Date   

locked Re: New profiles and member directory

 

Confused. I just tested this by going into a group I don't own and clicking on "directory." I was taken back to the home page (with "directory" no longer highlighted) and told "you do not have access to this page." Are these permissions are already in place? This happens to be a group I've never posted in, so I'm still moderated. Is that perhaps the reason I was unable to access the directory?
--
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


locked Re: New profiles and member directory

Maria
 

And to clarify: we will use it in our subgroups but not in our parent group so the setting to enable or disable would ideally be per group so we can customize which groups get it.


locked Re: New profiles and member directory

Maria
 

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:27 pm, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Not right now. If that's something that's needed, it can be easily added.

Yes please!

And if it's not enabled in a group or if you need privileges to access it it shouldn't probably be listed in the menu. Like I can see directory in the beta menu but when I click on it it says I don't have permission. 

So think it would be good to tweak those 2 things. 

Also- if someone doesn't have a profile and their email address is all there is, am I correct that it's truncated to non mods? In other words, it shouldn't /won't read as an email listing of all members right?

Maria 





locked Re: New profiles and member directory

 

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:26 PM, HR Tech via Groups.io <m.conway11@...> wrote:

Thank you! Can't wait to explore it. 

Quick question: Is there a setting to disable the directory in groups where it's not needed? 


Not right now. If that's something that's needed, it can be easily added.

Thanks,
Mark 


locked Re: New profiles and member directory

Maria
 

Thank you! Can't wait to explore it. 

Quick question: Is there a setting to disable the directory in groups where it's not needed? 

Maria 


locked Re: New profiles and member directory

 

Mark, no apologies necessary when we get to see KITTENS!!! 🐱😋💗
J

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 7, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:

Hi All,

Apologies for the downtime just now, the upgrade process took much longer than I anticipated.

I just pushed the new profiles feature. Now you can have individual profiles for each subscription. And there's a new privacy setting for each profile. If you change your 'main' profile, as you used to do, it'll cascade to all of your subscription profiles (except for the parts you've changed). To change a profile on one of your subscriptions, go to your Subscription page on the group and click the Profile button.

There's also now a member directory, which displays profiles that you have permission to see.

There's no longer the /profile/@username URL, as there's no longer the concept of a single profile per person. Also, if you do not have a profile photo set, we no longer try to use one from gravatar.com, as that proved to be confusing.

These features required a lot of changes under the covers. Please let me know if you see anything weird. Also, if you have suggestions for UI improvements for the member directory, that'd be appreciated as well.

Thanks,
Mark

--
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


locked New profiles and member directory

 

Hi All,

Apologies for the downtime just now, the upgrade process took much longer than I anticipated.

I just pushed the new profiles feature. Now you can have individual profiles for each subscription. And there's a new privacy setting for each profile. If you change your 'main' profile, as you used to do, it'll cascade to all of your subscription profiles (except for the parts you've changed). To change a profile on one of your subscriptions, go to your Subscription page on the group and click the Profile button.

There's also now a member directory, which displays profiles that you have permission to see.

There's no longer the /profile/@username URL, as there's no longer the concept of a single profile per person. Also, if you do not have a profile photo set, we no longer try to use one from gravatar.com, as that proved to be confusing.

These features required a lot of changes under the covers. Please let me know if you see anything weird. Also, if you have suggestions for UI improvements for the member directory, that'd be appreciated as well.

Thanks,
Mark


locked Description changed

Beta Integration <beta@...>
 

[Beta] The description of card "Posting on the website supports oneboxing." was changed to:

Onebox links in posts and in link columns in databases.

Relevant specs: oEmbed, Open Graph, Twitter Cards

See: https://get.slack.help/hc/en-us/articles/204399343-Share-links-in-Slack See: https://github.com/discourse/onebox

Relevant golang packages:


locked Re: New anti-spam measure

James Homuth
 

This is actually a very sensible default setting. Hind-sight being 20/20 and all, I actually wish something like this had been the default from the beginning. I used to subscribe to a 0 moderation policy. The list ran fine with the standard $person subscribes, then the network requires they verify/confirm their email address - which doubles as a check that yes, you really do want to subscribe to this group. I haven't had much of a spam problem with that setup, and this group's been running in one way, shape or form under different owners since 2001. Problem members were identified and moderated as needed, or removed outright, and that was the end of that. What changed my mind wasn't really a spammer, if I'm being completely honest. An individual with a well-deserved reputation for causing problems had joined the list and within 24 hours was essentially causing problems. I'd ban this member, so he'd create a new email address, subscribe, and continue to cause problems. It's because of that individual that I've turned on new member moderation, and this group hasn't seen a problem with that individual or anyone else since. I wouldn't call this group high-trafick, mind, but there are times when I'm spending a fair amount of time approving new members' postings. Between that and chasing down people who should know better, I'll accept the tradeoff in a heartbeat.


From: beta@groups.io [mailto:beta@groups.io] On Behalf Of Brian Vogel
Sent: October-06-16 1:27 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] New anti-spam measure

Mark,

             Thanks for the clarification.

              I think that you are still going to have a hew and cry from moderators of "high newbie volume" groups on this, as it does require human intervention.

              I will again propose the idea of some sort of, perhaps global (as in not linked to any one real group), "Unlock Group," where, when anyone submits a request to become a group member, they are automatically directed that they must post there before they can have posting privileges elsewhere.  This prevents "moderators" of unmoderated groups from having to have any regular intervention.  It also prevents virtually any spambot (as opposed to human, which is rare as far as mass spamming goes) from ever having the floodgates open.  I can testify that this has been very, very effective elsewhere and requires no routine human intervention.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


locked Re: New anti-spam measure

 

On 6 Oct 2016 at 14:34, David P. Dillard wrote:

> There is another option that I would like to see implemented on this
> groups network.  As part of the members list available to owners and
> moderators, these posting controls available for each member individually.
>
> This member can post without moderation
>
> This member is moderated
>
> This member cannot post.
>
> and any other options that make sense that I did not think of.

If you're a moderator with appropriate privileges, click on an individual member and you should find:



Posting Privileges
  • Default group policy
  • Override: not moderated
  • Override: moderated
  • Override: new user moderated
  • Override: not allowed to post
  


Does that cover your use cases?


--
Jim
Poston@...

<<                         Measure twice, cut once.                           >>
  


locked Re: New anti-spam measure

 

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Jim Poston <poston@...> wrote:

What about a key that a moderator can give out that will allow immediate entry into the group?  I guess that's just as much work as approving members for a Restricted group.

If you invite someone to a Restricted group and they accept, you do not have to approve their membership.

Mark 


locked Re: New anti-spam measure

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Jim,

            Rollsroyceforums.com implemented a "New Member Introductions" forum about 2 years ago in response to repeated spamming incidents.

            Regardless of what one calls it, it is a separate forum that has as its intended purpose not "new member introductions" but forcing someone to post there after gaining membership before they can post anywhere else.  It acts as a non-human spam trap, since most spam originates via machine and when an enrollment comes back in the affirmative most spambots do not parse the acceptance e-mail and follow through on the requirement that one must post at least a single message to that given forum before one can post elsewhere.  They just try to spam and when it bounces they look elsewhere.

            Whether this is implemented here or not is really not of any great concern to me.  I am not a moderator nor will my time be spent approving initial posts, but if I were the "moderator" of what is an unmoderated group by actual practice and that is very high traffic I'd absolutely hate having to slog through initial approvals, the vast majority of which are not really necessary.  It's simply an option that removes human intervention to the maximum extent possible.  I don't see why a "bit bucket" group could not be set up at the top level of Groups.io such that before you could post to any other group you've joined you would have to post there.  If this were checked on a userid basis then once one had already "proven oneself" on one group you could join others without having to repeat the process.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


locked Re: New anti-spam measure

David P. Dillard
 

This is a very good solution, I had already implemented this on two of my lists this morning on a list that found a spam message from a new member.
The post was deleted and the spammer banned.

There is another option that I would like to see implemented on this groups network. As part of the members list available to owners and moderators, these posting controls available for each member individually.

This member can post without moderation

This member is moderated

This member cannot post.

and any other options that make sense that I did not think of.

There are reasons that members may need to be controlled in their membership posting rights that may not occur in initial posts such as plagiarism or copyright violation or use of profanity or bullying other members to name just a few without sweating to hard with heavy thinking.

Having this kind of member control will help owners keep quality control of posting and not just of new members. If I missed these features, I am sorry and will welcome enlightenment. Everyone have a wonderful end of week and weekend.




Sincerely,
David Dillard
Temple University
(215) 204 - 4584
jwne@temple.edu

On Thu, 6 Oct 2016, Mark Fletcher wrote:

Hi All,
Thank you for all your feedback about group settings. I view the spam problem as an existential
threat to Groups.io, so I want to make sure it gets addressed correctly and quickly. Here's what I'm
doing (this only applies to parent groups right now, not subgroups):
- All new groups are created as NuM unmoderated after 1 message, as a default
- All groups must have at least one of the following settings: Announcement, Restricted, Moderated,
or NuM
- The Settings page has been changed to enforce this.
I will be going through existing groups and, for those that don't satisfy this requirement, setting
them to NuM unmoderated after 1 message. I will also send an email to the owners of those groups
telling them what I've done.
If you have an existing group that does not satisfy this new requirement and absolutely cannot handle
having your group set to NuM unmoderated after 1 message (or any other moderation setting), send an
email *DIRECTLY TO ME OFF-LIST* with the name of your group and I will set up an exception for your
group. It is my hope that the exception list will be very small.
Separately, I will work up a plan to deal with abandoned/dead groups, and post a proposal to beta@ in
the next few days.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Mark


locked Re: New anti-spam measure

 

On 6 Oct 2016 at 10:07, Brian Vogel wrote:

>  If not, would it solve the problem since spambots can easily post an
> initial message?

Just to clarify, NuM 1 is unmoderated after one approved message, so the soammer has to send something that the human moderator judges as okay and approves.  A spammer has so many more easy targets that this will block most of them, I think.


On 6 Oct 2016 at 10:26, Brian Vogel wrote:

> I will again propose the idea of some sort of, perhaps global (as in
> not linked to any one real group), "Unlock Group," where, when anyone
> submits a request to become a group member, they are automatically
> directed that they must post there before they can have posting
> privileges elsewhere.

A global "Unlock Group" seems kind of unwieldy.  I don't see how it would be much of a roadblock unless there was a human moderator.  (Make that moderator(s), as in dozens or hundreds.)  Where have you seen that used?



What about a key that a moderator can give out that will allow immediate entry into the group?  I guess that's just as much work as approving members for a Restricted group.


--
Jim
Poston@...

<<                2400 Baud makes you want to get out and push!!               >>
  


locked Re: New anti-spam measure

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Mark,

             Thanks for the clarification.

              I think that you are still going to have a hew and cry from moderators of "high newbie volume" groups on this, as it does require human intervention.

              I will again propose the idea of some sort of, perhaps global (as in not linked to any one real group), "Unlock Group," where, when anyone submits a request to become a group member, they are automatically directed that they must post there before they can have posting privileges elsewhere.  This prevents "moderators" of unmoderated groups from having to have any regular intervention.  It also prevents virtually any spambot (as opposed to human, which is rare as far as mass spamming goes) from ever having the floodgates open.  I can testify that this has been very, very effective elsewhere and requires no routine human intervention.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


locked Re: New anti-spam measure

 

I agree, sounds great.
J

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 6, 2016, at 10:19 AM, HR Tech via Groups.io <m.conway11@...> wrote:

NuM 1 = that a newbie is moderated by default and then becomes unmoderated after one approved message. Correct?

And if so I think that, and all the other parameters you are establishing are great. Full support for this.

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


locked Re: New anti-spam measure

Maria
 

NuM 1 = that a newbie is moderated by default and then becomes unmoderated after one approved message. Correct?

And if so I think that, and all the other parameters you are establishing are great. Full support for this.

Maria 


locked Re: New anti-spam measure

 

Brian,

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

             Am I safe in translating "NuM 1"  as "New unmoderated Member after one message is posted?"

Yes. That means that once a new member has posted one message that has been approved by the moderator, they become unmoderated.
 

             If so, would this still require human intervention from a moderator after the one message is posted?  If not, would it solve the problem since spambots can easily post an initial message?  

It's a tradeoff. This setting is the least amount of work a moderator would have to do while also providing a speed bump for spammers. The spammer would have to come up with a good initial message. But yes, after that, it could be spams away. But a moderator is always free to change the setting to something more restrictive.

My guess is that I'll also have to implement some kind of spam filter. Something like, if it's triggered, the message is automatically moderated. But first things first.

Thanks,
Mark


locked Re: New anti-spam measure

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Mark,

             Am I safe in translating "NuM 1"  as "New unmoderated Member after one message is posted?"

             If so, would this still require human intervention from a moderator after the one message is posted?  If not, would it solve the problem since spambots can easily post an initial message?  

             I just don't know how to read that shorthand, though probably moderators do.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


locked New anti-spam measure

 

Hi All,

Thank you for all your feedback about group settings. I view the spam problem as an existential threat to Groups.io, so I want to make sure it gets addressed correctly and quickly. Here's what I'm doing (this only applies to parent groups right now, not subgroups):

- All new groups are created as NuM unmoderated after 1 message, as a default
- All groups must have at least one of the following settings: Announcement, Restricted, Moderated, or NuM
- The Settings page has been changed to enforce this.

I will be going through existing groups and, for those that don't satisfy this requirement, setting them to NuM unmoderated after 1 message. I will also send an email to the owners of those groups telling them what I've done.

If you have an existing group that does not satisfy this new requirement and absolutely cannot handle having your group set to NuM unmoderated after 1 message (or any other moderation setting), send an email *DIRECTLY TO ME OFF-LIST* with the name of your group and I will set up an exception for your group. It is my hope that the exception list will be very small.

Separately, I will work up a plan to deal with abandoned/dead groups, and post a proposal to beta@ in the next few days.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Mark

17301 - 17320 of 28397