Date   

moderated Re: +Owner Email a Preference or a Permission?

Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...>
 

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 02:47 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 10:38 AM, Gerald Boutin wrote:
One: the Permission - That allows the moderator ....
Two: The (Subscription) preference/setting that the Moderator has control of.
 
I wouldn't consider this an inconsistency.
No, it is an inconsistency. If something is a permission, I can't give it to myself. It must be given to me by someone higher up.

You would not call a variable that can be set by either the member or the owner (for example, a member's overall delivery preference) a "permission" just because someone higher than the member (a mod or owner) can set them.

This is just a slight inconsistency, but I think it does hint that during implementation, Mark had on one side of his mind the idea that this setting is actually a permission. Unfortunately, in another part of the implementation (the actual editing of the setting), it behaves as a preference rather than a permission.
 

 I thought we decided a while back that this was a bug, not an inconsistency.

eg) It should be working this way (but it isn't):

eg) Owner sets the permisison (P)
and the Moderator is given the option (O) to accept or not.

Result should be P "AND" O

In any case, it is what it is....

--
Gerald


moderated Re: Meta Suggestion: preferences

 

That’s great and I would generally agree. A lot of us here, like you, and including me, are (or were at some point) senior se’s and I’m sure you understand that it’s not always just “implement the feature, make it an option, and everybody’s happy.” You take the product as a whole into account. Any particular feature can possibly add or possibly detract from the product. 


On Aug 30, 2019, at 11:24 AM, Glenn Glazer <glenn.glazer@...> wrote:

So, I've avoided a number of discussions here and on GMF because they seem to boil down to folks arguing about personal preferences of one sort or another.

I work as senior software engineer for a product that has complex server and client components, with an extraordinarily wide range of use cases. We get the chocolate versus vanilla discussions and customer requests all the time. When it comes to preferences and style, there is no one right answer that works for everyone. Welcome to the grand diversity of the human experience.

At work, if we permit a subjective feature in the first place, we enable a switch to turn it on and off or a slider if it isn't a binary. Those that want can have and those that don't aren't required to have it.

This approach completely walks around the whole problem of whether chocolate is "better" or "right" compared to vanilla and pleases the most number of people by stopping ourselves from saying OR when we could be saying BOTH.

Best,

Glenn
Who prefers French vanilla, but is okay with ice cream stores also carrying chocolate flavors.

--
We must work to make the Democratic Party the Marketplace of Ideas not the Marketplace of Favors.

Virus-free. www.avast.com

--
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 Meta Suggestion: preferences

Glenn Glazer
 

So, I've avoided a number of discussions here and on GMF because they seem to boil down to folks arguing about personal preferences of one sort or another.

I work as senior software engineer for a product that has complex server and client components, with an extraordinarily wide range of use cases. We get the chocolate versus vanilla discussions and customer requests all the time. When it comes to preferences and style, there is no one right answer that works for everyone. Welcome to the grand diversity of the human experience.

At work, if we permit a subjective feature in the first place, we enable a switch to turn it on and off or a slider if it isn't a binary. Those that want can have and those that don't aren't required to have it.

This approach completely walks around the whole problem of whether chocolate is "better" or "right" compared to vanilla and pleases the most number of people by stopping ourselves from saying OR when we could be saying BOTH.

Best,

Glenn
Who prefers French vanilla, but is okay with ice cream stores also carrying chocolate flavors.

--
We must work to make the Democratic Party the Marketplace of Ideas not the Marketplace of Favors.

Virus-free. www.avast.com


moderated Re: #hashtags

KWKloeber
 

<<<On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 09:52 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
Ken,
Shal >>>
Ok, but that doesn't explain why
orig subj
orig subj
ended up in different threads/subjects/topics (take your pick <wink> )
They are identical.   
Might the algorithm be updated to also ignore other commonly used? like RE:; [SPAM] etc (mind has temporarily gone blank)--  that an email client or other might tack on to the subject line?


locked Re: suggestion - Consistency (ies)

KWKloeber
 

[avoding over quoting]  Shal, I get your point that's a matter of style, so there's no "rule" as you try to point to.  It's a matter of "direction."  Talking to the screen, the settings are "my" (mine) - I own them, I set them, I control them.  The screen talking back - they are "your"s  -- you own them, you set them - but I abide by them. I would say "you put on YOUR pants" but you would say I put on MY pants.

Note that the confusion complaints aren't by seasoned users that can go to plan B if a menu looks odd or doesn't supply the info or choices one expects,  We can click around and find what we want.  Put their shoes on -- It's those who are afraid that clicking something they aren't supposed to might blow up the world, or at least their laptop. 
Settings can occur in different areas.  Account settings, communication settings, display settings, bla bla.  But subscriptions is what I am subscribed to (a list of them where I can manage them?)  Now, if it were called This particular subscription's settings (opposed to another subscription's settings) then maybe novices could understand that better.  but "subscription" is confusing -- doesn't convey any readably recognizable context as to what comes next in the clicking order.  At least "Preferences" (display, communication, etc) would be recognizable.
But regardless, consistency is the key - when one goes from one screen to another or to a help page, there are different terms for the same items that a novice has to stop and wonder, what's the difference between a post and a message, or a subject and a topic or thread, or bla bla -- they're used interchangeably and I see their point that's it's just plain ol' confusing to them, so therefore frustrating, therefore avoided.


moderated Re: +Owner Email a Preference or a Permission?

 

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 10:38 AM, Gerald Boutin wrote:
One: the Permission - That allows the moderator ....
Two: The (Subscription) preference/setting that the Moderator has control of.
 
I wouldn't consider this an inconsistency.
No, it is an inconsistency. If something is a permission, I can't give it to myself. It must be given to me by someone higher up.

You would not call a variable that can be set by either the member or the owner (for example, a member's overall delivery preference) a "permission" just because someone higher than the member (a mod or owner) can set them.

This is just a slight inconsistency, but I think it does hint that during implementation, Mark had on one side of his mind the idea that this setting is actually a permission. Unfortunately, in another part of the implementation (the actual editing of the setting), it behaves as a preference rather than a permission.
 
--
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: +Owner Email a Preference or a Permission?

Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...>
 

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 01:38 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
To add to the inconsistency and/or confusion: Last night I changed two moderators' subscription options (or email delivery options, whatever you choose to call them) so that they will receive all owner email, and log entries were created to the effect that I "changed their moderator permissions."

So bottom line, it is currently logged as a permission when changed by a group owner, but it *acts* like a subscription option becuase the moderators have the ability to change it themselves. Whatever is decided regarding the desired policy (permission or subscription option), this is currently a slight inconsistency in the system.
--
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

Confusing it can be - no arguments there.

However, the way I look at it, there are two different bits of data that determine how the feature works.

One: the Permission - That allows the moderator ....
Two: The (Subscription) preference/setting that the Moderator has control of.
 
I wouldn't consider this an inconsistency.

--
Gerald


moderated Re: #hashtags

Drew
 

Yes, unfortunately this makes hashtags a lot less useful than they otherwise would be.

For example, there is no point for a moderator to edit a message topic by adding a hashtag to a previously posted message if most of the subscribers participate in the group via email: they will all have received the original un-tagged post and their email followups to the original will be distributed as untagged.

Our group uses hashtags so that subscribers can filter message posts- both in the archive to selectively browse hashtagged topics that they are interested in, but also by email subscribers to mute tags that they don't want to receive. The current hashtag behavior makes the second task a lot less useful than it otherwise would be.

I might as well add a formerly mentioned feature request for hashtags: namely, the ability for online subscribers to mute specific hastagged topics while browsing the archive and filter them from view.

Drew

On 08/30/19 08:23, Technotronic Dimensions wrote:
Nope thats basicly what happened. I thought
the rest of the messages would get the tag if
the 1st message was later assigned a tag.
The replies , as well as the 1st post were all done via email.
Another observation thats related - is the tag gets added to
the subject line multiple times, when there is a reply via email
to a message that has the tag in the subject field already.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Drew" <pubx1@af2z.net>
To: <main@beta.groups.io>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] #hashtags

You added the hashtag to a message post in the archive. If someone replied to that message in the archive the reply would have been hashtagged also; but I think if they replied to the original un-hashtagged post that they received via email it would not carry the hashtag.

At least, that is my impression. I could be wrong about it.

73,
Drew
AF2Z



On 08/29/19 10:28, Technotronic Dimensions wrote:
1st topic didnt have a tag, and I manually added one days later. Few weeks went by, and someone replied,
but the tag on all the subsequent replies to the 1st topic didnt get tied in with the tag forced into the first post.

The 1st topic is completely seperated from all the subsequent replies now. All the subsequent replies are grouped together
but with no tag.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Kloeber via Groups.Io" <KWKloeber=aol.com@groups.io>
To: <main@beta.groups.io>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: [beta] #hashtags


***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)?


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com









moderated Re: +Owner Email a Preference or a Permission?

 

To add to the inconsistency and/or confusion: Last night I changed two moderators' subscription options (or email delivery options, whatever you choose to call them) so that they will receive all owner email, and log entries were created to the effect that I "changed their moderator permissions."

So bottom line, it is currently logged as a permission when changed by a group owner, but it *acts* like a subscription option becuase the moderators have the ability to change it themselves. Whatever is decided regarding the desired policy (permission or subscription option), this is currently a slight inconsistency in the system.
--
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: #hashtags

KWKloeber
 

Confused!
Are we saying that adding a #HT in effect editing the topic (- or is that the “thread”? or the “subject”? or the “topic”? — I guess it doesn’t matter if consistently being inconsistent is being consistent <wink>) in effect creates a DIFFERENT thread?  And a msg reply to the old t/s/t doesn’t get hooked up with the revised t/s/t?   If so that seems pretty un handy.   It seems that replies within a reasonable period of time should ignore appended #HTs and get m threaded with the revised t/s/t. 

Or maybe I’m misinterpreting the business rules applied to the email subject lines?


moderated Proposal Automatically expand youtube URLS to Embed Youtube Video

Eric di Domenico
 

Could Video embedding be enabled in MCE? https://www.tiny.cloud/docs/plugins/media/

That way users can post videos and see them directly embedded in posts on the site.


moderated Re: #hashtags

Technotronic Dimensions
 

Nope thats basicly what happened. I thought
the rest of the messages would get the tag if
the 1st message was later assigned a tag.

The replies , as well as the 1st post were all done via email.

Another observation thats related - is the tag gets added to
the subject line multiple times, when there is a reply via email
to a message that has the tag in the subject field already.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Drew" <pubx1@af2z.net>
To: <main@beta.groups.io>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] #hashtags


You added the hashtag to a message post in the archive. If someone replied to that message in the archive the reply would have been hashtagged also; but I think if they replied to the original un-hashtagged post that they received via email it would not carry the hashtag.

At least, that is my impression. I could be wrong about it.

73,
Drew
AF2Z



On 08/29/19 10:28, Technotronic Dimensions wrote:
1st topic didnt have a tag, and I manually added one days later. Few weeks went by, and someone replied,
but the tag on all the subsequent replies to the 1st topic didnt get tied in with the tag forced into the first post.

The 1st topic is completely seperated from all the subsequent replies now. All the subsequent replies are grouped together
but with no tag.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Kloeber via Groups.Io" <KWKloeber=aol.com@groups.io>
To: <main@beta.groups.io>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: [beta] #hashtags


***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)?


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com








moderated Re: #hashtags

 

Technotronic,
Ok, I think I figured out what's going on.

1st topic didnt have a tag, and I manually added one days later. Few weeks went by, and someone replied,  but the tag on all the subsequent replies to the 1st topic didnt get tied in with the tag forced into the first post.

The 1st topic is completely seperated from all the subsequent replies now. All the subsequent replies are grouped together  but with no tag. 
Here's what the Topics and the Threading Algorithm, on the Group Managersr Forum Wiki reads:
Posting by email with the same subject text causes them to thread together.
...
Here is the threading algorithm: If a message has threading information (i.e.: "References" and "In-Reply-To" entries in the message header), use that.
If a message does not have threading information:
  • If it's a web post (i.e.: not a reply), assume it's the start of a new thread
  • If the subject starts with Re:, look for a matching subject within the last 30 days
  • If the subject does not start with Re:, look for a matching subject within the last 2 days
Ref: https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/12491

Questions:
  • What exactly do you mean by "few days later"?
  • What exactly do you mean by "few weeks went by"?

  • If your first answer is "more than 2 days" then that's the reason for this behavior.
  • Likewise, if your answer to the second question is "more than 30 days" (probably not) then, again, that's the reason for this behavior.

It's also possible that the person just replied, by email, to the first message they've got (in other words, the topic without  the edited and tagged subject).
In this case, I agree that the reply should be tagged, assuming the aforementioned conditions.

Not sure if it will, but hope this helps.

Cheers,
Marcio AKA Starboy

Sent from a galaxy far, far away.


moderated Re: #hashtags

Drew
 

You added the hashtag to a message post in the archive. If someone replied to that message in the archive the reply would have been hashtagged also; but I think if they replied to the original un-hashtagged post that they received via email it would not carry the hashtag.

At least, that is my impression. I could be wrong about it.

73,
Drew
AF2Z

On 08/29/19 10:28, Technotronic Dimensions wrote:
1st topic didnt have a tag, and I manually added one days later. Few weeks went by, and someone replied,
but the tag on all the subsequent replies to the 1st topic didnt get tied in with the tag forced into the first post.
The 1st topic is completely seperated from all the subsequent replies now. All the subsequent replies are grouped together
but with no tag.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Kloeber via Groups.Io" <KWKloeber=aol.com@groups.io>
To: <main@beta.groups.io>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: [beta] #hashtags

***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)?


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com




moderated Re: New moderation setting proposal #suggestion

 

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 01:56 PM, Chris Jones wrote:
that does not necessarily make spotting a second membership application a reliable process.
Right. It's very easy for someone to fake their way into a group, even with the new info on the geographical location, etc.
 
--
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

Chris Jones
 

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 09:40 PM, Bob Bellizzi wrote:
Why don't you restrict membership and stop them at the gate when they try to rejoin?
I was only being slightly serious! The group I moderate operates restricted membership anyway but that does not necessarily make spotting a second membership application a reliable process.

Chris


moderated Re: New moderation setting proposal #suggestion

Bob Bellizzi
 

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 03:11 PM, Chris Jones wrote:
Then they set up another membership in an attempt to frustrate the process... :(
Chris,
Why don't you restrict membership and stop them at the gate when they try to rejoin?
 
--

Bob Bellizzi


moderated Re: New moderation setting proposal #suggestion

Ken Schweizer
 

I agree, as owners/moderators we need to take control of our groups. If there is a need to show the difference between authoring and hijacking a message it can be accomplished by approving the authored message immediately and waiting a day to approve or reject with a reply to the hijacked message.

If the hijacker is there to cause disharmony their banning is for a reason other than the hijacking.

Adding a new algorithm to simply simplify the moderator's life only adds another path that "could" cause issues down the road.

 

Ken

 

"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 David Grimm
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 10:09 AM
To: main@beta.groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] New moderation setting proposal #featurerequest

 

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.

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... :(

Not to tell anyone how to run their group, but on mine, any member who goes through this much trouble to avoid moderation proves to me that their primary purpose on the group is to cause trouble, which gets them banned. (And so no one thinks I am a meanie, I DO communicate with them privately first.)

Dave


moderated Re: #hashtags

 

I noticed something weird about this just the other day after adding a hashtag to an already-existing topic. I haven't had time to thoroughly check it out yet but just adding my voice to "something funny seems to be going on."


On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 9:24 AM Technotronic Dimensions <steve@...> wrote:
The replies only, are grouped together. This is what I observed after I
applied the tag
to the 1st subject. Its possible that after tagging the 1st post, the system
now views the rest
of the replies as seperate topics. I thought that after tagging the 1st
post, the tag would be recursively applied
to all the other replies, but this has not been the case.

Any other subject that has not been tagged, groups all the subjects fine.

>>*A question:* are the replies to an initial post correctly threaded below
>>it when the topic is looked at on the web UI?






--
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: #hashtags

Technotronic Dimensions
 

The replies only, are grouped together. This is what I observed after I applied the tag
to the 1st subject. Its possible that after tagging the 1st post, the system now views the rest
of the replies as seperate topics. I thought that after tagging the 1st post, the tag would be recursively applied
to all the other replies, but this has not been the case.

Any other subject that has not been tagged, groups all the subjects fine.

*A question:* are the replies to an initial post correctly threaded below it when the topic is looked at on the web UI?

7061 - 7080 of 28950