Date   

moderated Restrict "Set Moderator Privileges" Permission #suggestion #done

Bruce Bowman
 

I suggest that the existing "Set Moderator Privileges" flag should not allow a Moderator to edit the Role field. Promoting/demoting people to/from Moderator or Owner strikes me as an Owner function.

Thanks for your consideration.

Bruce


moderated Edit photo ownership proposal #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

When someone leaves a group, their photo content is orphaned, and their name is not displayed next to the photo. This is fine, but leads to some confusion when a group Owner/Moderator subsequently goes to the photo edit page and instead of an empty field, sees the Owner pre-populated with the first entry in the pull-down menu.

If the "current" owner is not in the group, I'd prefer that this box contain something like "-- none selected --". In addition, I'd prefer that the pick-list be sorted alphabetically or in some more logical fashion than what is currently used, which appears to be inverse by join date.

Thanks for your consideration.

Bruce


moderated use either User Name or Display Name consistently in banning/banned list and removal/past members list #suggestion

 

Banning activity and the banned members list show the member under their User Name in the first column, but removal and the past members list show the Display Name there. You can see that in this removed/banned member's activity log, gleaned from the banned members list (this will be accessible only to Mark):
https://groups.io/g/Feline_Smallcell_Lymphoma/activity?p=Created,sub&subid=7710274

The second from the top line says that I removed X, but the top line says that I banned Y. Which is not big deal, because the email address is the same, and these are consecutive in the log. However, when I looked a few days later for the member in the past members list, I was looking for the wrong name and thought at first that the member did not appear there (I had to search for the email address). Possibly, once a member is removed, the Display Name is no longer accessible? That somehow doesn't seem right. It seems like it should be available in the history.

(BTW note the NMM3 badge in the Banned List record, whereas the history shows the member had some messages approved. But that's for the other topic.)
--
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 Calendar time update of a repeating event deletes former events #bug

Michael Pavan
 

A monthly Calendar event's time shifted to starting an hour earlier. I updated it for "All Events", which worked for the current and future months.

The unexpected consequence, which I believe is a bug, is that it deleted the event in all previous months, except the one month where the event started at a different time; however it did not preserve the past instances of the event when the Location had changed, but not the time.

This is not horrible, but it does destroy the historic value of the Calendar.


moderated New email delivery option #suggestion

Danny K5CG <k5cg@...>
 

I have a small group of members in a group that want to receive email messages for new topics in real time but not the subsequent replies for a group that is set to reply to group.
Setting the group to reply to the original sender instead of the group would upset the majority of the rest of the users who like all replies.

Can we have a new Email Delivery type for this? "New Topics only" ??
 
Thanks for looking.


moderated Default database view #done #suggestion

Chris Smith
 

It would be really useful to be able to set a default visibility on database columns.
Perhaps the column width could accept -1 to make the column invisible?

We have a use case where we want to store a HTML page, but when you view the rows it looks a mess, as the entire HTML page is being displayed. Being able to make this column invisible in the row by row list of entries, and it's only viewable when you click on the row to view the individual record would be great.

I know you can scroll to the bottom of the page and click on the column name to switch it off, but the setting doesn't persist and you can;t set this by default when creating the database.


moderated Re: A 554 Bounce code not recognized as bouncing on first occurrence #bug #fixed

 

On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 10:49 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
you also needed four in a row,
Meaning, four in a row of the "one bounce within every consecutive four days"
 
--
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: A 554 Bounce code not recognized as bouncing on first occurrence #bug #fixed

 

On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 10:44 PM, JediPirx wrote:
The dates of the bouncing events
were spread out over months, not consecutive days
The bounce days don't have to be consecutive. They just have to satisfy the conditions I mentioned. But yeah, that's basically the reason. The bounces were too spread out. You'd get a couple that satisfied "at least one bounce within every consecutive four days," but you also needed four in a row, and you never got four in a row so it would go back to square one and start recounting.
 
--
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: A 554 Bounce code not recognized as bouncing on first occurrence #bug #fixed

JediPirx
 

Thank you for the explanation. The dates of the bouncing events
were spread out over months, not consecutive days so conditions
were not met, as you have stated.

Stan/jp

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Subject : Re : [beta] A 554 Bounce code not recognized as
bouncing on first occurrence #bug #fixed
Date : Wed, 05 Feb 2020 14:51:52 -0800
From : J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@gmail.com>
To : main@beta.groups.io

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 02:30 PM, JediPirx wrote:

Why did GIO not flag these 10 users/email addresses last year ?
I do not know.

Because the conditions back then for setting a member to "bouncing"
were not satisfied. You need either a hard bounce, or at least one soft
bounce within every consecutive four consecutive days after the first
soft bounce, plus at least four soft bounces total, for the member to
be flagged as bouncing. Those are all 554.30 codes in what you posted,
and they did not (until the recent bug fix) count as a hard bounce. So
you needed other condition. Looking quickly through the dates in your
example (and bear in mind I'm looking quickly), it does not seem that
the bouncing dates conditions were satisfied.

If the above were to happen today, the member would be set to
"bouncing" because 554 now qualifies as a hard bounce and you
would not need all those date conditions.


moderated Re: Banned not in Banned list #bug

 

On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 08:48 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Did you ban them by the action dropdown, or by entering the email address?
The reason I ask is that if you ban by entering the email address, a new member record for the banned account is created (as I understand it), regardless of whether or not the email address was already a member of the group. My guess is that that's the cause of the NMM3.
 
--
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: Banned not in Banned list #bug

 

Actually I have a couple that are not NMM. However, all (or nearly all) of the NMM ones did not have that status when banned. One clue is that they're all NMM(3). And all, or nearly all, of them posted at least one approved message. This can be easily checked from their member activity log.
--
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: Banned not in Banned list #bug

 

On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 08:15 PM, Duane wrote:
On most I see whatever status they had when they were banned.
In my group they've all become NMM. Did you ban them by the action dropdown, or by entering the email address? 
 
--
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: Banned not in Banned list #bug

Duane
 

On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 09:02 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
but now, every member of the Banned list shows up as NMM.
I'm not seeing that on all of them. On most I see whatever status they had when they were banned.

Duane


moderated Re: Banned not in Banned list #bug

 

Mark,

Not only is it still not working, but now, every member of the Banned list shows up as NMM. This is correct for email addresses that were banned without having joined the group, but is not correct for most others.
--
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: More mod-permission granularity #suggestion

 

On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 01:36 PM, Charles Roberts wrote:
NO promoted person should be able to oust the original owner.
I think there's a separate thread for that. 
 
--
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: More mod-permission granularity #suggestion

 

On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 01:22 PM, Bob Bellizzi wrote:

In our groups we have people who are really well versed in the diseases we cover and can answer questions about them in very helpful ways. They are not necessarily the ones who are good at or enjoy doing group administrative jobs like moderation, admitting new members, etc.
I'm responding to this since the suggestion originally posted on canny was mine: That's not really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the ability to view/access certain things or not, with Member Notes being a prime example. I generally don't want all moderators to see the Notes, which may contain personal or confidential information. Etc. I'm not talking about filtering message content from moderators, which is what you seem to be alluding to here? Just specific groups.io pages, etc. And you also seem to be simply distinguishing here between moderators and non-moderators, rather than what abilities and permissions certain moderators can have as opposed to others. So I really don't understand this comment.
 
--
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: Hide Email Addresses In Archives fails to mask email addresses in Display Names #bug

 

Mark,

I wrote:

Applying the same rule used for message bodies to email address syntax
matched in the Display Name display would resolve this.
I hope it is understood that I'm still interested in a resolution to this, my lack of response to some of the advice and comments from others notwithstanding.

Shal


moderated Re: More mod-permission granularity #suggestion

Charles Roberts
 

What he said.....and NO promoted person should be able to oust the original owner.

On Feb 9, 2020 4:22 PM, Bob Bellizzi <cdfexec@...> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 06:46 AM, ro-esp wrote:
What good is a moderator who can't approve or reject messages, and can't put abusers on moderated?
What good is a moderator who cannot be reached off-list?
There are lots of non-technical, non-administrative jobs that could use the some of the information that moderators may see but that don't require some of the other privileges/ abilities that are currently tied together with the individual abilities that would, at the same time, allow a level of ability not necessary.

In our groups we have people who are really well versed in the diseases we cover and can answer questions about them in very helpful ways. They are not necessarily the ones who are good at or enjoy doing group administrative jobs like moderation, admitting new members, etc.

Further granularity would allow us to isolate specific abilities and information flow to maximize what differently tasked moderators are able to do and what information the receive to best do their tasks.


--

Bob Bellizzi



moderated Re: More mod-permission granularity #suggestion

Bob Bellizzi
 

On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 06:46 AM, ro-esp wrote:
What good is a moderator who can't approve or reject messages, and can't put abusers on moderated?
What good is a moderator who cannot be reached off-list?
There are lots of non-technical, non-administrative jobs that could use the some of the information that moderators may see but that don't require some of the other privileges/ abilities that are currently tied together with the individual abilities that would, at the same time, allow a level of ability not necessary.

In our groups we have people who are really well versed in the diseases we cover and can answer questions about them in very helpful ways. They are not necessarily the ones who are good at or enjoy doing group administrative jobs like moderation, admitting new members, etc.

Further granularity would allow us to isolate specific abilities and information flow to maximize what differently tasked moderators are able to do and what information the receive to best do their tasks.


--

Bob Bellizzi


moderated Re: More mod-permission granularity #suggestion

 

On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 06:46 AM, ro-esp wrote:
I'm not sure what "granularity" means here
You could read the original suggestion for an understanding of this. There is already some granularity (called "permissions") in what mods can and can't do. The suggestion is for more, and for better matching between current mod permissions and what they can now view.
 
--
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

6481 - 6500 of 30380