locked Re: Proposal: All groups must be moderated or new user moderated


Jeff Powell <jrpstonecarver@...>
 

I need to sanity check the lingo here, please, and then ask a question, because as stated this proposal confuses me. I thought:

  • "Moderated" meant all posts have to be approved by a moderator. The opposite - that members can post messages without moderation is called "Un-moderated", right?
  • "NuM" means New User Moderated (right?) in which all new users have some undetermined period of time during which the group's moderators have to approve their posts before they go out
  • "Restricted" means that users must be approved by the moderators before being allowed to join the group
  • "Open" means that a group accepts new users with no vetting process; sign up, you're in. No human approval involved

If I have all of that right, is the proposal really to require all groups be "moderated" (or have NuM set), or did you mean "restricted"?

This matters a lot to me.

Our neighborhood list moves a LOT of email, quite a bit of it is timely in nature. A requirement that moderators must approve every message would be awful, and would - in fact - cause us to go looking for some other provider (again).  NuM is better, but not critical in my mind given our past experience. (We rarely had new users cause issues in Y!G, and so far it hasn't been an issue here either, even with over 200 new members in the last week thanks to the nearby wildland fire.)

That said, we are a restricted group. Users have to prove they are human to get in, which helps with the spam issue a lot.

So, are we really talking about making all groups be Moderated or NuM? I hope I've just misunderstood the terminology involved.

For the record, I have no issue with not allowing Open groups as defined above. In the modern internet they aren't much better - and possibly much worse than - the comment sections at any news site. Getting rid of that option is just fine in my mind. But let's not throw out un-moderated groups as well. That's not a good idea.

--jeffp


On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 08:51 pm, Mark Fletcher wrote:

Hi All,

One of the things I'm seeing with the spammer is that they'll subscribe to an existing group and post their spam. If a group is moderated or has NuM set, the group members never see the spam and it's not a problem (and no incentive for the spammer to continue). But for open groups, it's not a good experience for anyone involved. 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?

Thanks,
Mark

 

Join main@beta.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.