Date   

moderated Re: Approval link ABOVE pending message? #suggestion

 

Excellent, thank you!

Helen


moderated Re: Approval link ABOVE pending message? #suggestion

 

Hi,

I've removed that text.

Thanks,
Mark

On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 12:51 PM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Helen wrote:
even if I didn't, the above wording would not narrow it down in any way
Great point. 
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Approval link ABOVE pending message? #suggestion

 

On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Helen wrote:
even if I didn't, the above wording would not narrow it down in any way
Great point. 
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Approval link ABOVE pending message? #suggestion

 

I can live with that, but do we really also have to have this bit?

A message was sent to the group https://groupname.io/g/groupname from a@ that needs to be approved. This action requires your approval for one of the following reasons:

Your group is set to moderate all activity from this user, OR
Your group is set to moderate activity from all users, OR
This is a reply to a thread that is moderated

This fills my entire preview panel, meaning I have to scroll down to see the actual pendingmessage, which is not good if I'm in a hurry and trying to see what needs my attention before I go out..

I also don't see what value the three things above add. I already know this is a moderated message, that's why it's landed in my inbox. I usually remember why people are moderated, but even if I didn't, the above wording would not narrow it down in any way.

If we must have this additional wording, could it be placed below the pending message please.

Thanks.

Helen


moderated Re: Language Definition of Spam

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

I know you weren't responding to me, but I want to say I couldn't agree more.

That being said, I would say that most people, and I do mean the vast majority, recognize spam on sight, and would not consider an off-topic post as spam, because it isn't.  I found the inclusion of off-topic messages with spam a bit muddled myself.  An off topic message or even thread is not spam, though different groups have different cultures surrounding whether or not same is tolerated.

The definition of SPAM has expanded as `new and improved` versions appear.  It really is a category, somewhat like obscenity, in that most people know it when they see it, though some are a bit more sensitive than others as to what might meet either category.  But off-topic post(s) by otherwise valued members isn't.

--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 
     Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

          ~ H.L. Mencken, AKA The Sage of Baltimore


moderated Re: Suggestion: Ability to send PM from a member's profile page #suggestion

 

Actually now that I think about it, that's the same as being able to mark a topic "reply to sender," which I suggested in a previous thread should be an option and which Mark said he now wants to implement.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Suggestion: Ability to send PM from a member's profile page #suggestion

 

An alternative (although not very aesthetic) that would solve this particular problem is to have an option "lock topic except for private replies" (which would be disabled in a group that disallows private replies). However, you'd then run into the problem - discussed here aeons ago - that in the current UI, you have to first click "reply" and only after that, click "private."
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Language Definition of Spam

Sharon Villines
 

Off topic is off topic. Some topics are broad and whether something is off topic may be in the eye of the beholder.

Spam is a much more specifically defined kind of email that attempts, usually, to produce financial gain. An off topic post sent to one list, no matter the size of the list, it isn’t SPAM. It’s just unwanted email.

From the University of Indiana knowledge base:
https://kb.iu.edu/d/afne

The term "spam" is internet slang that refers to unsolicited commercial email (UCE) or unsolicited bulk email (UBE). Some people refer to this kind of communication as junk email to equate it with the paper junk mail that comes through the US Mail. Unsolicited email most often contains advertisements for services or products, but very few reputable marketers use UCE to advertise. The most commonly seen spam includes the following:

• Phishing scams, a very popular and dangerous form of email fraud
• Foreign bank scams or advance fee fraud schemes
• Pyramid schemes, including multilevel marketing (MLM)
• Other "Get Rich Quick" or "Make Money Fast" (MMF) schemes
• Quack health products and remedies
• Ads for pornographic websites
• Offers of software for collecting email addresses and sending UCE
• Offers of bulk emailing services for sending UCE
• Chain letters (see About chain mail)
• Illegally pirated software ("Warez”)
Calling off topic posts SPAM muddles the meanings of both SPAM and off topic. Labelling an innocent list member a junk mail scammer can’t be an advantage that merits changing the definition of SPAM.

Wikipedia expands the definition to also include infected emails spreading viruses. worms, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_spam

Some off-topic posters may be just bugging the moderator and other members — but it still isn’t spam by any definition I can find.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines, Washington DC

"It is harder to be kind than clever. KIndness is a choice and hard. Cleverness is a gift and seductive.” — Jeff Bezos' Grandfather


moderated Re: Suggestion: Ability to send PM from a member's profile page #suggestion

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Shal,

           An additional factor, unless I'm just inventing this from the whole cloth, is that group owners can choose to have private directories, in which case there's no way to establish off-group contact with a member who is not averse to same with ease.

           And before anyone jumps in and says, "But we don't want people talking outside the group," the ability to make a group have a private directory or to disable even access to member profiles appears to be built in to Groups.io, so you can set things up already to prevent this.  I'm talking about groups where its entirely reasonable that one might wish to contact another member privately about something, whether group related or not.

--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 
     Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

          ~ H.L. Mencken, AKA The Sage of Baltimore


moderated Re: Approval link ABOVE pending message? #suggestion

 

Hi All,

I just added a 'View this message online" link at the top of pending message notification emails.

Cheers,
Mark

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 2:37 PM Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:
This could tie in with the TODO item to put other buttons at the top of messages, https://trello.com/c/R256nFIk/180

Duane


moderated Re: Suggestion: Ability to send PM from a member's profile page #suggestion

 

Brian,


I clicked through to his profile thinking, "Oh, I'll just send a PM, as what I'd like to tell him really isn't support related," but that option does not exist.

Agreed, the Email button (available on member entries in the Directory) ought to be duplicated in the actual profile page.

That's bugged me before, especially since there's no way to easily get to the entry in the Directory if one got to the profile from a message.
Shal


moderated Re: icon for private-reply topics #suggestion

 

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:15 PM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
This is a related, but IMO extremely important, oversight: A topic tagged with a locked hashtag is clearly marked as locked. But a topic tagged with a moderated hashtag is NOT shown as moderated. Several times in a row, I thought a moderated hashtag was not working as expected because the icon didn't show up. But it always turns out that the thread IS moderated. You just can't see that it is.

Topics with a tag that is moderated will now display a moderated icon in the Topics view.

I agree with the rest of this topic about adding the hashtag settings to topics themselves. But that involves a bit more coding.

Thanks,
Mark 


moderated Suggestion: Ability to send PM from a member's profile page #suggestion

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

I have not actually encountered a situation prior to today where this would have mattered to me, but now I have, and I'll use the actual example.

Mark has locked the topic on disallowed groups, and although I know that I could e-mail to support@groups.io to contact him directly, many a random member would not.  I clicked through to his profile thinking, "Oh, I'll just send a PM, as what I'd like to tell him really isn't support related," but that option does not exist.

On many (and I'd say most) other sites that support a web interface similar to groups.io, if one clicks through on a member name to their profile, one of the functions available there is to send a private message (PM) to said member if they have not blocked private messaging.

It appears that certain groups do, in its entirety, but most don't.  If the feature is available, and the option is blocked by the member, it would be nice if the profile page indicated that PMs are not accepted in place of the PM link or button, though that's not essential.

Since you can't reply to a locked topic my usual, "Reply then use the private button," technique will not work for those.
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 
     Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

          ~ H.L. Mencken, AKA The Sage of Baltimore


locked Re: Not permitted groups

 

Hi All,

Thanks again for the feedback. Here's the text that I pushed to the site this morning. I'm going to re-lock this topic after I post this. If you have any suggestions for changes, please send them directly to me (as an aside this definitely illustrates that I need to add the ability for moderators to be able to set the reply to of an individual topic, without having to resort to hashtags).

Thanks,
Mark

Please ensure that your group adheres to our Terms of Service. We at Groups.io believe in freedom of expression, and it is our intention to respect different perspectives and enable them to co-exist seamlessly and effortlessly. We do not permit the following:
 
- Pornography, adult content or nudity (this will link to the existing pornography page).
- Harassment of any kind.
- Groups that share media, or content, whose distribution would be in violation of copyright law.
- Groups dedicated to the promotion of extreme, hateful, or exclusionary ideas, including but not limited to, the alt-right.
- Groups dedicated to the promotion of conspiracy theories, including but not limited to: Gamergate, Pizzagate, and Qanon.
- Groups that are designed strictly to use our directory as an advertisement for something other than the group itself.
 


moderated Re: Language

 

On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 06:20 AM, Brian Vogel wrote:
All kidding aside, that's not spamming, that's targeted harassment.
Exactly right. I actually wanted to correct that after writing it.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Language

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 11:53 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I had a disgruntled banned member who saved all her emails from the group from years ago and sent multi-page screeds to all of them disparaging the group. Now THAT's spamming. :) Her account was removed altogether. 
All kidding aside, that's not spamming, that's targeted harassment.   Yes, the target is big, but not indiscriminate.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 
     Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

          ~ H.L. Mencken, AKA The Sage of Baltimore


moderated Re: add mod choices "reply and lock topic" or "reply and moderate topic" #suggestion

 

I don’t see thst problem. It would happen nearly instantaneously. Letting mods reply to locked topics would be slightly better but seems much harder to implement.

On Oct 10, 2018, at 10:53 PM, Michael Pavan <michaelpavan@comcast.net> wrote:

"reply and lock" and "reply and moderate” would still require that Moderator to rush their reply before someone else can reply because the topic has yet to be locked or moderated until the Moderator’s notifying reply has been sent…

Better yet either:
-allow Moderators to not be subject to the lock or moderation;
or
-the lock or moderation begins immediately, but that Moderator is allowed one more reply.


Self-moderation may function as a safe guard for Moderators who post without adequate proof-reading, however if this is desirable why should not everyone get a “Is this really what you want to post” notice as an extra step in the posting process.


On Oct 10, 2018, at 2:30 PM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@gmail.com> wrote:

When I plan to lock or moderate a topic, I usually announce in a reply that I'm doing so, and then I have to rush to do it before someone else can reply. To avoid that, I am suggesting including moderator options "reply and lock" and "reply and moderate" under the "more" menu, thus eliminating the problem.

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: add mod choices "reply and lock topic" or "reply and moderate topic" #suggestion

Michael Pavan
 

"reply and lock" and "reply and moderate” would still require that Moderator to rush their reply before someone else can reply because the topic has yet to be locked or moderated until the Moderator’s notifying reply has been sent…

Better yet either:
-allow Moderators to not be subject to the lock or moderation;
or
-the lock or moderation begins immediately, but that Moderator is allowed one more reply.


Self-moderation may function as a safe guard for Moderators who post without adequate proof-reading, however if this is desirable why should not everyone get a “Is this really what you want to post” notice as an extra step in the posting process.

On Oct 10, 2018, at 2:30 PM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@gmail.com> wrote:

When I plan to lock or moderate a topic, I usually announce in a reply that I'm doing so, and then I have to rush to do it before someone else can reply. To avoid that, I am suggesting including moderator options "reply and lock" and "reply and moderate" under the "more" menu, thus eliminating the problem.


moderated Re: Language

 

Yeah our spammer did sneak back in but hasn’t posted (I increased NuM to 4 and moderate potential troublemakers at the drop of a hat). It was just a little anecdote, ancient history now thanks to Mark. :)


On Oct 10, 2018, at 8:59 PM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

I really don't think the exact mechanism of banishment is relevant.

I agree that some people will probably have their accounts deleted.  That is the ultimate "permanent ban on posting privileges" provided you don't have one of those people who repeatedly tries to sneak back in under a different guise (and generally has a tell that's so instantly recognizable that it's laughable that they'd try).

I chose that wording simply because that's exactly how we do it "on that other site."  The only time an account is actually deleted is if a member requests it, and even then removal of an account does not strike any of the content that they posted while they had an account.

We actually purge all spam messages, and if you had a robo-spammer or tag team that can take some effort!
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 
     Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

          ~ H.L. Mencken, AKA The Sage of Baltimore


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Language

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

I really don't think the exact mechanism of banishment is relevant.

I agree that some people will probably have their accounts deleted.  That is the ultimate "permanent ban on posting privileges" provided you don't have one of those people who repeatedly tries to sneak back in under a different guise (and generally has a tell that's so instantly recognizable that it's laughable that they'd try).

I chose that wording simply because that's exactly how we do it "on that other site."  The only time an account is actually deleted is if a member requests it, and even then removal of an account does not strike any of the content that they posted while they had an account.

We actually purge all spam messages, and if you had a robo-spammer or tag team that can take some effort!
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 
     Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

          ~ H.L. Mencken, AKA The Sage of Baltimore

12441 - 12460 of 30989