Date   

moderated Re: Remove the ID column in databases #suggestion

Charles Roberts
 

I agree.  Many times I put it on the right side and hide it from my user.....but it's nice to know it's always there when I want it.



On Feb 20, 2020 2:23 PM, "Alex Stone via Groups.Io" <alexstone87@...> wrote:
Sorry to be a boring old programmer, but I’ve always found it useful to have an Id column in a database.


On 20 Feb 2020, at 17:11, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:


Hi All,

In each database, there is an ID column, assigned automatically, starting from 1 and monotonically increasing for each row. It seems that this column leads to some confusion, especially for databases that are edited frequently. 

I'm thinking that maybe I should remove that row? Opinions?

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Remove the ID column in databases #suggestion

Alex Stone
 

Sorry to be a boring old programmer, but I’ve always found it useful to have an Id column in a database.


On 20 Feb 2020, at 17:11, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:


Hi All,

In each database, there is an ID column, assigned automatically, starting from 1 and monotonically increasing for each row. It seems that this column leads to some confusion, especially for databases that are edited frequently. 

I'm thinking that maybe I should remove that row? Opinions?

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Remove the ID column in databases #suggestion

Bob Schrempp
 

I find a record number useful, make it only visible to a moderator or make it so it can be turned on or off (shown or not shown). 


Bob


moderated Re: "Pending Message" notification that could be clicked on to delete it. #suggestion

 

That’s easily solvable by sending an email message notifying them their message is being moderated, along with a copy of the message. And I think that would be very useful. But the synchronicity problem remains, of a sender trying to delete a message at the same time a moderator is working on moderating it. That’s the ugly/messy part making it seem not worth the trouble. 


On Feb 20, 2020, at 10:06 AM, David Grimm <engrdave325@...> wrote:

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 06:51 PM, JohnF wrote:
How about a way to attach a note to the moderator for a message that's pending approval?
If a message is sent by email, the sender wouldn't even know it was being moderated, unless the group has a policy that every message from every sender is moderated.. Some members think that any delay in publishing their message is due only to the mechanical computer system. 

Dave

--
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: "Pending Message" notification that could be clicked on to delete it. #suggestion

David Grimm
 

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 06:51 PM, JohnF wrote:
How about a way to attach a note to the moderator for a message that's pending approval?
If a message is sent by email, the sender wouldn't even know it was being moderated, unless the group has a policy that every message from every sender is moderated.. Some members think that any delay in publishing their message is due only to the mechanical computer system. 

Dave


moderated Re: Remove the ID column in databases #suggestion

 

Mark, I think you mean "remove that column." I recalled suggesting this in the past, and I found the thread:
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/1763947#8385
It seems the conclusion (using the term loosely) was to keep the #'s but make them visible only to mods.

--
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: Remove the ID column in databases #suggestion

 

Mark,


I'm thinking that maybe I should remove that [column]? Opinions?

Or, convert it to a permalink icon on each row that shows the ID number as a tooltip. Possibly moved to the right as Duane suggested. Preserving its usability as a sorting key to put the rows in creation order.

Shal


moderated Re: Remove the ID column in databases #suggestion

Duane
 

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 11:11 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Opinions?
I can work with it either way.  Most of the time I don't use it, but it can be handy for seeing which order the items were added in some cases.  How about another option, move it to the right side, out of the way?

Thanks,
Duane


moderated Re: Remove the ID column in databases #suggestion

lloyd lehrer
 

Just allow it to be hidden.

lloyd lehrer

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 9:11 AM Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
Hi All,

In each database, there is an ID column, assigned automatically, starting from 1 and monotonically increasing for each row. It seems that this column leads to some confusion, especially for databases that are edited frequently. 

I'm thinking that maybe I should remove that row? Opinions?

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Remove the ID column in databases #suggestion

 

Hi All,

In each database, there is an ID column, assigned automatically, starting from 1 and monotonically increasing for each row. It seems that this column leads to some confusion, especially for databases that are edited frequently. 

I'm thinking that maybe I should remove that row? Opinions?

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Better error when renaming a group #suggestion #done

Duane
 

We've verified that the group also can't be created, but doesn't exist.  Probably because it was once created, then deleted.  If this is the case, I think the error should be "That address is not available."  That should provide a better understanding of the situation.  (Since this suggestion is directly related, I'll just add it here.)

Thank you,
Duane


moderated Re: "Pending Message" notification that could be clicked on to delete it. #suggestion

 

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 04:04 AM, Michael Pavan wrote:
Valid, but minimal point.
If one Moderator/Owner currently starts to moderate a message, are all other Moderators/Owner prevented from doing so?
OR
If more than one Moderator/Owner currently is moderating at the same time, does who ever finishes first prevail?
That has nothing to do with the issue of allowing members to delete pending messages. It's completely separate. It's the issue Shal recently brought up when he suggested his "claimed" feature for pending messages.

I wouldn't argue against this improvement because it might prevent whoever acted first from determining the outcome...
Not the issue.
 
--
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: "Pending Message" notification that could be clicked on to delete it. #suggestion

Michael Pavan
 

On Feb 20, 2020, at 5:48 AM, J_Catlady <@J_Catlady> wrote:

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 01:48 AM, Michael Pavan wrote:
The Sender's options would be to Edit or Delete the Pending Message.

If the message had already been approved, it would be too late for the Sender.
If a Moderator/Owner attempted to moderate a deleted Pending message, it would no longer exist.
Not bad except for this part. The issue is when a moderator starts to moderate a message first, and then the sender gives the instruction to delete. None of this solves that, which is really the only problematic issue.
Valid, but minimal point.
If one Moderator/Owner currently starts to moderate a message, are all other Moderators/Owner prevented from doing so?
OR
If more than one Moderator/Owner currently is moderating at the same time, does who ever finishes first prevail?

Although the slim likelihood of both the Sender and a Moderator/Owner would be interacting with a Pending Message at the same time might be greater than two (or more) Moderators/Owners doing so, there currently seems to be little or no problem. I suspect that would continue to be the case.

If there currently is a 'lock' that prevents more than one Moderator/Owner from interacting with a Pending Message, could it not also be used to prevent any second party (whether Sender or Moderator/Owner) from doing so.

That being said, such a 'coincidence' seems too rare to be worried about.
If it is such a worry, Senders should think more about what they post before sending...



Whether a Pending message had been Claimed or not would only affect where Moderators/Owners could moderate the message. (No change)
The idea is that if the message is claimed (assuming that feature even gets implemented), the sender would not be allowed to delete it. That would solve the issue. But it would involve fairly massive changes to the UI (web and email notifications) that seem overly complicated just in order to let a user change their mind about a message sent.
Currently Claim only prevents other Moderators or Owners from moderating a Claimed message (or approving/rejecting a Claimed subscription request) by email.
All Moderators (with appropriate privileges) and Owners can alway moderate/approve via the web.
I agree that "fairly massive changes" don't seem worthwhile to change the Claim feature.
Otherwise the suggestion is to use existing structures in more places.


The part about giving the sender a copy of their message if posted via email sounds fine. I still see no reasonable way to allow a sender to delete a pending message.
The same way a Moderator/Owner can Forward a Message Approval Require email notification to Reject a Pending Message,
a Sender should be able to Forward their Your Message Requires Approval email notification to Delete the Pending Message.


I agree with the original poster's notion, but it is not a pressing concern of mine.
It does seem that the current way Groups.io functions in a 'parallel manner' for Moderators/Owners, it could also for Senders.

I wouldn't argue against this improvement because it might prevent whoever acted first from determining the outcome...


moderated Re: "Pending Message" notification that could be clicked on to delete it. #suggestion

 

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 01:48 AM, Michael Pavan wrote:
Posting via an online form (anywhere) typically fails to provide the option to receive a copy of one's 'sent' message.
BTW this is mostly true, but it's an apt comparison with groups.io only in the case that messages are moderated and the user can't see their message on the site while it's still pending. (NYT, whose comments section is moderated, is an odd exception. They don't send you a copy of the comment while it's still on moderation, but they do send it to you after it's approved.) 
 
--
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: "Pending Message" notification that could be clicked on to delete it. #suggestion

 

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 02:48 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
The part about giving the sender a copy of their message if posted via email sounds fine
should read "if posted via web"
 
--
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: "Pending Message" notification that could be clicked on to delete it. #suggestion

 

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 01:48 AM, Michael Pavan wrote:
The Sender's options would be to Edit or Delete the Pending Message.

If the message had already been approved, it would be too late for the Sender.
If a Moderator/Owner attempted to moderate a deleted Pending message, it would no longer exist.
Not bad except for this part. The issue is when a moderator starts to moderate a message first, and then the sender gives the instruction to delete. None of this solves that, which is really the only problematic issue.

Whether a Pending message had been Claimed or not would only affect where Moderators/Owners could moderate the message. (No change)
The idea is that if the message is claimed (assuming that feature even gets implemented), the sender would not be allowed to delete it. That would solve the issue. But it would involve fairly massive changes to the UI (web and email notifications) that seem overly complicated just in order to let a user change their mind about a message sent.

The part about giving the sender a copy of their message if posted via email sounds fine. I still see no reasonable way to allow a sender to delete a pending message.
 
--
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: "Pending Message" notification that could be clicked on to delete it. #suggestion

Michael Pavan
 

On Feb 19, 2020, at 12:19 PM, Bill Hazel <william.j.hazel@...> wrote:

Add a way to cancel a message before it gets approved.
Posting via an online form (anywhere) typically fails to provide the option to receive a copy of one's 'sent' message.
I try to avoid posting online for that reason
A checkbox could offer that option.

A email notification would be sent to any Sender of a message (posted via email or online) that requires Moderation.
This notification would look similar to that sent to the Moderators/Owners that a message requires Moderation.
The Sender's notification would include a 'reply' or 'forward' option to delete the Pending message.

An online Pending Message feature for the Sender, similar to that of Moderators/Owners would be required.
The Sender's options would be to Edit or Delete the Pending Message.

If the message had already been approved, it would be too late for the Sender.
If a Moderator/Owner attempted to moderate a deleted Pending message, it would no longer exist.

Whether a Pending message had been Claimed or not would only affect where Moderators/Owners could moderate the message. (No change)

The Activity log would show whatever happened to the Pending message.


moderated Re: Change DMARC behavior for p=none #misc

 

Dave,

Currently plain text versions of group mails do not contain the 'reply
to sender' option in the footer, only in the html version if it
exists.
The reason has to do with the fact that those are mailto links, and they necessarily include the text of the subject line. They'd be sizeable and quite ugly as URLs in plain text.

If this is to be implemented can we add 'reply to sender' to the
footers in these messages as well please.
Maybe call it "New message to sender" instead. That would be a mailto: link without the Subject parameter. Which would be more honest in a way, as mailto links can't create actual replies (can't invoke the mail interface's Reply function) in any case.

One limitation is that email interfaces vary in whether they will linkify (make clickable) a mailto: URL found in plain text; some do, some don't (whereas most will linkify an http(s): URL detected in plain text). So some of your members may still have to resort to copy/paste; but at least they would have a non-munged address to copy.

It might be better to just include the plain text of the sender's address in the footer, for easy copy/paste.

And then perhaps decouple this suggestion from the DMARC issue. That is, make it a stand-alone suggestion in its own topic.

Shal


moderated Re: Change DMARC behavior for p=none #misc

Dave Sergeant
 

Another thought. Currently plain text versions of group mails do not
contain the 'reply to sender' option in the footer, only in the html
version if it exists. If this is to be implemented can we add 'reply to
sender' to the footers in these messages as well please.

Dave

On 20 Feb 2020 at 6:49, Dave Sergeant wrote:

My objection would be that it makes it more difficult for people to
reply directly to sender from email. OK, I know there is a 'reply to
sender' at the bottom of the mail but many don't see this. I constantly
get queries as to why a person's email bounces but it is clearly there
in the 'from' line, although munged and they have to edit it to the not
quite obvious correct one. I know how to do this, but many can't work it
out.

At the moment it is good that groups.io doesn't do it for everybody like
Yahoo did (with its slightly easier to d-munge version). I can see why
Mark has to do it but it is unfortunate it has to be extended.

http://davesergeant.com


moderated Re: Change DMARC behavior for p=none #misc

Dave Sergeant
 

My objection would be that it makes it more difficult for people to
reply directly to sender from email. OK, I know there is a 'reply to
sender' at the bottom of the mail but many don't see this. I constantly
get queries as to why a person's email bounces but it is clearly there
in the 'from' line, although munged and they have to edit it to the not
quite obvious correct one. I know how to do this, but many can't work
it out.

At the moment it is good that groups.io doesn't do it for everybody
like Yahoo did (with its slightly easier to d-munge version). I can see
why Mark has to do it but it is unfortunate it has to be extended.

Dave

On 19 Feb 2020 at 17:19, Mark Fletcher wrote:

Hi All,

Right now, we munge the From line of messages for people who have DMARC
records of p=reject or p=quarantine. We do not do that for people who
have DMARC records of p=none. I propose changing that so that we also
munge From lines for people with DMARC records of p=none. Recently,
several people have contacted support about this, and I think this
change makes things more straightforward.

Please let me know if you have any objections or questions.

Thanks,
Mark

http://davesergeant.com