On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 08:58 AM, Samuel Murray wrote:
Your thoughts?I can only speak for myself, but I am a "no mail" subscriber to numerous groups because I much prefer to work from the web UI. I would not want to have to fiddle about on different groups advising the owner that I wished to stay on "no mail". The exception is the group I moderate where I use email delivery to warn me that a bit of activity is required; I can't be looking at and refreshing the web UI all the time if I am doing something else. As a (co)owner and moderator I would not want to get involved in managing delivery options on a daily basis, so assuming that your proposal would be "optional" it would be an option I would not invoke. I would hate it if some sort of "delivery option management" was forced on to moderators.
What is the intended purpose behind this suggestion? At the moment it looks like a load of complexity for the sake of having more complexity. How members read posts is of little import; it is not in and of itself a measure of their "engagement" which might be better measured by their posts, rather than the means by which they read the posts of others. What's next? A "minimum number of posts per day/week/month/year"?
I'm afraid that I view this idea as an example of the attempts at "control freakery" that seem to arise from time to time; that said I fully accept that others might feel differently.
As a final point I would ask why have you conflated members on no mail or special delivery only with "sleeping members"? I accept that that may be the case, but it should not be automatically assumed that they are one and the same thing.