Date   

moderated Re: Subscription Approval Needed notices sent prematurely

Jim Higgins
 

Received from Michael Pavan at 1/8/2019 07:15 AM UTC:

It is better to improve Groups.io by having more flexibility for more groups to function as desired, than to get stuck fighting over names.

Amen on the fighting over names. As to desired functionality, there does come a point where how I'd like it or how it was somewhere else should take a back seat to what's really working just fine as is. Flexibility in the form of options that can be ignored if we want to is - to me - something quite different from a change to a process that will affect all of us.

I want to keep seeing a prompt "Approval Needed" notice so that if the "Pending" notice sent to the subscriber is lost in his spam/junk folder (or no response is received for whatever reason) I know to follow up with a personal email. Holding the "Approval Needed" notice until the actions requested in the "Pending" notice have been taken by the applicant "breaks" this useful aspect of the current process. And no one needs 14 days to perform required "Pending" actions or to approve a subscription. I don't care if the current 14 days is extended as far as infinity, but changing the timing of the "Approval Needed" and "Pending" notices breaks functionality for Owners/Moderators who actually manage their group subscription process.

Jim H


moderated Re: Subscription Approval Needed notices sent prematurely

Michael Pavan
 

On Jan 8, 2019, at 1:06 AM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@gmail.com> wrote:

Michael,

... but I (and many others) believe we would be well served by simply
having the "Pending Subscription" Member Notice ask questions and a
response received, prior to the Subscription Approval Needed notice
being sent to moderators.
To be clear, I have no problem with implementing that functionality. My complaint is with taking the established name "Pending Subscription" for the new function.*
Of course implementing the functionally is definitely more important.

In #19486 and #19493 you seem to accept the idea of putting the new function on a new Member Notice type, "Application Information Required”. If that's still on the table then I think we have little or no conflict.
Absolutely.

Shal
* Yes, I understand your belief that "Pending" should have meant something different all along, and that you've wanted it for a long time. But I've been /using/ it the way it is for years here, and over a decade at Yahoo Groups. So my semantic expectations are at least as strongly founded as yours.
OK

It is better to improve Groups.io by having more flexibility for more groups to function as desired, than to get stuck fighting over names.


moderated Re: Subscription Approval Needed notices sent prematurely

 

Michael,

... but I (and many others) believe we would be well served by simply
having the "Pending Subscription" Member Notice ask questions and a
response received, prior to the Subscription Approval Needed notice
being sent to moderators.
To be clear, I have no problem with implementing that functionality. My complaint is with taking the established name "Pending Subscription" for the new function.*

In #19486 and #19493 you seem to accept the idea of putting the new function on a new Member Notice type, "Application Information Required”. If that's still on the table then I think we have little or no conflict.

Shal
* Yes, I understand your belief that "Pending" should have meant something different all along, and that you've wanted it for a long time. But I've been /using/ it the way it is for years here, and over a decade at Yahoo Groups. So my semantic expectations are at least as strongly founded as yours.


moderated Re: Subscription Approval Needed notices sent prematurely

Jim Higgins
 

Received from J_Catlady at 1/7/2019 08:18 PM UTC:

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 11:45 AM, Michael Pavan wrote:
The "Subscription Approval Needed" is not accurate for Restricted Groups with a "Pending Subscription" Member Notice requesting additional information, because until/unless it is provided, no approval is needed.
What if we change it to "Subscription Approval Needed - BUT NOT YET!" ;p

Better, but that still risks leaving a rare few Moderators wailing and wringing their hands because it doesn't tell them EXACTLY WHEN to approve. ;-)

What if we just say "If it ain't really broke, don't fix it."

Jim H


moderated Re: Subscription Approval Needed notices sent prematurely

Jim Higgins
 

Received from J_Catlady at 1/7/2019 07:29 PM UTC:
 
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 11:21 AM, Jim Higgins wrote:
what's the big problem with the Owner/Moderator simply taking the "Approval Needed" notice as simply a notice that someone applied for membership and then waiting for any response

I personally don't see any problem with this (i.e., the way things are). I can also see why Michael made his suggestion to change things. The problem seems to be that his mods sometimes don't wait for the response. It's not a problem in my particular group because the mods understand they have to wait for the response.


Yep, a bit of education can go a long way. And if that were to fial I'd turn off the problem Moderators' ability to approve subscriptions before I'd ask for a change to the Groups.io subscription process. Too many years in Engineering and Quality Management tells me to fix the root cause.

Jim H


moderated Re: Subscription Approval Needed notices sent prematurely

 

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 11:45 AM, Michael Pavan wrote:
The "Subscription Approval Needed" is not accurate for Restricted Groups with a "Pending Subscription" Member Notice requesting additional information, because until/unless it is provided, no approval is needed.
What if we change it to "Subscription Approval Needed - BUT NOT YET!" ;p
 
--
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: Subscription Approval Needed notices sent prematurely

Michael Pavan
 

On Jan 7, 2019, at 2:22 PM, Jim Higgins <HigginsJ@sc.rr.com> wrote:
OK... but back to the original suggestion... what's the big problem with the Owner/Moderator simply taking the "Approval Needed" notice as simply a notice that someone applied for membership and then waiting for any response to a "Pending Member" notice before actually approving?
1) The "Subscription Approval Needed" is not accurate for Restricted Groups with a "Pending Subscription" Member Notice requesting additional information, because until/unless it is provided, no approval is needed.

2) The "Subscription Approval Needed" and "Pending Subscription" Member Notice requesting additional information are currently sent at the same time, which reduces a moderator’s time to act by the wait for a reply from the applicant.

That "Approval Needed" notice" is nice to have in the case where notices to pending applicants go into their junk folders and the applicants subsequently inquire whether their application was received.
A "Subscription Approval Needed” does start the 14 day clock to approve or not,
BUT
an "Application Received" notice sent to moderators would not, only the "Pending Subscription" Member Notice reply (if received within 14 days) would start the ‘Approval Clock’.


As I wrote:
After an applicant'e email address has been confirmed they should be sent an "Application Received" notice saying it will expire in 14 days
OR
a "Pending Subscription" (or "Additional Information Required") Member Notice which says what is required within 14 days before a Moderator would have 14 days to act.
Yes, this would extend the life of an application by giving both the applicant and moderator 14 days - currently the moderator’s time is reduced by the wait for a reply.


moderated Re: Subscription Approval Needed notices sent prematurely

 

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 11:21 AM, Jim Higgins wrote:
what's the big problem with the Owner/Moderator simply taking the "Approval Needed" notice as simply a notice that someone applied for membership and then waiting for any response
I personally don't see any problem with this (i.e., the way things are). I can also see why Michael made his suggestion to change things. The problem seems to be that his mods sometimes don't wait for the response. It's not a problem in my particular group because the mods understand they have to wait for the response. 
 
--
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: Subscription Approval Needed notices sent prematurely

Jim Higgins
 

Received from J_Catlady at 1/7/2019 07:06 PM UTC:

Are we now mixing up the member's pending subscription notice with the mod's "subscription needs approval" message? All restricted groups have the the latter, automatically, and it doesn't have any relationship to the member's pending notice per se. Not all groups even have a member pending notice. The Subscription Needs Approval notice, which is the title/subject of your thread, is unrelated to the Pending Membef Notice. You could create a relationship by making the former contingent on the latter, for the convenience reason you cite. But there is nothing incorrect about the current terminology.

OK... but back to the original suggestion... what's the big problem with the Owner/Moderator simply taking the "Approval Needed" notice as simply a notice that someone applied for membership and then waiting for any response to a "Pending Member" notice before actually approving?

That "Approval Needed" notice" is nice to have in the case where notices to pending applicants go into their junk folders and the applicants subsequently inquire whether their application was received.

Jim H


moderated Re: Subscription Approval Needed notices sent prematurely

 

Are we now mixing up the member’s pending subscription notice with the mod’s ‘subscription needs approval’ message? All restricted groups have the the latter, automatically, and it doesn’t have any relationship to the member’s pending notice per se. Not all groups even have a member pending notice. The Subscription Needs Approval notice, which is the title/subject of your thread, is unrelated to the Pending Membef Notice. You could create a relationship by making the former contingent on the latter, for the convenience reason you cite. But there is nothing incorrect about the current terminology.

On Jan 7, 2019, at 10:54 AM, Michael Pavan <michaelpavan@comcast.net> wrote:

My understanding of the intended purpose of the "Pending Subscription" Member Notice was to satisfy the desire of Groups who want additional information about an applicant in order to decide whether to Approve or not, with questions such as:
Why do you want to join?
Who are you?
Have we met you and when?
These (or other questions) can help keep out SPAMMERS and ensure that applicants belong in a group.


Mark’s idea 2016-02-24
"Pending member form"
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/6401
| I've been working on adding the ability to use the database to define a form for pending members to fill out before they're approved, and I need help figuring how things will work.
<see details in his complete message>

J_Catlady https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/13069 wrote:
| The text box feature has been on the Todo list for some time. I think Mark is planning something fancy where the responses can go directly into a database.

This thread (28 messages) shows much support for a text box or questionnaire for applicants prior to approval
"web-based questionnaire for restricted groups a pressing issue"
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/15943

Mark's idea could do that (see #6401 above), but in a more complicated manner involving automated integration into a database. I think it is a great goal, but I (and many others) believe we would be well served by simply having the "Pending Subscription" Member Notice ask questions and a response received, prior to the Subscription Approval Needed notice being sent to moderators.


On Jan 7, 2019, at 12:00 AM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@gmail.com> wrote:

Michael,

The mis-timing of a notice for Approval before screening of Applicants
is the problem that troubles me the most.
I use the Pending Subscription notice in my restricted groups, and I've no plan to implement a formal application step (not even if and when the proposed on-line questionnaire is implemented). So for me the Pending Subscription notice is not mistimed at all.

A solution should be possible that works for all Groups, however I
also advocate for wording to be accurate and intuitive.
I agree about clear wording.

But I think what's Pending here is approval of the member, and that's true beginning with their request, even if you don't wish to consider the request until some later event.
Yes, approval is Pending, but the question is whether it is just a matter of time, or additional information is needed, for a moderator to act on it.

Unless you're also proposing that the applicant not be placed in the on-site Pending Approval list on the Members page until after their response, or be there but have the approval function disabled; effectively making it impossible to approve them at that point. I think that would be a bad idea, but my opposition is somewhat mooted by my disinclination to use the proposed feature.
No, on the Member page is fine, but with a badge indicating that Additional Information has been requested. The badge could be AI14 (Additional Information # of days remaining).


J_Catlady pointed out (in past threads) that she would like to know what email address(es) had applied to join, and not later than the email address had been confirmed - an "Application Received" notice sent to moderators would do that. The "Subscription Approval Needed" is not accurate for Restricted Groups with a "Pending Subscription" Member Notice requesting additional information, because until/unless it is provided, no approval is needed.

Additionally she pointed out that although a "Pending Subscription" Member Notice may have asked for additional information, some moderators might choose to approve without the required information - a "View Pending Member" link in the "Application Received" notice would accommodate bypassing waiting for that information.

Different moderator notices for applicants would make clear whether or not additional information was required by the group.


Also, applicants currently are not informed that their request will expire in 14 days.
After an applicant'e email address has been confirmed they should be sent an "Application Received" notice saying it will expire in 14 days OR a "Pending Subscription" (or "Additional Information Required") Member Notice which says what is required within 14 days before a Moderator would have 14 days to act. Yes, this would extend the life of an application by giving both the applicant and moderator 14 days - currently the moderator’s time is reduced by the wait for a reply.


Shal pointed out that some/many/most(?) may have been using the "Pending Subscription" Member Notice to provide information TO, rather than request FROM applicants - which fits the current timing of these notices. I recommend re-naming such usage as an "Additional Group Information" Member Notice, but alternately creating a new "Additional Information Required" Member Notice with the appropriate timing of following messages works too.


Waiting for an application response is /your group's/ prerogative,
OK, a toggle could be put in to satisfy groups who ask for additional information to decide, but want to reply by email to approve applicants who haven’t provided it. This would have the "Subscription Approval Needed” notice sent to moderators instead of "Application Received”.


but I don't think that means you get to hijack existing nomenclature from groups who don't want the extra approval step. My opinion of course, and I'm open to being swayed by a sufficiently compelling naming proposal.
I see it as un-hijacking and using names that don’t require explanation, but that’s my opinion :-}.


This is an idea/want that is at least 3 years in consideration at Groups.io - in my case almost 19 years since I created my first eGroup.

I favor intuitive naming, but do not want that to stand in the way. Let's just get the 'Horse in front of the Cart'.











--
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: Change "New Topic" to "New Message", or (preferably) revert this change.

Jim Higgins
 

Received from Shal Farley at 1/6/2019 02:27 AM UTC:

About "member intent." If a member's "intent" is that a "New Topic" will thread with an old topic having the same subject line, ...
Nope. I'm assuming the user understood the name of the function at face value. Otherwise the result is on him/her.

Exactly! And I'd prefer to see that concept applied across the board. Let education deal with the rest.

Jim H


moderated Re: Subscription Approval Needed notices sent prematurely

Michael Pavan
 

My understanding of the intended purpose of the "Pending Subscription" Member Notice was to satisfy the desire of Groups who want additional information about an applicant in order to decide whether to Approve or not, with questions such as:
Why do you want to join?
Who are you?
Have we met you and when?
These (or other questions) can help keep out SPAMMERS and ensure that applicants belong in a group.


Mark’s idea 2016-02-24
"Pending member form"
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/6401
| I've been working on adding the ability to use the database to define a form for pending members to fill out before they're approved, and I need help figuring how things will work.
<see details in his complete message>

J_Catlady https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/13069 wrote:
| The text box feature has been on the Todo list for some time. I think Mark is planning something fancy where the responses can go directly into a database.

This thread (28 messages) shows much support for a text box or questionnaire for applicants prior to approval
"web-based questionnaire for restricted groups a pressing issue"
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/15943

Mark's idea could do that (see #6401 above), but in a more complicated manner involving automated integration into a database. I think it is a great goal, but I (and many others) believe we would be well served by simply having the "Pending Subscription" Member Notice ask questions and a response received, prior to the Subscription Approval Needed notice being sent to moderators.


On Jan 7, 2019, at 12:00 AM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@gmail.com> wrote:

Michael,

The mis-timing of a notice for Approval before screening of Applicants
is the problem that troubles me the most.
I use the Pending Subscription notice in my restricted groups, and I've no plan to implement a formal application step (not even if and when the proposed on-line questionnaire is implemented). So for me the Pending Subscription notice is not mistimed at all.

A solution should be possible that works for all Groups, however I
also advocate for wording to be accurate and intuitive.
I agree about clear wording.

But I think what's Pending here is approval of the member, and that's true beginning with their request, even if you don't wish to consider the request until some later event.
Yes, approval is Pending, but the question is whether it is just a matter of time, or additional information is needed, for a moderator to act on it.

Unless you're also proposing that the applicant not be placed in the on-site Pending Approval list on the Members page until after their response, or be there but have the approval function disabled; effectively making it impossible to approve them at that point. I think that would be a bad idea, but my opposition is somewhat mooted by my disinclination to use the proposed feature.
No, on the Member page is fine, but with a badge indicating that Additional Information has been requested. The badge could be AI14 (Additional Information # of days remaining).


J_Catlady pointed out (in past threads) that she would like to know what email address(es) had applied to join, and not later than the email address had been confirmed - an "Application Received" notice sent to moderators would do that. The "Subscription Approval Needed" is not accurate for Restricted Groups with a "Pending Subscription" Member Notice requesting additional information, because until/unless it is provided, no approval is needed.

Additionally she pointed out that although a "Pending Subscription" Member Notice may have asked for additional information, some moderators might choose to approve without the required information - a "View Pending Member" link in the "Application Received" notice would accommodate bypassing waiting for that information.

Different moderator notices for applicants would make clear whether or not additional information was required by the group.


Also, applicants currently are not informed that their request will expire in 14 days.
After an applicant'e email address has been confirmed they should be sent an "Application Received" notice saying it will expire in 14 days OR a "Pending Subscription" (or "Additional Information Required") Member Notice which says what is required within 14 days before a Moderator would have 14 days to act. Yes, this would extend the life of an application by giving both the applicant and moderator 14 days - currently the moderator’s time is reduced by the wait for a reply.


Shal pointed out that some/many/most(?) may have been using the "Pending Subscription" Member Notice to provide information TO, rather than request FROM applicants - which fits the current timing of these notices. I recommend re-naming such usage as an "Additional Group Information" Member Notice, but alternately creating a new "Additional Information Required" Member Notice with the appropriate timing of following messages works too.


Waiting for an application response is /your group's/ prerogative,
OK, a toggle could be put in to satisfy groups who ask for additional information to decide, but want to reply by email to approve applicants who haven’t provided it. This would have the "Subscription Approval Needed” notice sent to moderators instead of "Application Received”.


but I don't think that means you get to hijack existing nomenclature from groups who don't want the extra approval step. My opinion of course, and I'm open to being swayed by a sufficiently compelling naming proposal.
I see it as un-hijacking and using names that don’t require explanation, but that’s my opinion :-}.


This is an idea/want that is at least 3 years in consideration at Groups.io - in my case almost 19 years since I created my first eGroup.

I favor intuitive naming, but do not want that to stand in the way. Let's just get the 'Horse in front of the Cart'.


moderated Re: N Members Toggle

 

We are an opinionated bunch. 😀


On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 8:47 AM J_Catlady via Groups.Io <j.olivia.catlady=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:
It's par for the course around here! :-)
--
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: N Members Toggle

 

It's par for the course around here! :-)
--
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: N Members Toggle

Rex Chadwell
 

Thanks for the welcome....didn't mean to cause so much heartburn.


moderated Re: Subscription Approval Needed notices sent prematurely

 

BTW, every time I see a message from this thread in my inbox, I think there's a subscription requiring approval. ;)


On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 9:23 PM J_Catlady via Groups.Io <j.olivia.catlady=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 09:00 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
what's Pending here is approval of the member, and that's true beginning with their request, even if you don't wish to consider the request until some later event.
That's correct. I see the requested feature as a matter of convenience (which, of course, I have no problem with in general), not incorrect terminology.
 
--
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: Subscription Approval Needed notices sent prematurely

 

On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 09:00 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
what's Pending here is approval of the member, and that's true beginning with their request, even if you don't wish to consider the request until some later event.
That's correct. I see the requested feature as a matter of convenience (which, of course, I have no problem with in general), not incorrect terminology.
 
--
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: Subscription Approval Needed notices sent prematurely

 

Michael,

The mis-timing of a notice for Approval before screening of Applicants
is the problem that troubles me the most.
I use the Pending Subscription notice in my restricted groups, and I've no plan to implement a formal application step (not even if and when the proposed on-line questionnaire is implemented). So for me the Pending Subscription notice is not mistimed at all.

A solution should be possible that works for all Groups, however I
also advocate for wording to be accurate and intuitive.
I agree about clear wording.

But I think what's Pending here is approval of the member, and that's true beginning with their request, even if you don't wish to consider the request until some later event.

Unless you're also proposing that the applicant not be placed in the on-site Pending Approval list on the Members page until after their response, or be there but have the approval function disabled; effectively making it impossible to approve them at that point. I think that would be a bad idea, but my opposition is somewhat mooted by my disinclination to use the proposed feature.

Waiting for an application response is /your group's/ prerogative, but I don't think that means you get to hijack existing nomenclature from groups who don't want the extra approval step. My opinion of course, and I'm open to being swayed by a sufficiently compelling naming proposal.

Shal


moderated Re: Subscription Approval Needed notices sent prematurely

Michael Pavan
 

Shal,

Perhaps the wording is a matter of semantics, but I understand "Pending" as impling a decision to be made to determine outcome, versus "Waiting" as simply a delay.

The mis-timing of a notice for Approval before screening of Applicants is the problem that troubles me the most.
A solution should be possible that works for all Groups, however I also advocate for wording to be accurate and intuitive.


On Jan 6, 2019, at 8:08 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@gmail.com> wrote:

Michael,

2) If an alternate intent of a "Pending Subscription" Member Notice is
to provide additional information that is irrelevant to the
application, I suggest the establishment of a new type of Member
Notice called "Note to Applicant"
I'd go the other way, and suggest that what you want is a new Notice type, call it "Application" or some such, and give it the property that, if the group has a notice of that type active, then the member approval notice to moderators is suppressed and replaced by a simple notice of the request (without approval on reply or approval link).
OK, I suggest it be called "Application Information Required” that is sent to applicants.
And an "Application Received" notice sent to moderators.

The received response to the application would be forwarded to the moderators, and the approval reply & link capability would be carried by that message; so the message with the answers would serve also for member approval.
YES


A group could have both a Pending Member notice active (for additional information about the group)
These would be better named "Additional Group Information”
and an Application notice active; both would be sent when the request was made.

This way the functionality you want could be added without disrupting the operations of groups already using the Pending Subscription notice for informational purposes.
Again I'll say the Pending Subscription notice is mis-named, but admit that information giving (rather than information seeking) usage better matches the current ill-timing as it currently functions...


moderated Re: Subscription Approval Needed notices sent prematurely

 

Michael,

2) If an alternate intent of a "Pending Subscription" Member Notice is
to provide additional information that is irrelevant to the
application, I suggest the establishment of a new type of Member
Notice called "Note to Applicant"
I'd go the other way, and suggest that what you want is a new Notice type, call it "Application" or some such, and give it the property that, if the group has a notice of that type active, then the member approval notice to moderators is suppressed and replaced by a simple notice of the request (without approval on reply or approval link).

The received response to the application would be forwarded to the moderators, and the approval reply & link capability would be carried by that message; so the message with the answers would serve also for member approval.

A group could have both a Pending Member notice active (for additional information about the group) and an Application notice active; both would be sent when the request was made.

This way the functionality you want could be added without disrupting the operations of groups already using the Pending Subscription notice for informational purposes.

Shal

8621 - 8640 of 27945