On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 08:51 pm, Mark Fletcher wrote:
So I propose to make it so that all groups must be either moderated or have new users be moderated. I have not yet thought through whether this should apply to sub-groups as well. But I wanted to get everyone's take on this proposal first. Is there a good reason to allow open groups at all?
We moderate all our groups (prevention of spam being one of the major reasons we do so - even when someone is a legit member their account can be hacked and then it's a snowball effect ( if links are clicked) plus gives appearance of a group that has no oversight which in turn impacts the depth of conversations). That said, it takes a ton of time of our end and impacts immediacy. So it's not for all.
But the idea of someone being moderated when they are new - or the idea of a new member having to earn the privilege of being unmoderated is reasonable to me and in line with what many other forums also do. And forums don't always have a mailing list component - yet they also make you achieve a certain level before you can post links or photos, and similar privileges. Maybe there could be privileges/trust levels that need to be earned here on groups.io before you can post links/photos?
I think it's reasonable to have all newbies moderated by default and that the owner can decide after a set amount of messages when they become unmoderated or leave it to their discretion if not linked to post frequency. Also reasonable would be to have any posts with links and images in them moderated if the member is new or even beyond if that's a control the group finds eases their moderation workload. Most spam depends on links i think (?) so if you quarantine messages with links, and moderate on the basis of content rather than member, that could also be something that might help.
And I think it's worth restating that even though the service is free, creating a group under the good name of groups.io should be a privilege and there needs to be a system in place so it cannot be abused. Because the abuse hurts all us good group owners and participants. ("But he that filches from me my good name. Robs me of that which not enriches him. And makes me poor indeed").
Most of what we use online requires some form of verification. We do so much online these days (shop/communicate/business/official info/school). I think that while some of us are used to not having to provide verification, it's pretty common place to have to do so these days, even if only by virtue of using APPs on your phone bought through your account at the app store. And if you don't provide verification, then on many services there are limits on how you can use the service.
I think that if you need to provide something valid in order to create a basic website from one of those online template places, then you should maybe have to do same (or more) to create a mailing list that allows you to bypass the send quotas of email providers. And again, maybe it doesn't need to be sensitive info - maybe it's those captcha codes or the code + a verification method, or captcha plus human questions, but something that can stop these people from hurting the service and stealing Mark's valuable time and energy.
I get the concerns that requiring more intense verification could drive business away. Except for that this doesn't seem to be the case with many of the examples we have been looking at for ideas. I'd think that the argument could be made that the quality and reputation of the site would be enhanced which would counteract any downside of more detailed verification methods being required for the privilege of creating a group.