Date   

locked Re: Threads -> Topics?

Duane
 

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 12:30 pm, Mark Fletcher wrote:


Quick question: should I change all references on the site from Threads to
Topics?
I can see reasons for both, so will abstain on this one.

Duane


locked Re: Threads -> Topics?

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 10:06 pm, Nightowl >8# wrote:
So as a rule, I agree. But as the go between for here and the Yahoo community, I haven't got the liberty to ignore what happens in here, since it affects all of us.

But you do have to accept that your input, unless offered when issues are under discussion, will not necessarily have any impact on directions taken or decisions made.

You do not have special rights, and if you absent yourself for a long period of time that's by your own choice regardless of the reason.

Whether you recognize it or not, coming in here after months away and reviving countless threads, while breathlessly declaring how important you are and your concerns are doesn't make you or your concerns more important than those that were expressed in a timely manner by others.  This is something you desperately need to learn, immediately.

"Because of who I am?"   Oh, puhleeeze!!


--
Brian

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


locked Re: Changes to beta@ to reduce traffic

Nightowl >8#
 

Mark Fletcher wrote:>>Thanks. I do want to revisit the Code of Conduct at some point. I tabled it because of the poor reception the subject got here, but I do still think about it.<<

Just let me know if you need me to resend the last version.

I should be able to work on it for you now, because things have settled down some in real life.

Brenda


locked Re: Threads -> Topics?

Nightowl >8#
 

Brian Vogel wrote:>>I actually disagree that "Topic" is clearer.  As has already been mentioned, what has been called "thread drift" almost forever now happens when topics can and do switch and branch within a thread.<<

I agree with you here. Thread refers to the way the messages are displayed, and yes, there can be more than one topic in a thread..

So if a thread gets locked after 7 days, and say it branched off into another topic, and say that topic didn't get resolved or discussed hardly at all, I think Mark would be ok with someone taking that branched off topic and giving it it's own thread for discussion. Just not the original one.

Topic is a more confusing term, because every single post is part of a topic, just as every single post (other than maybe a stand alone one), is part of a thread. And I agree, thread is more universal, and has been used everywhere.

The only way to bring the Topic/Thread into more alignment would be to change the side command from New Topic to New Post.

Brenda


locked Re: Threads -> Topics?

Nightowl >8#
 

Brian Vogel wrote:>>If a multi-topic thread is locked, and without comment as to why...<<

But in here we will know why. It's because it went on for 7 days. I don't see a need for Mark to remind us of that every time a thread gets locked, it's been stated.

Elsewhere, I agree, it is up to the group owner to determine when threads are locked, and up to them to explain it when needed.

Brenda


locked Re: Threads -> Topics?

Nightowl >8#
 

Brian Vogel wrote:>>As an aside, I also think it's completely unreasonable for any user to think that they can take a multi-week to multi-month "vacation" and expect to be able to come back and object to decisions finalized during their absence.<<

As a rule, I would agree with you. But because of who I am, and because so many Yahoo users depend on me to help them understand this place, I have to catch up no matter how far I was behind.

And this is more important than ever now, because Verizon just bought Yahoo and I have a lot of anxious users who are wondering what will happen to their groups.

Not to forget the fact that my e-mail address went public, and I didn't know months ago, was very important to bring up.

So as a rule, I agree. But as the go between for here and the Yahoo community, I haven't got the liberty to ignore what happens in here, since it affects all of us.

Brenda


locked Re: Accessibility related issue with search on the messages page

Carlos
 

Thanks Mark.  That does indeed help.


locked Re: Threads -> Topics?

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 04:09 pm, J_catlady wrote:
So it may occur to them to simply start another.

Which has already received "official clearance" - within reason.

This is why I don't really like automatic locking mechanisms, period.  To me, locking is to cut off all activity related to a given thread, and especially if it's a single topic thread.  This is why, if a "keep stale thread from being revived or extended" mechanism is desired I would choose another terminology, like closed, and use an icon that looks like a closed door.

If a multi-topic thread is locked, and without comment as to why, there can be a number of legitimate topics that are being locked as "collateral damage."  This is another reason that I favor a difference in terminology and appearance between what amounts to aging a thread out of its ability to be extended further and intentionally shutting down a thread due to some violation of either formal terms of service or a written or unwritten rules of etiquette for a given venue.

I like the idea of "Close Topic" for aged off and "Locked Topic" for making clear that it is not to be revived, in any way, shape, or form and making a moderator statement as to precisely why that's the case.

--
Brian

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


locked Re: Threads -> Topics?

 

Brian,

We are not in disagreement on policy, but perhaps slightly on implementation. I think there may be people who genuinely would not understand that a thread being locked means anything more than that they can't post any more *in that particular thread.* Maybe the thread got too long? Maybe if got too old? Who knows? So it may occur to them to simply start another. 'Topic closed' has a different ring to me (although the word used now is 'locked') and might give them help in understanding that the technical mechanism is not just technical but  is actually meant to close the topic.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 26, 2016, at 3:21 PM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 03:07 pm, J_catlady wrote:
In other words, to subtly discourage, 'oh, thread locked? I'll just start another one on the same topic.' Whereas if 'it's topic locked,' that subtly discourages starting another thread on the same topic.

Well, here's where we'll have to be in significant disagreement.   People who are unable to figure out why a given thread actually came to be locked and insist on relaunching a topic that was the cause for the locking in the first place don't respond to "subtle discouragement."

That's a circumstance where a moderator should lock the spin-off thread as soon as discovered after adding a final post documenting precisely why it is being closed and giving a direct warning that posting privileges will be suspended or revoked if the behavior persists.  If it does persist then one must follow-through on the stated consequence.

This is not called for very frequently at all, but when it is the action should be swift and the reasons for taking them should be public and brutally direct.  This serves as a warning to others who might be so inclined to behave similarly, as well.

Others will disagree, but this position comes from decades in these venues and having observed what has, and has not, worked on more occasions than I care to recall.

--
Brian

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


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Threads -> Topics?

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 03:07 pm, J_catlady wrote:
In other words, to subtly discourage, 'oh, thread locked? I'll just start another one on the same topic.' Whereas if 'it's topic locked,' that subtly discourages starting another thread on the same topic.

Well, here's where we'll have to be in significant disagreement.   People who are unable to figure out why a given thread actually came to be locked and insist on relaunching a topic that was the cause for the locking in the first place don't respond to "subtle discouragement."

That's a circumstance where a moderator should lock the spin-off thread as soon as discovered after adding a final post documenting precisely why it is being closed and giving a direct warning that posting privileges will be suspended or revoked if the behavior persists.  If it does persist then one must follow-through on the stated consequence.

This is not called for very frequently at all, but when it is the action should be swift and the reasons for taking them should be public and brutally direct.  This serves as a warning to others who might be so inclined to behave similarly, as well.

Others will disagree, but this position comes from decades in these venues and having observed what has, and has not, worked on more occasions than I care to recall.

--
Brian

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


locked Re: Threads -> Topics?

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

J,

         And I'm simply restating that often a thread ends up containing multiple topics, and it's not a topic that gets locked, it's a thread and all its topics.

         I understand Mark's intention, but you can't ever get rid of topic shifts in many threads.  It is a thread that gets locked which may contain a single topic or multiple topics.  I just don't think this is difficult to understand and it's also something that anyone participating in a web forum or e-mail list needs to understand.

         Personally, there's a difference to me between topics that are settled "that ship has sailed" and those that may have gone dormant without ever having been resolved in any meaningful way.  For the latter I'd rather that people be able to "bump" an existing thread rather than have to launch a new one, thus stripping a lot of potentially useful context.  I can see the other side of that proverbial coin as well, but my preference would not be for locking anything but settled threads, and in this case Mark is the ultimate arbiter of what is "settled" at a given point in time.

         As an aside, I also think it's completely unreasonable for any user to think that they can take a multi-week to multi-month "vacation" and expect to be able to come back and object to decisions finalized during their absence.   I've been one of those "away for a while" users on more than one occasion and if I was unable to contribute my input during the "call for comment"/"speak your piece" period then I accepted that decisions finalized during my absence fall into the, "speak now or forever hold your peace" category.  You snooze, you lose, and had ought to lose with grace.

--
Brian

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


locked Re: Threads -> Topics?

 

In other words, to subtly discourage, 'oh, thread locked? I'll just start another one on the same topic.' Whereas if 'it's topic locked,' that subtly discourages starting another thread on the same topic. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 26, 2016, at 2:57 PM, Ro <recarlton@...> wrote:

nothing wrong with a good implant


Ro

with Sally and Silk getting implants, and Handy, Feliz &  Police Kitty patrolling in the Great Beyond.





From: beta@groups.io <beta@groups.io> on behalf of J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 2:56 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Threads -> Topics?
 
Implementing not implanting (iPhone typo)

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 26, 2016, at 2:55 PM, J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

Brian,

I see both sides and originally agreed with you, as I said. I'm now thinking specifically about meaning, and about the auto locking mechanism and what I think is Mark's intention in implanting it to keep subjects moving along rather than revisiting them much later after the ship has sailed (I think that was your metaphor?)

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 26, 2016, at 2:46 PM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

I actually disagree that "Topic" is clearer.  As has already been mentioned, what has been called "thread drift" almost forever now happens when topics can and do switch and branch within a thread.  When a thread is locked it doesn't apply to any single topic that may have been or be actively being discussed in a thread.  I've also seen people spin-off new threads on a specific topic if there's new material or if a thread is locked due to a flame war or similar that has nothing to do with the topic that one wishes to discuss.

We're back to my consistent statement:  people need to learn the actual terminology connected to any communication medium they intend to use actively.  You find the term thread, threaded view, etc., used all over the place, not just on Groups.io, and it's very well understood what they mean.  If someone is new, and doesn't understand, all they need do is ask.  We've all been there, done that, got the information we needed.
--
Brian

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


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Threads -> Topics?

Ro
 

nothing wrong with a good implant


Ro

with Sally and Silk getting implants, and Handy, Feliz &  Police Kitty patrolling in the Great Beyond.





From: beta@groups.io <beta@groups.io> on behalf of J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 2:56 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Threads -> Topics?
 
Implementing not implanting (iPhone typo)

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 26, 2016, at 2:55 PM, J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

Brian,

I see both sides and originally agreed with you, as I said. I'm now thinking specifically about meaning, and about the auto locking mechanism and what I think is Mark's intention in implanting it to keep subjects moving along rather than revisiting them much later after the ship has sailed (I think that was your metaphor?)

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 26, 2016, at 2:46 PM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

I actually disagree that "Topic" is clearer.  As has already been mentioned, what has been called "thread drift" almost forever now happens when topics can and do switch and branch within a thread.  When a thread is locked it doesn't apply to any single topic that may have been or be actively being discussed in a thread.  I've also seen people spin-off new threads on a specific topic if there's new material or if a thread is locked due to a flame war or similar that has nothing to do with the topic that one wishes to discuss.

We're back to my consistent statement:  people need to learn the actual terminology connected to any communication medium they intend to use actively.  You find the term thread, threaded view, etc., used all over the place, not just on Groups.io, and it's very well understood what they mean.  If someone is new, and doesn't understand, all they need do is ask.  We've all been there, done that, got the information we needed.
--
Brian

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


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Threads -> Topics?

 

Implementing not implanting (iPhone typo)

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 26, 2016, at 2:55 PM, J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

Brian,

I see both sides and originally agreed with you, as I said. I'm now thinking specifically about meaning, and about the auto locking mechanism and what I think is Mark's intention in implanting it to keep subjects moving along rather than revisiting them much later after the ship has sailed (I think that was your metaphor?)

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 26, 2016, at 2:46 PM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

I actually disagree that "Topic" is clearer.  As has already been mentioned, what has been called "thread drift" almost forever now happens when topics can and do switch and branch within a thread.  When a thread is locked it doesn't apply to any single topic that may have been or be actively being discussed in a thread.  I've also seen people spin-off new threads on a specific topic if there's new material or if a thread is locked due to a flame war or similar that has nothing to do with the topic that one wishes to discuss.

We're back to my consistent statement:  people need to learn the actual terminology connected to any communication medium they intend to use actively.  You find the term thread, threaded view, etc., used all over the place, not just on Groups.io, and it's very well understood what they mean.  If someone is new, and doesn't understand, all they need do is ask.  We've all been there, done that, got the information we needed.
--
Brian

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


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Threads -> Topics?

 

Brian,

I see both sides and originally agreed with you, as I said. I'm now thinking specifically about meaning, and about the auto locking mechanism and what I think is Mark's intention in implanting it to keep subjects moving along rather than revisiting them much later after the ship has sailed (I think that was your metaphor?)

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 26, 2016, at 2:46 PM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

I actually disagree that "Topic" is clearer.  As has already been mentioned, what has been called "thread drift" almost forever now happens when topics can and do switch and branch within a thread.  When a thread is locked it doesn't apply to any single topic that may have been or be actively being discussed in a thread.  I've also seen people spin-off new threads on a specific topic if there's new material or if a thread is locked due to a flame war or similar that has nothing to do with the topic that one wishes to discuss.

We're back to my consistent statement:  people need to learn the actual terminology connected to any communication medium they intend to use actively.  You find the term thread, threaded view, etc., used all over the place, not just on Groups.io, and it's very well understood what they mean.  If someone is new, and doesn't understand, all they need do is ask.  We've all been there, done that, got the information we needed.
--
Brian

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


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Threads -> Topics?

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

I actually disagree that "Topic" is clearer.  As has already been mentioned, what has been called "thread drift" almost forever now happens when topics can and do switch and branch within a thread.  When a thread is locked it doesn't apply to any single topic that may have been or be actively being discussed in a thread.  I've also seen people spin-off new threads on a specific topic if there's new material or if a thread is locked due to a flame war or similar that has nothing to do with the topic that one wishes to discuss.

We're back to my consistent statement:  people need to learn the actual terminology connected to any communication medium they intend to use actively.  You find the term thread, threaded view, etc., used all over the place, not just on Groups.io, and it's very well understood what they mean.  If someone is new, and doesn't understand, all they need do is ask.  We've all been there, done that, got the information we needed.
--
Brian

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


locked Re: Threads -> Topics?

 

With the new auto-locking feature for threads, I begin to see another situation where using the word "topic" might be more useful and meaningful than "thread." "Topic closed" has more meaning in terms of the conversation and whether or not it is closed, as opposed to just the technical thread itself. If the idea behind auto-locking is to specify a lifespan for conversations, then the word "topic" more accurately conveys that intention.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Changes to beta@ to reduce traffic

 

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:21 PM, Nightowl >8# <featheredleader@...> wrote:
Mark Fletcher wrote:>>I'm adding a feature to the site to automatically lock threads after a specified time, and will turn it on for beta@. I'm thinking that 1 week is a good time limit.<<

I'm curious about if we have a thread such as the one about the Code Of Conduct, where you wanted to collect feedback for a certain length of time. If you started a thread like that and wanted it to continue, can you disable or change the locking timing?

Right now, you cannot change the auto-locking timing on a per-thread basis. There is a way around that if you wish. The auto-locking program runs nightly, and looks for the most recent threads within a 30 hour period that should be locked. So, for beta@, every night it looks for threads that were created between 7 days and 8 days + 6 hours ago (the +6 is a fudge factor to make sure that if the lock program was delayed in running one night that it wouldn't miss anything). It then locks those threads. It doesn't look at earlier threads. So, if a thread gets auto locked, you could go back a day or two later and unlock it again and it would stay unlocked. The one caveat to this is if you change the auto lock time period in Settings, the lock program will go in that night and examine all threads and lock the appropriate ones.

By me setting it for one week, my hope would be that it adds a sense of urgency to drive to a solution and not linger for weeks and weeks. At least that's the hope.

 
My other concern is when someone gets as far behind as I did, and needs to address something from months back, such as when I discovered that my e-mail address went public on Google, would it be acceptable to copy the info in question from the locked thread, and make a new topic addressing that issue?

If you have something substantial to add or if something's changed, then yes, please start a new thread. But the longer it's been closed, the more consideration I would ask before revisiting the topic. The goal is not to squelch discussion.

 
One other suggestion. On some sites, there is a button you can click that says report a bug, or issue, that makes it easier to directly e-mail the support team from the site. Maybe that would encourage people to report bugs more readily that way. Just a thought.

On my TODO list is to have a proper Contact Us page, where you can select the group involved and other things.
 
And last, if you still want to work on the Code Of Conduct, let me know what you thought of my last draft, and I'll rework it for you. Or I'll re-send it, if you can't find it.

Thanks. I do want to revisit the Code of Conduct at some point. I tabled it because of the poor reception the subject got here, but I do still think about it.


Thanks,
Mark 


locked Mark, regarding my request to move a group to a subgroup

Nightowl >8#
 

Mark,

Awhile back, I sent an e-mail to support like you asked me to about moving my Owlperch group to a subgroup of MMSanctuary, but never got a response.

I know you're busy, I just want to make sure it got through, and if not, should I send it again. No rush on doing it, just want to make sure it didn't get lost in the shuffle. ;)

Thanks,

Brenda


locked Re: Changes to beta@ to reduce traffic

Nightowl >8#
 

Mark Fletcher wrote:>>I'm adding a feature to the site to automatically lock threads after a specified time, and will turn it on for beta@. I'm thinking that 1 week is a good time limit.<<

I'm curious about if we have a thread such as the one about the Code Of Conduct, where you wanted to collect feedback for a certain length of time. If you started a thread like that and wanted it to continue, can you disable or change the locking timing?

My other concern is when someone gets as far behind as I did, and needs to address something from months back, such as when I discovered that my e-mail address went public on Google, would it be acceptable to copy the info in question from the locked thread, and make a new topic addressing that issue?

One other suggestion. On some sites, there is a button you can click that says report a bug, or issue, that makes it easier to directly e-mail the support team from the site. Maybe that would encourage people to report bugs more readily that way. Just a thought.

And last, if you still want to work on the Code Of Conduct, let me know what you thought of my last draft, and I'll rework it for you. Or I'll re-send it, if you can't find it.

Thanks for all you do,

Brenda

19681 - 19700 of 30101