You could have just given him a certain number of days to delete his posts

with the understanding that any that are left get transferred and after
that, he would have to contact io tech support to see about taking down the
rest of their messages.

Or, he/she could join the io group and delete the rest.

We offered him both those options. His reply was it was our problem not his
to delete them, he had no intention of joining the new group, and he would
issue a DMCA takedown request immediately if we did transfer any of his
postings.

I believe he did not want the group transferred and was trying to stop it
happening.

Noel

The photos on the previous version of our group on Yahoo were a complete mess so I was not too bothered about taking them across to io groups. But I'd hoped io might have better facilities for controlling the uploading of photos to prevent photos on the new group getting into the same state, but the improvements seem only marginal. The following are some observations and wishes from what I have tried (perhaps I've missed something).

A moderated user is allowed to upload photos - surely this is a bug? I can see moderating uploads of photos would be a lot of work, but at least disallow uploads when the user is moderated.

I want to restrict creation of new albums to moderators, but allow postings to some albums. I hoped setting "moderators can upload, users can view" at the group level and "Group access" at the album level would achieve this, but it does not allow users to upload to the album - I feel it ought, else the "Group access" option is meaningless when the overall setting is "only moderators can upload". Alternatively, a new "Only moderators can create albums" setting, but I don't like that as much.

The big change I would like is to be able to set up sub-albums. I would like setting up of albums at the top level to be able to be restricted to moderators, and for each of these albums to have a setting controlling the creation of sub-albums: moderators only; users can create with group access; users can create sub-albums with personal access (i.e. only they (and moderators) can upload).

For the present I've disallowed uploading photos, as the facility to post photos embedded in a message caters for a lot of cases and is searchable, but eventually I would like to be able to allow uploading photos.

Noel

Noel . . .


On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:01:40 +0100, "Noel Leaver"
<n.leaver@...> wrote:

We decided it was not worth the risk of trying to transfer postings - even if we had been able to filter out postings from that person someone else might later have objected. So we decided to leave all the messages and photos on Yahoo as an archive and start with an empty group on io groups.

You could have just given him a certain number of days to delete his
posts with the understanding that any that are left get transferred
and after that, he would have to contact io tech support to see about
taking down the rest of their messages.

Or, he/she could join the io group and delete the rest.

Just my opinion, but I would not let one person interfere with
transferring the group.

Donald

The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who
speak it. --George Orwell

David,

Just a quick addition to Shal's remarks. My group's transferred
messages contains a special header field called "X-Yahoo-Msgnum" that
should correspond to the original Yahoo message id.

That sounds like just the ticket. With a downloaded copy of the transferred messages it should be possible to write a simple program that extracts the corresponding numbers. Or do that by access to the archive online - depending on your tools.

Then another filter to update the file given that list of corresponding message numbers.

Shal

Sarah,

Not many messages would have been deleted but enough to throw the
message numbering each month by a few numbers. Is there anyway your
program writers can transfer the messages with exactly the same
numbering?

I don't work for Groups.io, so I can't speak to what's possible. For that you'd need to contact [email protected] - but it sounds like David has you covered for some of the technical details.

Shal

Hi Sarah,

Just a quick addition to Shal's remarks.? My group's transferred messages contains a special header field called "X-Yahoo-Msgnum" that should correspond to the original Yahoo message id. Hopefully we can figure out how to use that to help match files to links to the transferred messages. We would need to figure out how to create an automated script to do it, but hopefully that's doable.

It's also possible to download the archives of a Groups.io group. That also might help automate the process. The trick will be to be sure that we can correctly match the Yahoo ID to the Groups.io message number that is used to reference the message.

We may need some help from the Groups.io support people. I'm hoping that we can convince them to do a trial transfer of your group so we can work things out in advance.

You won't need to post your file here, since I am also a member of your group. The file in question contains links corresponding to Yahoo message numbers. The only technical problem is the matching that I discussed above.

David.

Noel

Shal

Noel,

... but one objected strongly to any of his posts being transferred,
claiming copyright, and said if we did transfer them he would issue a
DMCA takedown notice on io groups.

There's one in every crowd.

We decided it was not worth the risk of trying to transfer postings -
even if we had been able to filter out postings from that person
someone else might later have objected.

I Am Not A Lawyer, but - so what?

As a matter of courtesy to objecting members I would probably delete their messages after the transfer. Or if there's too many of them inquire about a way to do that in bulk.

But as to DMCA threats...

My understanding of the DMCA safe harbor provisions is that curing such a notice is as simple as deleting the messages. Too, if your group's messages are not public I'm not sure that DMCA even applies; but that's a subtlety where a lawyer might have a field day.

Mark did give some consideration to this topic when first setting up the group transfer process. His conclusion was that he'd handle the DCMA take-down notices if and when they happen.


Shal

Sarah,

c) for that particular file, whether it could be re-downloaded with
some small programming changes to direct links to messages of the
same numbers in the io group.

As I said, I don't think you can rely on them being the same numbers.

Depending on how many messages are involved it might not be too difficult to set up a table (in Excel or similar) that maps the Y!Group numbers to the I/O group numbers. I would expect discontinuities wherever a Y!Group message had been deleted prior to the transfer.

If you think any of the other owner/moderators would have further
ideas, grateful if you could bring it to their attention.

You just did. I was referring to the other members of GMF. ;-)

Shal

Shal

Thanks for your prompt reply.

开云体育

Sarah,

One files contains a large number of headings and under each heading,
thanks to a specially designed program we use, a lot of highlighted
numbers of past messages in the archives which, when tapped,
automatically takes the reader to those past messages.

Will this file with all its huge volume of data be transferred?

I would guess that the file itself will transfer ok.

However the links in it would not be automatically updated - they would continue to point to the Yahoo Group's archive.

Moreover, I don't think that the transfer process guarantees that messages get the same number in the Groups.io group that they had in the Yahoo Group. So manual or programmatic updating of the links might not be a simple substitution of one link format for another.

I can send details of the list and the file section if it helps.

You may, if you don't mind that information posted publicly (GMF's archives are open to the public). Some of GMF's otehr members may have experience to relate about transferring groups with lots of files or large files. I myself haven't done that.

Another resource would be [email protected] - to get details on authority.

Shal

Scott,

I wrote:

So, I can imagine a few factors that may be relevant:

Connection performance (I have a 300 MBPS cable connection)

I was thinking, and it isn't the raw bits-per-second rate that likely matters. Rather the round-trip time for a message to sent from your browser to the site, the site to process it, and the response to come back to your browser.

This unfortunately is seldom measured or revealed. And can be hard to measure because it is usually even more variable than the effective bit rate. DSLReports includes a "bufferbloat" measurement, which is a measure of how badly your average trip-time is impacted by streaming data. Often the answer is: severely.


The also have a ping test which is a direct measurement of latency in your data connections:


The quality of your internet service matters, of course, but another factor, often overlooked, is the age and quality of your home router. Not too long ago I replaced an aging DSL-class router with one geared for higher transaction performance - it made a world of difference on a bunch of sites, particularly modern sites that tend to cram a lot of stuff onto each page.

I don't think Groups.io's pages are overstuffed (far from it) but the HTML editor could be particularly sensitive to transaction latency (round-trip time) if it is communicating with Groups.io's server on every keystroke.

Shal

Hi all,

This week's change log:


Feel free to reply to this topic if you'd like to comment on the changes. Or better yet, if you expect a lot of discussion start a new topic (or rejoin an existing one) about a specific change.


* Work on upgrading search to new software and new indices.

I'm in a state of high anticipation. I'd love to see a really good search/filter capability for all areas, but especially messages. One of the annoying issues with the current search feature is that you can't turn off the word root matching when you know the exact word or phrase you want to find. If it would even prioritize (list first) the exact matches it would be better

I'm also in a state of dread, because I've seen so many poor search features. A million ways to do it poorly.


* Allowing CSS font-family declarations in archive messages.

This fixed a bug I'd noticed: font selections made while composing a message were shown in the resulting email, but not when viewing the message in the group's messages page.


Comments about these others are also welcome:

* INTERNAL: Work on the API.
* SYSADMIN: Updated Elasticsearch nodes.
* BUGFIX: Replies in groups with a subdomain from the All Threads view were broken.
* CHANGE: Changed all split dropdowns to 'normal' dropdowns.
* INTERNAL: Doing commits more often in the cleaner cronjob to avoid shared memory issues with the database.


Please call out any you find significant.

Shal

John,

... a moderator asked me if there is any way that a group member can
hide his email address but not his name when posting?

There is not.

While their email addresses won't be shown on the Groups.io site, their address will be in the From: address of their postings when forwarded to members that receive group messages by email.

The best the member can do is create or use an anonymous email address for use in the group.

That is, go to a free email service (aol, gmail, hotmail, etc.) and create an email address that does not identify them. They can put a filter in the anonymous account to forward to their preferred email address, but this is still inconvenient because it means that they always have to sign in to that anonymous email, or to groups.io, to post or reply.

I believe I can make the member directory only visible to owners &
Moderators ...

Correct.

There was considerable discussion, some time ago, in the beta@ group about having anonymous groups - where no member's address would be seen or forwarded to any other member (only moderators would see them in the Members list).


The idea was controversial and hasn't been acted on. I haven't seen anything about them this year. It is on the to-do list though:


Shal

Scott,

which other places did you want me to try? I thought
it was just in the posts or in the search bar.

I was curious to see if you switched your post format preference to plain text if the problem would go away. In plain text mode a simple form filler is used rather than the new HTML editor.

Switch your Post Preference by going to your account preferences page (click on your name in the upper right to drop a menu, click on Account, click on Preferences in the left column). About midway down is a selector for your Post Preference - choose Plain Text then click the Update Preferences button at the bottom.

Make some tests with longer texts (Click the Discard button rather than Send if you don't want to clutter a group with the tests). Enough to be confident whether or not you're seeing the slowdown.

Then, if you prefer, go back to your Post Preference and return your Post Preference to HTML.

There has to be some issue with the new editor.

That seems to be the case, even though I'm not experiencing the slowdown. I'm hoping we can gather enough evidence to help Mark identify and hopefully correct the circumstances that result in a slowdown.

Noticed something new while typing this post. - as it is a longer
post than I've made in here, after it got to be 3-4 sentences long
the text stopped appearing at all.. I kept typing to see what would
happen and suddenly things "caught up" - a whole sentence appeared at
once.

That's the kind of buffering delay that used to happen in "ancient" times, working with old Intel 386 and 486 computers, with dialup modem connections. Not something anyone wants to go back to!

So, I can imagine a few factors that may be relevant:

Connection performance (I have a 300 MBPS cable connection)
Choice of browser (I'm using Firefox)
Choice of OS (I'm using either WinXP or Win10)
Speed/memory performance of computer (I'm using either a decade-old AMD Opteron at 2.8 GHz with 3 GB of RAM, or a recent Intel i5-6400 at 2.7 GHz and 8 GB of RAM).

Of those, my guess is that internet connection performance is the most likely factor to make a difference, with choice of browser being a close second. Since I don't see any difference using an older (high-end at the time) or modern (economy model) computer, I'm guessing that's the least likely factor.

I think the evidence is close to solid enough that I'd advise reporting your results to [email protected] to get it on the bug list. Include the factors above, and anything else you think might be relevant.

Shal

There's something else going on with this new (godforsaken IMO) editor that I just emailed Mark about. When editing a pending message, the HTML flashes by for a split second and then disappears. It's disconcerting.

J