¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

  1. GroupManagersForum
  2. Messages
Expanded Topics Messages Polls
Date
Re: Asking members to trim trailing quotes, versus automation

Scott Bonacker
 

Thanks for the history lesson on a word, I think.

In the groups that I participate in, there are some who edit their replies every time, some who edit only when the tail gets obnoxiously long, and the vast majority who just top post and ignore everything below. A few reply without any historical context which is another problem.

For the most part, unless they are using an email client on a computer with a full kb and mouse I think it is a too much to expect any editing. Don't fully trust automation although converting html to plain text, and then deleting extra cr-lf's would go a long way.

Scott Bonacker CPA ¨C McCullough and Associates LLC ¨C Springfield, MO

-----Original Message-----
From: Shal Farley
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 1:56 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [GMF] Asking members to trim trailing quotes, versus automation

[note: I tried to change the subject of Xaun Loc's post while pending, but ran in to a bug. Apparently editing a plain text post while pending causes it to collapse into one wrapped paragraph.]

Xaun Loc,

> And the point of my reply was that expecting software to overcome the > enormous variety of email formats and universally determine what is > and isn't a quote is asking for a level of Artificial Intelligence > that far exceeds what can be reliably accomplished.

That point was far from evident from your initial terse reply. Be that as it may I will concede that coping with all the variations that exist and will crop up will be an ongoing challenge for the software developer.
Re: Asking members to trim trailing quotes, versus automation

 

[note: I tried to change the subject of Xaun Loc's post while pending, but ran in to a bug. Apparently editing a plain text post while pending causes it to collapse into one wrapped paragraph.]

Xaun Loc,

And the point of my reply was that expecting software to overcome the
enormous variety of email formats and universally determine what is
and isn't a quote is asking for a level of Artificial Intelligence
that far exceeds what can be reliably accomplished.
That point was far from evident from your initial terse reply. Be that as it may I will concede that coping with all the variations that exist and will crop up will be an ongoing challenge for the software developer.

Meanwhile, accomplishing what is actually needed (trimming
ridiculously excessive quotes) takes only a few seconds for a human -
especially since the human only has to deal with the one (or perhaps
two at most) email system(s) that they use.
Here I'll have to disagree.

My own experience (with the Gmail app on a Nexus 5 phone) is that in some interfaces it is very awkward to try and trim quoted matter. And the more ridiculously excessive the tail the more tedious and error-prone the effort becomes.

When this subject came up in beta@ several people observed that with other mobile devices (iPhone, I believe) there did not appear to be any means to trim quotes from prior replies.

So the ellipses button in the web site, and the auto-trimming of messages in digest, grew as a software response by Groups.io to an externally imposed software problem: inadequate user afordances in mobil mail interfaces.

That it also happens to address an ongoing user behavior issue is an important synergy, but it is not the actual need that drove implementation of the feature.


A related question (one dear to some members here) is: given that the mechanism exists, is there any point in asking members to trim trailing quotes, or in enfocing that through moderation?

I do apologize if the word "snowflake" offended either of you - but
it is THE one word which clearly and concisely identifies the source
of the problem.
Aside from it being politically charged, I don't believe it applies to this behavior of group members, in either its historical or current connotations. However, much as I love words and wordcraft, GMF is not the place for exploring the proper application of that word. So I'll leave you with this (from which I learned more than I ever wanted to know about the word "snowflake"):


Shal
Asking members to trim trailing quotes, versus automation

 

From: Shal Farley
That aside, J's complaint about your reply is that you didn't address her question - which was about the functioning of Groups.io's software.
And the point of my reply was that expecting software to overcome the enormous variety of email formats and universally determine what is and isn't a quote is asking for a level of Artificial Intelligence that far exceeds what can be reliably accomplished.

Meanwhile, accomplishing what is actually needed (trimming ridiculously excessive quotes) takes only a few seconds for a human - especially since the human only has to deal with the one (or perhaps two at most) email system(s) that they use.

For example, I had originally started to include more of your message in my reply, which would have included a multi-level quote in multiple blocks, but I recognized that doing so would have almost certainly ensured that the software would NOT process it correctly. By limiting my reply to a single level of quote, all in one block, the message is entirely readable without any automatic trimming AND is able to survive automatic trimming.

I do apologize if the word "snowflake" offended either of you - but it is THE one word which clearly and concisely identifies the source of the problem.
Re: forcing HTML email

 
Edited

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 08:47 am, J_Catlady wrote: > > You don't mean that both parts are sent, though, correct? >

In an HTML email, at least two parts are included in every email. There's the formatted part with color, text size, etc., and the plain text part, both of which are sent. The email program used and the operator's preferences determine which part is shown on the screen. A plain text email only has the plain part with no formatting. You should be able to look at the source code of any email to see what is included.

Duane
Re: Splitting thread problem?

J_Catlady
 

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 06:25 am, LeeAnne Bloye wrote:
I went to the first message after the post and chose split thread.

In addition to what Brian just explained about surgically extracting one or more posts from a thread and splitting them off, I think the key here is your word "after" - in "after the post." If you want a post to make it into a new thread (i.e., to start the new thread), you have to split starting AT that post, not after it.

J
Re: forcing HTML email

J_Catlady
 

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 05:40 pm, Shal Farley wrote:
On the other hand, this message was sent in plain text and the ellipses worked. So perhaps it has to do with particular quoting styles in plain text.

Interesting that that one worked. Not sure whether by quoting styles you're implying there were quotes in the messages causing problems, but there are no quotes in the messages that have been causing the problems in my group.?

an incoming message with only a text/plain message body is converted to one which has both the text/plain original and a text/HTML conversion as MIME multipart/alternatives.

You don't mean that both parts are sent, though, correct?

maybe the failing cases are fodder for [email protected]

I'll email support. Thanks.

J
Re: Splitting thread problem?

Brian Vogel
 

LeeAnne,

? ? ? ? ? ?You often have to do a couple of iterations of split followed by merge when you're trying to "hack a single post" out of a thread and integrate it in to another.

? ? ? ? ? ?If the post that didn't happen to make it is now the last one in the old thread this is the easiest situation where you would split that single post off and then merge it back in to the thread you want it to be a part of.

? ? ? ? ? ?If it's not, then you have to split the tail off of the old thread with that post being the first one in the split. ?Then split that new thread's tail off right after that singleton that you want to move. ?Then merge the singleton into the thread where you want it. ?Then merge the tail of that new thread you created to get the singleton back into the first one.

? ? ? ? ? ?There has been some discussion on beta asking about making it possible to designate a post or sequence of posts from a given thread as "the object" to be split from it and merged into another when that sequence is not necessarily the tail of a given thread, but part of the middle of it. ?I can't recall if that idea got any traction or not at the moment.
Re: forcing HTML email

 

Thanks so much Shal! ?
--
-LeeAnne

?Archivist
Splitting thread problem?

 

Hi all,

So for the first time I tried splitting a thread. ?A member (Becky Ferry)replied to a calendar post ?and several messages were exchanged. ?


I went to the first message after the post and chose split thread. ?It worked great BUT the message posted by the member did not make the move and now I can't get it into the thread. (Pic below shows that split thread is not available now) ?Not sure if this is normal and I don't understand thread splitting?




--
-LeeAnne

?Archivist
Re: forcing HTML email

 

J, LeeAnne,

Questions: (1) is this a known bug?
Don't know, hadn't noticed. Though I usually post in plain text, I also use inline quoting and so seldom leave anything for the ellipses to cover up.

On the other hand, this message was sent in plain text and the ellipses worked. So perhaps it has to do with particular quoting styles in plain text.
/g/GroupManagersForum/message/1330

What does this actually do?
It causes any arriving plain text message to be converted to a formatted message.

More exactly, an incoming message with only a text/plain message body is converted to one which has both the text/plain original and a text/HTML conversion as MIME multipart/alternatives.

(2) what are the downsides to
using the setting "force HTML email"?
One downside is that it converts a plain-text quote (the kind I use, with > on the left) into an HTML blockquote - but doesn't style it to include the customary vertical bar on the left. At least, not when received by email - the bar does appear on site at Groups.io (probably by way of an overall page style).

A minor downside might be the increased size of the message, containing over twice as much body text. But this is likely to be negligible in most cases.

It might have an effect on vision-impaired users, good or bad. The converted message will use a default font and size for HTML, which may not be the same as that used for plain text, depending on the receiving member's email interface.

Most might consider it an upside that the converted message will have the formatted style of group links in the footer, rather than the plain text style.

Just wondering these things too, and if the ellipses algorithm (what
ever that is!) ...
You can see it at work on the message cited above. Joseph's reply is followed by an ellipses button [...]. You can toggle that button to see or hide a trailing quote (of the message he replied to) which was in his reply.

... can be tweaked to work for the plain text emailers?
It doesn't always fail. I think it is supposed to work, so maybe the failing cases are fodder for [email protected]

Shal
Re: forcing HTML email

 

All,

[Mod note: if GMF were not a welcoming place for opposing ideas
Xaun Loc's first reply in this topic would not have been approved.]
Further to this I want to say that we can disagree without being disagreeable about it. Let's try to stick to the business of helping each other manage our groups, and leave personal comments about other members unsaid.

Xaun Loc,

Thank you, J, for convincing me that the groups.io Group Managers
Forum is not a welcoming and accepting place in which to speak the
truth.
I don't assume that anyone here has a lock on the truth, especially not where concerns managing members and how best to cope with and/or educate them.

That aside, J's complaint about your reply is that you didn't address her question - which was about the functioning of Groups.io's software.

So let's see if we can put this topic back on track.

Shal
GMF Owner
Re: forcing HTML email

 

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 06:14 pm, J_Catlady wrote:

Members who post via email who are using plain text email end up with non-trimmed posts on the site - the ellipses algorithm is not working for them.

Questions: (1) is this a known bug? (2) what are the downsides to using the setting "force HTML email"? What does this actually do?

Just wondering these things too, ?and if the ?ellipses algorithm (what ever that is!) can be tweaked to work for the plain text emailers? ?

--
-LeeAnne

?Archivist
Re: forcing HTML email

  

[Mod note: if GMF were not a welcoming place for opposing ideas 
 Xaun Loc's first reply in this topic would not have been approved.]

Thank you, J, for convincing me that the groups.io Group Managers Forum is not a welcoming and accepting place in which to speak the truth.
?
In retiring I might note that the two major topics of recent discussion have consisted of seeking ways to work around recurring user errors because the users are either unable or unwilling to follow simple email procedures and network etiquette that had been well known and common standards for four decades years or more.
?

From: J_Catlady
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 16:23 PM
Subject: Re: [GMF] forcing HTML email
?

Thank you, LeeAnne. I, too, feel offended by these constant disrespectful references to group members.

J

?
Re: forcing HTML email

J_Catlady
 

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 04:40 am, Xaun Loc wrote:
Perhaps someone should tell the poor little snowflakes to TRIM THEIR OWN REPLIES.

Perhaps someone should tell certain other poor little snowflakes that this was not my question. ?

J
Re: Main group name and deleting subgroup

 

Sharon,

A better system would be

[subgroup].[group]@groups.io
[subgroup]@[group].groups.io

Pretty close to the same thing. ;-)

I don't recall the details at the moment, but way back in beta@ there was a discussion of how to write the addresses for subgroups. I think in those discussions there may be the pros and cons of using either . or - or + as a separator to the left of the @ sign.

There was also a discussion of the "subdomain" approach which was eventually adopted. I think it may have won out because it was in line with his plans for enterprise level groups.

Shal
Re: Main group name and deleting subgroup

 

On Feb 7, 2017, at 3:05 PM, Sharon Villines <sharon@...> wrote:

We won¡¯t have other subgroups because of the addressing. It isn¡¯t natural in email and causes too much confusion for 3,000 members.
A better system would be

[subgroup].[group]@groups.io

or

[group].[subgroup]@groups.io

Thanks for all your work Shal.

Sharon
----
[email protected]

Where Everyone Trims Their Tails,
Smothers Flames, Ignores Trolls, and
Never Sends Private Messages to the List.
Re: Main group name and deleting subgroup

 

On Feb 7, 2017, at 2:28 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:

My suggestion would be to embrace the subgroup addressing format. It will seem more natural when you have more than one subgroup.
We won¡¯t have other subgroups because of the addressing. It isn¡¯t natural in email and causes too much confusion for 3,000 members.

I¡¯ll try support.

Sharon
----
[email protected]

Where Everyone Trims Their Tails,
Smothers Flames, Ignores Trolls, and
Never Sends Private Messages to the List.
Re: Main group name and deleting subgroup

 

Sharon,

I deleted the subgroup because it caused name confusion over the new
address on the main group.

But how can I get the mail list to revert back to the simple address
¡ª [email protected]
The simple address continues to work inbound as an alias for the subdomain address, but as far as I know you cannot revert the primary group address to the simple form. That goes for web address as well as the email address.

Except perhaps by appeal to [email protected].

My suggestion would be to embrace the subgroup addressing format. It will seem more natural when you have more than one subgroup.

From Sharon's sig:

Where Everyone Trims Their Tails, Smothers Flames, Ignores Trolls,
and Never Sends Private Messages to the List.
Good advice for any group I think.

Shal
Re: SUBGROUP ADDRESS

 

Sharon,

Subgroup has this address. It¡¯s visual gibberish.

[email protected]
I read it as "grouppurchases at takomadc".

The way to look at is that takomadc.groups.io is the name of the organization, where grouppurchases is one of the addresses at that organization.

(In internet terminology, takomadc is a subdomain of groups.io, but that just means it is identified as a particular part of groups.io.)

Is there any other possibility for addresses on the subgroups?
No.

Has anyone else had problems with this?
With my PTA group I've just been careful to give the primary and subgroups compatible names. That is:

[email protected] - all members of our unit (the primary group)
[email protected] - the unit board members
[email protected] - the reflections committee
[email protected] - school staff who are members
[email protected] - school teachers who are members

Shal
Re: SUBGROUP ADDRESS

 

Sharon

Maybe look in to an enterprise option and use your own domain?

Maria
47801 - 47820 of 49144