Date   

Re: setting to moderate every thread a member starts #suggestion

 

I haven’t experienced that happening in the three+ years of running my group. Strangely, my group members tend to start *too many* new threads. But if your group members do that, then don’t use the festure. Simple.


On Sep 2, 2018, at 4:34 AM, Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...> wrote:

On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 09:13 AM, ro-esp wrote:
This thing starts to make sense now. Yes, it can be a nuisance when people use the reply-button for things that are not replies.

However, a "new threads moderated" feature won't solve that...
Exactly why I *don't* like this idea. To avoid moderation, subscribers will simply start hijacking threads instead of starting a new one.

To me, this is a far worse scenario than the original problem.

Bruce

--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


Re: setting to moderate every thread a member starts #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 09:13 AM, ro-esp wrote:
This thing starts to make sense now. Yes, it can be a nuisance when people use the reply-button for things that are not replies.

However, a "new threads moderated" feature won't solve that...
Exactly why I *don't* like this idea. To avoid moderation, subscribers will simply start hijacking threads instead of starting a new one.

To me, this is a far worse scenario than the original problem.

Bruce


Re: setting to moderate every thread a member starts #suggestion

 

Helen, J,

So I go and change them, but then people responding via e-mail end up
in the original thread with the original subject line, and then I have
to keep merging the threads.
If Mark were looking for something to do there's a solution to this problem.

When splitting, merging, or renaming a topic - any time the Subject text can be changed - Groups.io could retain a copy of the prior Subject text for all the affected messages. Or I should say a list of prior texts, as a moderator could make more than one edit (or split, or merge) affecting any given message.

Then when an inbound message is being evaluated for where it threads those prior texts would be available as potential matches to the inbound subject line.

In cases where the inbound message includes an In-Reply-To and/or References field this restores the unambiguous match to the original message, sparing the moderator of the necessity of doing it.

In most cases of Edits and Merges there would likely be only one topic (within the two-week cutoff) with a matching Subject text, either present or past.

Splits would leave one topic with the original subject (as now) and one topic with a new subject plus the original in its history. Absent one of the referencing header fields an arbitrary choice must be made as to which of those two topics the inbound message belongs with. Choosing the topic with the most recent message is probably the least wrong choice.

Shal
File this as a "not quite FUSSP"
(Final Ultimate Solution to the Split Problem)


Re: setting to moderate every thread a member starts #suggestion

 

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 03:37 AM, Helen wrote:
I go and change them, but then people responding via e-mail end up in the original thread with the original subject line, and then I have to keep merging the threads.
Exactly! I used to go through this all the time and I eventually just stopped changing subject lines. Now if there's a subject line that's unacceptable for some reason, I edit out the whole message to make it blank (deleting the message prevents locking the thread), lock the thread, and ask the person to repost. Your suggested feature would be very helpful.

My suggestion does, as Mark has pointed out, go beyond yours. And I would prefer to have both. But if he decides to implement only yours, it would still be a help. If I set people whose threads I want to moderate to "moderate first message of every topic," at least I would have a chance to catch their topic before it becomes active and could still put the whole thread on moderation manually. 
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


Re: setting to moderate every thread a member starts #suggestion

Chris Jones
 

On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 08:21 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I don't think you understand the concept of a moderated thread.
Funnily enough I do, and agree with your comment on their usefulness.

What I don't understand is why a thread should be moderated for all simply because it was started by one specific person, of one of a small number of specified persons.

I look forward to hearing the underlying reasoning.

Chris


Re: setting to moderate every thread a member starts #suggestion

 

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 04:18 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
I simply cannot see what forcing A to Y to be moderated in the above case achieves or why it it is seen to be necessary.
I don't think you understand the concept of a moderated thread. They are extremely useful.
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


Re: setting to moderate every thread a member starts #suggestion

 

Now looking to some other prior replies I missed before, I think the language "by the member" suggested by people above is inconsistent with the current language of the posting privilege options, which is why I left it out. I think it's clear from the context (i.e., we're in the member page) that the setting refers to topics started BY THE MEMBER.
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


Re: setting to moderate every thread a member starts #suggestion

 

On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
J's initial case did not specify if she was looking for a setting to apply to specific members or all members. I also cannot see why subsequent replies would also need to be moderated, if the problem lies in the way new topics are started, especially in the way the subject line is designed.
I don't know why I missed these updates to this thread. First, yes I did specify that the setting would be on a per member basis. Otherwise, it would make no sense (having it apply to all members would essentially turn the group into a moderated group). Second, the reason I am asking for the entire thread to be moderated for any thread the person starts is that some people tend to create inappropriate threads, period. Not the subject line, the thread topic itself. (Of course, the subject lines in those and other cases can be problematic, but that's not the issue I'm addressing with this request.)

In answer to Mark's question below, about how to implement both Helen's and my requests without confusing the heck out of people, I'm sure there would be a way to word it. I haven't thought about it, but off the top of my head, I think something like this would work:

[checkbox] Override: moderate the first message of every topic
              [if above checkbox is checked, then display sub-checkbox] Also moderate all replies to every topic started 

 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


Re: setting to moderate every thread a member starts #suggestion

ro-esp
 

This thing starts to make sense now. Yes, it can be a nuisance when people use the reply-button for things that are not replies.

However, a "new threads moderated" feature won't solve that...

groetjes, Ronaldo


moderated Re: Site updates #changelog

Douglas Swearingen
 

Have a good Labor Day weekend Mark.





From: main@beta.groups.io <main@beta.groups.io> on behalf of Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 9:06 PM
To: main@beta.groups.io
Subject: [beta] Site updates #changelog
 

Changes to the site this week:

  • INTERNAL: Tested database backups.
  • INTERNAL: Changed the internals of the database APIs to better deal with the new connection pooling system.
  • CHANGE: Tweaked the wording of 'Default Post Policy' and 'Default group policy' to be more clear.
  • BUGFIX: Couldn't delete a topic that had previously had a hashtag that had been deleted.
  • BUGFIX: Fixed a race condition in the test topics page when deleting topics.
  • CHANGE: In the Files section, display the Updated field instead of the Created field for Uploaded date.
  • CHANGE: Disable Action button on Members page if no members are selected.
  • CHANGE: Tweaked URL text in confirmation email to match the URL itself.

Have a good weekend everybody.

Mark


moderated Site updates #changelog

 

Changes to the site this week:

  • INTERNAL: Tested database backups.
  • INTERNAL: Changed the internals of the database APIs to better deal with the new connection pooling system.
  • CHANGE: Tweaked the wording of 'Default Post Policy' and 'Default group policy' to be more clear.
  • BUGFIX: Couldn't delete a topic that had previously had a hashtag that had been deleted.
  • BUGFIX: Fixed a race condition in the test topics page when deleting topics.
  • CHANGE: In the Files section, display the Updated field instead of the Created field for Uploaded date.
  • CHANGE: Disable Action button on Members page if no members are selected.
  • CHANGE: Tweaked URL text in confirmation email to match the URL itself.

Have a good weekend everybody.

Mark


moderated Re: "suspend membership" action #suggestion

 

Just realizing you said "removed manually." My thought was that actual removal would not happen automatically. That would be by hand. But reinstatement could possibly be automatic, depending on the duration specified. Or maybe the reverse? (removal would be automatic after a specified time period, but reinstatement would always be manual). I don't know. They both have pros and cons and either way seems fine, or neither (both by hand).


On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 12:34 PM Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:
There have been at least a few people mention that this would be handy for various reasons, usually related to a paid membership in a club/group.  One question that comes to mind is how long this status would remain?  Or would the suspended member need to be removed manually?

Duane


--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: "suspend membership" action #suggestion

Bob Bellizzi
 

J, that's a  really great idea.  It would work well for our online support group.  There is an occasional person who needs total deprivation to get them to understand how important their posts can be.
I would envision it as another dropdown list in Members
--

Bob Bellizzi

Founder, Fuchs Friends ®
Founder & Executive Director, The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation


moderated Re: "suspend membership" action #suggestion

 

Good question. My original idea was they would have to be reinstated manually. But being able to specify a duration of the suspension might be convenient ("two days", "one week", "a month", "forever"?) "Forever" would just mean they would have to be reinstated manually.


On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 12:34 PM Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:
There have been at least a few people mention that this would be handy for various reasons, usually related to a paid membership in a club/group.  One question that comes to mind is how long this status would remain?  Or would the suspended member need to be removed manually?

Duane


--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: "suspend membership" action #suggestion

Duane
 

There have been at least a few people mention that this would be handy for various reasons, usually related to a paid membership in a club/group.  One question that comes to mind is how long this status would remain?  Or would the suspended member need to be removed manually?

Duane


moderated "suspend membership" action #suggestion

 

One step beyond putting a member on moderation would be to temporarily "suspend" their membership. Suspension would entail the person not having access to the group, as if they were not a member at all, until the membership is restored. This would be very useful in some cases in our group. Since we are a premium group, we have the ability to effect this by removing the member and then direct-adding them back in. But suspension would be more desirable, because they could be restored with one click and would not be treated like a new member again, with the welcome and direct-add messages.
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: In logging change of email address, record former email address #suggestion

 

Actually I just rechecked the log to see if maybe I *was* being picky. :) I found that it looks fine. So either Mark fixed it with the speed of light, or I misread it. 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: In logging change of email address, record former email address #suggestion

Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...>
 

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 10:32 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
The current log entry for when a member changes their email address reads "[new email address] changed their email to [new email address]." It would be more informative if it could read "[old email address] changed their email to [new email address]."

Well, now you're just being picky! 
 
--
Gerald


moderated In logging change of email address, record former email address #suggestion

 

The current log entry for when a member changes their email address reads "[new email address] changed their email to [new email address]." It would be more informative if it could read "[old email address] changed their email to [new email address]."
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


Re: setting to moderate every thread a member starts #suggestion

Jeremy H
 

More generally, I would suggest 'Topic (thread) starting posts' as general moderation option, that can be set both for group and member (and for new members for first n), alongside the more general 'any post' moderation (which obviously includes 'first in topic' posts).

And that (if not already there), 'moderate topic' be present as a standard option on moderating messages.

Jeremy 

11501 - 11520 of 29450