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


Hi Mark and others,
After reading David's message below and other responses, I think a
compromise solution could be to add an entry to FAQ's or on a similar place
that creating moderated/new user approval list is recommended for certain
types of lists, and it should be up to moderators of various lists to decide
how moderation should be done on their turf. Thus we keep the possibility of
creating open lists, at the same time, telling potential list owners to
think about security in deciding what to do about new members, moderations
and so on by directing them to read a post from you and other moderators on
best practices.

-----Original Message-----
From: beta@groups.io [mailto:beta@groups.io] On Behalf Of David P. Dillard
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 11:30 AM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Proposal: All groups must be moderated or new user

To answer Mark's question, I think open and publically archived groups are
an extremely important option in this wonderful network. Actually,
Groups.IO has exccellent search engine optimization at this time and its
public content is well indexed by Google. Yahoo Groups is actually
minimally indexed by Google at this time. People create groups for lots of
different reasons and group managers as well as members put a great deal of
time into the content they produce. In any network I have been affiliated
with including Groups.IO, spammers have been a very minor part of my
operations in those resources and are easily handled with methods like
deletion of messages and banning of spammers. The open and visible nature of
Groups.IO is quickly making Groups.IO a go to resource for new groups, new
group members and quality content. Any moves that cut access to this
network will harm its visiblilty and usefulness and certainly there if also
plenty of room for private groups with private archives.
Mark, be very wary of using a nuclear bomb on a problem that a fly swatter
will handle well. I have had one spammer so far on all of my Groups.IO
lists and the matter was handled rapidly with a message deletion. If
members want to join my lists they are more than welcome and if they spam,
they will be banned. There is no need or desire to keep them out a priori as
they will not get away with much once in the group in the area of spamming.
They will be quickly banned by me.

David Dillard
Temple University
(215) 204 - 4584

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016, Joseph Hudson wrote:

Hi Mark, I say instead of moderating all groups, just make it to where
all groups require subscription approval from an owner/moderator. This
will make it easier on people who have lots of traffic coming to their
groups and so they don't have to sit here constantly approving messages from
each individual member.
Joseph Hudson
Group administrator for the following
blind apples

blind square GPS

 blind handyman

iPad help for the blind

I device support


On Oct 4, 2016, at 10:51 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io>

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?


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