locked Preventing Reply to Group/Sender mixups AND quoted messages #bug


Maria
 

There are many listserv based forums connected to association management providers that also offer reply to group/sender as options when a forum is set up. 

Also I'm not certain we can take Google groups off that list yet. The one group I'm still on only allows group replies because the admin set it up that way, but this help doc details a setup that would indicate that reply to sender is indeed and option in Google groups too via their web interface. 

https://support.google.com/groups/answer/1059071?hl=en

(I'm on mobile not reading closely so maybe I'm missing something in the details. )

Maria


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Maria,

           From the very document you linked to:


Tip: Click on the Post reply button (or the red Post Reply) in the first post to reply to the original topic creator. Click on Reply to Author under "More message options" to reply to the poster through private email. Click on Forward under "More message options" to forward the post to an email address.


Again, the "Reply to Author" is so far separated from the compose window, and it takes very deliberate action to make that change, we're back to "no accident is likely to happen."  Again, the option is not presented as a simple button choice under a compose box that is, barring a lot of other gyrations, interpreted as being a reply to group by default.

Very deliberate actions must be taken, and prior to hitting send, which require that one is very clear about what one is doing.  I'm not going to go back to see if the buttons change if one does a "Reply to Author" under "More message options," but my suspicion is that they do.

And, again, my point is not about specific mechanism so much as not having a mechanism that can result in something potentially profoundly embarrassing for the person writing a message if they hit "Send to Group" rather than "Send to Sender" [I'm using what's in Groups.io now, live version].  I've done it more than once and, thank heaven, what was said was not of a nature that I was embarrassed to have it in public.  I can say, with complete honesty and certainty, that I have never had this happen elsewhere because it's very difficult to make that mistake barring mind-altering substances coming into play.
--
Brian

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


Maria
 

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 01:24 pm, Brian Vogel wrote:
Very deliberate actions must be taken, and prior to hitting send, which require that one is very clear about what one is doing.  

I agree that a deliberate action to go to / have the non default option kick in is ideal. So the default option has more weight.

That was a key part of the two visuals I mocked up and I think central to Shal's suggestions too.

Maria


 

J,

In my view this is not "just a UI" issue. It goes deeper. PM'ing is an
action distinct from "reply" and should be treated as such.
Well here I'm going to agree with what you said, while disagreeing that it ought to be applied here.

I suspect that "PM" carries with it semantics (expectations) that are wholly different from what a "Send to Sender" means in Groups.io. That is part of why I object to that model being applied.

I think Brian mentioned that he would expect (and prefer) that a PM be a wholly separate thing: not carry in the subject line nor a quote from the original message. If that's what you're imagining then that's not Send to Sender and you are not solving the problem at hand: you're proposing something else entirely, something Mark has said he's thought about, a forum-like PM system.

The other key bit of semantics involves the word "Private". Brian may correct me, but I don't think a forum PM generally produces an email message carrying the replyer's email address. Send to Sender does - it really is an offlist message with far more in common with a group message than with a "PM" in the forum sense.


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


 

Brian,

There is zero need to reinvent anything here.
I disagree. Groups.io has features beyond what you've described for the web forums in your experience.

In particular Groups.io supports groups in which the default reply is direct to the other member, and not to the group.

Any proposed solution for the "mixups" must work for those groups as well. That's not just "overcomplication", that's accounting for core functionality.


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


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 04:52 pm, Shal Farley wrote:
Brian may correct me, but I don't think a forum PM generally produces an email message carrying the replyer's email address. Send to Sender does - it really is an offlist message with far more in common with a group message than with a "PM" in the forum sense.

 I've seen, and experienced, it implemented with and without the sender's (as in the message sender's - not the original poster's) e-mail address.  I've seen that in both within-site PM system, hybrids where an e-mail notification is sent about a PM having come in, and where the PM itself is sent by e-mail.

Actually, the most antiquated venue I participate on has a hybrid system where the PMs are both in-site and sent to you via e-mail, including the address of the person who PM-ed you, and that e-mail message also duplicates the private message content.  I've never understood the point of the actual message content being conveyed in two separate venues, neither of which is public.
--
Brian

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


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 04:52 pm, Shal Farley wrote:
In particular Groups.io supports groups in which the default reply is direct to the other member, and not to the group.

On those groups the "Reply" link or button itself should be substituted with "Private Message to Sender."  The option for "Reply to group" could be a part of a the hidden "more actions" hierarchy, in that case.

I can't imagine the purpose of a group where the default amounts to private e-mailing from person to person with minimal sharing with the group.  It defeats the whole idea of an online group.  This would be so simply "implemented" by having the good, old-fashioned "PM by clicking on profile link" method.  Clearly, however, others differ.

Whether I use it or not, the whole concept is "overcomplicated" as it recreates something that can be easily achieved on any and every "conventional" forum I participate in if a person knows how to copy and paste.

--
Brian

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


 

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 04:52 pm, Shal Farley wrote:
I think Brian mentioned that he would expect (and prefer) that a PM be a wholly separate thing: not carry in the subject line nor a quote from the original message. If that's what you're imagining

It is NOT what I'm proposing or imagining. I'm nowhere near that level of detail yet. You can do that, you can not do it. Doesn't matter. (And I think you/we probably DO want to do it.) I'm proposing ("imagining") only that "PM" be a separate function or program that can be invoked both (a) from a member's profile (and possibly also the member list, as you suggested) and (b) from the context of reading messages onlist. (And possibly from other places, as far as I know.) In the context of (b) the function could automatically add the subject line, probably subject to change by the user. In the context of (a) the user would enter their own subject line. 

I don't think a forum PM generally produces an email message carrying the replyer's email address. Send to Sender does - it really is an offlist message

Who cares? These are details. In Groups.io, "PM" would mean "private message" complete with the email that goes out. The psychological intention and action are still most similar to PM in a forum, namely: that person, and ONLY that person, gets the message content.

It's the intention and content - namely, "personal" or "public" - that I keep focusing on. Everyone else is jumping into details of dropdowns, screens, language, etc. I don't care about those and I think they're easy to solve once you decide on the bigger picture.


-- 

J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


 

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 05:19 pm, Brian Vogel wrote:
On those groups the "Reply" link or button itself should be substituted with "Private Message to Sender."

Yes. Or, the "PM" function would be called instead of the "reply" function. 

I can't imagine the purpose of a group where the default amounts to private e-mailing from person to person with minimal sharing with the group. 

Believe it or not, I've seen a few yahoo groups like that.

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


 

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 05:36 pm, J_catlady wrote:
Yes. Or, the "PM" function would be called instead of the "reply" function. 

Brian, possibly this is what you meant, but you described it terms of a button. I'm not down to "buttons" yet. :-) 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


 
Edited

When it gets down to the implementation level, I would mention one detail, and that is to be careful of who the recipient is in the case of a PM to a forum post. I've seen people use "reply to sender" here and think they were replying to the originator of the thread instead of to the specific message within a thread that they clicked "reply" on. For that reason, I think PM should display to the user the addressee [EDIT: or call it "recipient" - whatever you want to call "who this message is going to" - username, or display name, or email address, or whatever - figure that out later] it fills in and allow them to verify it.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


 

J,

For that reason, I think PM should display to the user the addressee
My recent proposal covers that.

[EDIT: or call it "recipient" - whatever you want to call "who this
message is going to" - username, or display name, or email address, or
whatever - figure that out later] it fills in and allow them to verify
it.
I chose [display name] meaning what's shown in the UI for the author of the message you are replying to. That seems to me to be the clearest, whatever its source.


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


Maria
 

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 05:19 pm, Brian Vogel wrote:
I can't imagine the purpose of a group where the default amounts to private e-mailing from person to person with minimal sharing with the group.  It defeats the whole idea of an online group.  This would be so simply "implemented" by having the good, old-fashioned "PM by clicking on profile link" method.  Clearly, however, others differ.

In our case we have on group that's transactional in nature, like all the freecycle groups, so it really doesn't warrant group replies. I've dreamt about marketplace / etsy type subgroups... but will leave that for its own thread.

But I belong to another group that is indeed discussion based BUT because they have so many very active members, their default reply is to sender. The admins do this because the abundance of replies would a) overwhelm the mods and b) end up being duplicative (because if you read by email, you may not see that someone has already shared same thought/answer as you do because of the inherent delay in digests). In that group the person who posted will do a summary of replies received offline if others ask for one.

I'm sure there are many other scenarios where this flexibility and versatility of use would come in handy.

Maria