Topics

locked Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups


 

Especially not other planets. LOL.
--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


Maria
 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:30 am, Brian Vogel wrote:
We were again clearly typing at the same time.  However, I actually think that extricating the "Reply to Sender" function entirely from the standard reply to thread function is the best way to minimize or eliminate these sorts of accidents entirely.

I'm going to start saying Jinx! ;)

Ok so I don't agree at all about removing the option to reply privately from the web interface thread view... But taking your idea of extricating it to a different place... What if the reply to sender button was both reworded, had the blue and different icon AND was moved to the left hand side? So that it's not in the "reply" area? 

Maria 



 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:40 am, HR Tech wrote:
It's important they remain with the same subject line as the thread,

Interesting because I was about to suggest that the subject line for an offlist message be *changed* to add the word "offlist," due to confusion on the receiving end as well, not just the sending end.

I mentioned before how I and others are frequently confused by thinking a message was posted onlist when it was actually offlist, because the title stays the same and gmail groups the whole thing together.

I have found, and continued to find, this extremely inconvenient. I personally avoid the "send to sender" function because of this, and I make it a practice in sending a private message to start a new thread instead containing the word "offlist" and advise everyone in my group to do the same. 

J


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

OK, folks, hear me clearly:  None, not a one, of the methods I posted about, and included snapshots from, involve leaving thread view.

All are invoked, specifically in these cases, by clicking the link for the user's userid that appears as a part of each and every message.  Now, I will admit, that once you do that and choose to send a PM that you are often thrown into a separate window or tab to complete that task, but when you close it upon completion you're dropped right back where you were.

I am not proposing extricating it from ease of use.  I am proposing making it well-nigh impossible to accidentally do one for the other via an accidental button press.

The goals of private reply convenience and not having the options side-by-side in the standard thread reply mechanism are not mutually exclusive.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:53 am, Brian Vogel wrote:
The goals of private reply convenience and not having the options side-by-side in the standard thread reply mechanism are not mutually exclusive.

 Absolutely. Agreed.



Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:50 am, J_catlady wrote:
Interesting because I was about to suggest that the subject line for an offlist message be *changed* to add the word "offlist," due to confusion on the receiving end as well, not just the sending end.

 I have hated, hated, hated this feature, as currently implemented, because if one is receiving messages via e-mail and web interface it gets really, really confusing to determine what you're looking at with ease.

As far as I am concerned, a private reply should include nothing and the person composing same should make the subject whatever they want and do any cut and paste from the original post text manually.   I've been doing that for years elsewhere, and most often I have no text cut and paste unless I happen to be launching into a private point-by-point discussion on something.  My subects tend to be along the lines of, "About that [insert subject or part subject from forum] post on beta."

This also is another way to make the user think about exactly why they're sending a private reply and what they actually want it to say.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


 

Brian, yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes. -J

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 2, 2016, at 10:57 AM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:50 am, J_catlady wrote:
Interesting because I was about to suggest that the subject line for an offlist message be *changed* to add the word "offlist," due to confusion on the receiving end as well, not just the sending end.

 I have hated, hated, hated this feature, as currently implemented, because if one is receiving messages via e-mail and web interface it gets really, really confusing to determine what you're looking at with ease.

As far as I am concerned, a private reply should include nothing and the person composing same should make the subject whatever they want and do any cut and paste from the original post text manually.   I've been doing that for years elsewhere, and most often I have no text cut and paste unless I happen to be launching into a private point-by-point discussion on something.  My subects tend to be along the lines of, "About that [insert subject or part subject from forum] post on beta."

This also is another way to make the user think about exactly why they're sending a private reply and what they actually want it to say.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


David P. Dillard
 

I think this discussion is missing some very important input in this discussion. We should encourage quilting list owners and moderators to participate. They seem to know a great deal about handling threads!!!





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

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016, J_catlady wrote:

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:53 am, Brian Vogel wrote:
The goals of private reply convenience and not having the options side-by-side in the standard thread reply
mechanism are not mutually exclusive.
 Absolutely. Agreed.


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 11:13 am, David P. Dillard wrote:
We should encourage quilting list owners and moderators to participate. They seem to know a great deal about handling threads!!!

 GROOOOOOOOOOOAN!!!

Who can ban this guy?!   [I hope any sort of humor indicating emoticon is not necessary]
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


Maria
 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:57 am, Brian Vogel wrote:
As far as I am concerned, a private reply should include nothing and the person composing same should make the subject whatever they want and do any cut and paste from the original post text manually.

I have the opposite take, which I think I mentioned the last time we discussed this. When I receive private replies, I find it extremely helpful to know which thread they "come from" and for the subject line to match the subject of the thread. I can see in the from field if it's from the group or an individual replying privately. 

Since I often post summaries of offline replies to our groups, having all the offline replies have the same subject helps me when I do this because they are so easy to find in my inbox. 

Also important to me is that when i get a private reply from a member of a group who never replies to group or posts to group, I recognize the email as being from my participation in the group and I'm not surprised and wondering "who is this?" "Where did they get my email?"

Separately, and unrelated, we have one subgroup set up that only allows private replies because group replies don't work there. It's great that this platform has this option to have both options or only one. 

Maria 




 

Haha!

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 2, 2016, at 11:13 AM, David P. Dillard <jwne@...> wrote:




I think this discussion is missing some very important input in this discussion. We should encourage quilting list owners and moderators to participate. They seem to know a great deal about handling threads!!!





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




On Sat, 2 Jul 2016, J_catlady wrote:

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:53 am, Brian Vogel wrote:
The goals of private reply convenience and not having the options side-by-side in the standard thread reply
mechanism are not mutually exclusive.
Absolutely. Agreed.

--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


Maria
 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:50 am, J_catlady wrote:
Interesting because I was about to suggest that the subject line for an offlist message be *changed* to add the word "offlist," due to confusion on the receiving end as well, not just the sending end.

I think that if the system could automatically add the word "offlist" or "private message" that would be great! As long as the subject stayed the same (unless of course the user wants to manually override that as one can in email)




 

Maria,

Adding the word 'Offlist' or 'private' to the title would solve the confusion issue that Brian and I have mentioned (and which I personally have found so egregious that I avoid the feature and advise group members to do the same), and would not take away from your ability to tell which thread the messages are coming from.

I do recognize the other issue you bring up, which is that some groups have 'private reply' as a default. But perhaps the interface could depend on which default is in effect.

J

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 2, 2016, at 11:17 AM, HR Tech via Groups.io <m.conway11@...> wrote:

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:57 am, Brian Vogel wrote:
As far as I am concerned, a private reply should include nothing and the person composing same should make the subject whatever they want and do any cut and paste from the original post text manually.

I have the opposite take, which I think I mentioned the last time we discussed this. When I receive private replies, I find it extremely helpful to know which thread they "come from" and for the subject line to match the subject of the thread. I can see in the from field if it's from the group or an individual replying privately. 

Since I often post summaries of offline replies to our groups, having all the offline replies have the same subject helps me when I do this because they are so easy to find in my inbox. 

Also important to me is that when i get a private reply from a member of a group who never replies to group or posts to group, I recognize the email as being from my participation in the group and I'm not surprised and wondering "who is this?" "Where did they get my email?"

Separately, and unrelated, we have one subgroup set up that only allows private replies because group replies don't work there. It's great that this platform has this option to have both options or only one. 

Maria 




--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


 

Posts crossing - just saw yours, glad you agree.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 2, 2016, at 11:29 AM, J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

Maria,

Adding the word 'Offlist' or 'private' to the title would solve the confusion issue that Brian and I have mentioned (and which I personally have found so egregious that I avoid the feature and advise group members to do the same), and would not take away from your ability to tell which thread the messages are coming from.

I do recognize the other issue you bring up, which is that some groups have 'private reply' as a default. But perhaps the interface could depend on which default is in effect.

J

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 2, 2016, at 11:17 AM, HR Tech via Groups.io <m.conway11@...> wrote:

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:57 am, Brian Vogel wrote:
As far as I am concerned, a private reply should include nothing and the person composing same should make the subject whatever they want and do any cut and paste from the original post text manually.

I have the opposite take, which I think I mentioned the last time we discussed this. When I receive private replies, I find it extremely helpful to know which thread they "come from" and for the subject line to match the subject of the thread. I can see in the from field if it's from the group or an individual replying privately. 

Since I often post summaries of offline replies to our groups, having all the offline replies have the same subject helps me when I do this because they are so easy to find in my inbox. 

Also important to me is that when i get a private reply from a member of a group who never replies to group or posts to group, I recognize the email as being from my participation in the group and I'm not surprised and wondering "who is this?" "Where did they get my email?"

Separately, and unrelated, we have one subgroup set up that only allows private replies because group replies don't work there. It's great that this platform has this option to have both options or only one. 

Maria 




--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

I will add that I have no objection to the prefacing a pre-populated direct copy of the thread title with something like "Pvt:"  or  "OL:".

What I hate, hate, hate is not having any way to distinguish, just by looking at an e-mail subject, whether it's the next follow-up or a private message spin-off.  This is one of the reasons I don't use the e-mail interface at all anymore.  I do prefer a web forum regardless, but that little "feature" made me crazy.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


 

Yes, it's really bad and very error-prone on the receiving end. After receiving one of these, there's a further possible mixup on the part of the person replying to the reply, and things can go from bad to worse.
J

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 2, 2016, at 11:41 AM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

I will add that I have no objection to the prefacing a pre-populated direct copy of the thread title with something like "Pvt:"  or  "OL:".

What I hate, hate, hate is not having any way to distinguish, just by looking at an e-mail subject, whether it's the next follow-up or a private message spin-off.  This is one of the reasons I don't use the e-mail interface at all anymore.  I do prefer a web forum regardless, but that little "feature" made me crazy.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


Maria
 

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 11:30 am, J_catlady wrote:
Posts crossing - just saw yours, glad you agree.

Sent from my iPhone

I agree and think it's a great idea.

in addition to addressing the issue you and Brian raised, having a word or something added to help specify in the subject in my inbox that it's an offlist reply will make it even easier for me to search my inbox for offlist replies when I do summary follow ups.

Maria 



 

I think adding 'private' or 'Offlist' to the message title would solve the problem on the receiving end. On the sending side, along a similar vein, adding 'this is s private response' to the reply would solve (or go a long way towards solving) the problem. That could only (reasonably) feasibly be done by choosing the recipient (group or sender) before  composing the message. I see no downside to that and great advantages. Every Offlist message would be identified by both its title and it's beginning. (Why iPhone insists on capitalizing Offlist is a mystery to me. But I give up...;)

J

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 2, 2016, at 11:44 AM, J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

Yes, it's really bad and very error-prone on the receiving end. After receiving one of these, there's a further possible mixup on the part of the person replying to the reply, and things can go from bad to worse.
J

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 2, 2016, at 11:41 AM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

I will add that I have no objection to the prefacing a pre-populated direct copy of the thread title with something like "Pvt:"  or  "OL:".

What I hate, hate, hate is not having any way to distinguish, just by looking at an e-mail subject, whether it's the next follow-up or a private message spin-off.  This is one of the reasons I don't use the e-mail interface at all anymore.  I do prefer a web forum regardless, but that little "feature" made me crazy.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


 

Mark,

Do you have other ideas on how to reduce these mixups?
I've always been uncomfortable with those two buttons. They combine two separate cognitive decisions into one action. As a general principle I detest that.

The one decision is "who am I addressing?". The other decision is "am I ready to send it?". My suggestion would be to make those be separate controls, and make the "who" a decision that one can make at any time before sending - before, during, or after composing the message.

Which means that a conventional placement for it would be above the message composition window. I'm not wedded to that, but I am strongly influenced by my preference for email over fora.

But that does not mean I want to follow Y!Groups astonishingly bad example of implementing the concept. I'll detail that if you want, but I don't really want to side-track this reply by exploring how not to do it.

The "forum" way to do it would be to completely separate the two concepts: Reply is only to the forum, if you want to say something to the sender there may be a Private Message button or link near the poster's name (if that member allows PMs). If you want to call the message to the moderators' attention there might be a "red flag" icon for that purpose.

I'm not in favor of changing to the "forum way" of handling replies, but it is another example of separating the "who" from the "ready to send" decision.

"Send", "Preview" (Markdown only), and "Discard" are logically connected. "Add Attachments" and "Insert Quoted Message" I think are out of place. The latter feel like composition tools, but I wouldn't want them to be HTML only (that is, those buttons should remain in Markdown and Plain Text modes).

I would put a row of "To" choices either above the subject (conventional email placement) or between the message body and the Send, Preview, and Discard buttons (which might be more friendly on mobile). Perhaps:

To: o Group o Sender (display name), o Moderators
CC: |_| Sender (display name)
or
CC: |_| Moderators

Where the CC to the Sender appears only if group is selected, and the CC to Moderators appears only if Sender is selected.


Shal
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


 

Shal,

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 12:01 pm, Shal Farley wrote:

They combine two separate cognitive decisions into one action. As a general principle I detest that.

Nailed it.

Also: Glad to hear from you! I've been a bit worried. :-)

-J