Date   
moderated Re: log activity when someone responds to a poll #suggestion

 

Ok. That’s very good to know. I’ve been wanting to do an anonymous poll in my group but always thought it was not possible.


On Feb 14, 2020, at 7:10 PM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 07:29 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
That depends on the answer to "Do not show WHO who responded to the poll"? Does it mean, don't even show the mods? I was under the impression it just meant "don't show the group."
On the two I looked at, not even an owner or poll creator can see who responded, being truly anonymous (except for the hidden record that keeps track of each persons response in case they want to change it.)  Keeping it from most members is covered by the "Only moderators and poll creators can view results and responders, regardless of whether the poll is open or closed." option.

Duane

--
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: log activity when someone responds to a poll #suggestion

Duane
 

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 07:29 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
That depends on the answer to "Do not show WHO who responded to the poll"? Does it mean, don't even show the mods? I was under the impression it just meant "don't show the group."
On the two I looked at, not even an owner or poll creator can see who responded, being truly anonymous (except for the hidden record that keeps track of each persons response in case they want to change it.)  Keeping it from most members is covered by the "Only moderators and poll creators can view results and responders, regardless of whether the poll is open or closed." option.

Duane

moderated Re: log activity when someone responds to a poll #suggestion

 

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 04:46 PM, Duane wrote:
I realized that if implemented, there should be no logging if the poll is set up for "Do not show who responded to the poll" is chosen.
That depends on the answer to "Do not show WHO who responded to the poll"? Does it mean, don't even show the mods? I was under the impression it just meant "don't show the group."
 
--
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: log activity when someone responds to a poll #suggestion

Duane
 

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 07:34 PM, Bill Hazel wrote:
Could "responded to poll" be added as an activity in the logs (group's member activity log, and individual member activity log)?
While researching something else, I realized that if implemented, there should be no logging if the poll is set up for "Do not show who responded to the poll" is chosen.

Duane

moderated Re: Add Charter Rules to Wiki #meta

Duane
 

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 05:43 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I agree also. But it's already in the Guidelines page.
Oops, I hadn't seen it there.  Maybe have the Guidelines sent on join (and every month?), with a "lock immediately" hashtag.  Or make a locked post with only the charter and sticky it since the 'help' info is a sticky wiki.  Really anything that is more obvious.  (Time for a RED subject line? ;>)

Duane

moderated Re: Add Charter Rules to Wiki #meta

 

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 03:39 PM, Duane wrote:
#fixed and #done are moderator hashtags, not for users.  They would be added if/when that state is reached.
That brings up the issue, which occurred to me last night, of what happens when a bug is tagged #fixed by Mark and it turns out not to really be fixed. Does Mark remove the tag? In the cases I've noticed so far, they've retained the tag. But that's probably an issue for another thread.

I do agree that there should be an easy place for others, especially newcomers, to find the mandate(s) for the group.  A sticky, either post or wiki page, would seem to be the most noticeable.
I agree also. But it's already in the Guidelines page.
 
--
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: Add Charter Rules to Wiki #meta

Duane
 

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:52 PM, JediPirx wrote:
These are the currently available category hashtags for users :

#bug
#fixed

#suggestion
#done

#meta

#misc
#fixed and #done are moderator hashtags, not for users.  They would be added if/when that state is reached.  I do agree that there should be an easy place for others, especially newcomers, to find the mandate(s) for the group.  A sticky, either post or wiki page, would seem to be the most noticeable.

Duane

moderated Re: Add Charter Rules to Wiki #meta

 

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 02:39 PM, txercoupemuseum.org wrote:
I don’t agree with everything J says
What???  You don't? Tsk, tsk! :-)
 
--
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: Add Charter Rules to Wiki #meta

txercoupemuseum.org
 

Hear, Hear.

I don’t agree with everything J says, but she obviously thinks before posting and her opinions often worthy of consideration.

WRB

— 

On Feb 14, 2020, at 3:47 PM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

Unfortunately I have to say "I disagree" with the vast majority (or at least a whole lot) of this. I don't know where it's coming from. It does not seem to be coming from the original "charter" that Mark posted, but seems to stem from a subsequent suggestion by someone else. Just for example, this

Avoid using "I agree", "me too", "No one will use that", "That would
cause a mess", and so on

strikes me as much too broad and restrictive. It lumps in unhelpful comments like "no one would use that" with possibly helpful, constructive ones. There is such a thing as legitimate agreement or disagreement based on facts.

I also disagree with the section about "proposals" becoming "suggestions." I would not participate here if every suggestion I think of making has to go through a "proposal" process to be vetted by other group members. I realize that's the way things are done in GMF and that's fine (I don't belong to that group anyway). 

We don't "all have to focus on getting stuff implemented." We are not the company. We're just a bunch of users, all of whom have our own opinions on things.
--
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 App is starting to become accessible #misc

 

Hi All,

A lot of work on accessibility was just merged into the app. It's not complete (like the app itself), but many of the screens and menus should be accessible now. If you use a screen reader on iOS and are interested in giving feedback, please join the app subgroup and install the app, following the instructions here: https://beta.groups.io/g/app/message/2

All app feedback should be sent to the app subgroup.

Thanks, Mark

moderated Re: Add Charter Rules to Wiki #meta

 

Unfortunately I have to say "I disagree" with the vast majority (or at least a whole lot) of this. I don't know where it's coming from. It does not seem to be coming from the original "charter" that Mark posted, but seems to stem from a subsequent suggestion by someone else. Just for example, this

Avoid using "I agree", "me too", "No one will use that", "That would
cause a mess", and so on

strikes me as much too broad and restrictive. It lumps in unhelpful comments like "no one would use that" with possibly helpful, constructive ones. There is such a thing as legitimate agreement or disagreement based on facts.

I also disagree with the section about "proposals" becoming "suggestions." I would not participate here if every suggestion I think of making has to go through a "proposal" process to be vetted by other group members. I realize that's the way things are done in GMF and that's fine (I don't belong to that group anyway). 

We don't "all have to focus on getting stuff implemented." We are not the company. We're just a bunch of users, all of whom have our own opinions on things.
--
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 Add log entry for pending subscription timing out #suggestion

 

The suggestion is to include a group activity log entry for when a pending subscription times out and is deleted after 14 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: Restrict "Set Moderator Privileges" Permission #suggestion #done

West Coast Compañeros Staff
 

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 10:27 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
I'm not yet convinced that there's a benefit to having separate classes of owner (original/founder versus other) that outweighs the complexity/confusion that it may cause.
 
I would say that if an owner doesn't trust someone well enough to make them a co-equal owner then they should make that person a fully-permissioned moderator instead. That of course presumes that the primary change of this topic has been made to prevent such a moderator from making any changes to any owners' role or subscription.
 
Shal,

My intention in proposing a Primary Owner (Powner?) was really to bring Mark's attention to the large volume of discussion that has been taking pace on GMF, on the related issues of 1) protecting original owners from being demoted or removed (potentially leading to groups being hijacked or deleted), and 2) avoiding the orphaning of groups.

In my own case, I would never establish moderators or co-owners whom I didn't trust implicitly, but the extensive discussion about rogue owners on GMF deserves some attention here in beta. Bruce's excellent suggestion about refining moderators' permissions is one piece of the puzzle, but I thought it would be helpful to throw some of the other puzzle pieces onto the table in hopes of forming a coherent set of solutions.

I got carried away and tried to propose a complicated solution instead of just launching a couple of new topics to consider the main interrelated issues. To simplify: a sole owner would automatically be identified as the primary owner. In groups with multiple owners, the other owners can, if they wish, "promote" someone to primary owner by voluntarily demoting themselves (temporarily). The sole remaining owner then automatically becomes the primary owner and reinstates the co-owners. The primary owner would be immune from demotion or removal by other owners, and would be the only one empowered to delete a group.

Robert R.

moderated Re: Messages / topics terminology is confusing #suggestion

 

That said, maybe the documentation (which is currently underway) should include one of those "quick set-up" guides, with nothing but the basics, for new users.
--
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: Messages / topics terminology is confusing #suggestion

 

You and your group members only need to use the bare minimum of settings. Also, join the GMF group if you haven't already. That's the place for basic user questions and help.
--
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: Messages / topics terminology is confusing #suggestion

Rachel Cherry
 

Thanks for the clarification.

We just moved over from Googe Groups and while I still think it was the right call to move (because Google was so limiting) our group has gone pretty dark. I think there's some confusion about the UX. And while I love the options, dare I say the vast amount of settings might be a bit too much for most. It's a learning curve I hope they'll see the value in trying to figure out.

But if you ever do any user testing I have some audience for you. :)

--
Rachel Cherry
@bamadesigner
https://bamadesigner.com

moderated Re: Messages / topics terminology is confusing #suggestion

 

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 07:56 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
it might be clearer if New Topic read New Subject;
I see your reasoning, and I know you're not suggesting it, but please! Let's not even *think* about going there! 
 
--
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: Messages / topics terminology is confusing #suggestion

Chris Jones
 

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 03:23 PM, Rachel Cherry wrote:
Is there a difference between messages and topics?
Yes; firstly see what Duane said. Then see J_Catlady's it really needs to say "New Topic".

If there had to be a name change (and no, I'm not suggesting one!) it might be clearer if New Topic read New Subject; think of it that way. Individual Messages relate to a Topic with a given Subject line and are (or ought to be) about the same general point. When someone has a new subject to raise then they use New Topic.

Chris

moderated Re: Messages / topics terminology is confusing #suggestion

 

Agree with Duane, it really needs to say "New Topic." In case you're still confused, you can think of topics as threads (they are, as Duane says, "collections," but they're threaded collections).
--
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: Messages / topics terminology is confusing #suggestion

Duane
 

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 09:23 AM, Rachel Cherry wrote:
Is there a difference between messages and topics?
Messages are the individual messages that are sent/posted.  Topics are a collection of messages that are (or should be) related.  New Topic is for starting a new collection.  It used to say New Message, but people were using that instead of Reply, thus starting a new collection/topic instead of continuing the original topic/thread.

Duane