Date   

Re: Sponsorship page in Wiki

 

Thanks for doing that Duane. I've taken your text and separated it, added that mods with the Billing permission may also check the balance, and added a couple of small graphics.

Cheers,
Christos



On 2021-11-13 08:51, Duane via groups.io wrote:
I've started a new page in the GMF wiki for sponsorships.  It needs to be fleshed out and could use some illustrations/screenshots with better formatting, but I believe it has the important information.



Re: "Save & send to group" #bug

Chris Jones
 

On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 10:16 AM, Sarah Procter Abbott wrote:
Would you kindly check for me?
For the avoidance of doubt... we cannot check what is happening in your group. The Group Managers Forum is a peer to peer group intended for those individuals who own or moderate groups; it is not a group of managers at, or employed by, Groups.io.

There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of Andy W's post, but his report applies to his group, not yours.

I suggest that you have a look at your Activity Log to see if there any clues there.

Chris


Re: "Save & send to group" #bug

Andy Wedge
 

On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 10:16 AM, Sarah Procter Abbott wrote:
When we edit and save messages, no problem, but when after editing we click "save and send to group", they are not being sent to the group.

Would you kindly check for me?
It works OK for me. The edit is shown in the archive and I received an email copy as expected.

Regards
Andy


"Save & send to group" #bug

Sarah Procter Abbott
 

When we edit and save messages, no problem, but when after editing we click "save and send to group", they are not being sent to the group.

Would you kindly check for me?

Thanks again for the great io!

Sarah


Re: Allow nonmembers to post

Andy Wedge
 

On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 06:44 PM, Cal wrote:
it doesn't bounce or show up as pending.  It seems to just disappear into a black hole.  Any ideas?
In addition to what Bruce said, check your Activity Log and you should see entries in the format 'Non-member <nonmemberemailaddress> attempted to send message "message subject", via email'

Andy


Re: Allow nonmembers to post

Bruce Bowman
 

On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 01:44 PM, Cal wrote:
I've been experienting, and for some reason, when I post from an address that's not a member, the email never shows up on the list, it doesn't bounce or show up as pending.  It seems to just disappear into a black hole.  Any ideas?
Cal -- If you want nonmember to post, you have to enable it. https://groups.io/helpcenter/ownersmanual/1/customizing-group-settings/message-policy-settings  Having done, so, such posts should land in Pending. 

Otherwise, this is by design. Most nonmember posts come from spammers...if groups.io provided a response of any kind it would only encourage them to send more spam.

Regards,
Bruce

Check out the groups.io Help Center and groups.io Owners Manual


Allow nonmembers to post

Cal
 

I've been experienting, and for some reason, when I post from an address that's not a member, the email never shows up on the list, it doesn't bounce or show up as pending.  It seems to just disappear into a black hole.  Any ideas?


Re: Photo Size vs Photo Load Time #photos

Duane
 

On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 09:17 AM, Mike Hanauer wrote:

Yet, displaying the newly uploaded photos takes noticeably longer - it loads top to bottom in sections and takes much longer to fully display.

Why is this?

The only times I remember having difficulties like this is when there's internet congestion.  It can be between me and my provider, their connection, or the connection between Groups.io and AWS (where the pictures are stored/retrieved.)

Duane
--
Lots of detailed information can be found in the Owners Manual and Members Manual.


Re: Same Email in group as a pending member

Leeni <leeniluvsgroups2@...>
 

Thanks - upon looking at the record again, the name was off by one letter.
 
They had a double ii in the one that was already a member.
I guess the new one was the correct one without the ii.
Thanks - Leeni  
 
 
 

-------Original Message-------
 
From: Duane
Date: 11/15/2021 8:11:10 AM
Subject: Re: [GMF] Same Email in group as a pending member
 
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 07:46 AM, Leeni wrote:
How can a member be pending if they are already in the group using that email address? Shouldn't it be blocked from being added saying something like they are already a member in the group?
If they're not logged in when they click on the Join/Apply button, it will take them to a page to enter their email address.  If they enter an address that's already a member, it will tell them so.  I'd double check the address in question.  It's not uncommon for someone to have very similar addresses that only differ by one character, like JaneDoe and JaneDoe1.

Duane
--
Lots of detailed information can be found in the Owners Manual and Members Manual.

 


Re: Same Email in group as a pending member

Duane
 

On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 07:46 AM, Leeni wrote:
How can a member be pending if they are already in the group using that email address? Shouldn't it be blocked from being added saying something like they are already a member in the group?
If they're not logged in when they click on the Join/Apply button, it will take them to a page to enter their email address.  If they enter an address that's already a member, it will tell them so.  I'd double check the address in question.  It's not uncommon for someone to have very similar addresses that only differ by one character, like JaneDoe and JaneDoe1.

Duane
--
Lots of detailed information can be found in the Owners Manual and Members Manual.


Same Email in group as a pending member

Leeni <leeniluvsgroups2@...>
 

There is this member whose email, lets say is - xxxxx@...  showing as a member in my group. She then applied to the group using the same email address xxxxx@...
 
So now that email is a pending member as well as a member already in the group.
 
How can a member be pending if they are already in the group using that email address? Shouldn't it be blocked from being added saying something like they are already a member in the group?
 
Perplexed, Leeni
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   


locked Re: orphaned group

Bruce Bowman
 

Folks -- It's apparent that the opinions on this matter cannot be reconciled.

If you want something to happen, please take it to beta, where there are people who can do something about it ( https://beta.groups.io/g/main/ ).
 
Locking this thread now. I hope you understand.

Regards,
Bruce

Check out the groups.io Help Center and groups.io Owners Manual


locked Re: orphaned group

txercoupemuseum.org
 

Please.  The subject here is the ONGOING problem of "Orphaned Groups”, such groups presumably defined as no longer having a functional owner.  I suggest we need to pivot and think in terms of JUSTIFIED requests and RELEVENT objections

Those advocating for an Owner option to designate a successor “pre-need” have repeatedly explained their RELEVENT objection to the present necessity to create ANOTHER Owner who would then immediately have EQUAL power.  

Because of this clearly VALID concern certain Owners refuse, AS IS THEIR RIGHT, to appoint potentially challenging co-owners.  Creating another concurrent and unneeded “Owner” is more likely to create a NEW PROBLEM, given the unpredictability of human nature, than to resolve the clear and present one.  

If an Owner WANTS another owner, they have that choice.  No one is proposing to take that away.  Until the above concern is meaningfully addressed, the mere passage of time will orphaned more groups.  

The status quo should be unacceptable because it is in NO ONE'S best interest(s). In this case, “good enough” is clearly NOT “good enough” for those with a  dog in the fight.

All the grumbling about unrelated and unsubstantiated “straw man” issues such as “complexity” or “trusting others” in no manner address or resolve this present and ongoing deficiency in available OWNER choices.  If their “choice of members” could resolve it, no group would need moderators.

In any debate, respect should be a “given”.  To suggest or advocate within GMF that a current SOLE Owner has no NEED to designate a successor is disrespectful in the extreme.  For others to ring the same bell repeatedly is to add insult to injury.  Who guards the guardians here???

That should be wayyy above the pay grade of ANYONE in GMF or Groups.io.

WRB

— 

On Nov 14, 2021, at 8:38 PM, Ken Schweizer <kensch888@...> wrote:

Although "our" group will not be directly affected if this idea is implemented, but the complexity of GROUPS.IO's software will become more complex to fix an issue most "owners" have already fixed by having two or more "co-owners".  Adding unnecessary complexity to anything rarely if ever is looked back on as a good decision.

If an owner is concerned about a co-owner deleting him/her there seems to be a far bigger problem, the choice of members.
 
Ken S.
 
"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." God
 
From: GroupManagersForum@groups.io [mailto:GroupManagersForum@groups.io] On Behalf Of Duane
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2021 7:19 PM
To: GroupManagersForum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [GMF] orphaned group
 
On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 06:58 PM, Michael Pavan wrote:
I still do not understand why anyone who would be unaffected should object.

GMF is for discussion, so both sides are allowed (within reason.)  I don't see any reason the existing mechanism doesn't or won't work.  I brought groups over here from YG, but the original groups stayed there.  These aren't MY groups, they belong to the members.  I just found a home for them, fortunately, well ahead of the loss of YG.  I do know many groups that were brought over, but most, if not all, of them have got several owners/mods to carry on.  (I can't think of one off-hand that doesn't.)

My suggestion is for you (or anyone that feels the same) to make your suggestion on the beta group if you don't want any objections voiced.  Mark has asked, and incorporated into the guidelines, "Avoid posting negative replies such as “I wouldn’t use this” or “I don’t see how that’d be useful” or “That would cause a mess,” etc., which are not helpful to anyone."  He has also added, "include as much detail as possible that explains why you think the feature is needed or what problem it would solve" for suggestions, so a very detailed description is more apt to be noticed.

Duane
-- 



locked Re: orphaned group

Duane
 

On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 06:11 AM, txercoupemuseum.org wrote:
When you refer to “…the guidelines…”, is this applicable only to the beta group or also to GMF?
Those are the beta guidelines.  GMF has it's own.

Duane
--
Lots of detailed information can be found in the Owners Manual and Members Manual.


locked Re: orphaned group

txercoupemuseum.org
 

When you refer to “…the guidelines…”, is this applicable only to the beta group or also to GMF?  

Mark says ""Avoid posting negative replies such as “I wouldn’t use this” or “I don’t see how that’d be useful” or “That would cause a mess,” etc., which are not helpful to anyone.

When you say:  "I don't see any reason the existing mechanism doesn't or won't work.”, that’s not functionally different from the “I don’t see how that’d be useful” we are supposed to avoid.

WRB

— 

On Nov 14, 2021, at 7:18 PM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 06:58 PM, Michael Pavan wrote:
I still do not understand why anyone who would be unaffected should object.
GMF is for discussion, so both sides are allowed (within reason.)  I don't see any reason the existing mechanism doesn't or won't work.  

(snip)

My suggestion is for you (or anyone that feels the same) to make your suggestion on the beta group if you don't want any objections voiced.  Mark has asked, and incorporated into the guidelines, "Avoid posting negative replies such as “I wouldn’t use this” or “I don’t see how that’d be useful” or “That would cause a mess,” etc., which are not helpful to anyone.” (Snip)

Duane
--


locked Re: orphaned group

Ken Schweizer
 

Although "our" group will not be directly affected if this idea is implemented, but the complexity of GROUPS.IO's software will become more complex to fix an issue most "owners" have already fixed by having two or more "co-owners".  Adding unnecessary complexity to anything rarely if ever is looked back on as a good decision.

If an owner is concerned about a co-owner deleting him/her there seems to be a far bigger problem, the choice of members.

 

Ken S.

 

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." God

 

From: GroupManagersForum@groups.io [mailto:GroupManagersForum@groups.io] On Behalf Of Duane
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2021 7:19 PM
To: GroupManagersForum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [GMF] orphaned group

 

On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 06:58 PM, Michael Pavan wrote:

I still do not understand why anyone who would be unaffected should object.

GMF is for discussion, so both sides are allowed (within reason.)  I don't see any reason the existing mechanism doesn't or won't work.  I brought groups over here from YG, but the original groups stayed there.  These aren't MY groups, they belong to the members.  I just found a home for them, fortunately, well ahead of the loss of YG.  I do know many groups that were brought over, but most, if not all, of them have got several owners/mods to carry on.  (I can't think of one off-hand that doesn't.)

My suggestion is for you (or anyone that feels the same) to make your suggestion on the beta group if you don't want any objections voiced.  Mark has asked, and incorporated into the guidelines, "Avoid posting negative replies such as “I wouldn’t use this” or “I don’t see how that’d be useful” or “That would cause a mess,” etc., which are not helpful to anyone."  He has also added, "include as much detail as possible that explains why you think the feature is needed or what problem it would solve" for suggestions, so a very detailed description is more apt to be noticed.

Duane
--
Lots of detailed information can be found in the Owners Manual and Members Manual.


locked Re: orphaned group

Frances
 

On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 10:33 PM, Tommy Meehan wrote:
Just curious: how many owners does GMF have?
Three (3) owners plus one owner has a second email address, also as owner. Plus a few others as moderators with more limited functions.

Frances
 
--
Help available from Groups.io help and GMF wiki.

 


locked Re: orphaned group

Tommy Meehan
 

Just curious: how many owners does GMF have?

tommy0421


locked Re: orphaned group

Duane
 

On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 06:58 PM, Michael Pavan wrote:
I still do not understand why anyone who would be unaffected should object.
GMF is for discussion, so both sides are allowed (within reason.)  I don't see any reason the existing mechanism doesn't or won't work.  I brought groups over here from YG, but the original groups stayed there.  These aren't MY groups, they belong to the members.  I just found a home for them, fortunately, well ahead of the loss of YG.  I do know many groups that were brought over, but most, if not all, of them have got several owners/mods to carry on.  (I can't think of one off-hand that doesn't.)

My suggestion is for you (or anyone that feels the same) to make your suggestion on the beta group if you don't want any objections voiced.  Mark has asked, and incorporated into the guidelines, "Avoid posting negative replies such as “I wouldn’t use this” or “I don’t see how that’d be useful” or “That would cause a mess,” etc., which are not helpful to anyone."  He has also added, "include as much detail as possible that explains why you think the feature is needed or what problem it would solve" for suggestions, so a very detailed description is more apt to be noticed.

Duane
--
Lots of detailed information can be found in the Owners Manual and Members Manual.


locked Re: orphaned group

txercoupemuseum.org
 

The “previous question” is irrelevant to the subject.  Those with members in “common cause” are somewhat democratic.  Those who must thrash a subject until truth (or it is "agreed to disagree”) emerges require stronger, wiser moderation.

Push come to shove, I believe most groups here are possessions of a founder/manager.  Common sense and clarity dictate one, and ONLY one individual speak with finality on behalf of each group, however determined and agreed between Groups.io and said individual.  To have multiples (as in “equal super-moderators”) is to interject uncertainty into a relationship that should. Ideally, be free of such.

An Owner is the singular “official” spokesman for a group.  He/she brought the group here, and can take it elsewhere ion and when circumstances, in THEIR sole opinion, so warrant.  This is why some of us strongly believe it in the best MUTUAL  interests of BOTH Groups.io (i.e. Mark Fletcher) AND said owner to have a succession option.

Best!

WRB

— 

On Nov 14, 2021, at 4:56 PM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 04:31 PM, Michael Pavan wrote:
The current 'one-size-fits-all solution' of having to work around having no Owner Succession feature by an Owner giving up ultimate, undivided control of their group(s) clearly does not satisfy all.
That hasn't been the situation since last year.  You can have a mod with all permissions and you're still 100% in control unless/until you make them a co-owner.  Now that no mod can remove any owner (though they used to be able to remove all except the last owner) it's even better.

This current 'solution' obviously is not working well, or this topic would not be a recurring issue.
There are two reasons for it not to work - people won't use it or they don't know about it (not reading the manual.)

My previous question remains unanswered.  What can an owner do that a mod with all permissions can't, other than promote/demote an owner and delete the group?

Duane
--
Lots of detailed information can be found in the Owners Manual and Members Manual.


1621 - 1640 of 41303