Agreed, needless ambiguity is definitely confusing.It would seem logical to refer to the group by its URL rather than itsYes, and Mark was called on this recently in beta. I think it was the formatted Digest where the text of a link was the group's posting address but the URL under it was its home page. It did the "right" thing, but some felt it was confusing. | You have been invited by <me> to join the Groups.io group <groupname>@groups.io.unless a group permits non-subscribers to post, clicking on theIn the invitation those were not links, so they wouldn't take one anywhere. Outlook.com did make <groupname>@groups.io into a clickable link for /g/<groupname> Again why be confusing by needlessly mislabeling an address (a URL as an email address)? It actually took me to the group webpage where I was already signed in with a different email address... I would think it is more likely that a new subscribe would ratherTrue, which is why the only link in the invitation itself is the acceptance link. Which only takes you to the site (probably to your subscription page in the group, but I don't remember for certain); it does not also open a new message either on site or in your email interface..Yes, it didn¡¯t, but it looked like it should. Groups.io should strive to be clear and simple to understand and use. It is misguided laziness to forsake simple corrections because 'those in the know¡¯ understand that mislabeled items don¡¯t mean what they look like. At best that generates confusion the rest of us have to deal with. |