Reply to distributed post says "DO NOT REPLY"

Jonathan,

This is a desired feature of the site. We want our members to be logged in to take action in the site. We don't want to open up email holes for spamming (item #2 above), and we don't want to have discussions unintentionally continued outside of the topic where nobody else can see it (item #1 above).

All of the items you mentioned above can be done directly from the topic page, for which there is always a link at the bottom of the email on a large button that says "Click Here to Join Discussion"

Hello Joe.
The only problem with all of the things you mentioned that you want to avoid is that they contradict a basic expectation: If I get an email I should be able to respond to the person who sent it to me. It shouldnt matter since the person who sent it had to have been logged in. Also, I belong to several professional networks that have an email component and EVERYONE continues discussions without being logged in.

Its really simple: I should not receive email messges that I can not respond to....its just ludicrous

Hey Jonathan,

I moved this to Feature Requests, since it would be a change in the way we envision the site should work.

Thanks Joe.

Its funny, this issue came up again for me when a business colleague and I met last week. He asked to review with me an email that he sent. I explained that I never received the email. Luckily he had a paper copy, and in the paper copy I was able to show him in fact that he had not sent it to me, but rather the black hole called "do-not-reply@collectiveX.com". Some information that we email is business confidential (leads and opportunities), and I certainly dont want members thinking that their information is going to the wrong place or that it might be viewed by unintended parties. For us, CollectiveX is being used in a business context. If business use is envisioned as key are for CollectiveX then it is important for members to gain the confidence that the platform can be used safely in a business context. One part of that confidence is knowing where information is going and feeling sure that it gets there. The other part is doin this in an innovative and simplified way, which is what I think CollectiveX is striving for.

Thanks for reviewing!

I see what you're saying Jonathan.

Basically, it's becoming a usability issue. Even if we disagree on how the feature should work, at the very least the user should get a reply email telling them that they have sent a message to a do-not-reply email and that their response was not received. Technically there should be a way that we can do this w/o opening up a hole for DOS attacks or SPAM, as long as some previous communication is referenced in the email.

Yes, its a few things all-in-one. Here is the real test. Go to your parents and ask them the following:
"Mom, if you receive an email from Joe Schmo, and you reply to that email, who will receive it ?"

What we shouldn't do on the web is tell people that something they are used to everywhere else works different in our case because we are special. You know what I mean?

Yeah, I hear you, but here's the thing:

If you want to have a private email discussion with somebody, send them an email or a private message.

If you want a discussion to happen at the group level, start a discussion topic. Discussion topics should be open for everyone in the group to participate in. If an email you get is a _notification_ about a new discussion post, we still feel that it is important that the discussion be continued where the whole group can see it.

I don't feel that it works different in our case at all. If you send someone a private message or an email blast (which are really the only things we have that are like plain email) then you can reply to them _unless_ the sender has hidden their contact information from the group.

If you start a discussion topic or reply to one, you are not sending an email to Joe Schmoe. You are posting a message to the entire group, assumedly because you want the discussion to continue at the group level. If you don't want it to participate at the group level, then you would obviously prefer to send an email or a private message to just one person.

The only thing about this that is different and special is that we don't ever want to become a listserv. Listservs don't encourage a high level of engagement and they are prone to spam because of a world-facing email address.

Yeh Joe. I know where your concerns are, but its like trying to fight human nature. I dont agree that people have to be forced into the consequences of a prior activity, and in fact Yahoo does not make you do this. I am not suggesting that it is not a challenge. No. I am suggesting that you are one creative and sick tech guy who knows how to make things happen, and this issue can not only be resolved elegantly but can be a differentiator!

Lets take any professional group I belong to for example. They all use something that functions like Yahoo groups. It all starts when a member posts something. All members who are subscribed get an email. When we answer we have a choice of either sending the reply back to be re-distributed, sending it to the poster, or both. This is what people on the business side are accustomed to. I dont care if you defined it as an email, a post thread, or whatever. All I know is that I got an email, and noone shoudl force me to have to continue a thread online. Rather, I should be given a clear and CONVENIENT choice as to what I do with the email.
1) reply to sender only
2) reply all via post: create a new post in the discussion with the response
3) reply all no post: reply to everyone subscribed to the post but no post will be created

Now that is choice!
Shoot, this could be a combination of email reply capabilities and buttons.
1) Hitting "Reply" would be a reply to the poster alone via email (#1 above - no posted content)
2) Hitting "Reply All" on the email would reply to the post by default (#2 above). You would parse the email, post the reply content to the site, and distribute the reply to all members subscribed
3) Hitting the button "Reply All No Post" would be a reply to everyone subscribed to the post but no thread post will be created (#3 above)

Again Joe, I am not saying that I dont appreciate the challenges. I am just saying that you are fighting an established model, and your different model is neither easier nor expected. Let members choose how their content behaves and where and how it flows. After all its their information, and they are the users.

Good talking with you!