"the display in the list of members without a display name" should read "the list's display of members without a display name" -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the

I can see an advantage to providing that option, but I think it should be sure to clarify that the email addresses of any members who post cannot be hidden from group members who are subscribed via

[A locked post by the same title, although slightly different request, can be found here.] I would like the ability to display the "Members" list (not the "Directory") to all subscribers, but omit or

What about just considering my original feature request. :) Why are people suggesting things as far afield as AI and Bayesian filters? This has gone really far afield. ;p -- J Messages are the

Peace. What about some sort of filter? ; like a whitelist /blacklist and/or a trainable baysian filter. Not sure how to handle the results but maybe the filter could add appropriate hashtags or

I have no idea how many groups veer one way or the other in terms of individuals vs. topics needing moderation. But moderating a topic is ALREADY a feature i in groups.io. By saying that "in most its

As others have said, in most its usually people who need moderating, not topics. In most groups there are one or two vocal individuals who need careful management. They divert threads off-topic and

Of course. But that's not a reason to throw in the towel. You may as well recommend doing away with moderated threads completely because people will always find a way around them. Is that what you are

J, It might work for JUST your group, but I see examples of this type of behaviour in groups most every day. Saw one at the weekend in a Ham Radio group where some ones post was blocked, and in a

I do think Walter's keyword idea has merit, but would be better implemented through a hashtag bearing the keyword. That way, only specific threads would be moderated, rather than every thread

I disagree. That will not happen in our group. How do I know this? Because I ALREADY moderate such threads and it doesn't happen. The only difference is that I now have to do it by hand. The "having

I thought the keyword idea was a little pie-in-the-sky and impractical. People might be asking about "large cell lymphoma" in general (to use an example more in line with my group) and not have a cat

J, Whilst I think there is mileage in being able to moderate specific threads or hashtags, I think that once folks catch on you will find you end up moderating people. When folks figure out

Offline, I suggested some keywords which would trigger moderation on a new topic. To pick a random possibly fatal condition, if “renal failure” was mentioned when starting a new topic, it could be

Am just catching this now. No, it's not about managing specific people. It's about managing specific sensitive threads and the RESPONSES to those threads, which can come from anyone in the group.

I'll rephrase. The format of hashtags obviously has nothing to do with the feature request. People would be free to use whatever kinds of hashtags they want. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of

Apologies. I’m a bit fed up with the path this thread has taken and have little patience left with it. You were the unfortunate victim. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author,

Ouch !!! That was damned rude, out of line and uncalled for. not ok, Tony On 4 Sep 2018 at 1:37, J_Catlady wrote about : Subject : Re: [beta] setting to moderate ever This is irrelevant to the

This is irrelevant to the feature request. Do your hashtags however you want. 😀 -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. I wish I could shut up, but I

Hallo J, If #hashtags are written out in full then the hashtag collection could take up a lot of space in the Subject: But they are clearly read and understood. Were you thinking of a coded a