|
Is there any way to resend the "Confirm your [address] email
address" message?
I'm the owner of a group that requires moderator approval of
membership requests.? On my "Pending Approval" membership list there
is someone listed with the "NC" (Not Confirmed) tag.? It has been
several days now, and I suspect they may have lost the message with
its individualized confirmation reply address (and its similarly
individualized confirmation web link).? Is there any way to resend
this message?? Note that this is not the same as the "Pending
Membership Notice" which can be resent.
I came across
(from 2016) which implies that it is possible to resend this
confirmation notice, but in 2018 it is not an option on my owner's
Pending Approval "Actions" menu.
If the applicant has indeed lost the original confirmation message
with its individualized links, what is their best recourse?? Can I
do anything as the owner to confirm the subscriber?
??????????????? -- Charlie
|
|
|
In Admin: Members
Click on the row (not the check box) of the Member with the “NC”
Scroll to bottom of page
Click on “Send Confirmation Email"
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Is there any way to resend the "Confirm your [address] email address" message?
I'm the owner of a group that requires moderator approval of membership requests. On my "Pending Approval" membership list there is someone listed with the "NC" (Not Confirmed) tag. It has been several days now, and I suspect they may have lost the message with its individualized confirmation reply address (and its similarly individualized confirmation web link). Is there any way to resend this message?
|
Thanks Michael and Bruce.? I should have found this myself, but I
have to say that the placement of this function is not intuitive.? I
had expected it to be on the "Actions" list on the pending members
page.? Still, my oversight.
??????????? -- Charlie
On 10/13/18 11:26 PM, Michael Pavan
wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
In Admin: Members
Click on the row (not the check box) of the Member with the “NC”
Scroll to bottom of page
Click on “Send Confirmation Email"
Is there any way to resend the "Confirm your [address] email address" message?
I'm the owner of a group that requires moderator approval of membership requests. On my "Pending Approval" membership list there is someone listed with the "NC" (Not Confirmed) tag. It has been several days now, and I suspect they may have lost the message with its individualized confirmation reply address (and its similarly individualized confirmation web link). Is there any way to resend this message?
|
On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Charlie at Duke wrote:
I had expected it to be on the "Actions" list on the pending members page.
You could suggest this on , the official suggestion box for the site.? I'm thinking that it's not on the pending member page because it's of no serious consequence unless they've become a member, but adding it to the Action list does make sense. Duane -- Help: /static/helpGMF's Wiki: /g/GroupManagersForum/wikiSearch button at the top of Messages list A few site FAQs: /static/pricing#frequently-asked-questions
|
Thanks for the suggestion, I did post a suggestion to the beta list.
On further reflection however, I think it's problematic for a "not
confirmed" subscriber to appear in the pending approval list in the
first place.? I never saw this with Yahoo.? Granted, joining
Groups.io and subscribing to a group are essentially separate
processes.? Even so, there is clearly a design feature here that I
don't yet understand.
I have observed that the system behaves differently depending on how
a subscription request is submitted. The following is all assuming
that the subscriber does not already have an established/confirmed
Groups.io account, as is often the case.? Also note that my group
requires moderator approval of new subscribers, and that the group
makes use of the "pending subscription" notice feature (a big time
saver).
Subscription via email: If a subscriber sends an email to
[ listname][email protected] they get a straightforward "reply to
confirm" return message.? At this initial point the group owner is
blissfully unawares.? Only after the subscriber replies
(confirming their Groups.io account) is when the system 1) puts the
subscriber on the group's pending approval list (with no "NC" tag,
of course); 2) sends the "pending subscription" notice to the
subscriber; and 3) sends the owner a notice that a new subscriber is
awaiting their approval.? This is all logical and straightforward;
no problems.
Subscription via web: The process is quite different when a
subscriber selects the "apply for membership" button on the group's
web page, then enters their email address when prompted.? It is at
this initial point that the system 1) places the subscriber on the
group's pending approval list (with the "NC" tag); 2) sends both
the "pending subscription" notice and the "request for confirmation"
messages to the subscriber; and 3) sends the owner a notice that a
new subscriber is awaiting their approval.? Again, this all happens
before the subscriber confirms their Groups.io account.? It's
a situation with great potential for confusion for both subscriber
and owner.
As a further complication, the content of the "request for
confirmation" message is also different from the first case.? I
found it to be repetitive and confusing, especially coming on the
heels of the "pending subscription" notice.? This is perhaps a
separate issue that can be set aside for the moment.
Bottom line: It seems to me that the subscription process
should work the same regardless of how the request was initiated,
and that an unconfirmed subscriber should never be placed on the
pending approval list.? That would obviate the need for the "NC"
tag.
Can anyone explain why the "subscription via web" and the
"subscription via email" processes are so different?? What am I
missing??
Thanks.
?????????????? -- Charlie
On 10/14/18 1:32 PM, Duane wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Charlie at Duke wrote:
I had expected it to
be on the "Actions" list on the pending members page.
You could suggest this on ,
the official suggestion box for the site.? I'm thinking that it's
not on the pending member page because it's of no serious
consequence unless they've become a member, but adding it to the
Action list does make sense.
Duane
|
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 08:06 PM, Charlie at Duke wrote:
Can anyone explain why the "subscription via web" and the "subscription via email" processes are so different?? What am I missing??
Charlie --? This whole process is a big can of worms, and it occasionally gets rehashed in beta. I believe the main difference, though, is that a "subscription via email," you already know that the person who sent the email "owns" that address and wants to subscribe because, well, you just got an email to that effect from them. In the "subscription via web," if it's a new account (i.e.: someone who is not logged in), anybody could be putting that email address in the box. In such a case we need to do more than just verify that GIO mail of any kind can be delivered there -- the usual purpose of the confirmation message -- we also have to confirm that the person who received it? wants?to receive emails from that group. The whole process is further complicated by the group's Spam Control settings minimum of one, but several could be used) and whether the email address is already "known" to groups.io (i.e.: has a GIO "account"). Throw all these things together and there are quite a lot of permutations. The latest word on this we have directly from Mark (GIO owner) can be found at?? I don't know if it's comprehensive enough to address all your concerns, but I suspect he's thought all this through better than most of us...certainly better than I have. Hope this helps, Bruce -- The system Help is your friend.?? /static/help
|
Received from Charlie at Duke at 10/18/2018 12:00 AM UTC: Subscription via web: The process is quite different...
Bottom line: It seems to me that the subscription process should work the same regardless of how the request was initiated, and that an unconfirmed subscriber should never be placed on the pending approval list. That would obviate the need for the "NC" tag.
Can anyone explain why the "subscription via web" and the "subscription via email" processes are so different? What am I missing? I don't think you're missing anything. Subscription via web should be handled exactly the same as via email. It's equally important to confirm the email address is deliverable and actually belongs to the person who asked to be subscribed when subscription is via web as via email. Maybe more important when via web because someone subscribing via web can easily enter an email address that doesn't belong to him. It seems like a bug to me that they aren't the same... tho different confirmation message wording suggests it's deliberate. Jim H
|
Received from Bruce Bowman at 10/18/2018 12:31 AM UTC: On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 08:06 PM, Charlie at Duke wrote:
Can anyone explain why the "subscription via web" and the "subscription via email" processes are so different? What am I missing? The latest word on this we have directly from Mark (GIO owner) can be found at I don't know if it's comprehensive enough to address all your concerns, but I suspect he's thought all this through better than most of us...certainly better than I have. And yet we wind up with members fully subscribed - able to post - with "NC" flag indicating their email address isn't confirmed. And that's in groups requiring Owner approval. I shouldn't have to visit the Gio site to see if a pending subscriber for whom I've just received a notification to approve has had his email address confirmed. I shouldn't even be getting a notification to approve a subscriber whose email address hasn't been confirmed! Jim H
|
Bruce, thank you for the very quick reply and the reference to a
previous discussion.? Alas, I'm afraid it does not address the logic
(or wisdom) behind presenting the group owner with a subscription
request from an unconfirmed user.? That, and the receipt of multiple
"confirm" messages is confusing as all get out to owner and
subscriber alike.
As to "subscription via email" -- I know that the subscriber "owns"
that address because they have completed the confirmation process by
the time I get notice of their group subscription request.? I don't
understand why the "subscription via web" process couldn't work the
same way.
One possible solution would be to replace the "Apply for Membership"
web function with a "mailto" link.? Not very elegant, but from the
owner's perspective things would then work the same way regardless
of whether the subscriber already had a confirmed Groups.io
account.? Perhaps this could be a group configuration option.
?????????????????????? -- Charlie
On 10/17/18 8:31 PM, Bruce Bowman
wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 08:06 PM, Charlie at Duke wrote:
Can anyone explain why
the "subscription via web" and the "subscription via email"
processes are so different?? What am I missing??
Charlie --?
This whole process is a big can of worms, and it occasionally gets
rehashed in beta. I believe the main difference, though, is that a
"subscription via email," you already know that the person who
sent the email "owns" that address and wants to subscribe because,
well, you just got an email to that effect from them. In the
"subscription via web," if it's a new account (i.e.: someone who
is not logged in), anybody could be putting that email address in
the box. In such a case we need to do more than just verify that
GIO mail of any kind can be delivered there -- the usual purpose
of the confirmation message -- we also have to confirm that the
person who received it?wants?to receive emails from that
group.
The whole process is further complicated by the group's Spam
Control settings minimum of one, but several could be used) and
whether the email address is already "known" to groups.io (i.e.:
has a GIO "account"). Throw all these things together and there
are quite a lot of permutations.
The latest word on this we have directly from Mark (GIO owner) can
be found at??
I don't know if it's comprehensive enough to address all your
concerns, but I suspect he's thought all this through better than
most of us...certainly better than I have.
Hope this helps,
Bruce
--
The system Help is your friend.??
|
Charlie, I have observed that the system behaves differently depending on how a
subscription request is submitted. This is by design, and as Bruce stated has been hashed out in beta ages ago. Can anyone explain why the "subscription via web" and the
"subscription via email" processes are so different? The argument for making the web joiner visible to the group moderators early in the process is so that the mods can help him/her complete his/her subscription if necessary. It is only if the web joiner does not promptly confirms his/her email address that the group mods are likely to see him/her in the NC state. Why that didn't happen for the email case I believe was out of a concern that the +subscribe command is more likely to be flooded by spambots and other spurious sources than the web form is. So perhaps the bottom line is that the two flows are different because the web form is more trusted to be operated by a human (who may need assistance) than the email command. Shal -- Help: /static/helpMore Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wikiEven More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list
|
Shal,
The argument for making the web joiner visible to the group
moderators early in the process is so that the mods can help
him/her complete his/her subscription if necessary. It is only if
the web joiner does not promptly confirms his/her email address
that the group mods are likely to see him/her in the NC state.
That's helpful to know, and gives me a better understanding of the
intent behind the design.? With this in mind I still think the
process can be improved to the benefit of both subscriber and
owner/moderator.? As time and energy permit, I will try to collect
my thoughts and post suggestions to the beta group.
As an aside, I have to offer my thanks to you, Bruce, and others for
your consistently thorough and patient help, especially to us
newcomers who haven't always done as much homework as perhaps we
should.
???????????????????????????? -- Charlie
|
Received from Shal... The argument for making the web joiner visible to the group moderators early in the process is so that the mods can help him/her complete his/her subscription if necessary. It is only if the web joiner does not promptly confirms his/her email address that the group mods are likely to see him/her in the NC state. I can see some sense to that... but I receive sub requests at my home email address and approve them via email. I shouldn't be able to approve a request via email (or via web for that matter) while the email address remains unconfirmed... and the notification I get at my home email address doesn't mention whether it's confirmed or not. I assumed it was confirmed until I found a member I approved via email with the "NC" tag. that seems like a bug to me. Jim H
|
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Jim Higgins wrote:
that seems like a bug to me
It's really not since that's the way it's designed.? As has been mentioned, you can try convincing Mark otherwise on the beta group, but I doubt anything will change there.? You might suggest that status (NC) be included in the notification email, but I don't know how involved that would be. Duane -- Help: /static/helpGMF's Wiki: /g/GroupManagersForum/wikiSearch button at the top of Messages list A few site FAQs: /static/pricing#frequently-asked-questions
|
Jim, I shouldn't be able to approve a request via email (or via web for
that matter) while the email address remains unconfirmed ... Why not? Both steps must happen before the person can receive group messages or access the group's pages as a member. What difference does it make in which order the step are taken? ... and the notification I get at my home email address doesn't
mention whether it's confirmed or not. I might support a suggestion that the NC status be included in the notice sent to the mods, but be aware that the member may have corrected the status by the time you read the notice. The group mods would have to be tolerant of such "false alarms". Shal -- Help: /static/helpMore Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wikiEven More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list
|
Received from Shal Farley at 10/22/2018 08:45 AM UTC: Jim,
I shouldn't be able to approve a request via email (or via web for that matter) while the email address remains unconfirmed ... Why not?
Both steps must happen before the person can receive group messages or access the group's pages as a member. What difference does it make in which order the step are taken? It matters to me because I don't want to approve a member whose "NC" address may be bogus. If "NC" status doesn't matter, why is there an "NC" flag in the first place? ... and the notification I get at my home email address doesn't mention whether it's confirmed or not. I might support a suggestion that the NC status be included in the notice sent to the mods, but be aware that the member may have corrected the status by the time you read the notice. The group mods would have to be tolerant of such "false alarms".
Or... since you say it doesn't matter from the member's perspective, and I say it does matter from an owner's perspective, and because there would be no "false alarms" or approvals of "NC" members if email addresses were confirmed BEFORE the member appears in the pending list and BEFORE the owner is notified, why not just do that? Some of us manage our groups as much as possible via email and the current subscription process for via web subscribers simply fails to take this into consideration. As it is it causes a problem to owners... as I suggested it doesn't cause a problem for anyone. Jim H
|
JIm, It matters to me because I don't want to approve a member whose "NC"
address may be bogus. Again, why not? If it never gets confirmed it does no harm other than cluttering your Members list. If "NC" status doesn't matter, why is there an "NC" flag in the first
place? It does matter. That's why it is handled as a distinct status for the address. Until the address is confirmed it receives no group messages. As it is it causes a problem to owners... as I suggested it doesn't
cause a problem for anyone. I can tell you that when the join flow was being discussed in beta there were owners who vehemently argued in favor of being able to see and aid the people with NC addresses. Your way the request to join would remain invisible to the group mods, and they'd be unable to tell the would-be member what to do about it. A bad user experience all around. Shal -- Help: /static/helpMore Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wikiEven More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list
|
On 10/22/18 8:26 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
JIm,
> It matters to me because I don't want to approve a member
whose "NC"
> address may be bogus.
Again, why not?
If it never gets confirmed it does no harm other than cluttering
your Members list.
Cluttering the Members list should be reason enough -- as should
cluttering the "pending members" list.
All the more reason to give the owner control over how subscribers
present themselves.
I can tell you that when the join flow was being discussed
in beta there were owners who vehemently argued in favor of being
able to see and aid the people with NC addresses.
I respect their preference, but I would hope they would likewise
respect a contrary view.? To provide an opportunity for each of us
to choose would make us all happy.? The point here is that the group
owner/moderators are in the best position to understand their
audience.
Your way the request to join would remain invisible to the
group mods, and they'd be unable to tell the would-be member what
to do about it. A bad user experience all around.
Alas, the current "subscribe via web" experience is more confusing
to some folk.? They are sent a more complex "please confirm"
message, and may also receive the group-specific "pending
subscriber" notice at the same time.? That combination can create a
bad user experience where none might not otherwise exist.? (Yes,
this is a different discussion, and I apologize for the divergence.)
Personal observation: It's interesting that this discussion is in
close parallel to the current discussion about hashtags being too
complicated for many older users.? I manage a neighborhood group,
where many subscribers are above the median age for the area, and
for whom a social media approach is anathema.? Our group just
recently moved from Yahoo, so most of us rarely used the web
interface, relying solely on email communication.
???????????????? -- Charlie
|
There is something to be said for consistency - in other words: the group owner would experience prospective subscribers/members the same way whether they choose email or web. Yes, email applicants are already confirmed, however if web applicants have difficulty receiving Groups.io emails, perhaps it would eliminate problems if they were forewarned on the Groups.io group webpage to check their Spam / Junk folders (and if they have questions or problems, that they can contact the group owner at: < [email protected]>), rather than have troubles show up later. If they do contact the owner, the owner could then send an Invitation (instead of the web-join process being used), which I believe bypasses the need for email confirmation.
|
Bruce Bowman
Michael Pavan
Duane
Shal Farley