For general Groups.io questions, please see the Group Managers Forum and Group_Help groups. Note: those groups are volunteer-led and are not officially run by Groups.io.
|
moderated
Re: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion
Shal, whatever the case, Y!G is currently out of compliance with its own TOU. I assume Mark would not want to be put in a similar legal position. Y!G (formerly) allowing people to request restoring of their group membership to remove a post would be similar to groups.io members asking mods or support to delete their contact. They have to ASK.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
My request (at least as far as my group is concerned) only applies to deleting messages, because of all the chaos it can cause. Deletion of other content is not a priority in these issues and could either be left alone or disabled separately for each case (photos, etc). Dentist running late. :-)
On Dec 18, 2018, at 10:02 AM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion
J,
I know that. I also remember that, back when Y!Groups had support, Customer Care would sometimes ask the group owner to let the member back in to delete their content. Or Customer Care would do it on the former member's behalf. That was part of the "your content is yours" philosophy that many people appreciated. Shal
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion
Which means that if the TOU is changed to legally allow groups.io members to force groups.io to take down any of their content, at any time, then groups.io is in a really untenable position because we already don't do that. If a member has a valid reason for wanting to remove content, they can ask a moderator (or, worst case, support) to remove it. Allowing disablement of deletion would serve the more common situations of people just trying to delete and resend (in essence, editing their posts).
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:52 AM J_Catlady via Groups.Io <j.olivia.catlady=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:
--
J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion
Shal, Remember that after a member leaves, or is removed from, a group, they can no longer delete their posts anyway. Same as in Y!G.
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:48 AM Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:
--
J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion
A couple of thoughts pre-dentist:
This would alleviates the rootless thread problem in the archive, but does not help with members essentially using the delete feature to get around disabled editing of posts. They can still send a do-over afterwards. And the loophole is actually worse than the editing feature, because their re-send would be out of chrono order in the archive (as well as in email, of course). That's unfixable except by going in by hand and copy/pasting (as I did today with the screwed-up thread yesterday). And members still receive essentially duplicate emails when reading by email (just as they do with edited posts).] If you think about the legalities and the practicalities, members who are no longer in a group can't delete their posts except by asking the moderator (or support) to delete them. They can't touch their posts themselves any more. And a moderator can easily remove any member. Therefore, right NOW mods have the ability to prevent any one individual from removing their posts by simply removing them from the group. I'm using this as an argument to say that we already, in one sense, can prevent people from deleting. I'm not saying we should use this ability because it's clearly impractical. But I'm saying that any *legal* argument that we shouldn't allow disablement of deletion is already in the toilet, because we already allow it under the circumstance of the member being gone from the group. (And furthermore, as I said before, the TOU already seems to rule out any such legal requirement.) NOW I will go to the dentist. ;p -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion
Mark, I stand on the side of preserving a member's option to delete any or all of their contributions (Messages, Photos, Files, etc.). I understand J's point about the license terms in Groups.io's TOS, but that's one of the few things I'm dissatisfied with about Groups.io. I much preferred the Yahoo TOS in that regard: it explicitly terminates the license if either the user or Yahoo deletes the content. Shal
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Identically named topics
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 09:43 AM, Jim Higgins wrote:
Assuming it isn't allowed, how will it be detected and enforced?They would be threaded into the existing topic. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Identically named topics
Jim Higgins
Received from J_Catlady at 12/18/2018 09:51 AM UTC:
Currently, members can start an infinite number of topics with the same name. Should this be allowed, Assuming it isn't allowed, how will it be detected and enforced? It seems to me that enforcement requires looking at all messages with the same subject line and flagging the ones that are off topic. That doesn't seem like something that's even remotely practical to do via programming. or should messages bearing the same name as an already existing topic be threaded into that topic? If threading is done by Subject:, that's about the only option. Some email clients can thread based on "Message-Id:" and "References:" headers, but I don't know of any web based email lists (like Groups.io, Yahoo Groups, etc) that do that. Jim H
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion
Jim Higgins
Received from Mark Fletcher at 12/18/2018 05:29 PM UTC:
What if, instead of completely nuking the message when someone deletes it, I replace it with something that just says 'This message has been deleted'? That seems like a useful idea, but it would also be nice to have an option for group owners to turn off the ability of subscribers to delete messages. Jim H
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion
Mark,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I dunno. Maybe not a bad idea. I’ll think about the possible ramifications as I sit in the dentist’s chair during the next hour and a half. Take my mind off things. :-)
On Dec 18, 2018, at 9:29 AM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Hashtags
Jim Higgins
Received from Dave Sergeant at 12/18/2018 05:03 PM UTC:
For those of us who receive email versions of posts and who use email clients that thread by the subject line the threading breaks since only a limited number of characters are used for the threading (at least in my email reader). Same for most of them. Personally I can see little point in more than one hashtag in a post. If used solely for SEARCH purposes and not for the actions that certain classes of #hashtags can trigger... the result the recipe group wants can be had by putting "tags" in the first line (or anywhere) in the message. Just put some character that isn't "#" in front of each "tag" so just plain words won't be confused with tags when searching. Jim H
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion
J, What if, instead of completely nuking the message when someone deletes it, I replace it with something that just says 'This message has been deleted'? Thanks, Mark
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Identically named topics
Mark, I also tested it via email with the same result. Will retest.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Dec 18, 2018, at 9:23 AM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Hashtags
Jim Higgins
Received from J_Catlady at 12/18/2018 04:18 PM UTC:
I think there's some difficult technical issue Mark alluded to awhile back with increasing the max. Possibly (read that as "semi-informed guess") the same reason it would be a problem for some mail reading programs... field size for the subject in the message database may be too short to hold more than X number of bytes... with 68 - 72 bytes or so being a number carried forward from the old days when terminals were teletype machines. Ten hashtags jammed into that space would make for some really short tags... esp after considering that the bytes in "Subject: Re [GROUPNAME] " count toward any possible limit on bytes. Jim H
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Hashtags
I almost never use less than two. I’m ok with five as the limit but can see legitimate uses for more, depending on the group.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Dec 18, 2018, at 9:03 AM, Dave Sergeant <dave@davesergeant.com> wrote: --
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: Identically named topics
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:51 AM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote: Currently, members can start an infinite number of topics with the same name. Should this be allowed, or should messages bearing the same name as an already existing topic be threaded into that topic? If you're referring to messages posted via the website, then this was by design. The thought process being that someone using the 'New Topic' post feature definitely wanted a new topic. This was different than messages received via email, where we did try to merge them into existing topics. I've changed it so that if someone posts a new topic via the web, it's treated the same as if we had received an email, and should be combined to an existing, recent topic of the same name. Thanks, Mark
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Hashtags
We don't use hashtags in our groups anyway. But there is a very strong
reason for limiting the number of hashtags. They make subject lines very long. For those of us who receive email versions of posts and who use email clients that thread by the subject line the threading breaks since only a limited number of characters are used for the threading (at least in my email reader). Personally I can see little point in more than one hashtag in a post. Dave On 18 Dec 2018 at 8:17, Marv Waschke wrote: Is there a reason for limiting the number of hash tags? Hashtags are http://davesergeant.com
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Hashtags
I think there’s some difficult technical issue Mark alluded to awhile back with increasing the max.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Dec 18, 2018, at 8:17 AM, Marv Waschke <marv@...> wrote:
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Hashtags
Is there a reason for limiting the number of hash tags? Hashtags are different from searching the message text because the user intentionally classifies the message with a tag but a search infers the classification from the contents. Similar, but not always the same. The recipe example shows that a single post can be in a large number of orthogonal categories. Other subject matter could have more.
Limiting the number of tags seems unnecessarily arbitrary if there is no performance or underlying structural reason for limiting them. If the only reason for limiting hashtags is that someone might unwisely use too many, wouldn't that be better dealt with by moderating and education rather than limiting the system? Best, Marv
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion
Deletion has also created confusing situations in the archive, wherein the top post of the thread is gone but the responses are there and are meaningless. E.g., top post is gone and the thread consists of a bunch of posts to the effect of "I agree" or "I disagree." Agree or disagree with WHAT? etc.
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|