletion capability in all but name for "evaluation purposes" in early 2019. 

Not much later he had to disable it because... see his message here. Group managers were gumming up Groups.io's internal workings (albeit inadvertently) by over - enthusiastic use and I would imagine that without major changes the same thing would happen again. 

Having said that I can see that in your case you are looking to clear out genuinely obsolete messages that cannot not serve any ongoing purpose by remaining in your Archive. Can you perhaps achieve the same end result by deleting obsolete subgroups and creating new ones for a fresh start each year?

Chris


Duane
 

On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 07:23 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
Not much later he had to disable it
It was brought back shortly after that and is currently live.  I don't know the details, but I'm pretty sure Mark made some changes to reduce the load on the site, maybe a separate server.

Duane