Date   

moderated Re: "Publicly Listed Groups" page displays groups, then says they don't exist #bug #fixed

 

Mark,

Here's another one besides the two I sent you privately:
Roundup / DID YOU SPRAY ROUNDUP BEFORE BEING DIAGNOSED WITH NON-HODGKIN'S LYMPHOMA OR LEUKEMIA? IF SO, YOU ARE ENTITLED TO SIGNIFICANT COMPENSATION - GLOBAL SETTLEMENT SOON! Roundup is a carcinogen which has been proven to cause cancer so you deserve to be compensated if you were affected by this!
Created: 10/21/19
--
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: "Publicly Listed Groups" page displays groups, then says they don't exist #bug #fixed

 

Oops, meant to send that to Mark offlist. People are PM'ing me up the wazoo (well, two people;) and saying they also saw the bug. 
--
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: "Publicly Listed Groups" page displays groups, then says they don't exist #bug #fixed

 

Looks like yet another person PM'd me:
'I have also seen this, and have a horrible feeling it’s been around for a while"
Not sure why all of these people are not replying onlist. But the bug def exists.


On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 12:22 PM Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 11:20 AM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
It seems the "Publicly Listed Groups" page is either not being updated or is incorrect to start with. It is showing some groups that, when clicked on, return "that group does not exist."


That shouldn't be. Examples?

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: "Publicly Listed Groups" page displays groups, then says they don't exist #bug #fixed

 

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 11:20 AM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
It seems the "Publicly Listed Groups" page is either not being updated or is incorrect to start with. It is showing some groups that, when clicked on, return "that group does not exist."


That shouldn't be. Examples?

Thanks,
Mark 


moderated "Publicly Listed Groups" page displays groups, then says they don't exist #bug #fixed

 

It seems the "Publicly Listed Groups" page is either not being updated or is incorrect to start with. It is showing some groups that, when clicked on, return "that group does not exist."
--
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

Bill Hazel
 

Getting back to the original question: Could we be notified if someone responded to a poll?
I don't care if all it says that someone responded. I would just like to know someone responded to a poll. I can look at the poll to see the information I'm looking for.


moderated Photo ownership when member changes email address #bug

Duane
 

I was contacted by a member when he couldn't get into a personal album he had created.  I dug around a bit and found that he had changed his email address in September.  (He retained the Display Name he had chosen about a year before that.)  I had to manually assign ownership of the album and each photo, so all is well for now.

Thanks,
Duane


moderated Discussions about GMF are off-topic #admin

 

Once again, I remind you that discussions about GMF and other groups are off-topic for beta. 
 
Mark


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

Chris Jones
 

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 08:21 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
Wow, I did not get any of that at all from Chris' email.
Thank you. :)

I will not dignify #24226 by responding to it.

Chris


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

 

Hi All,

I've made the following changes:

- Moderators can no longer change the roles of owners.
- Moderators can no longer change the subscription settings of owners.
- The `/updatemember` API call now returns new errors if you attempt one of the above things.

Please let me know if you have any questions or see anything amiss.

Thanks,
Mark


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

Glenn Glazer
 

Wow, I did not get any of that at all from Chris' email.  Discussing how GMF works is objectively off-topic for beta, which is to discuss features for groups.io.

Best,

Glenn

On 2/16/2020 12:14, txercoupemuseum.org wrote:
“...wildly off - topic for beta”.  Ahhh, the not-so-hidden sneer of the superior to the inferior.  The polite way to remind someone to not forget their “place" in the overall scheme of things and demand “rights” to speak as necessary to the intended purpose.

When the “guardians” within GMF act as advocates or so as discourage empirical discussion, who guards the guardians”? Only [beta] and Groups.io can intervene when and if that becomes necessary.  Do we, mere owners, REALLY need ask for that to be a [beta] hashtag?  If so, consider that done right now by me.

We are reminded again and again that GMF is “peer to peer” and not part of Groups.io.  It doesn’t always exhibit that “floor and feel”.  “Position posts” by a moderator or founder are not inherently more credible.

No one has proposed moderators are not necessary.  They need to remember their function is that of police, not judges.  They should NOT intimidate verbally nor act with conspicuous bias.  In “peer to peer” debate they should leave their “official function and uniform” at the door and come in as intellectually naked as the rest of us.  ;<)

Best!

WRB

— 
 
On Feb 16, 2020, at 1:23 PM, Chris Jones via Groups.Io <chrisjones12@...> wrote:

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 06:37 PM, Charles Roberts wrote:
The GMF is supposed to be a place for Owners to go to seek help.  <snip>  Supposed to be Owners helping Owners, but rarely is a question answered by someone other than a "Moderator".
Although this is wildly off - topic for beta one reason is that many Group Owners on GMF only go there to pose a question and look at the responses; they don't go there to try to help others and generally see what is going on. They are only interested in their own problems and not anyone else's.

Take away the moderators and see what happens...

Chris



--
PG&E Delenda Est


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

txercoupemuseum.org
 

“...wildly off - topic for beta”.  Ahhh, the not-so-hidden sneer of the superior to the inferior.  The polite way to remind someone to not forget their “place" in the overall scheme of things and demand “rights” to speak as necessary to the intended purpose.

When the “guardians” within GMF act as advocates or so as discourage empirical discussion, who guards the guardians”? Only [beta] and Groups.io can intervene when and if that becomes necessary.  Do we, mere owners, REALLY need ask for that to be a [beta] hashtag?  If so, consider that done right now by me.

We are reminded again and again that GMF is “peer to peer” and not part of Groups.io.  It doesn’t always exhibit that “floor and feel”.  “Position posts” by a moderator or founder are not inherently more credible.

No one has proposed moderators are not necessary.  They need to remember their function is that of police, not judges.  They should NOT intimidate verbally nor act with conspicuous bias.  In “peer to peer” debate they should leave their “official function and uniform” at the door and come in as intellectually naked as the rest of us.  ;<)

Best!

WRB

— 
 

On Feb 16, 2020, at 1:23 PM, Chris Jones via Groups.Io <chrisjones12@...> wrote:

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 06:37 PM, Charles Roberts wrote:
The GMF is supposed to be a place for Owners to go to seek help.  <snip>  Supposed to be Owners helping Owners, but rarely is a question answered by someone other than a "Moderator".
Although this is wildly off - topic for beta one reason is that many Group Owners on GMF only go there to pose a question and look at the responses; they don't go there to try to help others and generally see what is going on. They are only interested in their own problems and not anyone else's.

Take away the moderators and see what happens...

Chris
_._,_._,_


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

Glenn Glazer
 

On 2/16/2020 11:57, Chris Jones via Groups.Io wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 07:52 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
I generally agree with what Chris is saying here, <snip> For me, personally, do I believe that GMF is a bit too strongly moderated?
Ah; a misunderstanding. I was responding to the comment that it was only moderators who answer questions on GMF. I said take away the moderators, not take away the moderation! In other words if the moderators didn't answer the questions then many questions would be either unanswered or perhaps answered incompletely or even incorrectly.

Chris

Gotcha.

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est


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

 

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 11:57 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
I said take away the moderators, not take away the moderation! In other words if the moderators didn't answer the questions then many questions would be either unanswered or perhaps answered incompletely or even incorrectly.
I think that's because mostly, the people in GMF rather than beta are not as knowledgeable about the product (pretty much by definition - they are sent to GMF rather than beta to ask their basic help questions). So they simply don't have the capability to answer others' questions. It's not that they are ungenerous. And while it's true that most of the moderators in GMF are more knowledgeable than most of the rank-and-file members, they don't need to be moderators, or to moderate (in whatever "moderation style" GMF has decided on), to be knowledgeable. It's their knowledge and familiarity with groups.io, rather than the fact that they are moderators, that you would not want to take away.  
 
--
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

Chris Jones
 

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 07:52 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
I generally agree with what Chris is saying here, <snip> For me, personally, do I believe that GMF is a bit too strongly moderated?
Ah; a misunderstanding. I was responding to the comment that it was only moderators who answer questions on GMF. I said take away the moderators, not take away the moderation! In other words if the moderators didn't answer the questions then many questions would be either unanswered or perhaps answered incompletely or even incorrectly.

Chris


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

Glenn Glazer
 

On 2/16/2020 11:23, Chris Jones via Groups.Io wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 06:37 PM, Charles Roberts wrote:
The GMF is supposed to be a place for Owners to go to seek help.  <snip>  Supposed to be Owners helping Owners, but rarely is a question answered by someone other than a "Moderator".
Although this is wildly off - topic for beta one reason is that many Group Owners on GMF only go there to pose a question and look at the responses; they don't go there to try to help others and generally see what is going on. They are only interested in their own problems and not anyone else's.

Take away the moderators and see what happens...

Chris

I generally agree with what Chris is saying here, but I will add that moderation is stylistic, just like anything else. I very strongly suspect that all of us in our own groups moderate differently than others, there is no One True Way. Moderation styles run from literally no moderation, anything goes to rather draconic approaches and a spectrum between them. In part, it depends on the group's needs and culture as it evolves and also on the personal tastes of the moderators. Welcome to the human condition.

For me, personally, do I believe that GMF is a bit too strongly moderated? Yes. But I don't complain about it because a) the right answer is, "Well, start your own group then." and I don't want to take that on and b) because I recognize the really good (and mostly thankless) work that Shal, Duane and others do, so I'm willing to put up with their style because I evaluate people holistically, not just on whatever burr happens to rub me the wrong way.

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est


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

Chris Jones
 

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 06:37 PM, Charles Roberts wrote:
The GMF is supposed to be a place for Owners to go to seek help.  <snip>  Supposed to be Owners helping Owners, but rarely is a question answered by someone other than a "Moderator".
Although this is wildly off - topic for beta one reason is that many Group Owners on GMF only go there to pose a question and look at the responses; they don't go there to try to help others and generally see what is going on. They are only interested in their own problems and not anyone else's.

Take away the moderators and see what happens...

Chris


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

Charles Roberts
 


What WRB said, 2x........
 
My Opinion:
The GMF is supposed to be a place for Owners to go to seek help.  At least that's my understanding.  Too often, an OP receives a chastation for not crossing their "I's" or dotting their "T's".....or for saying something a "Moderator" doesn't like.  Supposed to be Owners helping Owners, but rarely is a question answered by someone other than a "Moderator".  I was a Helper Responder in an old Excel Newsgroup and I know how difficult it is for Non-teckies to ask questions, let alone understand the answers given by Super-Teckies......but it's the Super-Teckie Helper Responder's obligation to make the effort to TRY to communicate, and in no way should the OP go away feeling embarrased for asking.....(even if they ask the same dumb question more than once).  Many times, in both beta and GMF,  I've personally had to delete an entire "fireback" message I'd typed in answer to some unthoughtful response...... 
 
As suggested by WRB, POLLS, (with good questions), might be a good answer for suggestions/improvements/fixes....I love data over arguments.
 
This is where Chuck gets down off his Soap-Box now and partakes of additional medication.
My best to all
Chuck
 
 
 
 

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2020 12:57 AM
Subject: [beta] Restrict "Set Moderator Privileges" Permission #suggestion


On GMF under the topic "Membership Metrics there was an exchange between a contributor and a  moderator.  Following that exchange, the contributor posted:
"And very silly of me to think that things might have improved in three months and "I" not notified.
The moderator responded:  
"If something is wrong that can have serious effects, it's usually fixed within a matter of hours once It's been reported.  Feature suggestions, once posted on beta, get added to the pile and may or may not be implemented.  There was a feature added a couple of months ago that I requested in late 2015, so no need to get impatient.  The best way, I think, to keep up with things is to read the #Changelog on this group when it's posted.  Even better is to follow the beta group, but I know that not everyone will do that."

In my opinion some moderators are less than properly receptive to change.  I don’t agree, so 
I attempted to post this response to the above:

"I cannot envision “serious effects” greater than a moderator “permissions” that allows a moderator to demote or eliminate a group’s owner.  This has long been under discussion.  Reasonable consensus has been reached that this should be changed so as to be impossible.  All argument against is based on “what if”, or “it’s been that way for so long, what’s YOUR problem.  

I sometime wonder if all of us are speaking the same language.  When an important “fix” is apparently “lost in the pile” a way to “bump” consideration and invoke higher priority would seem appropriate.  Any suggestion(s) as to what to do when there IS just cause to get impatient?

WRB”

My “…message was not approved” for the  following reason:  

"While I agree that having that moderator permission allow any effect on owners is a bad thing, it is not in the same order of magnitude as something that blocks message delivery or otherwise impairs ongoing operation of the site.

There are enough topics discussing the Moderator permissions issue, we don't need to bring that discussion into this topic.”

OK, fine.  I’ll bring this matter HERE for discussion.  I believe it inappropriate that ANY moderator presume to unilaterally interfere with legitimate discussion on any “issue”.  Whether we discuss it HERE or THERE, there MUST be an acceptable place and way for such discussion.  

The subject above is the issue:  "Protecting the original Owner from rogue co-Owners #suggestion”.  Maybe this subject should have been submitted as a “Bug".  It certainly isn't a “Feature”.

It should be obvious that certain existing moderators presently enjoy the power to demote or remove an existing or rightful owner SOLELY because Groups.io checkbox descriptions were unclear as to disclose the full range of actions thus “authorized”.   These checkboxes are part of the initial process of setting up a group here.  It’s just plain wrong not to timely disclose what is being thus authorized.
  
The result is an ongoing unnecessary and undesired threat to the internal harmony and even continued existence of each such group.  It should be self-evident that ending this problem of long standing should receive support, not resistance; and higher priority from within Groups.io.  After all, this problem was NOT created by those owners, but by Groups.io.

Opinions?  Poll?

WRB

— 



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

txercoupemuseum.org
 

Comments below in “< >”.

Best!

WRB



On Feb 16, 2020, at 10:19 AM, ro-esp <ro-esp@...> wrote:

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 01:10 AM, txercoupemuseum.org wrote:


There have been numerous opinions
yes

None of them (= moderator) privileges mention “also can demote existing owner”.

I cannot conceive WHY this time-bomb, which now is common knowledge and
undisputed. has not been defused.
Probably because it requires a shedload of programming, and/or Mark hasn't gotten around to it.
<Whether this sentence is started with the word “probably” or “possibly”, it is personal speculation which does not serve to move the discussion further toward resolution. It presumes Mark does not prioritize suggestions in terms of those he deems most urgent.

I think Mark is very aware that there are “back burner ideas” and “more urgent problems” in his “suggestions” pile. Our discussions here on [beta] seem to be OUR only current way to help him perceive that resolution of THIS problem (of monitor-owner demotion or removal) is a “more urgent” one.>

Either THAT option should be deleted
No, it needs to be REFINED.
<No. Presently the description next to the selection box does not properly and fully disclose and warn that this selection allows a moderator so empowered to demote or throw out an existing owner. You agree below that a “moderator should not be able to ‘demote' an owner*.

“Refining” this option such that there is full and proper disclosure merely informs an owner of the danger implicit in checking that box. It does nothing to eliminate that danger. I think this checkbox option needs to be deleted or disabled immediately.

Then, as time permits, an option to allow those related privileges as are NOT disruptive could be added back as deemed necessary or beneficial. This more complicated task should be of lower priority.>

We seem to all agree that a *moderator* needs to be able to appoint another *moderator*, but should not be able to *demote* an *owner*. The problem is that both fall under the same privilege now
<I respectfully disagree that there is any consensus whatsoever “...that a *moderator* needs to be able to appoint another *moderator*.>

the power for a moderator to demote an existing owner should be removed
Once this is done, it is not necessary to appoint co-owners who would then
have the immediate power to demote or remove the existing acting
administrative owner.
Whether a (co-)owner should have the power to demote a (senior) owner is a different matter.
<Please. “…(senior) owners don’t yet exist.>

My opinion is that (s)he shouldn't have that
<Once more we’re diverted down a rat hole of speculation because we don’t yet have “…(senior) owners.>

, and I'm on the fence on whether a moderator should be able to demote another moderator
<I think this privilege should be reserved to the owner (or perhaps a “sub-owner” if we create such)>

A moderator with all other owner powers can keep a group functional indefinitely.
If (s)he can appoint another member to moderator and give him/her the necessary privileges, yes
<One size does not fit all. Groups with restricted membership have a much higher monitor work load in day-to-day function than those (like mine) who let anyone join. I neither need nor allow moderators to appoint moderators. That needs to be reserved to “upper management” function. How “lower management, i.e moderators with greater or lesser powers, do things is each group’s obligation to work out for themselves.>

groetjes, Ronaldo


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

ro-esp
 

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 01:10 AM, txercoupemuseum.org wrote:


There have been numerous opinions
yes

None of them (= moderator) privileges mention “also can demote existing owner”.

I cannot conceive WHY this time-bomb, which now is common knowledge and
undisputed. has not been defused.
Probably because it requires a shedload of programming, and/or Mark hasn't gotten around to it.

Either THAT option should be deleted
No, it needs to be REFINED. We seem to all agree that a *moderator* needs to be able to appoint another *moderator*, but should not be able to *demote* an *owner*. The problem is that both fall under the same privilege now

the power for a moderator to demote an existing owner should be removed
yes

Once this is done, it is not necessary to appoint co-owners who would then
have the immediate power to demote or remove the existing acting
administrative owner.
Whether a (co-)owner should have the power to demote a (senior) owner is a different matter.
My opinion is that (s)he shouldn't have that, and I'm on the fence on whether a moderator should be able to demote another moderator

A moderator with all other owner powers can keep a group functional indefinitely.
If (s)he can appoint another member to moderator and give him/her the necessary privileges, yes

groetjes, Ronaldo