Seems cleaner and easier for the poster of the message to just send a PM to the group owner address asking them to delete the pending message.
My two cents.
--
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

How about a way to attach a note to the moderator for a message that's pending approval? It would only be seen by a moderator who is able to approve the pending message. Then the original author could note, "I found out the answer to my question, so this message doesn't have to be posted," and the moderator could decide to reject it to reduce clutter, or could approve it anyway if he/she thinks it would be helpful to others.

JohnF

Re messy: so to fix that, you'd have to do something like a "too late to delete" feature if a mod has already claimed the message. And that's assuming "claimed" even gets implemented. If it doesn't, things are even worse.
--
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

Pondering this further, I think what bothers me is the effect on moderators. Someone (or someones, until Shal's "claimed" feature is implemented, if it is) may be hard at work moderating the message and then it can disappear out from under them. This just seems really messy.
--
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

Ok, that's somewhat convincing. :)
--
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

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 02:36 PM, J_Catlady wrote:

How would they do that?

The same mechanism that would allow one posted online to be deleted.  If it's already been approved, their 'sent' list would be empty.

Duane

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:36 PM, J_Catlady wrote:

there's no notification that their message will post when approved, no banner,  no nothing.

Now I'm thinking (as you may be too) that maybe there should be some such notification when members post via email. If that's added, and a copy of the message sent is also added, that would make things very consistent.

My gut feeling is still against adding the ability to delete, but I can't really justify it. Something just bothers me about 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

I'm re-posting this list as a suggestion since it didn't get elevated to that level during the changeover.

I've tried to keep the list as short as I could to provide functions that would enhance Database operation and use.

Suggestions for Databases Function:

1.       Setup Option in premium to initially open in List or Map mode.

2.       Setup Option in premium to allow owners/moderators, based on `1 above, to force DB to stay in List or Map mode permanently or be switchable between. 

3.       Setup option to hide Index/Record number

4.       In Premium/Enterprise groups, when searching, retain the current (List or Map) mode.

5.       Provide Reset/Resequence Index command

a.       with a “Set Index Increment” function  to allow spacing/insertion between records.

b.      Or with a preset “Increment of 10 to allow spacing/insertion.

6.       Provide “Insert Record Before/After Record #” function when Index Increment >1

7.       Retain column headings when scrolling.  Currently they disappear.

 

8.       Always go to List mode when importing tables or rows; then, when complete, return to default mode from setup.

--

Bob Bellizzi

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:34 PM, Duane wrote:

If the message hasn't been approved, the sender could go online and delete it.

How would they do that? If they sent it via email, there's no notification that their message will post when approved, no banner,  no nothing.
 
--
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

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 02:16 PM, J_Catlady wrote:

Adding the suggested feature decreases consistency (you can’t take back a sent email)

I don't think it necessarily would.  If the message hasn't been approved, the sender could go online and delete it.  Maybe that would be a limitation.

Duane

I’m all for the most consistency possible between posting via email vs posting via the web. Adding the suggested feature decreases consistency (you can’t take back a sent email) whereas my suggestion adds consistency (you’d have a record of what yoh sent whether you posted via email or via the web, as opposed to currently, where you have it only if post 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

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 01:11 PM, J_Catlady wrote:

I would disagree with that feature and think it would be superfluous.

How so?  Wouldn't it be better to allow the sender to remove the message from the queue than to add clutter by needing to post a "my mistake" followup?  In some cases though, I do like having something like that posted for all to see when it might make something more clear to another user later.

Duane

I'm not sure I understand the middle part of this message, but I do get that the suggestion is for a way to delete a submitted pending message. I would disagree with that feature and think it would be superfluous.

What I do think would be very useful (and have suggested in the past) would be to send the member a record of the submitted message. When you post via email, you have a record of what you sent. But when you post via the web and the message is moderated, you have no record of it unless you explicitly make a copy for yourself. 
--
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

Add a way to cancel a message before it gets approved.

Once i hit "Send" or "Reply to Group" I get the green banner with "Your message will be sent when it's approved by the moderators." but nothing about canceling the message. 

Also, once I leave the message page there is no indication that the message is in limbo.

I mentioned in a reply to the question "Can moderators reduce joined their own moderator settings?", that I had to wait for the message to go through the Moderators before I could fess up to figuring it out on my own.

It would be nice if there was a "Pending Message" notification that could be clicked on to delete it.

I kind of hope I'm not the only person who clicks either "Send" or "Reply to Group" then wishes I hadn't.

Bill

Another suggestion on a similar theme: it would be awesome if when creating a subgroup, its settings defaulted to matching the parent group's unless manually changed.

For example, in my parent group, I've disabled a bunch of features that we don't use (chat, database, etc). When setting up sub-groups, it's time-consuming to copy over all those settings manually.

We're trying to figure out why a group can't be renamed.  While testing, I noticed that if I tried to rename to an existing name, it says "Cannot contain spaces, pluses, periods, or underscores."  If I try to create a group with an existing name, it says "That address has already been taken.", much more useful.

Thanks,
Duane

I'm a member of a top-level group that is private. When members create sub-groups, the default visibility setting for the sub-group is "Subgroup listed in parent group, messages publicly viewable". As a result, I've seen multiple people make their new sub-groups public by mistake.

It would be great if sub-groups inherited the parent group's visibility settings by default, so that if the parent group is private, the default would instead be "Subgroup listed in parent group, messages viewable by parent group members." I imagine that most private groups do not want their sub-groups to be public so this would be a more intuitive default.

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 05:43 PM, J_Catlady wrote :

I agree also. But it's already in the Guidelines page.

Oops for me too. I did not see the Guidelines entry in the
left-hand side menu.

My reason for starting the topic was that I had some confusion
(senior moment ?) about the Charter and I was looking for the
summary in the Wiki which I could not find because it was not
there.

Fri, 14 Feb 2020 13:47:36, J_Catlady wrote :

Unfortunately I have to say "I disagree" with the vast majority
(or at least a whole lot) of this. I don't know where it's coming
from.

In reviewing the postings on the Charter, I compiled ad verbatim,
what I felt were key points from the various emails to assist in
documenting the Charter. It was a rough draft.

In the postings, there were comments on etiquette and "proposal vs
suggestion" which did not seem to have a conclusion.

Based on the responses, etiquette is policed as required, and
proposals/ideas/topic could/should be discussed in GMF before
a suggestion is submitted on [beta].

Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 03:39 PM, Duane wrote:

I do agree that there should be an easy place for others,
especially newcomers, to find the mandate(s) for the group.
A sticky, either post or wiki page, would seem to be the most
noticeable.

I agree :-)


I appreciate everyone's response. I am amenable to closing this
topic.

Stan/jp