Date   

locked Re: Editing a post resulting in duplicate messages to e-mail subscribers

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 09:43 am, Bob Bellizzi wrote:
One can always have the same effect as you are asking for by simply composing the message and waiting a few minutes prior to proofing it, deciding if I really wish to send what I wrote and then posting it.  We have all had many occasions when we wished we exercised more self control and didn't blast back to others.

 Of course, in an ideal world, everyone would do as you say.  As a general rule I do this pretty consistently.  That being said, I cannot count the number of times that a typo or similar jumps out, almost screaming, the moment that the send button is hit.  Also, having been around the block enough to have amassed enough miles to go to the sun and back, I know full well that what might occur in an ideal world does not occur in the real world.

This feature is not going to be implemented.   It has been implemented in other venues to great success.  This issue has long since been settled.

Lecturing me as though I were a child, had not given these issues lots of thought, and don't have decades of experience in this realm is just plain rude.  You don't have to agree with me.  There have been plenty of threads where people have agreed to disagree, including me.  Don't condescend as it's utterly unnecessary.

--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


locked Re: Editing a post resulting in duplicate messages to e-mail subscribers

Bob Bellizzi
 

Brian,

One can always have the same effect as you are asking for by simply composing the message and waiting a few minutes prior to proofing it, deciding if I really wish to send what I wrote and then posting it.  We have all had many occasions when we wished we exercised more self control and didn't blast back to others.

What you are asking for is within you own power of self control and doesn't need a robotic censor.

Our members are not all the brightest bulbs in the chandelier when it comes to Internet but we pretty well have them trained to think before posting, "do I really want to send this without any changes?"

I've thought about this and actually rewrote it quite a bit, more than once, to try to get my point across.

Bob

Newbie to Beta, Yahoo groups founder since 2000 (Ecircles > Egroups > Yahoo Groups > GroupsIO)



locked Re: Features Request - "Report" feature and "Ignore user" feature #suggestion

 

There's also the visibility issue. On some forums blocking a member makes your profile  invisible to them without making their profile invisible to you. On other forums it does both, which makes things really complicated in some situations.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 14, 2016, at 9:36 AM, HR Tech via Groups.io <m.conway11@...> wrote:

I think the suggestion to add a "report" was included with the recent discussion of reply options and the more menu.

The suggestion to mute a user is already on the trello list. See message #7249.

I've been on forums where you can mute users and see the advantage.

I would prefer however, if when this is considered further, if it were an option for a group admin to opt in/out of. I'd opt out for our groups.

I have seen confusion arise from this feature in web forums. When someone has put someone else on mute, yet participates in a thread where that person does too, and then the replies start not making sense and it becomes obvious to everyone who has put who on mute - and instead of being a helpful tool, it ends up being used as a weapon of sorts.

So, great for some forums/groups - not great for others.

Maria



--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Features Request - "Report" feature and "Ignore user" feature #suggestion

Maria
 

I think the suggestion to add a "report" was included with the recent discussion of reply options and the more menu.

The suggestion to mute a user is already on the trello list. See message #7249.

I've been on forums where you can mute users and see the advantage.

I would prefer however, if when this is considered further, if it were an option for a group admin to opt in/out of. I'd opt out for our groups.

I have seen confusion arise from this feature in web forums. When someone has put someone else on mute, yet participates in a thread where that person does too, and then the replies start not making sense and it becomes obvious to everyone who has put who on mute - and instead of being a helpful tool, it ends up being used as a weapon of sorts.

So, great for some forums/groups - not great for others.

Maria



locked Re: Features Request - "Report" feature and "Ignore user" feature #suggestion

 

While we're at it, if we're in kitchen-sink feature mode what about friending? 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 14, 2016, at 9:32 AM, J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

I like both of those. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 14, 2016, at 9:21 AM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

I've now been witness to my first ugly flame war on a groups.io group, and that has pointed out, in my eyes, the need for both of these features.

If one is reading an attack/flame post that is completely inappropriate and violates group rules and basic civility there should be a "Report" link or button somewhere beneath each message that would allow you to bring it to the immediate attention of the group's owner and moderation team.

Having an "Ignore User" feature, much like a "Mute this thread" feature but that serves as a "Mute this user in threads I view" feature would be invaluable as well.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Features Request - "Report" feature and "Ignore user" feature #suggestion

 

I like both of those. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 14, 2016, at 9:21 AM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

I've now been witness to my first ugly flame war on a groups.io group, and that has pointed out, in my eyes, the need for both of these features.

If one is reading an attack/flame post that is completely inappropriate and violates group rules and basic civility there should be a "Report" link or button somewhere beneath each message that would allow you to bring it to the immediate attention of the group's owner and moderation team.

Having an "Ignore User" feature, much like a "Mute this thread" feature but that serves as a "Mute this user in threads I view" feature would be invaluable as well.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Features Request - "Report" feature and "Ignore user" feature #suggestion

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

I've now been witness to my first ugly flame war on a groups.io group, and that has pointed out, in my eyes, the need for both of these features.

If one is reading an attack/flame post that is completely inappropriate and violates group rules and basic civility there should be a "Report" link or button somewhere beneath each message that would allow you to bring it to the immediate attention of the group's owner and moderation team.

Having an "Ignore User" feature, much like a "Mute this thread" feature but that serves as a "Mute this user in threads I view" feature would be invaluable as well.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


locked Question: When new version goes live

weebeequilting <weebee.1@...>
 

Mark,

Will you be providing a list/description of the changes taking place when you have the new version go public/live?  I would really like to give my members a good idea of the changes you made.  I, myself, have lost track of the things that have changed regarding searching and other features.  Giving us something to share with our members would be very helpful.


Janice B

AZ


locked Re: Editing a post resulting in duplicate messages to e-mail subscribers

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

J,

         I actually have no idea if this group is moderated or not.  Most of the other groups I'm on are moderated as a formality when new users sign up just to make sure they're not spammers, flame-baiters, etc., but after that they are taken off moderation and not looked at again unless someone sends a message to the group owner that something might need to be squelched.

         Essentially, we're pretty much of the same mind about how to approach moderation.  When I hear "unmoderated" I take that entirely at face value, which means that things can become a free-for-all and there is nothing that can be done about it because the group is unmoderated.   I've been a member on many unmoderated groups elsewhere, and know all too well how awful they can get if you end up with just a few malcontents with too much time on their hands.  I've seen groups disband, for all practical intents and purposes, because they were entirely unmoderated and those who had something valuable to contribute either couldn't stand the whole milieu or were completely drowned out.

          As to the yelling, haranguing, that's where moderation can come in quite handy.  It's amazing how quickly behaviors get modified, or problematic members bail, when their posts are held or bounced until or unless certain firm group culture expectations are met.  It saves having to do it in public and you can also have canned bounce-back messages that are completely clinical in nature saying things such as, "Our group requires that "Reason for Edit" be included any time a post is edited.  Please add it and your post will complete."  It can be incredibly effective for taking the personal aspects out of it as much as can be.


--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


locked Re: Editing a post resulting in duplicate messages to e-mail subscribers

 

Brian,

I put people on mod the minute something flares, but these people who are breaking the "reason for edit required" rule are not of that ilk. They simply remain unaware of the rule, and somehow remain unaware of it despite repeated warnings, and i think the system - including the diction and placement of the edit box - is at least partly to blame. I tired of yelling and haranguing "good people" so I just disabled the feature. 

One thing I've admired about beta is that Mark doesn't moderate it. Nobody is afraid to speak their minds here, which I think benefits us all. If there's something we hate in the product, we are free to say we "absolutely despise" it or whatever.;) Sometimes things have gotten a little heated but we are basically civilized and well-intentioned and it seems to always calm down.

I just don't like moderated groups, and that's a personal preference. I realize there are some groups where moderation is really necessary. 

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 07:36 am, J_catlady wrote:
My group is not moderated.

Therein lies your problem.   My attitude toward moderation in general is that it's essential that it be there so that flame wars or personal attacks can be squelched, and group rules/culture can be enforced when necessary, but otherwise should essentially be completely hands off.

Having a non-moderated group, unless you act as a moderator of sorts as owner, generally results in the "wild, wild west" because there are certain members who will simply refuse to abide by the rules.

Moderation should be applied with a very, very, very light touch except in those instances, such as personal attacks and flame wars, where an immediate iron fist works best to shut it down.  Being able to put folks on moderated status until they calm down, that is if you don't want to immediately boot them permanently because what they've done is so egregious, can come in quite handy.  It's generally needed once a year or so, sometimes less, depending on the group and the members of said group.

--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray



--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Editing a post resulting in duplicate messages to e-mail subscribers

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 07:36 am, J_catlady wrote:
My group is not moderated.

Therein lies your problem.   My attitude toward moderation in general is that it's essential that it be there so that flame wars or personal attacks can be squelched, and group rules/culture can be enforced when necessary, but otherwise should essentially be completely hands off.

Having a non-moderated group, unless you act as a moderator of sorts as owner, generally results in the "wild, wild west" because there are certain members who will simply refuse to abide by the rules.

Moderation should be applied with a very, very, very light touch except in those instances, such as personal attacks and flame wars, where an immediate iron fist works best to shut it down.  Being able to put folks on moderated status until they calm down, that is if you don't want to immediately boot them permanently because what they've done is so egregious, can come in quite handy.  It's generally needed once a year or so, sometimes less, depending on the group and the members of said group.

--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


locked Re: Ability to Bookmark Posts within the Interface

Maria
 

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 07:49 am, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I've always had plans to add something like a star system, like what Gmail has. Just haven't gotten to it yet. :)

Awesome! That's great news :)

Maria


locked Re: Ability to Bookmark Posts within the Interface

 

Hi All,

I've always had plans to add something like a star system, like what Gmail has. Just haven't gotten to it yet. :)

Mark

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 9:36 PM, HR Tech via Groups.io <m.conway11@...> wrote:

Yes, you can bookmark via browser and these features are available via browser - not debating that. But it doesn't feel the same as doing so within the space of the interface: it’s a drag on mobile, it takes several steps instead of one click, not everyone likes/wants to sign in to their browser, even if they do sign in, not every computer they may use has same browser, they may use different browsers in different places (work vs home), bookmarks in your browser will never look/feel like the interface you are bookmarking in design-wise, many people don’t have the time or patience to organize their browser bookmarks well in to folders, many web forums (old and new generation) also have a “bookmark” feature - it’s nothing new,  maybe one simply wants to bookmark something so you can read it later and then remove the bookmark easily with one click (like facebook's "saved" section), maybe you are on mobile and you are skimming threads quickly and you just want to click one button ( as you do the "like button) on the interface so you can find that post/thread later and read it in detail and then remove it from your “saved/bookmarked” list, and again, I think that a “bookmarked" section would go very well with a “favorites” and things you’ve “liked", as well as things you follow if you aren’t an “all messages” person.

Maria



locked Re: Hidden e-mail truncation in ellipses when clicked

 

I'm any case, as you will see when you reach that point in the old threads, this is now non-issue. Mark decided to make fig leafs an optional setting.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 14, 2016, at 7:33 AM, J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@gmail.com> wrote:

Feathered,

That's why you and others (not me) want fig leafs. The emails are showing onlist. That's your whole argument. And they show within the ellipses, too. The ellipses are gust for the purpose of collapsing prior posts when someone top posts and doesn't trim.

My point is that (a) it's a lot of work for the bad guys to have to go through all the messages and click on all the ellipses and (b) it would seem (naively) like a simple matter for the system to wipe email addresses from the site that appear as part of a top post or quoted message. Those are the bulk of the emails that show up (plumber references and the like would be few and far between), so wiping emails only in that case would solve your issue while leaving the plumber references intact.


Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 14, 2016, at 1:31 AM, Feathered Leader <featheredleader@att.net> wrote:

Mark,

When I checked out catlady's reply to me in message #10022, and click on the three dots ellipses, I still see my fig-leafed e-mail address. Is this something else to check, when the e-mail is ellipsed, does that show? It shows both Feathered Leader, and the truncated e-mail, and I would like it only to show Feathered Leader.

And this isn't something you missed, I just posted this tonight.

Please check it out, thanks.

Brenda

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author.

It's dumb to buy smart water.


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Problem with Search Function

 

Yes, message numbers are extremely useful. Critical. Why on earth would they go away? This thread has been too long for me get through yet but that's my 'vote'.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 14, 2016, at 5:54 AM, HR Tech via Groups.io <m.conway11@...> wrote:

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 02:15 am, Feathered Leader wrote:
If I didn't have the message numbers, I'd have a horrid time following and reading in here. I read, on the site, write down the message numbers, and then later, enter the message number to reply.

 This thread may be dated, but I don't think (hope) message numbers are going anywhere. There is a field to search for them in the new search box (#newtestversion/ #newmobile). They are very useful. Our archivist uses them often for reference purposes.

Separately, I couldn't help but notice one of ways you described using them. I'm curious what you would think of the idea presented in message #10017 as it's one of the scenarios I described.

Maria




--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Editing a post resulting in duplicate messages to e-mail subscribers

 

I send the monthly thing. You kidding? I'd been sending out the 'reason for edit is required in this group!' spiel weekly or more when I finally gave up. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 14, 2016, at 6:43 AM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:48 pm, J_catlady wrote:
Remember my group member who left in a huff, claiming that I "couldn't" make it required and the word "optional" proved it? 

P.S.:  You'll never satisfy everybody.  It's one thing if a moderator is acting as a censor (when that's not necessary - flame wars and personal attacks can make it required as far as I'm concerned) but entirely another if they are enforcing group expectations.  If people don't want to accept moderation they don't have to, and they don't have to participate.

I think it's also a good idea to have a message that's repeated at least once a month that outlines what the expectations are, and that highlights changes if any are made.  It should be sent to a new subscriber as a matter of course when they register.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Editing a post resulting in duplicate messages to e-mail subscribers

 

Brian, My group is not moderated. I am against moderated groups in general. But it's fun to agree to disagree with you. 😎

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 14, 2016, at 6:31 AM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:48 pm, J_catlady wrote:

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:00 pm, Brian Vogel wrote:

someone has to be the cultural arbiter to get the culture established.

Which is impossible if the feature currently blasts the word "Optional" at the user, the box is at the very bottom, etc. Remember my group member who left in a huff, claiming that I "couldn't" make it required and the word "optional" proved it? 

 J,

            We're just going to have to disagree here.   What Groups.io implements a function as being has nothing to do with what a moderator or moderators can and must require to establish a cultural context.   If you want people to include reason for edit you must do two things:

1.  Reject any and all edits for individuals still being actively moderated that do not include it.

2.  If there are individuals not actively moderated, watch for edited posts and if there is no reason send them a moderator message that one needs to be added (and if you want to get extreme "or the post will be removed.")

There are times where strong moderation is a must.  Establishing the cultural requirements for any new group, or new cultural requirement that the moderator(s) agree upon, are two of those times.


--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Hidden e-mail truncation in ellipses when clicked

 

Feathered,

That's why you and others (not me) want fig leafs. The emails are showing onlist. That's your whole argument. And they show within the ellipses, too. The ellipses are gust for the purpose of collapsing prior posts when someone top posts and doesn't trim.

My point is that (a) it's a lot of work for the bad guys to have to go through all the messages and click on all the ellipses and (b) it would seem (naively) like a simple matter for the system to wipe email addresses from the site that appear as part of a top post or quoted message. Those are the bulk of the emails that show up (plumber references and the like would be few and far between), so wiping emails only in that case would solve your issue while leaving the plumber references intact.


Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 14, 2016, at 1:31 AM, Feathered Leader <featheredleader@att.net> wrote:

Mark,

When I checked out catlady's reply to me in message #10022, and click on the three dots ellipses, I still see my fig-leafed e-mail address. Is this something else to check, when the e-mail is ellipsed, does that show? It shows both Feathered Leader, and the truncated e-mail, and I would like it only to show Feathered Leader.

And this isn't something you missed, I just posted this tonight.

Please check it out, thanks.

Brenda


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Editing a post resulting in duplicate messages to e-mail subscribers

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:48 pm, J_catlady wrote:
Remember my group member who left in a huff, claiming that I "couldn't" make it required and the word "optional" proved it? 

P.S.:  You'll never satisfy everybody.  It's one thing if a moderator is acting as a censor (when that's not necessary - flame wars and personal attacks can make it required as far as I'm concerned) but entirely another if they are enforcing group expectations.  If people don't want to accept moderation they don't have to, and they don't have to participate.

I think it's also a good idea to have a message that's repeated at least once a month that outlines what the expectations are, and that highlights changes if any are made.  It should be sent to a new subscriber as a matter of course when they register.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


locked Re: Editing a post resulting in duplicate messages to e-mail subscribers

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:48 pm, J_catlady wrote:

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:00 pm, Brian Vogel wrote:

someone has to be the cultural arbiter to get the culture established.

Which is impossible if the feature currently blasts the word "Optional" at the user, the box is at the very bottom, etc. Remember my group member who left in a huff, claiming that I "couldn't" make it required and the word "optional" proved it? 

 J,

            We're just going to have to disagree here.   What Groups.io implements a function as being has nothing to do with what a moderator or moderators can and must require to establish a cultural context.   If you want people to include reason for edit you must do two things:

1.  Reject any and all edits for individuals still being actively moderated that do not include it.

2.  If there are individuals not actively moderated, watch for edited posts and if there is no reason send them a moderator message that one needs to be added (and if you want to get extreme "or the post will be removed.")

There are times where strong moderation is a must.  Establishing the cultural requirements for any new group, or new cultural requirement that the moderator(s) agree upon, are two of those times.


--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray