Date   

moderated Re: when topic is closed, remove "moderated" status #suggestion

 

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 03:14 pm, Mark Fletcher wrote:
gavel is never also shown

Mark,

Great. I want to be clear what you mean by "never shown." Is the moderated status still there (assuming it was there before the thread was locked)? Asking another way: if the "locked" status is removed, is the result is the "moderated" status? Or is the moderated status actually removed when a thread is locked?
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

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


moderated Re: when topic is closed, remove "moderated" status #suggestion

 

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 5:55 PM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

I've noticed that when an automatically moderated topic is automatically closed, it keeps its moderated status. I think it would make more sense for "closed" to preempt "moderated" in general (automatic or otherwise) - In other words, that when a topic is closed, it can't also be "moderated."

I've changed the display so that if a thread is locked, the gavel is never also shown.

Thanks,
Mark 


moderated Re: when topic is closed, remove "moderated" status #suggestion

 

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:16 am, Nightowl >8# wrote:
I know Mark had automatic locking in here, so I'm not sure when or how he initiated moderation also. But it's possible it was an automatic moderation as well.

 He had it in beta, yes. But for either one of those to be in effect in your own group, you would have had to explicitly set those settings.

If the moderator wants to use both icons for awhile, that would also be their choice, and Mark finally explained how he wanted locked/moderated topics to be treated.

I didn't see that explanation. I'll go back and look for it. I think that as a default, the auto-locking should wipe out the moderation. Possibly if a group wants to maintain, on an individual-topic basis, the moderation for a topic that is locked, that could make some kind of sense in some particular cases. I still think it's better for locked to trump moderated, and that if a moderator wants to revert to moderated from locked, it should be done explicitly.

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

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


moderated Re: when topic is closed, remove "moderated" status #suggestion

Nightowl >8#
 

J_Catlady wrote:>>Did yours occur as a result of automatic moderating after a certain period of time, and automatic locking after another period of time?<<

I can't be sure, but it was in here. And I know Mark had automatic locking in here, so I'm not sure when or how he initiated moderation also. But it's possible it was an automatic moderation as well.

I was trying to agree with you, that when there are both icons on a topic or post it's confusing as to whether it's ok to post to it or not. So I agree, that if the topic is locked, the moderation symbol probably should be removed if it is automatic locking.

If the moderator wants to use both icons for awhile, that would also be their choice, and Mark finally explained how he wanted locked/moderated topics to be treated.

Hope that clears it up more.

Brenda


moderated Re: when topic is closed, remove "moderated" status #suggestion

 

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 01:29 am, Nightowl >8# wrote:
I was trying to say that having both statuses at once, both icons at once on a thread is what was confusing.

Did yours occur as a result of automatic moderating after a certain period of time, and automatic locking after another period of time?  
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

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


moderated Re: when topic is closed, remove "moderated" status #suggestion

Nightowl >8#
 

J_Catlady wrote:>>I didn't say that 'having both is confusing'.<<

I didn't either, I was trying to say that having both statuses at once, both icons at once on a thread is what was confusing. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

Brenda


moderated Re: when topic is closed, remove "moderated" status #suggestion

 

(Closed is the new term for locked.)
I didn't say that 'having both is confusing'. I'm extremely glad to have both because they're different. I just think it's a slight logical glitch, possibly an implementation oversight (because not intended), to allow a topic to have both statuses at once.
J

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 12, 2017, at 1:06 AM, Nightowl >8# <featheredleader@att.net> wrote:

J_Catlady wrote:>> I've noticed that when an automatically moderated topic is automatically closed, it keeps its moderated status. I think it would make more sense for "closed" to preempt "moderated" in general (automatic or otherwise) - In other words, that when a topic is closed, it can't also be "moderated."<<

That was one of the things that really threw me off when I was doing my catching up last week. I first encountered the "gavel" and didn't know what it was, and there was no simple explanation I could find. Then I noticed the lock with the gavel, and was really mixed up.

I finally figured out what the gavel was when Shal suggested it and I put two and two together. By that point though, I had already posted to a few topics with a gavel and didn't know what it actually meant.

So I agree with Catlady, having both is really confusing. And if you are going to finally lock a topic, wouldn't that make it closed, and not moderated?

Just my observations.

Brenda


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

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


moderated Re: when topic is closed, remove "moderated" status #suggestion

Nightowl >8#
 

J_Catlady wrote:>> I've noticed that when an automatically moderated topic is automatically closed, it keeps its moderated status. I think it would make more sense for "closed" to preempt "moderated" in general (automatic or otherwise) - In other words, that when a topic is closed, it can't also be "moderated."<<

That was one of the things that really threw me off when I was doing my catching up last week. I first encountered the "gavel" and didn't know what it was, and there was no simple explanation I could find. Then I noticed the lock with the gavel, and was really mixed up.

I finally figured out what the gavel was when Shal suggested it and I put two and two together. By that point though, I had already posted to a few topics with a gavel and didn't know what it actually meant.

So I agree with Catlady, having both is really confusing. And if you are going to finally lock a topic, wouldn't that make it closed, and not moderated?

Just my observations.

Brenda


moderated Re: Clearly Identifying Different Groups #suggestion

Nightowl >8#
 

Brian Vogel wrote:>>This, of course, is coming from someone who loves color coding and has used it as an organizational tool almost forever.<<

Same here. Guess we're more alike than we realized. ;)

Brenda


moderated when topic is closed, remove "moderated" status #suggestion

 

I've noticed that when an automatically moderated topic is automatically closed, it keeps its moderated status. I think it would make more sense for "closed" to preempt "moderated" in general (automatic or otherwise) - In other words, that when a topic is closed, it can't also be "moderated."

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

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


moderated Re: How on earth does Groups.io thread a topic? BV

Donald Hellen
 

Shal & all . . .

On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 17:08:58 -0800, "Shal Farley" <shals2nd@gmail.com>
wrote:


Even though I personally don't use threading, I want to understand
what the correct behavior would be to make a new thread start, ...
Use the New Topic button. Or in email that's generally New Message, or
Compose, or some such. Then fill in a Subject that seems to you unlikely
to match another that's already been used.
In my email program, whether it be Outlook or Forte Agent (depends on
which laptop I'm using), to start a new topic I double click on the
group email address in any post, which is in the "to:" field. That
opens a composition window with a blank subject line and blank message
window. I then just enter a subject and then compose my message, then
click send and it spell checks for me (when I have it turned on)
before it gets sent.

On the group site (depends what platform you are using, Groups.io,
YG!, etc.), you should see a "new topic" button to open a composition
window.

I prefer email but many use the group site to post from. Either will
work, but I find email more convenient.

Donald


moderated Re: How on earth does Groups.io thread a topic? BV

 

Brenda,

What does "least Astonishment" mean, and why does it make this
behavior a con?
It is a principle of user interface design. The idea is that when you use a product you shouldn't wind up wondering what the heck just happened. As happened to Brian when he tested the Reply feature. Or to use a more extreme example, twisting a doorknob oughtn't turn off the lights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment

Even though I personally don't use threading, I want to understand
what the correct behavior would be to make a new thread start, ...
Use the New Topic button. Or in email that's generally New Message, or Compose, or some such. Then fill in a Subject that seems to you unlikely to match another that's already been used.

or keep one together for the group as a whole.
Use Reply. And don't alter the Subject.

That advice will most likely work in both Groups.io and Yahoo Groups, and probably with most people's email interface.

To fine tune it better than that you likely need to know your audience.

What happens if you use Reply but alter the topic? Depends on the interface in use by the recipient. Same thing if you use New Topic (compose, new message, whatever) but give the message a commonplace subject ("Question", "New here", "Happy Holidays", etc.) - depends on the interface.

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


moderated Re: Clearly Identifying Different Groups #suggestion

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

And I'll second this, at least insofar as there being some "thing" that one could have, that would be constantly visible no matter where you happen to have scrolled in the page, such that you know which group you're looking at.

Color schemes, even just the ability to select a monochrome background from a color picker much like you see for the text and background selections, that would be what is the "wash color" behind the page for messages or topics for a given group would be nice.  This, of course, is coming from someone who loves color coding and has used it as an organizational tool almost forever.  I use the "Colorful Tabs" add-on in Firefox because it makes it much easier for me to remember which tab has got what thing open if I've been using the same tabs for a while.

I never keep multiple Groups.io group pages open in multiple tabs and one of the reasons for that is what Brenda mentions.  I do quick flips from group to group using the "Your Groups" control at the top of the web page and because I do that I have to have switched by intention and tend to remember the group I was looking at last.
--
Brian

I have made mistakes, but have never made the mistake of claiming I never made one.   

          ~  James G. Bennet


moderated Clearly Identifying Different Groups #suggestion

Nightowl >8#
 

One of the reasons that I have a lot of trouble staying caught up in groups.io, particularly Beta and GMF, is that they both look completely alike when you are online on the website.

When you are composing a message, as I am doing now, you cant even see the title bar. One way that Yahoo allowed users to know the difference between which groups were up, was the color scheme. I understand we can't have a complete color scheme, at least not at this time, but maybe we could be allowed to customize one bar, or place a thumbnail of the home page photo on the grey bar just above the New Topic button.

It wouldn't be as easy as a custom color scheme would make it, but it would definitely help identify which group you are in, and then I could have both groups open at one time and not get them mixed up.

Brenda


moderated Re: How on earth does Groups.io thread a topic? BV

Nightowl >8#
 

Shal Farley wrote:>>Con: it may not be least astonishment behavior for the web site, where it can be known that the user clicked "Reply" versus "New Topic".<<

Shal,

What does "least Astonishment" mean, and why does it make this behavior a con? Even though I personally don't use threading, I want to understand what the correct behavior would be to make a new thread start, or keep one together for the group as a whole.

Thanks,

Brenda


moderated Re: Message Number Missing in E-mail footer

Nightowl >8#
 

JohnF wrote:>>You already have the capability of adding footers to text-only messages, so I suggest adding them to the text part of HTML messages as well. Some may be using that because they don't like the different fonts that different people choose in HTML mode.<<

I completely agree with this. I can still find the message numbers, but in order to do it, I now have to switch from plain text to HTML and back. I don't quite understand why the footers had to change.

Brenda


moderated Re: Message Number Missing in E-mail footer

 

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the prompt reply. I don't believe your figure of 99.99%. There are
many people who make a point of always reading email in plain text, and I don't
think I'm the only member of this group to do so. I can think of one very
active member who has said he does. The simple fact is that HTML can contain
malware and very occasionally does, whereas plain text cannot. I prefer to play
safe.

As I think I said, in this particular case it doesn't bother me because I've
never found a need to use those footers anyway and I can always switch to HTML
view of a particular message if necessary, but I still don't understand why you
omit them from the plain text part, and only (so it seems) when the messages
are composed on the web site.

On 10 Jan 2017 at 16:22, Mark Fletcher wrote:

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Jim Fisher <ejf@jimella.co.uk> wrote:

Yes, your signature is back, but, using my email client and reading in
plain
text, I still see no group footers much of the time.

HTML messages contain both a plain text and HTML part. For these messages,
we only insert the footer into the HTML part, because that's what 99.99% of
people are shown when they view the messages. It sounds like you're forcing your
email client to show you the plain text part instead of the HTML part, which is
why you're not seeing the footers.

Hope this helps.
Mark
--
http://jimellame.tumblr.com - My thoughts on freedom
http://jimella.wordpress.com - political snippets, especially economic policy
http://jimella.livejournal.com - misc. snippets, some political, some not
Forget Google! I search with https://duckduckgo.com which doesn't spy on you


moderated Re: How on earth does Groups.io thread a topic? BV

 

Brian,

Clearly, my assertion that "one must hit 'New Topic' to create a new
topic" in the web interface is completely wrong. I am actually rather
shocked that my "subject change" tweak did, indeed, start a brand new
topic/thread.
Pro: it is consistent with email posting. That's "AND logic" - thread the new message onto an existing message if the citation matches AND the subject matches.

Pro: in the Topics list and particularly in the Topic view, the reader is shown only one instance of the subject line. If changing the subject of a reply didn't create a new thread then Reply might as well not have that field as editable: its content cannot be displayed. Or, the layout of the Topic View must be redesigned.

Con: it may not be least astonishment behavior for the web site, where it can be known that the user clicked "Reply" versus "New Topic".

I think the only reason Reply allows one to alter the Subject text is specifically for the use case of launching a new topic tangent from (and copying some quote from) an existing topic. Maybe the UI needs to be more clear about that purpose and consequence.

FWIW Yahoo Groups operate with "OR logic" - thread onto an existing message if the citation matches OR the subject matches. This has the "over-threading" that you mentioned, particularly since they have no time limits on the threading. In Yahoo Groups classic each reply in their equivalent of Topic View did show its own instance of the subject line. Not so since the Neo redesign - only email readers see any changes to a reply Subject.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shalf/10130171945/in/album-72157636272401705/

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


moderated Re: How on earth does Groups.io thread a topic? BV

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Mark,

           No matter which way you decide to go you are going to get howls of protest from one quarter or another.

           Speaking for myself and those who think like I do:

  1. You should nuke that code.  On a web interface in particular no one would ever expect that if they've done a reply to a message in an existing thread in topics view, even if they tweaked the subject in some way, that it would not remain a part of the thread in which that reply is being made.   I have never had a web forums interface, and that's what I consider the Groups.io web interface to be, ever split a thread, period.   The user must make the explicit decision, followed by the effort necessary to hit the "New Topic" button, to create a new thread.  If context needs to be borrowed from an existing thread that is done via copy and paste, not by relying on being able to hit "reply" in an existing thread, changing the subject, and then editing down the existing message material to retain the context one wishes to maintain.
  2. By extension, I firmly believe that this should be extended to how the e-mail interface works, too.  An announcement, perhaps repeated announcements, would be needed ahead of the actual implementation.   I can see no reason why the same explicit kind of "new thread creation" decision making should not be built-in to the e-mail side of the world just like it is (or we thought it was) on the web side.  If you want to create a new thread you should have to create a brand new message addressed to the posting address for a given group, with a new title (even if that title includes a "was: blah blah blah"), and with the intentional transfer of content, if any, from the old thread that served as its genesis.   This is precisely how entirely new topics get introduced when that's the intent, so no one can say that this is something they cannot understand if they've been something other than a lurker or a "reply only" participant.  It makes the user consider what they're intending to do before they actually do it, and that always tends to be for the good overall (particularly since it can sometimes give people a chance to reconsider something).


With regard to your question regarding manual changes to a subject on an existing thread by an owner or moderator, I believe you are correct that each and every existing message in the thread (and, in this case, the archive since the web interface is the only place I know of that one can retitle existing topics) should have its subject changed.  If you were to implement the "ironclad" header threading discussed above, this would allow for mixed titles in a topic to occur, but that's probably not going to happen often nor be a problem.  If an owner/moderator is retitling a thread it's because they feel that, to use a metaphor, "the drapes don't match the rug," and the intent is to get a match.  This is particularly important when an existing thread is being split.  One would want the new title of each thread created from the messages in a single existing one to have the same title as "message one" in each new one.  From what I've seen this process occurs already automatically in the case of a thread merge.  The thread being merged always has its message subjects changed to the same one as the thread that it's being merged into.
--
Brian

I have made mistakes, but have never made the mistake of claiming I never made one.   

          ~  James G. Bennet


moderated Re: How on earth does Groups.io thread a topic? BV

 

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:
Clearly, my assertion that "one must hit 'New Topic' to create a new topic" in the web interface is completely wrong.  I am actually rather shocked that my "subject change" tweak did, indeed, start a brand new topic/thread.

Heh, me too, and I wrote the code....

So, I did put code in a long time ago that looks at subjects and sets a new thread if the subject has been changed even if there are references to an existing thread in the message header. Should I nuke this code? I'm thinking I should nuke this code.

Related question: also as part of that code, if the subject of the thread has been changed (say by editing the thread on the website), we re-write the subject line of the message with the changed subject of the thread. Keep that? I'm inclined to say yes, to be consistent with the fact that when someone edits the subject of a thread on the website, we go into the archives and re-write the subject line of all the existing messages. 

Thanks,
Mark

17301 - 17320 of 29725