Date   

moderated Re: Posting Limits #suggestion

Jim F.
 

Henning-

I agree with your point about simplicity--and am sorry for having added bells and whistles to my suggestion.  A moderation option that would allow X posts within Y time period, and either require approval or automatically reject any excess posts, would provide 80% of what I was asking for.  Our group would probably limit posts to 15 or 20 per two-week period.  Others might limit posts to some single-digit number per day. 

Best regards. 

-Jim

On Jan 23, 2022, at 10:31 AM, Henning Schulzrinne <henning.schulzrinne@...> wrote:

I help run a community mailing list with about 1,300 members. We don't moderate posts except for new members - just too much effort. (We do time-out members who don't abide by the rules.) We have a "three posts per day" rule for all the reasons mentioned. It would be really helpful to have a very simple auto-moderation mechanism, where the excess post would be rejected with a suitable message. There's no need for complex rules or behaviors - if the topic is still relevant a day later, the person can send their message then. We suspend the rule, by announcement, during emergency situations like after a hurricane. In general, I think simplicity wins here - you want something straightforward that allows lightly-moderated groups to function better. Even without an automated mechanism, most of the active posters have internalized the 3-post rule, so there are no great surprises.


moderated Re: Posting Limits #suggestion

 

Sorry for thinking in spurts, but it could be like hashtags that moderate vs lock topics. The setting could have three parts: the threshold (number of messages), the time period, and the action (set the member to either “moderated” or “can’t post”). 


On Jan 24, 2022, at 9:35 AM, J_Catlady via groups.io <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

Speaking of making it similar to new-member moderation, one idea along those lines would be sort of the reverse of new-member moderation: moderate the person‘s messages after they post x messages during the time period (whether that’s a week or a day or whatever). This may not suit the OP because it creates more, not less, work for them, but it’s an idea I’m throwing out there as another possibility.


On Jan 24, 2022, at 8:50 AM, Henning Schulzrinne <henning.schulzrinne@...> wrote:

I don't think "moderator shaming" is helpful or versions of "I don't need it for my group, so nobody needs [feature X]". I see the role of platforms like groups.io to simplify the tedious aspects of moderating groups. Each group has their own history, constraints and culture; I wouldn't judge (or know) the culture and customs for your group. I do think it's helpful to work together to identify a common set of features that would be an improvement for groups that want to restrict posting frequency - and can obviously be safely ignored by those who prefer to rely on moderator actions or don't have the problem of chatterboxes. My general inclination is towards simplicity, e.g., by making it behave similar to some existing moderation feature, such as new-member moderation.

Also, false choices don't help the discussion - no, we won't abandon the group if we don't get the feature. We'd just appreciate having 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


--
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: Posting Limits #suggestion

 

Speaking of making it similar to new-member moderation, one idea along those lines would be sort of the reverse of new-member moderation: moderate the person‘s messages after they post x messages during the time period (whether that’s a week or a day or whatever). This may not suit the OP because it creates more, not less, work for them, but it’s an idea I’m throwing out there as another possibility.


On Jan 24, 2022, at 8:50 AM, Henning Schulzrinne <henning.schulzrinne@...> wrote:

I don't think "moderator shaming" is helpful or versions of "I don't need it for my group, so nobody needs [feature X]". I see the role of platforms like groups.io to simplify the tedious aspects of moderating groups. Each group has their own history, constraints and culture; I wouldn't judge (or know) the culture and customs for your group. I do think it's helpful to work together to identify a common set of features that would be an improvement for groups that want to restrict posting frequency - and can obviously be safely ignored by those who prefer to rely on moderator actions or don't have the problem of chatterboxes. My general inclination is towards simplicity, e.g., by making it behave similar to some existing moderation feature, such as new-member moderation.

Also, false choices don't help the discussion - no, we won't abandon the group if we don't get the feature. We'd just appreciate having 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: Posting Limits #suggestion

Pete Cook
 

I agree. No one here is in a position to say whether something is or isn't "too much work" for someone else, or whether something is "likely the wrong job" for another moderator. Just stop. 

Pete


moderated Re: Posting Limits #suggestion

Henning Schulzrinne
 

I don't think "moderator shaming" is helpful or versions of "I don't need it for my group, so nobody needs [feature X]". I see the role of platforms like groups.io to simplify the tedious aspects of moderating groups. Each group has their own history, constraints and culture; I wouldn't judge (or know) the culture and customs for your group. I do think it's helpful to work together to identify a common set of features that would be an improvement for groups that want to restrict posting frequency - and can obviously be safely ignored by those who prefer to rely on moderator actions or don't have the problem of chatterboxes. My general inclination is towards simplicity, e.g., by making it behave similar to some existing moderation feature, such as new-member moderation.

Also, false choices don't help the discussion - no, we won't abandon the group if we don't get the feature. We'd just appreciate having it.


moderated Make wiki public/private access granular by page #suggestion

 

Most of my group's wiki pages need to be private, and we therefore set the wiki for member, not public, access only. But there are a few pages that I would like to open up to the public so that I can refer non-members to them, and this happens quite frequently. These are pages with very general information about the disease we deal with, resources for things like pet loss, etc.

There's no way currently to do that because member vs public access is all or nothing. The suggestion is to make public or member-only access a function of each separate wiki page rather than the wiki as a whole. I think there could still be an overall default for the group setting, subject to change on each page; or possibly a group setting could be added to indicate that public vs private access is a function of the particular 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: #suggestion - default sort in database #suggestion

Jim AF3Z <jagoudie@...>
 

Mark,

I’m not talking about anything arbitrary.  The admin of that group would pick which column to sort by.  
Perhaps a simple checkbox could be used to indicate the column by which you want the table to be sorted.

Thanks
Jim

Jim Goudie   —  jagoudie@...
610 Kraybill Church Rd
Mount Joy, PA 17552

On Jan 24, 2022, at 11:24 AM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:

On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 8:22 AM Jim AF3Z <jagoudie@...> wrote:

I would love to see it possible to set the sort function in the databases to default to a column other than ID.  We use it for scheduling and it would be so much better if it automatically sorted by our day/time column. 

For an arbitrary database, how do I pick which column to sort by?

Thanks,
Mark 


moderated Re: Site updates #changelog

 

On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 7:44 AM Robert Kingett <kingettr@...> wrote:

With a screen reader, I can no longer find that side menu when visiting a groups page. Did that change as well? How can I get to settings, and admin controls if that sidebar list of items is no longer present?

Next time, please start a new topic for this.

Nothing has changed with the side menu. When was the last time it worked for you?

Thanks,
Mark 


moderated Re: #suggestion - default sort in database #suggestion

 

On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 8:22 AM Jim AF3Z <jagoudie@...> wrote:

I would love to see it possible to set the sort function in the databases to default to a column other than ID.  We use it for scheduling and it would be so much better if it automatically sorted by our day/time column. 

For an arbitrary database, how do I pick which column to sort by?

Thanks,
Mark 


moderated #suggestion - default sort in database #suggestion

Jim AF3Z <jagoudie@...>
 

Hello,

I've used groups.io for years... and I think I've suggested this before.  It seems rather simple and obvious, but...

I would love to see it possible to set the sort function in the databases to default to a column other than ID.  We use it for scheduling and it would be so much better if it automatically sorted by our day/time column.   Only the admins have any need to sort by ID.  Everybody else needs to see the entires sorted by day/time.  After editing, saving, adding to the database, it goes back to being sorted by ID... That causes entry errors, scheduling conflicts are missed.... etc.  aargh!

So... please ;-) add a means of setting the default sort to a column other than the ID.

Thanks!  --Jim


moderated Re: Site updates #changelog

Andy Wedge
 

On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 03:44 PM, Robert Kingett wrote:
With a screen reader, I can no longer find that side menu when visiting a groups page.
has the width of your browser window changed? If it narrows beyond a certain point, the display will switch to a mobile device format and the side menu options move to the hamburger icon at the bottom of the screen.

Regards
Andy


moderated Re: Site updates #changelog

 

With a screen reader, I can no longer find that side menu when visiting a groups page. Did that change as well? How can I get to settings, and admin controls if that sidebar list of items is no longer present?


moderated Re: Posting Limits #suggestion

Bob Bellizzi
 

"it's too much effort."

Therein lies the problem;  how important to you is the group if it's too much trouble for you to manage it?
If you don't get this goodie witl you bow out or will  you continue to manage the group?


--

Bob Bellizzi
FuchsFriends@groups.io online  support  group for corneal dystrophy patients & caregivers
The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation 


moderated Re: Posting Limits #suggestion

Henning Schulzrinne
 

I help run a community mailing list with about 1,300 members. We don't moderate posts except for new members - just too much effort. (We do time-out members who don't abide by the rules.) We have a "three posts per day" rule for all the reasons mentioned. It would be really helpful to have a very simple auto-moderation mechanism, where the excess post would be rejected with a suitable message. There's no need for complex rules or behaviors - if the topic is still relevant a day later, the person can send their message then. We suspend the rule, by announcement, during emergency situations like after a hurricane. In general, I think simplicity wins here - you want something straightforward that allows lightly-moderated groups to function better. Even without an automated mechanism, most of the active posters have internalized the 3-post rule, so there are no great surprises.


moderated Re: Posting Limits #suggestion

Bob Bellizzi
 

On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 10:26 AM, Andy Wedge wrote:
  If a Moderator is unable or unwilling to do that then they probably have the wrong job.
Amen, Andy.  We have  a  group currently passing through the  3300's which has been growing constantly for over 20 years.
Technically  we have about 8 Moderators, but we have a hierachial Moderator system and major issues  percolate to the top (me) which is where they should be resolved.
It it seems like too much work, it's likely the wrong job for you.
 
--

Bob Bellizzi
FuchsFriends@groups.io online  support  group for corneal dystrophy patients & caregivers
The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation 


moderated Re: Posting Limits #suggestion

Jim F.
 

Mark-

For what it's worth, as the original proposer, I would now view this suggestion as having three separate versions or options:

First is a moderation option that would automatically place a member account on some stricter type of moderation if there are X posts within P time period (say 15 posts in a week), and then automatically revert back to the original status at the end of that time period.  This would automate, and so make far more convenient, something that would now take a lot of monitoring and followup. 

Second is a moderation option that, once triggered as above (or manually), would limit the member account to Y posts within Q time period (say 2 posts per day).  Excess posts within the window could either require moderator approval or simply be rejected.  This again would automate (particularly the rejection option) something that would now take a lot of monitoring. 

Third is a moderation option to delay, and possibly consolidate, such excess posts. 

These three options could be implemented together or separately.  Having all three together would be ideal, but either one of the first two would provide most of the functionality even by itself (so long as the threshold number and time period ranges were broad enough).  The third option, on the other hand, seems like merely a tweak to the second one; it doesn't strike me as a priority, particularly if it could be hard to implement. 

Best regards. 

-Jim 


On Jan 22, 2022, at 3:58 PM, Marv Waschke <marvwaschke@...> wrote:

Long ago, when I was developing network management tools, our team implemented a rule like this in an agent for processing alerts-- x identical alerts within y time consolidated to a single alert. Worked fairly well. The logs became easier to read, enterprise-wide alert traffic went down. I can see similar benefits to groups.io.

However, some difficult bugs surfaced a few years out when the alert traffic was higher than we ever imagined and some unanticipated race conditions surfaced. These took serious effort to fix, more than the original implementation.  My intuition, which really isn't worth much, is that implementing something similar in groups.io might surface similar issues. I would keep that in mind when deciding whether to implement or not, especially because a theme among the comments here is that this is a technical solution to a problem that might better be solved by addressing the human dynamics in a groups.
Just thoughts, Marv


moderated Re: Posting Limits #suggestion

Marv Waschke
 

Long ago, when I was developing network management tools, our team implemented a rule like this in an agent for processing alerts-- x identical alerts within y time consolidated to a single alert. Worked fairly well. The logs became easier to read, enterprise-wide alert traffic went down. I can see similar benefits to groups.io.

However, some difficult bugs surfaced a few years out when the alert traffic was higher than we ever imagined and some unanticipated race conditions surfaced. These took serious effort to fix, more than the original implementation.  My intuition, which really isn't worth much, is that implementing something similar in groups.io might surface similar issues. I would keep that in mind when deciding whether to implement or not, especially because a theme among the comments here is that this is a technical solution to a problem that might better be solved by addressing the human dynamics in a groups.
Just thoughts, Marv


moderated Site updates #changelog

 

Changes to the site this week:

January 21, 2022:

  • BUGFIX: Paying a group invoice was being recorded as a group plan change in the activity log.
  • BUGFIX: Changing group payers was not being recorded in the activity log.
  • CHANGE: Moved Paid group invoice, Changed group plan and Changed group payer activity log entries from Moderator Activity to Payment Activity.
  • CHANGE: Changed the Activity Log blurb Upgraded group to Changed group plan, changed Changed payer to Changed group payer, changed Paid invoice to Paid group invoice.
  • CHANGE: In Files, if you don't have permission to upload, the New/Upload dropdown will no longer appear. Discussion
  • CHANGE: In Files and Photos, if the group is out of space, and you attempt to upload a file/photo, a new Out of Space dialog will pop up instead. Discussion

January 18, 2022:

  • BUGFIX: The permission checking was wrong on database CSV imports, leading to people not being able to import rows. Discussion

The next #changelog will be published on Friday, January 28th.

Take care everyone.

Mark


moderated Re: #suggestion Need a way to disable the option for members to subscribe to only special messages #suggestion

dave w
 

hello,
As a long time (25+ years) group/ email admin etc. I consider this suggestion that only panders to 'wants' and ignores needs very unfortunate.

>>Why? Why does it have to still be there, in the case (as with the OP) where they plan to send no special notices anyway?<<

-Because there has to be an override possibility for Admins/ Owners to contact people, regardless of their day to day wishes.
-Because it is an administrative function, and one day someone will find a need to use it.
-Because [many] people like me whose preference IS NO MAIL, read the damn groups on line and avoid all these hassles that others enjoy being tangled up in.
-SO I do not miss out on others email at all, whether admin notices or irrelevant topics.
-Hen-pecking at 'features' that otherwise have little impact isn't particularly use of productive time. But when needed, you will welcome the 'freedom to use' the option.

I for one do not support or encourage any such change.
thanks
dave


moderated Re: Posting Limits #suggestion

Andy Wedge
 

On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 06:00 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I have thought about in the past offering some sort of function to set specific members, or to have a group policy in general, that if multiple messages from the same person to the same topic occur within N minutes, without any intervening posts from others, to automatically combine those into one message.
I'm not sure how that would work without introducing the equivalent of the notification combiner which delays the issuing of messages. Personally, I find that combiner frustrating, especially when testing features.


I would personally set that as a group policy for beta, for example. Would something like that be useful to anyone else (other than the original poster)?
It's not something I would like to see. If someone is posting too many messages to a group, there are other Moderator options to deal with that.  If a Moderator is unable or unwilling to do that then they probably have the wrong job.

Regards
Andy

1341 - 1360 of 32391