It was under Admin > Settings but I did not realize that there were tabs beside Settings once you got to that page. Selecting the Notices tab did the trick.

开云体育

Beth,

>>> I want the mod to be able to add members to the subgroup but only if they are already members of the main group.
?
You'd like a system-enforced way of doing this in other words because a manual protocol-based way already exists (don't use Invite if you're a subgroup mod, only DirectAdd) in which case a beta #suggestion is your only option, based on current functionality.?

The problem exists because in the main group mod's settings, there is the "Invite Members" option which controls the display/enabling of the Invite option but only Owners see the DirectAdd option; in the subgroups however there's some inconsistency, there is no "Invite Members" setting but it's "replaced" with "Add Members", which now controls the subgroup display/enabling of both the DirectAdd (from main group) option (correct) and Invite option (not really correct if you think about it).? The way it works now may had made sense initially, before the subgroup and main membership requirement was introduced, and maybe it was an oversight/wasn't mentioned/anticipated at the time, I don't know.

The absolute quickest way to fix this would be to change the subgroup mod's "Add Members" text to say "Invite Members", as with the leaving the existing functionality that will remove the subgroup "Invite" option; but it would also remove the subgroup "DirectAdd" option which can make a subgroup mod less functional/capable overall, if they are also supposed to (direct)add members, so this would not be a good fix really.

The other very quick way to fix this with a 1-2 line of code change is to always hide/disable the "Invite" option for subgroups altogether for everyone but the owners.? This will bring the "Add Members" text closer to what may really be meant, i.e. "Add Members" really means "(Direct)Add (existing main group) Members (only)"; it will also move the main vs sub group functionality/behavior in that regard closer together.

Lastly, the most correct and granular but more work solution, add an "Invite Members" setting as well for subgroup mods below the "Add Members" setting, and adjust the display/enabling of "DirectAdd" and "Invite" options in subgroups based on these two settings.

Now regardless of the above, I wonder, why don't you want to allow the subgroup mod to invite folks to the subgroup?? If you think about it, in the end it's the same thing: whether a subgroup mod invited someone to a specific subgroup, or a main group mod invited a member (for the purposes of adding them to the subgroup) and then added them to the subgroup, the same end result in effect takes place, in both cases the member gets added to the subgroup and gets added to the main group by no choice, so why fight it?? So knowing that the Invite option is there for subgroup mods and cannot be turned off currently (without crippling the subgroup mod), and assuming you could allow the subgroup mod to invite people to the subgroup "only" since "might as well, same deal", Why not use something like the inelegant-can-work protocol-based solution below to accomplice this:

1. Add the subgroup mod to the main group mod pool as well (no need for notifs, etc), and in their main group mod settings, set only the "View Member List" option checked; possibly also set the "Set Member Subscription Options" setting as well, depending on...(*1)

2. Per protocol, before the subgroup mod sends the invitation from the subgroup, they check the main group member list to see if that email address is already a main group member, and:

- If Yes, no invite is sent but the subgroup mod just DirectAdds that member using the subgroup's DirectAdd option.

- If No, go ahead and send the invite from the subgroup; after the invitee accepts, in addition to any new-member tasks that now may already take place, the subgroup mod edits the invitee's main group subscription and sets it to "lurker" mode, again depending on (*1) -- or if as a matter of protocol you don't want them to do it in this case but leave it to a higher-privileged main group mod to handle it, then I guess the subgroup mod is only permitted to do as far as step 2-Yes and that's it.

Cheers,
Christos

(*1) I guess it would depend on what the default/minimum subscription option is on the main group; if None or Special, then no need for that second setting, but if anything higher (which would cause the new subgroup member to unwittingly also start getting main group messages), regardless of whether a main group mod adds a subgroup new member or a sub group mod invite-adds a subgroup new member, it shouldn't be up to the member to go and set their main group subscription to none/special (after all they didn't ask to be added to the main group); a mod should do that for them(*2) to make the subgroup-only invite addition seamless; now whether the capability and task of that is given to the subgroup mod, or no capability is given to them and they have to notify a more-privileged main group mod to do so for them, depends on your desired protocol.

(*2) this fact IMO should also be communicated to the new member so they know they were also added to the main group (cause no choice in that) but their main group subscription was set to None/whatever, just in case they may be interested in also engaging with the main group, in which case, they should also be reminded to now reset their main group subscription options themselves to their desired options.

When I renamed the group the web appearance and regular message formatting all changed as expected, but the welcome message when you join the group still has the old name and addresses. Maybe I am blind, but I cannot find a way to edit the welcome message.

Samuel,

Very impressive tad bit of work.? Even some of your well thought out assumptions are very plausible.?

When our group left Yahoo and came here, we opted to do the transfer ourselves.? Yahoo had 2,793 members over the 35+ years including GeoCities history.? IF we did a membership ADD to GroupsIO, those members may have been dead emails or even deceased people by upwards of 50%.? So, notices went out multiple times on Yahoo over various months and weeks before the FULL closure in 2020 over the entire year.?

Fast forward to today, we are still a healthy group with about 160+ members with no direct ADD.? A clean slate I must say.? This is prior to Mark's pricing program.?? Our community is averaging on good months over 100 messages and on weaker months just over 30.? Winter tends to be a popular time for posting as more people are indoors.

In your tabulations, our group does swing the median a tad with the spikes of members from the 150 to 160 range and the posted messages. ?

BMaverick

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 11:50 AM, Paula wrote:

Unfortunately the Google search result entry apparently shows "enough" of the deleted message to be of concern for this member.

Is there any way for a group admin (such as myself) to eliminate whatever is generating the Google each result showing this message?

See??for instructions on how to induce Google to re-crawl pages. Be advised that it will not happen immediately.

You can help mitigate recurrence of this problem by making your group's message archive private.?/helpcenter/ownersmanual/1/customizing-group-settings/privacy-settings?

Regards,
Bruce?

---

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

A member requested deletion of her messages from the group (I think it was prompted by a personal safety concern). We immediately deleted her posts.

Today she emailed saying that she Googled her name and found a reference to a deleted message appear in the Google search results. If one clicks on the Google result, you are taken to the group but the message of concern isn't shown; this also is true if you click for the cached version of the message.

Unfortunately the Google search result entry apparently shows "enough" of the deleted message to be of concern for this member.

Is there any way for a group admin (such as myself) to eliminate whatever is generating the Google each result showing this message? Or is this search entry the result of Google's search engine picking up the message before it was deleted, and there's nothing we can do at the group end to remove this search result?

Thanks for any help.

Paula

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 10:56 AM, WBennett wrote:

I see that there hasn't been any improvement in the "deleting photos from the Emailed Photos folder" function.
I've just done about 20 and gave up because it STILL is selecting the next or previous photo, instead of the one I click on.

Browsers will often serve the thumbnail images from your local cache instead of the site. For this reason you have to refresh the thumbnail page between deletions.

See?/g/GroupManagersForum/wiki/7120?for full instructions.

Regards,
Bruce

---

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

开云体育

I see that there hasn't been any improvement in the "deleting photos from the Emailed Photos folder" function.
I've just done about 20 and gave up because it STILL is selecting the next or previous photo, instead of the one I click on.
When I wrote previously (some time last year) I was given some tips on how to go back to the original page after deleting and I had kept those emails in my mail program, however Thunderbird decided to throw a fit one day and totally wiped a couple of my sub folders from both my computer and my IMAP web mail, so I had no way of getting them again.
Could you please give me a link to any help file regarding this problem?
I'm in the process of searching the archived messages but haven't yet found what I want, thought it would be quicker to ask again... lol
Many thanks.
Win

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 12:40 PM, Beth Weld wrote:

I want the mod to be able to add members to the subgroup but only if they are already members of the main group. It sounds like I can't do that

No and that's because the Add Members permission for a Mod in a subgroup also opens up the Invite option.? If they were separate permissions you could grant the Add (which allows adding of main group members) without giving Invite also.

Regards
Andy

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 12:06 AM, <alee@...> wrote:

Here is the issue, some members are active, some are not, and seeing if there is an easy way to trim the non-active members each year by asking them to re-authenticate when they post, a script by which I can do this with an API, or if there is a function I am not aware of?

If you have a list of members recorded elsewhere (an Excel spreadsheet or whatever), you can use one of the member sync functions on a periodic basis. Instructions beginning at?/helpcenter/ownersmanual/1/managing-members/syncing-group-members-with-slack-teams?single=true?

If you have a Premium/Enterprise group, syncing can be accomplished by uploading a file containing the member information, one entry per line. Basic groups can only sync with a Slack team (I do not have experience with Slack teams).

Hope this helps,
Bruce

---

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

On 07/01/2021 13:25, Beth Weld wrote:

I want the mod to be able to add members to the subgroup but only if they are already members of the main group.

This sounds sensible to me. If someone is a member of the main group, it means that they have already passed some form of vetting.

I'd actually like to be able to turn of the Invitations feature for the main group and all subgroups, but that is a bit granular for the suggestion box in Beta.

Well, one alternative is to disable invitation permissions for the subgroup moderators but to create a template that moderators can send directly to invitees via their personal e-mail, that essentially tells the recipient how to join.

This is not a true "invitation" since the recipient would still have to do something manually in order to join, but it can be made to contain information that would otherwise be sent to people who get invited.

It does not appear to be possible for moderators to send messages or noticed to non-members via Groups.io, so the subgroup moderator would have to send the customized template via his own personal e-mail.

Samuel

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 12:40 PM, Beth Weld wrote:

I'd actually like to be able to turn of the Invitations feature for the main group and all subgroups, but that is a bit granular for the suggestion box in Beta.

No need to go anywhere near beta; just turn off Moderators' ability to invite or add new members.

Chris

Thanks everyone,
I want the mod to be able to add members to the subgroup but only if they are already members of the main group. It sounds like I can't do that, and I think I vaguely remember the discussions about the duplicate invitations.? Back to the drawing board. I'd actually like to be able to turn of the Invitations feature for the main group and all subgroups, but that is a bit granular for the suggestion box in Beta.
Thanks again
Beth

On 06/01/2021 21:00, Bruce Bowman wrote:

[Edited Message Follows]
[Reason: I got "median" (middle value) mixed up with "mode" (most common value). Sorry.]

In almost all of my analyses, the mode is always the lowest number. So, for groups with 11-1000 members, the mode is 11. This statistic simply tells us that groups have lower numbers before they have higher numbers, which is perfectly logical and should be unsurprising since 99% of groups start at 0 members and then grow from there :-) :-)

I'm not even sure if median is a useful thing to look at here. The issue that I raised that resulted in this sub-thread is not whether Mark's model is profitable, but whether Mark's model is ideal for the types of [idealistic?] groups that I was thinking of.

Samuel

alee,

Jim wrote:

IMHO, however, I recommend replacing "re-authenticate" with "maintain
membership" as there is no authentication involved.

I'll nominate "renew" or "renewal", as that's a familiar term used with other types of subscriptions (e.g. magazines).

Shal


--
Help: /helpcenter
More Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Even More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list

Marina,

Before removing them, however, I wonder: can a member with a (red or
blue) bouncing account still access the group and read messages via
web?

I believe the answer is no - they get a dialog on the site that asks them to unbounce their account before they can access group functions.

Shal


--
Help: /helpcenter
More Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Even More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list

Beth,

I can't say this is a bug - I can certainly say that it is not
behavior that I want to happen.

As Andy said, it is by design.

The intent is that when you want a person to be a member of the subgroup you (and the invitee) don't have to go through the Invite process twice: first for the primary group and then all over again for the Subgroup.

With Direct add you do it somewhat the other way around: you Direct Add the person to the primary group, with the intended subgroup(s) checkmarked.

It is possible that a sensible #suggestion for beta would be to have Invite work like Direct Add. I haven't really thought about it that way, so I'm not sure if it would introduce any issues or more confusion.

I'm not sure how to lock down the main group so that subgroups can't
add members. Am I missing a setting?

Anything you want to lock down about a subgroup, you generally do though the subgroup's Settings page, not the primary's. The only exception I can think of offhand is the ability to create subgroups.

Shal


--
Help: /helpcenter
More Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Even More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list

Ken,

In the pricing plan Mark has defined the three list types by member
size:

We bumped into this in the beta list, but I don't think that the number of members defines the plan.

While it is true that in Mark's initial post Basic has no option for additional members; with Premium and Enterprise it is only a question of what feature set you want. I do not believe there's any reason you couldn't create a 80 member Enterprise group or a 8,000 member Premium group under the new pricing policy (if you can afford it).

The Enterprise plan far exceeds are needs as do the costs exceed are
ability to pay. The list would disband it forced to upgrade to
Enterprise level.

As I said, I really do not believe that would be the case, regardless of your number of members. If it were, Mark should have said that Premium would have a cap of 1000 members, but that's not anywhere in what he said. Moreover, Mark effectively approved of Peter's chart, which shows Premium extending out to 3,000 members:


Shal


--
Help: /helpcenter
More Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Even More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list

Beth,

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 10:14 PM, Samuel Murray wrote:

We're going off-topic here, but I'll pitch in anyway

I don't think we are, and "excellent" in that order!

IMHO what you have produced does rather suggest that Mark's published figures take too simplistic a view of what is actually going on. I'm not suggesting that he is wrong, just that his published figures are not properly representative.

I know that Mark closed the beta topic on the subject, but could I suggest that you start a new one (Further Analysis of Group Memberships, perhaps) in the hope that he might consider an upward revision of his proposed 100 member limit for free groups on the grounds that "100" does not really reflect the true position.

I know this shunts the responsibility on to you, but it would be wrong for anyone to plagiarise* your work and use it themselves.

* Even if it is called "research" as suggested by Tom Lehrer...

Chris