Date   

moderated Re: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

 

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 06:30 AM, KWKloeber wrote:
The user did not remove him/herself
Ths user did the triggering action (in this case, marking themselves as spam), and that is always the case in these log entries. The log entry always refers to the user's originating action.
 
--
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: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

 

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 02:56 AM, Andy wrote:
It really does not matter to me that you want to treat the Activity log as if it might be classical literature.  I do not. 
You're the one who wants it to be literature, classical or otherwise. I keep saying it's not literature and it shouldn't be. Read my posts. It's a simple log, and as such, it should be allowed to speak log-speak as long as its syntax is made clear in some form, be that documention, Duane's commas, or other..

sure enough it applies to many others in addition, and surely the fact that I noticed it for only one case does not matter, does it?
It does not matter. What matters is that you can't fix just this particular entry. You would have to go through and create individually customized syntax for each and every log entry with the issue or the potential issue. It's a log entry! It's a who, what, when, and how: the member, the action, the tie, and how (email or web). Keep it that way. Clarify it by upper-casing the how, if you like, or by separating the how to make parsing easier. But don't mess with it.

--
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: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

KWKloeber
 


t’s completely clear that the tag “via email” or “ via web” refers to the user’s, not the system’s, action.

Not true.. 
The user did not remove him/herself.    The user took no action in the removal, were it via the web or via email. 
If the user was the one taking the action then the user would have chosen "don't remove me".  LOL!

Not seeking perfect literature  HOWEVER following the basic rules of technical writing (which is what this is, not literature,) always reveals the fallacies and inaccuracies in the prose versus the intended (accurate) meaning.  The log entries and the actual intended meaning (my last post) are NOT equivalent.
The log should differentiate between USER (member) actions and SYSTEM actions over which the USER has no control and no input.

If the intention is that log entries be accurate, there would be three actions listed. If Mark doesn't want the log entries accurate then he can do whatever he wants to and it doesn't really matter.  Hey, why not make everything in the log or in the documentation inaccurate?  Who cares, right?  We'll just interpret it however we care to because "we know what he really means."

1) <emailaddress> reported message #nnnn as spam {email}*
2) <email address> removed and notified for reporting message #nnnn as spam {system}*
3) <email address> resumed membership {web}*

No ambiguities, no incorrect entries, no muss, no fuss, no drips, no runs, no errors.

* Add "{via" if you care to, but it's nothing more than unnecessary fluff.



moderated Re: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

Duane
 

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 04:56 AM, Andy wrote:
My assumption is that the actual activity data is not stored as human-readable text files with text sentences.
I suspect that's incorrect.  I base this on the fact that if you go to an old log entry for something that has been deleted, the link will still try to take you to it.  Also that you can download the log and regenerating it every time it's accessed would be a lot of unneeded loading.  I believe the entry is generated programmatically when the event occurs and stored in a file.  If so, it may not be too difficult to alter the sequence of information entry into the log.

The 'via email' or 'via web' have been at the end of the entries since day one, so most folks are already familiar with what they mean.  Rearranging the information now will likely confuse those that are used to the current layout, at least for awhile.  To me, it comes down to we adapt or you do.

Duane


moderated Re: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

Andy
 

J,

My assumption is that the actual activity data is not stored as human-readable text files with text sentences.  I'd assume that there is a bit (or a few bits) that means, "This person was removed because they marked a message as spam", or perhaps one bit that says "This person was removed" and another bit that says "Because they marked a message as spam" along with other information that says who and when.  Then when we humans click the "Activity" link, some code at Groups.io translates that bit or those bits into a string of human-readable text that we call a sentence.

Therefore, the change would be to the code that converts the binary information into a readable sentence -- changing the sentence from something that is incorrect, into something that is not incorrect.  It is not a "one by one" thing nor is it "creating a customized log entry for each".  It is fixing it.  To make it right.  So that it is not wrong.

Why do you imply that this would be a bad thing to do?

It really does not matter to me that you want to treat the Activity log as if it might be classical literature.  I do not.  But I want the Activity log to be correct.  Currently, it is not.  I think it would be an improvement to Groups.io if it were changed to make it correct.

Putting "via email" at the end is syntactically wrong because it modifies what came immediately before it, which is the fact that the member was removed, and that's not what happened.  Currently what it says in the Activity log is incorrect information.  I noticed this with the entries about removing members because of spam, but sure enough it applies to many others in addition, and surely the fact that I noticed it for only one case does not matter, does it?

Andy


moderated Re: Expire invitations after 14 days #suggestion

 

Jim,

I don't see how it can give access to his/her account or to the system
to anyone else. It isn't like a login link, which could do that.
The invitation email contains a link "accept the invitation" which IS effectively a login link. That is the problem that was reported, and which precipitated the shorter lifetime for the link.

While attempting to ask a question about invitations an invitee posted the text of a received invitation, including that link, on a public forum. I tested it, and it did indeed log me in to the invitee's account. I was able then to access the content of a private, restricted group of which the invitee happened to be a member (and I not).

Shal


moderated Re: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

 

On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 07:16 PM, Andy wrote:
I suggested an improvement to make them less inaccurate. 
You suggested an improvement to make *one* of them less inaccurate [sic]. Your approach to improvment would require going through each activity one by one and creating a customized log entry for each. To me that would be completely inappropriate for this setting. It's a log entry. It's not literature. Duane's "powerful comma," or my dash, or making them upper case, are improvements that would apply generally. Even if Mark were to judge the one-by-one approach worthwhile, I myself would prefer the consistency of seeing "via email" or "via web" always in one place (beginning or end, and to me, the end is better because putting them at the beginning bogs them down).
 
--
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: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

Andy
 

But that's the thing.  It was NOT "completely clear" that the words "via email" meant what the user did.

Its meaning was more clear only after extended examination and consideration.  But that's not what the sentence says.  Even if I know what it was supposed to mean, that is not what it says.

I get it that many of the log entries are similarly flawed.  I suggested an improvement to make them less inaccurate.  Putting it in documents that "blue" means "red" might work for you, but not for me, and I dare say, not for most.

Andy


moderated Re: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

 

Have a look at the rest of the log entries. Most of them suffer from the same problem. I don’t think we’re aiming for great literature here. It’s a log entry. It’s meaning is whatever groups.io (I.e., Mark) decides it is. It’s completely clear that the tag “via email” or “ via web” refers to the user’s, not the system’s, action. So put that in the documentation. Separate it by a coma or a dash. Put it in all caps. Whatever. This really seems to me not an issue.


On Apr 18, 2021, at 7:01 PM, Andy <AI.egrps+io@...> wrote:

re: "<email address> reported a message as spam and was removed, via email"

Even with a comma (or a dash), it still looks like they were removed via email.

Andy

--
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: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

Andy
 

re: "<email address> reported a message as spam and was removed, via email"

Even with a comma (or a dash), it still looks like they were removed via email.

Andy


moderated Re: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

 

And *my* point was that the system can’t  be bothered, and shouldn’t have to be bothered, to figure out which actions can only be achieved one way or the other just for the purposes of a log entry. It just slaps “via email” or “via web” at the end according to what actually occurred, and I think that’s fine.


On Apr 18, 2021, at 4:51 PM, KWKloeber via groups.io <KWKloeber@...> wrote:

My point (maybe not clearly articulated) was there is NO alternate way to be removed (am I wrong on this?) because of deleting a spam email.   One cannot do it themself “via web” nor do it themself vis email.  The whole wording of “how” (“via...”” the spam reporting occurred is unnecessary and the member is also not “removed via email,” the system  removes the member and the member is simply “notified” after the fact via email. 

--
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: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

KWKloeber
 

to wit;

<email address> reported a message as spam and was removed.  

Full stop. There is zero need to add anything more. 

 

Besides does everything need to be  worded back@$$wards?’

The system removed <email address> from membership for reporting a message as spam.   Full, full stop.

The first lesson of technical writing: simple, least number of words, and whenever possible use active, not passive voice. 


moderated Re: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

KWKloeber
 

My point (maybe not clearly articulated) was there is NO alternate way to be removed (am I wrong on this?) because of deleting a spam email.   One cannot do it themself “via web” nor do it themself vis email.  The whole wording of “how” (“via...”” the spam reporting occurred is unnecessary and the member is also not “removed via email,” the system  removes the member and the member is simply “notified” after the fact via email.


moderated Re: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

 

That's a good idea. I was suggesting a dash, but the powerful little comma is far superior. ;)
--
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: #bug Italics and other rich text formatting don't transfer to or from text files #bug

Kamaloo <k_amaloo@...>
 

Oh, that's too bad. I thought RTF wasn't proprietary. Thank you for the explanation!

Cheers,
Kamaloo


moderated Re: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

Duane
 

On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 02:10 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
That’s exactly what it does now.
That part is always at the end IIRC, so adding the comma as I illustrated may help.  Small, but powerful! ;>)  Per the earlier example, it would become:

<email address> reported a message as spam and was removed, via email

Duane


moderated Re: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

 

Duane,

That’s exactly what it does now. The problem is that most of the time it doesn’t parse correctly. Instead, “via email” or “via web” attaches itself (by proximity) to the wrong action.


On Apr 18, 2021, at 12:07 PM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 12:28 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
It might be slightly more clear to separate "via email" or "via web" from the rest of the text in each log entry.
How about something as simple as having it say ", via email" or ", via web"?  I haven't looked at all the possibilities to make sure it would read 'properly', but that should be an easy change and will give some separation.

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: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

Duane
 

On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 12:28 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
It might be slightly more clear to separate "via email" or "via web" from the rest of the text in each log entry.
How about something as simple as having it say ", via email" or ", via web"?  I haven't looked at all the possibilities to make sure it would read 'properly', but that should be an easy change and will give some separation.

Duane


moderated Re: #bug Italics and other rich text formatting don't transfer to or from text files #bug

Glenn Glazer
 

On 04/18/2021 10:02, Duane wrote:
On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 10:52 AM, Kamaloo wrote:
Rich text shouldn't be a problem, should it?
There are differences between rtf and html.  The site can use html (some functions disabled for safety) or markdown.

Duane

This is correct. While RTF and HTML are both markup languages, the syntax and functionality of RTF (a TeX based language) and bears more similarity to PDF (and PostScript before it) than to HTML or XML.

There are several really big differences between the two groups of languages, the RTF/PDF and the HTML/XML:

* The former are proprietary languages (MS/Adobe respectively), the latter are free and open standards.
* The former are focused primarily on creating files to be displayed with a viewer, whereas the latter are primarily about internet communication.
* The former have a large number of functions for drawing shapes and pictures in the output, this is hard in HTML and impossible in XML (without actually including a binary in the document).
* Conversely, if you want imbed an existing image into the document, the latter support many more image formats than the former.

To the main point of the conversation, if RTF were to be supported, Mark would have to find or write an RTF parser which is different than an HTML parser and then integrate that parser into existing code. That's a lot of work for a format that is fading into obsolescence. Even MS doesn't use it for help files anymore, which was RTF's original purpose.

Best,

Glenn

--
#calcare
PG&E Delenda Est


moderated Re: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

 

On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 08:53 AM, KWKloeber wrote:
Why is “via email” in there at all,
Because every action that a user takes is logged as having been either via email or via web. It doesn't get more granular than that. The system doesn't go to any lengths to determine which actions could or could not have been done the other way, nor should it. This is clear enough.

It might be slightly more clear to separate "via email" or "via web" from the rest of the text in each log entry.
 
--
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

1161 - 1180 of 30083