Date   

moderated Re: Identically named topics

 

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 09:26 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
I also tested it via email with the same result. Will retest.
Mark, the email ones do thread. My mistake.
 
--
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: Why not allow Edit w/o resending

 

Allowing members to edit and save without sending would be 10 times worse. We have been over and over and over this years ago. Please let's not do it again!
--
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 Why not allow Edit w/o resending

KWKloeber
 

I have no clue why a grp would not allow msgs to be edited, but that’s none of my business!  But, not allowing members to Edit, and choose to Save w/o Resending to the grp seems counter productive.  

There’s many times I fix a simple typo or faux pas, and save w/o bothering the members w/another email.  If it’s critical/important then I resend. But my understanding is that common folk don’t have that option?  Only to resend an edited msg. 
Extending that option not to resend to the masses (with owner option to allow it) would seem to be a valuable enhancement

ok, let ‘er rip. 

Ken


moderated Re: Identically named topics

 

Good point and is probably the reason Mark changed it in the first olace. Maybe he should now change it back? (I myself have no opinion and only started this thread in response to comments by Ken and Gerald in another thread.)


On Dec 18, 2018, at 12:41 PM, Barbara Byers <babmay11@...> wrote:

I think it's fine the way it was.

I know it's happened a few different times that folks in my group may have used the same topic name as a previous post unintentionally, where you would NOT want it threaded on to the previous posts.  Something like "Action Alert" or "Meeting tomorrow".  Yes it's sloppy naming because it isn't very specific, but I would agree with you, if someone posted it as a NEW Topic post, then I would also assume they did it intentionally.  I guess I always assumed I would use a reply function if I wanted the post to be in the same thread.  But that's me.

Barb

 


On 2018-12-18 12:23 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

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 

--
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: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion

KWKloeber
 

J

My point (between the lines) - is if a group prohibits editing, a member could simply copy, start a new topic, paste, edit, send. To email users it would appear to be an identical [edited] message.


moderated Re: Identically named topics

Charlie McB
 

Perhaps if people see the effect of using ambiguous topics then they'll be more specific next time.  On my neighborhood group a topic of "Lost dog" may or may not be a brand new topic.

I do support Mark's change to make the web and email interfaces behave the same.  Regardless of whether it's a new topic or threaded to an old topic, it's less confusing when the two routes give the same results.

                -- Charlie

On 12/18/18 3:41 PM, Barbara Byers wrote:

I think it's fine the way it was.

I know it's happened a few different times that folks in my group may have used the same topic name as a previous post unintentionally, where you would NOT want it threaded on to the previous posts.  Something like "Action Alert" or "Meeting tomorrow".  Yes it's sloppy naming because it isn't very specific, but I would agree with you, if someone posted it as a NEW Topic post, then I would also assume they did it intentionally.  I guess I always assumed I would use a reply function if I wanted the post to be in the same thread.  But that's me.

Barb

 


On 2018-12-18 12:23 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

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: Identically named topics

Barbara Byers
 

I think it's fine the way it was.

I know it's happened a few different times that folks in my group may have used the same topic name as a previous post unintentionally, where you would NOT want it threaded on to the previous posts.  Something like "Action Alert" or "Meeting tomorrow".  Yes it's sloppy naming because it isn't very specific, but I would agree with you, if someone posted it as a NEW Topic post, then I would also assume they did it intentionally.  I guess I always assumed I would use a reply function if I wanted the post to be in the same thread.  But that's me.

Barb

 


On 2018-12-18 12:23 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

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: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion

Barbara Byers
 

I agree, why shouldn't members be allowed to delete their own stuff?  I like Mark's idea of have something that says "message deleted".

Barb

 


On 2018-12-18 12:48 PM, Shal Farley wrote:

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: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion

 

It's just another minor issue. Mark's suggestion to void the message deals with that one aspect, and that one aspect alone.


On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:03 PM Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:
J,

Don’t forget that deleting a message from a thread makes it impossible to then lock or moderate the thread.

If that's still a problem it is a different one. And Mark has already suggested a solution: void the message rather than delete it entirely.
Shal


--
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: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion

 

J,

Don’t forget that deleting a message from a thread makes it impossible to then lock or moderate the thread.

If that's still a problem it is a different one. And Mark has already suggested a solution: void the message rather than delete it entirely.
Shal


moderated Re: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion

 

"action by Customer Care was policy, not a requirement of the TOS"
Shal, according to your own post, Y!G/s TOU differs from groups.io precisely in the requirement of the system to remove any user content at user request. The mechanism is not really relevant. And now, Y!G fails to comply with that.

J

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:59 AM Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:
J,

But they HAD TO ASK,

There was no need to ask anyone if they were still a member or could get back in.
whether group owners or support. No real difference. 

I think there's a big difference between asking a cooperative group owner to approve a membership if needed, versus having to resort to Customer Care to deal with an intransigent or AWOL one.

If Mark changes the TOU, he would also be stuck with being legally required to take down any user content, any time, at the user’s request. 

No. Again: action by Customer Care was policy, not a requirement of the TOS.

Shal


--
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: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion

 

J,

But they HAD TO ASK,

There was no need to ask anyone if they were still a member or could get back in.
whether group owners or support. No real difference. 

I think there's a big difference between asking a cooperative group owner to approve a membership if needed, versus having to resort to Customer Care to deal with an intransigent or AWOL one.

If Mark changes the TOU, he would also be stuck with being legally required to take down any user content, any time, at the user’s request. 

No. Again: action by Customer Care was policy, not a requirement of the TOS.

Shal


moderated Re: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion

 

Here’s a possible solution. Change the ‘delete’ button to ‘request deletion of this message’ and pass the request on to the moderators to handle appropriately.

Don’t change the TOU because of resulting legal quagmire.

Don’t forget that deleting a message from a thread makes it impossible to then lock or moderate the thread. For that reason alone, I never delete messages from active threads. I just redact the message. This is another strong reason not to allow members to simply delete their messages by themselves.

Havoc.


On Dec 18, 2018, at 11:45 AM, J_Catlady via Groups.Io <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

But they HAD TO ASK, whether group owners or support. No real difference. 

And now, they have no recourse whatsoever. So they’re out of compliance. If Mark changes the TOU, he would also be stuck with being legally required to take down any user content, any time, at the user’s request. 


On Dec 18, 2018, at 11:18 AM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:

J,

Shal, whatever the case, Y!G is currently out of compliance with its own TOU.

I don't read the TOS as requiring action by Customer Care; that was a matter of policy. Consistent with the TOS, but not a direct requirement.
They have to ASK.

My point is that they shouldn't need to ask anyone. In Y!Groups needing to involve Customer Care only came about when dealing with intransigent or AWOL group owners.
Shal


--
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


--
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: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion

 

But they HAD TO ASK, whether group owners or support. No real difference. 

And now, they have no recourse whatsoever. So they’re out of compliance. If Mark changes the TOU, he would also be stuck with being legally required to take down any user content, any time, at the user’s request. 


On Dec 18, 2018, at 11:18 AM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:

J,

Shal, whatever the case, Y!G is currently out of compliance with its own TOU.

I don't read the TOS as requiring action by Customer Care; that was a matter of policy. Consistent with the TOS, but not a direct requirement.
They have to ASK.

My point is that they shouldn't need to ask anyone. In Y!Groups needing to involve Customer Care only came about when dealing with intransigent or AWOL group owners.
Shal


--
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: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion

 

J,

Shal, whatever the case, Y!G is currently out of compliance with its own TOU.

I don't read the TOS as requiring action by Customer Care; that was a matter of policy. Consistent with the TOS, but not a direct requirement.
They have to ASK.

My point is that they shouldn't need to ask anyone. In Y!Groups needing to involve Customer Care only came about when dealing with intransigent or AWOL group owners.
Shal


moderated Re: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion

 

typo: content, not contact


On Dec 18, 2018, at 10:24 AM, J_Catlady via Groups.Io <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

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.

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,

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.

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


--
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


--
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: 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.

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,

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.

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


--
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: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion

 

J,

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.

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:
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:
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


--
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


--
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: 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:
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


--
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

11981 - 12000 of 31093