#233

From: Ro

As with my last suggestion, I dont understand the
resistance to having a setting available to owners
that doesnt impact those that dont want to click
on that setting.People are not resisting the idea of an OPTION -- people are ensuring that the folks who make decisions realize that it (whatever IT is) needs to BE an option - not merely a change - and (especially in the case of your earlier suggestion) that it needs to be a stand-alone option, not tied to some 'similar' setting.

Many of us have learned the simple truth that software designers look for the easiest way to implement ANYTHING - which generally means changing existing functions rather than adding more options.

And that when faced with a small minority clamoring for some specific change, those same software designers will often implement the change with zero regard for the SILENT majority who were perfectly happy the way things were.

Unfortunately it is almost always impossible to roll back a bad change, because the decision to roll back a bad change requires management to admit that they made a bad decision.   Many of us are here because of the repetitive cycle of BAD CHANGES at Yahoo.

#236

开云体育

Seems to me that here, and in Beta, ALL changes being requested are being done so by a small minority, and if these small minority did not post, there would be no changes at all.?? Thats sort of like life really.??

Frankly I dont see Mark as unwilling to recognize a bad change, or not roll it back, quite the opposite.?

I have been QUITE clear in both my requests that I wanted it as an option only in settings, with the original settings choices preserved for those who want it that way.? I dont see why people get confused about this.?? I dont try to insist that because I dont moderate my groups, that others shouldnt, nor should they have the option.? I believe people should have the options they need and want to make their groups easy to manage.? And that is all I have been asking in my requests.

You are right that HOW to implement it is important, but the majority of both my thread, and thread responses did not focus on this, but more on WHY I wanted such a change and people pointing out why they didnt need it, or why they felt I didnt need it, not on HOW the software should be implemented.??? In fact, not a single post in this thread on how to implement it, and likely that should be in Beta anyway where I have already posted.?

Ro

with Sally and Silk waiting at their feed dishes, and Handy, Feliz &? Police Kitty patrolling in the Great Beyond.

> From: xaunloc@...
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [GMF] editing posts
> Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 00:22:48 -0500
>
> From: Ro
>
> > As with my last suggestion, I dont understand the
> > resistance to having a setting available to owners
> > that doesnt impact those that dont want to click
> > on that setting.
>
> People are not resisting the idea of an OPTION -- people are ensuring that
> the folks who make decisions realize that it (whatever IT is) needs to BE an
> option - not merely a change - and (especially in the case of your earlier
> suggestion) that it needs to be a stand-alone option, not tied to some
> 'similar' setting.
>
> Many of us have learned the simple truth that software designers look for
> the easiest way to implement ANYTHING - which generally means changing
> existing functions rather than adding more options.
>
> And that when faced with a small minority clamoring for some specific
> change, those same software designers will often implement the change with
> zero regard for the SILENT majority who were perfectly happy the way things
> were.
>
> Unfortunately it is almost always impossible to roll back a bad change,
> because the decision to roll back a bad change requires management to admit
> that they made a bad decision. Many of us are here because of the
> repetitive cycle of BAD CHANGES at Yahoo.
>
>
>
>
>

#238

Xaun Loc,

People are not resisting the idea of an OPTION -- people are ensuring 
that the folks who make decisions realize that it (whatever IT is) needs 
to BE an option ...Well, not all people.

I'm considering the merits of having it as an option.

I'll agree with Ro on this: I'm not worried about Groups.io adopting a lazy but defective answer, nor making and sticking with a bad decision.

And also this: here we're just talking about it. Actual support or opposition, and suggested implementations, would go back to beta@ for Mark's attention.

-- Shal