Date   

moderated Re: Member notices

 

Well, you were very insistent on sending a notification for every edit. A 'delete' is sort of the ultimate edit, n'est ce pas? Yes, I'm making a rhetorical point. But I also think it's a valid one.
J
Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 12, 2016, at 5:49 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@gmail.com> wrote:

J,

Also by that logic, a rejected message should not have an
auto-notification. Usually a message is rejected for violating some
group guideline. So isn't that another case of a "troublemaker" who
doesn't "deserve" (to use the prior language) notification?
I think you're making a rhetorical point here, but I'll answer anyway: no, I don't think so. The message may be in violation but that might be an honest mistake or oversight by an otherwise member in good standing. The circumstances where someone might be removed or banned may be quite different.

I think any unaccepted message should generate a notification.
I disagree. Specifically for spam messages, but there may be other cases where the moderator's discretion should be applied.

Shal
https://groups.io/g/Group_Help
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Member notices

 

J,

Also by that logic, a rejected message should not have an
auto-notification. Usually a message is rejected for violating some
group guideline. So isn't that another case of a "troublemaker" who
doesn't "deserve" (to use the prior language) notification?
I think you're making a rhetorical point here, but I'll answer anyway: no, I don't think so. The message may be in violation but that might be an honest mistake or oversight by an otherwise member in good standing. The circumstances where someone might be removed or banned may be quite different.

I think any unaccepted message should generate a notification.
I disagree. Specifically for spam messages, but there may be other cases where the moderator's discretion should be applied.

Shal
https://groups.io/g/Group_Help
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


moderated Re: Member notices

 

J,

Well, by that logic there *definitely* should not be an
auto-notification for "banned" members. Aren't they the ultimate
troublemakers? Why else would they be banned? By that logic, Mark
should get rid of that notification (which already exists).
Hmm... I guess I should test it. I've assumed that leaving it blank means nothing gets sent.

Nice thing about having a list for each of these messages: that will provide a handy place for the "None" selection, and that will make the operation clearer.

But I think to have an auto-notification for "banned" but not for
"removed" is the ultimate inconsistency.
Yup. Good thing Mark has noted it for correction.

Shal
https://groups.io/g/Group_Help
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


moderated Re: AOL problem

 

Mark,

- We get one or more spam reports about a user in a given day, we
send an email to them saying, "hey, you're not getting all your
messages because some are going into spam, please check your spam
folder, mark any misidentified messages as not spam, and then reply
to this message to acknowledge you got this. or, you're trying to get
off the group, here's a link."
I share Duane's concern that the notice could also be diverted to the member's spam folder. But apart from sending a duplicate notice from a domain other than groups.io (which itself may be problematic) I'm not sure what to suggest.

Maybe provide unsubscribe instructions rather than a link - "a short message luring one to click on a link" is a common description of a undesirable message (spam, phishing, attack site, ...).

One option may be to have a notification bar at the top of the web pages, and if such a member happens to log in to the site they could be notified there too.

- If we reach N days, we unsub the user.
How about switching the member's delivery to "No Email" (or "Special Notices Only") in each of their subscriptions? My consideration here is that even though you provide a resume subscription link in the notice when the person is finally unsubscribed, if the member is traveling on vacation or otherwise out of contact for a month or more that resume link may have expired or the message lost by the time the member returns to activity.

With the immediate goal (of halting message traffic to that address) satisfied, you can "age out" the inactive member on a much longer timescale, one that is commensurate with real-world issues.

Too, activist moderators (if given an easy way to list such members) could take whatever measures they have available to try and contact the inactive member.

Shal
https://groups.io/g/Group_Help
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


moderated Re: Member notices

 

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 04:39 pm, Shal Farley wrote:
When you delete messages there is a "Verify Delete" pop-up which asks: "Are you sure you wish to delete these 5 messages without sending them to the group?". Perhaps the question could also say "and without notifying the senders".

Our posts just crossed. My real gripe with the feature is that it allows this to happen in the first place (i.e., no notification). But as long as the feature is there, the language should clarify it somehow. The above is fine (although not idea. IMO). Etc. 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Member notices

 

Also by that logic, a rejected message should not have an auto-notification. Usually a message is rejected for violating some group guideline. So isn't that another case of a "troublemaker" who doesn't "deserve" (to use the prior language) notification? 

There is, to my thinking, an inconsistency here, as well. You can "delete" a message (no notification) or "reject" a message. 

I think any unaccepted message should generate a notification. 

Again, I don't care personally because I would give the notification in either case, if the system doesn't do it for me.

J

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 4:35 PM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 04:06 pm, Shal Farley wrote:
sometimes the member was a troublemaker, or perhaps just a spammer. In these sorts of cases I'd say that their bad behavior overrides their "right to know"

Well, by that logic there *definitely* should not be an auto-notification for "banned" members. Aren't they the ultimate troublemakers? Why else would they be banned? By that logic, Mark should get rid of that notification (which already exists). 

A group member is removed either because they are a troublemaker or because they asked to be removed and don't know how to unsubscribe. I can't think of any instances where someone who is removed, let alone banned, who is not a troublemaker, unless they themselves asked to be removed

It's immaterial to me personally what the system does in this regard (i.e., whether or not there's an auto-notification for removed members), since I myself will notify them if there is no auto-notification. But I think to have an auto-notification for "banned" but not for "removed" is the ultimate inconsistency.

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu



--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Member notices

 

J,

More importantly, if what you're saying is correct: I think the
difference in functionality should be made clear via the language.
When you delete messages there is a "Verify Delete" pop-up which asks: "Are you sure you wish to delete these 5 messages without sending them to the group?". Perhaps the question could also say "and without notifying the senders".

Perhaps the text "Delete these 5 messages without sending them to the group and without notifying the senders.", could be made a hover-text for the Delete button (and a corresponding text for the Reject button).

I think providing the fuller explanation as additional text as a hover and in the confirmation pop-up is a cleaner way to provide the explanation than attempting to fit that into the label of the button.

... or just a "reject" button with a "send notification" option,
would be more clear, since both "reject" and "delete" do the same
thing - it's just that one is with notification and one is without.
I like this suggestion too, with the minor quibble that it adds an extra step if I knew from the start that Delete is what I wanted.

Wandering a bit further from the initial topic...

Didn't we once have a suggestion that "Send Reply" should be an action one can take from the list of Pending Messages (and from the individual messages). That would be a way to discuss the message with the member before deciding whether to Approve or Delete/Reject the message.

From within the pending message there's "View member", which at the bottom has "Send Message", but that's not the same as a reply - it wouldn't have a quote of the message under consideration.

Shal
https://groups.io/g/Group_Help
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


moderated Re: Member notices

 

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 04:06 pm, Shal Farley wrote:
sometimes the member was a troublemaker, or perhaps just a spammer. In these sorts of cases I'd say that their bad behavior overrides their "right to know"

Well, by that logic there *definitely* should not be an auto-notification for "banned" members. Aren't they the ultimate troublemakers? Why else would they be banned? By that logic, Mark should get rid of that notification (which already exists). 

A group member is removed either because they are a troublemaker or because they asked to be removed and don't know how to unsubscribe. I can't think of any instances where someone who is removed, let alone banned, who is not a troublemaker, unless they themselves asked to be removed

It's immaterial to me personally what the system does in this regard (i.e., whether or not there's an auto-notification for removed members), since I myself will notify them if there is no auto-notification. But I think to have an auto-notification for "banned" but not for "removed" is the ultimate inconsistency.

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Member notices

kr402
 

On Nov 12, 2016, at 4:06 PM, "Shal Farley" <shals2nd@gmail.com> wrote:

In general I'd agree, but as Lena and Maria have mentioned sometimes the member was a troublemaker, or perhaps just a spammer. In these sorts of cases I'd say that their bad behavior overrides their "right to know".
Thanks, Shal, I understand in those situations and especially
the spammer who probably looses interest and moves on.

I would hope it would be an individual group moderators choice
to send a notice or not. I was thinking of common curtesy, but
as you pointed out sometimes that right is lost.

KR


moderated Re: Member notices

 

KR,

Think of it from the members perspective. Doesn't a member
have a right to know they are no longer a member to a group?
I think even that can depend on circumstances.

In general I'd agree, but as Lena and Maria have mentioned sometimes the member was a troublemaker, or perhaps just a spammer. In these sorts of cases I'd say that their bad behavior overrides their "right to know".

Moreover, with some people in this category the unsubscription notice itself can provoke them to lash out further, or to resubscribe under a new address.

Yes, they may eventually notice that they're no longer getting group messages, or are no longer able to access the group's web pages, but by that time they may have cooled off or may have lost interest in the group (the latter particularly true of spammers).

Shal
https://groups.io/g/Group_Help
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


moderated Re: Member notices

 

I wrote:

For this class of messages I don't think an unalterable template is
needed (although a default text at group creation is still a good
idea for most of them).
But given this from Mark:

Also, you can now have any number of each of these messages, and
select a default one that will be used in automated operations.
Finally, when rejecting a message or pending sub on the website, you
can choose which (if any) message to send with the rejection (and
customize it at that time).
I guess the stock text provided at group creation can be just one more in the list of messages for each action. If the moderator attempts to edit the stock text a copy should be made for the edited version (so that the group always has the stock text in the list for reference).

Shal
https://groups.io/g/Group_Help
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


moderated Re: Member notices

 

Mark,

My question involves an inconsistency in the current messages ...
One rational for the inconsistent treatment is that Invite and Direct Add are sent to people who are (or were) not yet members of the group - people who might not have ever heard of this group, might not be expecting those messages, and who may feel that they are unwelcome ("spam"). Having an unalterable template surrounding the customized part of those messages may help to avoid or mitigate potential abuse of the Invite or Direct Add features.

All the rest (including the reject message and reject subscription) are sent to people who are (or were) members or have asked to become members. For this class of messages I don't think an unalterable template is needed (although a default text at group creation is still a good idea for most of them).

Member Notices page. My question is, is this inconsistency ok and
understandable?
I think an inconsistency as I separated the cases above is ok. I think it is also understandable, especially as the two template cases are on their own pages rather than in with the Member Notices page.

Shal
https://groups.io/g/Group_Help
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


moderated Re: Member notices

 

I agree. Aside from 'rights,' they're  going to find out anyway so might as well give them the courtesy of a heads up. It can be short and sweet.

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 12, 2016, at 8:18 AM, kr402 via Groups.io <kr402@...> wrote:

Think of it from the members perspective. Doesn't a member 
have a right to know they are no longer a member to a group?

KR

On Nov 12, 2016, at 7:54 AM, "HR Tech via Groups.io" <m.conway11@...> wrote:

Second that. I need to be able to remove people WITHOUT their getting a notification. 

Maria


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Member notices

kr402
 

Think of it from the members perspective. Doesn't a member 
have a right to know they are no longer a member to a group?

KR

On Nov 12, 2016, at 7:54 AM, "HR Tech via Groups.io" <m.conway11@...> wrote:

Second that. I need to be able to remove people WITHOUT their getting a notification. 

Maria


moderated Re: Member notices

 

While I would *like* to "third" that, my better half finds the idea of removing someone without notification a bit iffy, like "deleting" a pending message without notification. But this, too, is clearly a moderator decision.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Member notices

Maria
 

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:04 pm, Lena wrote:
If "removed" notification is not set by a moderator (default) then the member should receive nothing. I need the ability to unsub troublemakers silently.

Second that. I need to be able to remove people WITHOUT their getting a notification. 

Maria


moderated Re: Member notices

 

If that's what it does, then it also allows a moderator to essentially reject a normal pending message without sending a notice. That seems to be seems a slight breach, and as a moderator I personally would always use the "reject" feature in that case, with or without a reason. Clearly this is a moderator decision.

More importantly, if what you're saying is correct: I think the difference in functionality should be made clear via the language. Something like "reject with notification" and "reject without notification," or just a "reject" button with a "send notification" option, would be more clear, since both "reject" and "delete" do the same thing - it's just that one is with notification and one is without. 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Member notices

Linda
 

Hi,

The difference is that there is no notification for Delete, important for (off topic) integrations, and messages from hacked email accounts, etc. The Reject notification gives you the opportunity to state the reason.

Linda


moderated Re: AOL problem

Duane
 

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 03:33 pm, Mark Fletcher wrote:


I was writing as I was thinking
The biggest concern I can see is that the "reminders" could very well also go into the spam folder. It seems that in some (most ?) cases, the user isn't marking anything as spam, their service is.

Duane


moderated Re: Member notices

 

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 03:39 pm, Mark Fletcher wrote:

Is there any chance of adding a "removed" notification in addition to
"banned"? We have removed people but hardly ever banned them.
Good idea. Will add.
If "removed" notification is not set by a moderator (default) then the member should receive nothing. I need the ability to unsub troublemakers silently.

16121 - 16140 of 27891