Date   

locked Re: removing "new members moderated" setting doesn't remove "NuM" badge #bug

Nightowl >8#
 

Shal Farley wrote:>>We're only talking about message moderation here, not who you allow to join your group. And, when that member's first post arrives for moderation, you would still
have the option to reject the message and/or remove or ban the member.<<

Correct, as long as they aren't un-moderated. And I am talking about message moderation. For example, MM is open membership. I can't keep the troublemakers out of it,and I don't try. But if they DO join, I count on the moderated status to keep them quiet.

So having an automated -unmoderate feature in that case would be a problem, or flipping the whole group to un-moderated at once. That's all I was explaining.

Thanks.

Brenda


locked Re: Group Settings Contradiction

 

Brenda,

Diana Gregory wrote:
Granted, I don't post a lot in groups I own - so that isn't a major deal
- but I do have myself moderated. For all the reasons Shal mentioned,
plus if I get hacked, bogus messages can't be posted.
I'm not sure that would work, wouldn't they just be able to hack your
account and then un-moderate themselves and post?
Yes, someone who gains control of your email account might very well be able to perform a password reset on your Groups.io account, and thereby get access to it as well.

On the other hand, the history of such compromises (at least within Yahoo Mail and Yahoo Groups) has been that the crooks tend to take no interest in your groups or other memberships. Not even bank accounts. Mostly it seems what they've been after is to be able to send spam in your name.

That's not to say that there aren't more comprehensive crooks out there also.

... the point to me, of a group, back when we started, was to have a
group with a group site, and an interface...not a mailing list. ;)
I'm the opposite. For me the mailing list is the point. The web features are bonuses.

-- Shal


locked Re: removing "new members moderated" setting doesn't remove "NuM" badge #bug

 

Brenda,

I would never set a group to automatically unmoderate people, because I
work hard to keep certain people OUT of my groups, and that would let
them in.
We're only talking about message moderation here, not who you allow to join your group.

And, when that member's first post arrives for moderation, you would still have the option to reject the message and/or remove or ban the member.

-- Shal


locked Re: removing "new members moderated" setting doesn't remove "NuM" badge #bug

 

They would not 'know' of any automatic immoderate feature. I am talking about the case where the group settings are changed. Nobody can 'know' in advance about this and plan to lurk until it happens. ;)

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 15, 2016, at 8:48 PM, Feathered Leader <featheredleader@...> wrote:

J_catlady wrote:>> I don't see any reason for "long-term lurkers" NOT to have their status
changed to the group default if the settings change such that new members are no longer moderated. That's exactly my point.<<

I can give one really valid reason for not having long-term-lurkers who have never posted before, suddenly become un-moderated.

Some lurkers lurk specifically for trouble, and if they knew of an automatic un-moderate,feature they could join and sit in wait and cause problems for the group. Same with spammers, they could do the same thing.

Even with the X# of posts and then they are un-moderated, they could still cause problems. They could make 4 legitimate looking posts and then suddenly be set free to wreak havoc.

And I am speaking from experience, as someone who has had to deal with one particular problem poster for many many years. As this person would make multiple personas and join groups under those guises, I learned to watch for posting styles, behaviors, IP num bers, and other things to catch them before they caused too much trouble.

For that reason alone, it has been worth my while to always un-moderate manually, based on legitimacy, and never rely on default group policy for anything. I never even knew that was considered the better choice when I first did all this, because no one ever told me.

But honestly, I'd rather un-moderate or moderate each person individually, than ever be in a position for someone to pull the default group policy switch that could possibly allow everyone at once to become un-moderated. To me, that would be like someone hitting the switch to open all the cages at the zoo, and hoping no one would eat anyone else. ;)

This brings me to a serious concern though, does groups.io have a policy on people that join to make trouble, or creating multiple memberships to make trouble?

Brenda






locked Site updates #changelog

 

Changes to the site the last three days:

  • NEW: In the members page, checked members are remembered as you page through the member list.
  • NEW: Relative or absolute date display on website, selectable via profile.
  • BUGFIX: For messages without a plain text part, Insert Quoted Reply didn't work when replying as plain text or markdown.
  • NEW: Reordered and improved profile, with about me, location and website fields.
  • BUGFIX: In Add Table, if there's an error, don't lose column edits.
  • CHANGE: Display/sort on Created date instead of Updated date in Files section.
  • CHANGE: After sending a Bounce Probe or Resending a Confirmation Email in the member subscription page, go directly back to the members page.
  • CHANGE: The Download button when viewing photos will now cause the browser to save the photo instead of display it.
  • NEW: Added a 'View Original' button when viewing photos.
  • SYSADMIN: Upgraded go compiler to 1.5.3 to fix a security issue.

Have a good weekend, everybody!

Mark


locked Re: removing "new members moderated" setting doesn't remove "NuM" badge #bug

Nightowl >8#
 

J_catlady wrote:>> I don't see any reason for "long-term lurkers" NOT to have their status
changed to the group default if the settings change such that new members are no longer moderated. That's exactly my point.<<

I can give one really valid reason for not having long-term-lurkers who have never posted before, suddenly become un-moderated.

Some lurkers lurk specifically for trouble, and if they knew of an automatic un-moderate,feature they could join and sit in wait and cause problems for the group. Same with spammers, they could do the same thing.

Even with the X# of posts and then they are un-moderated, they could still cause problems. They could make 4 legitimate looking posts and then suddenly be set free to wreak havoc.

And I am speaking from experience, as someone who has had to deal with one particular problem poster for many many years. As this person would make multiple personas and join groups under those guises, I learned to watch for posting styles, behaviors, IP num bers, and other things to catch them before they caused too much trouble.

For that reason alone, it has been worth my while to always un-moderate manually, based on legitimacy, and never rely on default group policy for anything. I never even knew that was considered the better choice when I first did all this, because no one ever told me.

But honestly, I'd rather un-moderate or moderate each person individually, than ever be in a position for someone to pull the default group policy switch that could possibly allow everyone at once to become un-moderated. To me, that would be like someone hitting the switch to open all the cages at the zoo, and hoping no one would eat anyone else. ;)

This brings me to a serious concern though, does groups.io have a policy on people that join to make trouble, or creating multiple memberships to make trouble?

Brenda


locked Re: Group Settings Contradiction

Nightowl >8#
 

Diana Gregory wrote:>>Granted, I don't post a lot in groups I own - so that isn't a major deal - but I do have myself moderated. For all the reasons Shal mentioned, plus if I get hacked, bogus messages can't be posted.<<

I'm not sure that would work, wouldn't they just be able to hack your account and then un-moderate themselves and post?

My biggest protection against being hacked and someone getting control of my group, is having myself in there as more than one member name, so that both can be owners, or etc. Or I have John in as an owner as protection.

I guess I must be doing something right, because I've never been hacked or had a virus, but then I do everything he says to do to avoid it.

Being the leader of the Crusade group and the point of Hollow Tree, I'm the most frequent poster in both, and I do everything online. I can imagine it being easier for some people to un-moderate ones's posts through e-mail, but I don't know how, or want to. the point to me, of a group, back when we started, was to have a group with a group site, and an interface...not a mailing list. ;)

Brenda


locked Re: removing "new members moderated" setting doesn't remove "NuM" badge #bug

 

"That avoids my concern with suddenly unmoderating long-term lurkers (their status only changes if they make a posting that is approved, not as an immediate result of a group settings change)"

I don't see any reason for "long-term lurkers" NOT to have their status changed to the group default if the settings change such that new members are no longer moderated. That's exactly my point. 

I don't see this complaint as esoteric or seeking "foolish consistency." If I have some large number of NuM members, and I want to ditch that setting and let everybody post, then even if I change the settings I'm still stuck with moderating those unknown number of members until they age out.

J

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 6:53 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:
I wrote:

> Too, incrementing risks the classic programming mistake of comparing
> for equality as the end condition. That is, with the reverse change
> (from 4 to 1) if a member already had two approved posts would their
> badge go to 1 minus 2 equals negative one...

ROFL, it does.

For a moment I had -1 messages remaining until I become unmoderated in my test group.

However, Mark didn't make the classic mistake, he apparently used the appropriate inequality rather than test for equality -- On the next approved message I became "Default Group Policy" (the badge and count disappeared).

That avoids my concern with suddenly unmoderating long-term lurkers (their status only changes if they make a posting that is approved, not as an immediate result of a group settings change). But it does leave J's observed inconsistency in place.

However, while this is esoterically entertaining, I have to agree with J's observation that there are far more important that deserve attention, and this works wonderfully well already.

-- Shal





locked Re: removing "new members moderated" setting doesn't remove "NuM" badge #bug

Nightowl >8#
 
Edited

Shal Farley wrote:>>Too, incrementing risks the classic programming mistake of comparing for equality as the end condition. That is, with the reverse change (from 4 to 1) if a member already had two approved posts would their badge go to 1 minus 2 equals negative one, or worse the unsigned integer equivalent.<<

ACCKK! MATH! Owls hate math! (runs and hides in Hollow Tree)

Seriously? I don't understand 1 thing you've said, but hopefully I don't need to!

I would never set a group to automatically unmoderate people, because I work hard to keep certain people OUT of my groups, and that would let them in.

Brenda


locked Re: removing "new members moderated" setting doesn't remove "NuM" badge #bug

 

I wrote:

Too, incrementing risks the classic programming mistake of comparing
for equality as the end condition. That is, with the reverse change
(from 4 to 1) if a member already had two approved posts would their
badge go to 1 minus 2 equals negative one...
ROFL, it does.

For a moment I had -1 messages remaining until I become unmoderated in my test group.

However, Mark didn't make the classic mistake, he apparently used the appropriate inequality rather than test for equality -- On the next approved message I became "Default Group Policy" (the badge and count disappeared).

That avoids my concern with suddenly unmoderating long-term lurkers (their status only changes if they make a posting that is approved, not as an immediate result of a group settings change). But it does leave J's observed inconsistency in place.

However, while this is esoterically entertaining, I have to agree with J's observation that there are far more important that deserve attention, and this works wonderfully well already.

-- Shal


locked Re: removing "new members moderated" setting doesn't remove "NuM" badge #bug

 

Of course, (a) there are more pressing issues (the join language, etc.) and (b) putting this in context, it still beats the hell out of Yahoo. :-)

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 6:14 PM, J_Olivia Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
Whatever is going on "under the hood," for whatever "pragmatic" reason, it is inconsistent behavior and can confuse users. "NuM x" either is or is not an override status, that respectively either should or should not change when the group settings change. 

I'm sure there's a way to accomplish consistency one way or the other (either ditch the override concept for NuM, or keep it and make it consistent) but I'm not being paid.;)

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:
J,

> Then what about this: If I keep the "new members moderated",
> "unmoderate after" setting, but I change the number of posts required
> to unmoderate, that number DOES change in the badges of all new
> members. (In the case in question - a different group - I changed it
> from 1 to 4. The new members' badges changed from 1 to 4, in concert
> with that.)

Not too surprising.

I'm going to speculate that "under the hood" what's being kept per member is the number of consecutive approved posts, but what's being displayed is the difference between that and the current group setting (the number remaining before unmoderation).

So, to achieve a foolish consistency[1] Mark would have to store the group setting when the member joined and decrement from there, rather than count up and subtract.

So I guess I would have to argue, from the same pragmatic grounds as I took with the posting privilege itself, that decrementing from the group setting would be preferred, lest the same problem occur (many long-term lurking members unexpectedly becoming unmoderated).

Too, incrementing risks the classic programming mistake of comparing for equality as the end condition. That is, with the reverse change (from 4 to 1) if a member already had two approved posts would their badge go to 1 minus 2 equals negative one, or worse the unsigned integer equivalent.

-- Shal
1: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Consistency  ;-)






locked Re: removing "new members moderated" setting doesn't remove "NuM" badge #bug

 

Whatever is going on "under the hood," for whatever "pragmatic" reason, it is inconsistent behavior and can confuse users. "NuM x" either is or is not an override status, that respectively either should or should not change when the group settings change. 

I'm sure there's a way to accomplish consistency one way or the other (either ditch the override concept for NuM, or keep it and make it consistent) but I'm not being paid.;)

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:
J,

> Then what about this: If I keep the "new members moderated",
> "unmoderate after" setting, but I change the number of posts required
> to unmoderate, that number DOES change in the badges of all new
> members. (In the case in question - a different group - I changed it
> from 1 to 4. The new members' badges changed from 1 to 4, in concert
> with that.)

Not too surprising.

I'm going to speculate that "under the hood" what's being kept per member is the number of consecutive approved posts, but what's being displayed is the difference between that and the current group setting (the number remaining before unmoderation).

So, to achieve a foolish consistency[1] Mark would have to store the group setting when the member joined and decrement from there, rather than count up and subtract.

So I guess I would have to argue, from the same pragmatic grounds as I took with the posting privilege itself, that decrementing from the group setting would be preferred, lest the same problem occur (many long-term lurking members unexpectedly becoming unmoderated).

Too, incrementing risks the classic programming mistake of comparing for equality as the end condition. That is, with the reverse change (from 4 to 1) if a member already had two approved posts would their badge go to 1 minus 2 equals negative one, or worse the unsigned integer equivalent.

-- Shal
1: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Consistency  ;-)





locked Re: removing "new members moderated" setting doesn't remove "NuM" badge #bug

 

J,

Then what about this: If I keep the "new members moderated",
"unmoderate after" setting, but I change the number of posts required
to unmoderate, that number DOES change in the badges of all new
members. (In the case in question - a different group - I changed it
from 1 to 4. The new members' badges changed from 1 to 4, in concert
with that.)
Not too surprising.

I'm going to speculate that "under the hood" what's being kept per member is the number of consecutive approved posts, but what's being displayed is the difference between that and the current group setting (the number remaining before unmoderation).

So, to achieve a foolish consistency[1] Mark would have to store the group setting when the member joined and decrement from there, rather than count up and subtract.

So I guess I would have to argue, from the same pragmatic grounds as I took with the posting privilege itself, that decrementing from the group setting would be preferred, lest the same problem occur (many long-term lurking members unexpectedly becoming unmoderated).

Too, incrementing risks the classic programming mistake of comparing for equality as the end condition. That is, with the reverse change (from 4 to 1) if a member already had two approved posts would their badge go to 1 minus 2 equals negative one, or worse the unsigned integer equivalent.

-- Shal
1: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Consistency ;-)


locked Re: removing "new members moderated" setting doesn't remove "NuM" badge #bug

 

Well, here's some more food for needless thought.

As I pointed out, if you change the group setting from "new members moderated", "unmoderate after" to unmoderated, the NuM badge does not go away on new members. Let's say I accept (which I don't entirely) the reasoning that "NuM" is an override status, so changing the group settings should not change the badge.

Then what about this: If I keep the "new members moderated", "unmoderate after" setting, but I change the number of posts required to unmoderate, that number DOES change in the badges of all new members. (In the case in question - a different group - I changed it from 1 to 4. The new members' badges changed from 1 to 4, in concert with that.)

I think that's inconsistent. If the NuM"x" is an override status, then, according to the responses here so far, the "x" should not change just because the group's setting changed to "y." Yet it does.

J


locked Re: removing "new members moderated" setting doesn't remove "NuM" badge #bug

 

Haha.:-)

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 15, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Shal Farley <@Shal> wrote:

J,

If you do that, I think you lose the convenience factor that Mark
was trying to achieve.
That's a valid concern with moving the feature off of the primary Settings tab - people may not know where to look for it.

I think the feature needs further thought.
Or perhaps less thought. It already seems clear and simple to me. ;-)

-- Shal



locked Re: removing "new members moderated" setting doesn't remove "NuM" badge #bug

 

J,

If you do that, I think you lose the convenience factor that Mark
was trying to achieve.
That's a valid concern with moving the feature off of the primary Settings tab - people may not know where to look for it.

I think the feature needs further thought.
Or perhaps less thought. It already seems clear and simple to me. ;-)

-- Shal


locked Re: removing "new members moderated" setting doesn't remove "NuM" badge #bug

 

If you do that, I think you lose the convenience factor that Mark was trying to achieve. I think the feature needs further thought.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 15, 2016, at 12:50 PM, Shal Farley <@Shal> wrote:

J,

That's exactly the issue for me. The "new members moderated" status
is in some sense not really an override. It's the group policy to
moderate new members ...
Point taken on the terminology of using the override mechanism as a simple way to implement a group policy.

The technical justification for it is that the only thing being overridden by the members' posting privilege is the group's default policy (the "Moderated" checkbox). In that point of view, new member moderation is a feature that "overrides" the group's default policy.

You argue that the Moderated checkbox, the New Members Moderated checkbox, and the Unmoderate After control together constitute "the group policy". I can see that point of view, but I'm not sure how to go forward from there to change either terminology or function in a way that makes the functionality simpler to understand or to use.

Hence my suggestion to go in the opposite direction: remove New Members Moderated and Unmoderate After from among the group settings, and put them in the Default Sub Settings, where they are in the right context (initial settings for members when they join the group).

-- Shal



locked Re: removing "new members moderated" setting doesn't remove "NuM" badge #bug

 

J,

That's exactly the issue for me. The "new members moderated" status
is in some sense not really an override. It's the group policy to
moderate new members ...
Point taken on the terminology of using the override mechanism as a simple way to implement a group policy.

The technical justification for it is that the only thing being overridden by the members' posting privilege is the group's default policy (the "Moderated" checkbox). In that point of view, new member moderation is a feature that "overrides" the group's default policy.

You argue that the Moderated checkbox, the New Members Moderated checkbox, and the Unmoderate After control together constitute "the group policy". I can see that point of view, but I'm not sure how to go forward from there to change either terminology or function in a way that makes the functionality simpler to understand or to use.

Hence my suggestion to go in the opposite direction: remove New Members Moderated and Unmoderate After from among the group settings, and put them in the Default Sub Settings, where they are in the right context (initial settings for members when they join the group).

-- Shal


locked Re: Remembering checked members

Sylvester 2007DC <sylvester2007dc@...>
 

I love it………..thank you!!!!


Diane
GammillCousins
 
There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach




On Jan 15, 2016, at 3:40 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:

Hi all,

I just pushed a change to the Members page of the website. Now, when you page through your members list, it will remember if you've checked members from previous pages. The number of members checked is displayed at the bottom, with a new link to clear all checks from all the pages.

The checks are reset if you go to another tab (Moderators/Pending/etc). And they're reset if you click on a specific member.

Please let me know what you think. I'll roll it out to the rest of the site after feedback.

Thanks,
Mark


locked Remembering checked members

 

Hi all,

I just pushed a change to the Members page of the website. Now, when you page through your members list, it will remember if you've checked members from previous pages. The number of members checked is displayed at the bottom, with a new link to clear all checks from all the pages.

The checks are reset if you go to another tab (Moderators/Pending/etc). And they're reset if you click on a specific member.

Please let me know what you think. I'll roll it out to the rest of the site after feedback.

Thanks,
Mark