Date   

locked Re: suggestion - Consistency (ies)

KWKloeber
 

Shal

i prefer MY.  “My Computer”

My subs or my groups. 

The second is My Settings for This Group. 
How to shorten this? Certainly not by changing the meaning to Subscription. I know I’m subscribed to this group. 
Have we already run out of 2nd lines on the planet? I missed the breaking news in CNN.
Many side bars use two lines for a link. 


locked Re: suggestion - Consistency (ies)

 

Ken,


(continuing to complain)  ;-),

Meh.

THIS is "SUBSCRIPTIONS":

That is a list of your subscriptions. Aka your group memberships. Aka Your Groups.

I'd actually prefer to have that tab be named Your Subscriptions, or even Your Memberships, but long ago those were deemed to make the column awkwardly wide. Leaving out "Your" might not be so bad, but it does make it less clear what's on the page.

and THIS is "MY SETTINGS," not "my subsription"

Those are the settings of one of your subscriptions. Aka your Subscription to that group. I would not want that page renamed "My Settings" because that would be confusing in contrast to the several pages of settings in your Account. I wouldn't mind having it named Your Subscription, but again there is the column width issue.

Shal


locked Re: suggestion - Consistency (ies)

KWKloeber
 

(continuing to complain)  ;-),

THIS is "SUBSCRIPTIONS":



and THIS is "MY SETTINGS," not "my subsription"


moderated Re: #hashtags

KWKloeber
 

***any of the following subject replies didnt tie in to the 1st subject ***
 
Are you saying that all of the subsequent posts (after made the hashtag change) are under one separate/different (non #hashtag) topic??  
Or did each subsequent post end up under its own topic (i.e., several posts, different topics, having the same non-#hashtag subject)?

Virus-free. www.avg.com


moderated Re: New moderation setting proposal #suggestion

 

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 04:38 PM, Bruce Bowman wrote:
that didn't make your "moderate the first post" idea a bad one, back in November.
BTW it was Helen's idea, and a brilliant one at that. It is so useful that I want to make it an optional group setting, since I now set all my group members to it and have to do that by hand. (My own humble idea was to make the entire thread that someone starts moderated, which I have ended up using much less often.)
 
--
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: New moderation setting proposal #suggestion

 

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 04:38 PM, Bruce Bowman wrote:
The idea will fly or it won't, but it strikes me as entirely symmetrical and complimentary to what we already have in place. Don't like it? Don't use it.
Please understand that I am not arguing against it. I'm arguing against its ultimate value. I have nothing against adding it, and if it turns out it gets implemented and I like it, I'll use it, and if not, then not. I still see the two situations as entirely asymmetrical.
 
--
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: New moderation setting proposal #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 07:04 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
The “price” of putting a member on full mod whose common issues are with new topics is probably an order or magnitude greater than the “price” of putting a hijacker on full mod.
Not at all true.

Some people initiate a bad thread using a new subject line. Others initiate a thread (bad or good) by hijacking an existing one. In both cases, a new thread is started, and has gone out to the other subscribers. The damage, if any, is done. Right?

Now, the hijacked thread has the same subject line as one that you want to keep. Others reply to it, spreading the disease. No matter whether the thread is objectionable or not, you have to engage in a split-and-mergefest to tidy up the message archive.

Are you still following me?

Yes, I could just put the person on moderation altogether. That capability has been around for a long time. But somehow, that didn't make your "moderate the first post" idea a bad one, back in November. I don't see how it makes my "moderate the reply" idea a bad one here in August.

The idea will fly or it won't, but it strikes me as entirely symmetrical and complimentary to what we already have in place. Don't like it? Don't use it.

Thanks,
Bruce


moderated Re: New moderation setting proposal #suggestion

 

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 04:04 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
an order or magnitude
typo, order of magnitude

And actually, regarding the assumption that hijackers reply to more topics than they start, I think it's almost by definition, since they tend to hijack topics rather than start their own. So if you put them on mod, then worst case scenario is once in awhile you'd have to approve a new topic they start. I just don't see the added value. But, as I said, go for it! I have nothing against 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: New moderation setting proposal #suggestion

 

They’re not analogous because of the magnitudes involved. The “price” of putting a member on full mod whose common issues are with new topics is probably an order or magnitude greater than the “price” of putting a hijacker on full mod. In the former case, putting someone on mod who tends only to create “bad first posts.” you’d end up having to possibly approve dozens of appropriate replies just in order to catch the relatively few bad topics they start. Hence the separate category makes sense. In the latter case, putting a hijacker on mod has the relatively low price of having to approve the much smaller number of topics they presumably start. 

Yeah I don’t “know” that a hijacker or anyone else replies to many more topics than they start. But I think we can assume that.


On Aug 28, 2019, at 3:55 PM, Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...> wrote:

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 06:44 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I see those as not analogous. But go for it.
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/18123

Bruce

--
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: New moderation setting proposal #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 06:44 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I see those as not analogous. But go for it.
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/18123

Bruce


moderated Re: New moderation setting proposal #suggestion

 

I see those as not analogous. But go for it. 😊


On Aug 28, 2019, at 3:43 PM, Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...> wrote:

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 06:11 PM, Chris Jones wrote:
Once a "troublesome member" realised that they could start a topic unmoderated, but that replies were held for moderation, they might start posting replies with a slightly amended subject line in an attempt to circumvent the moderation delay.
That same argument was put forward -- in reverse -- for the topic origination overrides...didn't stop it from being implemented.

Bruce

--
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: New moderation setting proposal #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 06:11 PM, Chris Jones wrote:
Once a "troublesome member" realised that they could start a topic unmoderated, but that replies were held for moderation, they might start posting replies with a slightly amended subject line in an attempt to circumvent the moderation delay.
That same argument was put forward -- in reverse -- for the topic origination overrides...didn't stop it from being implemented.

Bruce


moderated Re: option to set maximum attendees for calendar events

 

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 8:58 PM Nancy Funk <funkmomma71@...> wrote:
What isn't available yet is the ability for the organizer to take people off the list manually.
Does the word "yet" mean this might be coming down the pike? That would be awesome if it is! :)

Yes, it's definitely on the TODO list.

Right now, as evidenced by recent #changelogs, I'm focused on development of the App (and the API needed to support it). I'm paying a consulting group to build the app itself, so I need to make sure that they're always kept busy... which is keeping me busy at the moment.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: New moderation setting proposal #suggestion

Chris Jones
 

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:02 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
And if so, what would be the real downside in simply putting them on moderation?
From my own viewpoint that would be the easier option.

Once a "troublesome member" realised that they could start a topic unmoderated, but that replies were held for moderation, they might start posting replies with a slightly amended subject line in an attempt to circumvent the moderation delay.

The benefit of just moderating the individual(s) concerned is that it is totally unambiguous in its scope. Then they set up another membership in an attempt to frustrate the process... :(

Chris


moderated Re: #hashtags

 

Technotronic,
after I tagged a post with a subject with no hashtag, with one that is related, any of the following subject replies didnt tie in to the 1st subject , even with the initial post with same subject tagged.
That's because although both posts are inside the same hashtag, they have different subjects (with the first having no subject at all from what I understood).

So, as far as I could see, nothing unexpected :)

Cheers,
Marcio AKA Starboy

Sent from a galaxy far, far away.


moderated Re: New moderation setting proposal #suggestion

 

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 02:59 PM, Duane wrote:
Exactly.  If they start a new topic, everything is fine.  It's when they use reply for a post totally unrelated to the topic they've replied to (hijacking the thread) that a problem occurs. 
Oh, I see. But how often do they start topics as opposed to replying to other topics? Presumably an order of magnitude less? And if so, what would be the real downside in simply putting them on moderation?
 
--
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: New moderation setting proposal #suggestion

Duane
 

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 04:46 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
equivalent to putting them on moderation only for replies, not for first messages of any new topics they start
Exactly.  If they start a new topic, everything is fine.  It's when they use reply for a post totally unrelated to the topic they've replied to (hijacking the thread) that a problem occurs.  I've got folks that do it regularly as well.  My first thought when I read Bruce's post was to moderate them constantly.  Then realized that it's only their erroneous replies that cause a problem, not new topics.

Duane


moderated #hashtags

Technotronic Dimensions
 

Noticed a while back that after I tagged a post with a subject with no hashtag, with one that is
related, any of the following subject replies didnt tie in to the 1st subject , even with the initial post
with same subject tagged.


moderated Re: New moderation setting proposal #suggestion

 

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 02:32 PM, Ken Schweizer wrote:
we could add an infinite number of new moderation types
I think the recent new types (moderating all topics a person starts and moderating the first message of all topics a person starts) make sense and are useful. I don't see the usefulness of the request here, which is equivalent to putting them on moderation only for replies, not for first messages of any new topics they start.  
 
--
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: New moderation setting proposal #suggestion

Ken Schweizer
 

It looks like we could add an infinite number of new moderation types for an infinite number issues, where and when should we just use the basic "Override Moderated"?

 

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." God

 

From: main@beta.groups.io [mailto:main@beta.groups.io] On Behalf Of Bruce Bowman
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 12:15 PM
To: main@beta.groups.io
Subject: [beta] New moderation setting proposal #featurerequest

 

Some time ago (Ref: https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/18455), new moderation settings were established for topics that a "problem subscriber" initiates, to wit:

Override: moderate the first message of every topic this person starts

Override: moderate all messages of every topic this person starts


I'd really like to be able to set a moderation override for topics that a subscriber replies to. Such a setting would allow me to head off a pernicious problem with subscribers who hijack existing topics when they should be starting a new one.

Thanks for your consideration,
Bruce

8521 - 8540 of 30380