locked Editing a post resulting in duplicate messages to e-mail subscribers


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Is there any way that say, a 10-minute hold gets put on posts made via the web interface before they get sent out to those who are e-mail only subscribers?

I hate that when I make a typo or forget to include a point, both of which involve very quick and simple editing on the forum, doing so results in a double (or triple or quadruple . . .) set of messages being sent, one for each edit.

Several forums on which I participate grant a fixed period of time, usually less than 15 minutes, during which a posted message can be edited.  Doing the same here would eliminate the unnecessary stream of messages when a quick correction or addition is made to a post.

Brian



 

A 10-minute hold would make me insane. :-) I'm not sure what you mean by 'email only' subscribers. Are you proposing that the message post on the web immediately, but that it not go out in email immediately? I can definitely see the advantage of that, but I'd worry that it would confuse members. Suppose there's a conversation involving some web-only ('no email') members and some members who typically only use email. How would that conversation look, when the web members are 'ahead' of the others in what they can see? I don't even want to think about it! I think you'd have to hold both web posts and emails, which means you'd cause an overall delay - something that most of us have already grown to hate yahoo for.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 7, 2016, at 5:35 PM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

Is there any way that say, a 10-minute hold gets put on posts made via the web interface before they get sent out to those who are e-mail only subscribers?

I hate that when I make a typo or forget to include a point, both of which involve very quick and simple editing on the forum, doing so results in a double (or triple or quadruple . . .) set of messages being sent, one for each edit.

Several forums on which I participate grant a fixed period of time, usually less than 15 minutes, during which a posted message can be edited.  Doing the same here would eliminate the unnecessary stream of messages when a quick correction or addition is made to a post.

Brian



--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

J_catlady,

          On most of the groups I frequent many people never use the web interface and have never touched it.  Mailing lists have been ported over from elsewhere and those participating do so entirely via e-mail, no web interface usage at all.

           This is, to say the least, a peculiar situation to me.  I am used to being able to tweak typos or other bits I find in a post after having posted without that resulting in anyone being flooded with additional full copies of a message.  That's not so here.

            Yes, what I'm proposing is that something can go live on the web interface as soon as one posts, but be held for a few minutes before being sent out to e-mail subscribers.  For all I know that may be what happens, anyway.  Conversations wouldn't look very much different than they do now.  It's a rare occasion when you have an instant "back and forth" where e-mail users are involved because there is often some delay built in to the emailing process itself.

            It's just a thought, but I've found it maddening that it is impossible to correct or make any addition to something you've posted via the web interface, even a second after you've hit the send key, without it resulting in additional full copies of the same post landing in someone's e-mail inbox.  That doesn't happen on a great many forums which are "web only" by design.  The hybrid environment poses some distinct challenges.

Brian


 

Brian,

It does take some getting used to the fact that edited posts create a second email. You have to let your group members know about it, and advise them to proof their posts, edit only when really necessary for clarification, make the edit stand out in some way for email subscribers, etc. It's doable.

          On most of the groups I frequent many people never use the web interface and have never touched it.

All groups are different. In your groups, people may never use the web interface. In many others, people mostly use it. In my main group, about the half the people post and read via the web only. 

It's a rare occasion when you have an instant "back and forth" where e-mail users are involved

I would counter that by saying you can't really distinguish a conversation "where email users are involved" from one where no email users are involved. In my group it is not at all "rare" to have instant back-and-forth you mention. And always, both email users and web-only users are privy to, and therefore you must assume involved in, the conversation.

I'm familiar with the delay you mentioned. I think I remember it from the comments section of a local online news outlet (I've been trying to recall where I experienced it). But the delay was measured in seconds, not minutes; it was not really a delay, but rather a time limit on posting an edit; and there was no email involved.

The hybrid environment poses some distinct challenges.

I definitely agree with that. :-)


--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


Maria
 

Wow! I didn't realize that every time I edited a post those set to individual emails would receive it in their inbox! Apologies! 

I think we will turn ability to edit posts off in our future group as I can anticipate a bunch of issues with this separate from the multiple emails there is the fact that we moderate posts, so if a post is approved as is, it should remain as is. I don't think you can moderate edits and they would be a bit of an increase in workload. 

Maria 


David P. Dillard
 

I have not had that problem with editing posts and find it great for correcting mistakes and updating information that is no longer correct.

On my groups there is a link that allows me to send and another that allows to not send the updated post to list members. I would suspect we all have the same option.




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

On Sun, 8 May 2016, HR Tech via Groups.io wrote:

Wow! I didn't realize that every time I edited a post those set to individual emails would receive it in their inbox! Apologies! 
I think we will turn ability to edit posts off in our future group as I can anticipate a bunch of issues with this separate from the multiple emails there is the fact that we moderate posts, so if a post is approved as is, it should remain as is. I don't think you can moderate edits and they would be a bit of an increase in workload. 
Maria


 

Moderators have the option to "save without sending" the edit. 

You can (and actually must) moderate edits if the user or group is moderated.
--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


Nightowl >8#
 

I agree with J.

Please don't implement any sort of delay of sending messages either to the website or e-mail.

Doesn't the save editing without sending solve some of this?

Brenda


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Only moderators have the option to "save without editing."

The problem comes in because groups.io operates in a hybrid environment - a web forums interface coupled with an e-mail list interface.  The issue of duplicate messages never occurs in a web forum only interface because editing a message simply edits what's already there.  However, because of the e-mail list interface if once chooses to edit something one has posted to the forum, instead of tweaking just what's already there, it causes a second (or third, or fourth, . . .) e-mail message to be generated with the full text of the edited message to be sent out in addition to the one(s) that have already gone out.   This can be insanity-making for those participating by e-mail because there's no need to see what amount to drafts followed by the final product.

I have yet to see an instance where there's much of any "reaction in real time" from e-mail list exchanges.  It comes close at times, but it's not like some of the almost "chat-like" back and forth you sometimes see if two web forum posters happen to be online at the same time exchanging ideas.

I don't think that anything is going to change, but I still feel it would be a very good idea to put, say a 5-minute hold on stuff posted via the web forum interface before shooting off the e-mail message it would generate.  That gives people a chance to see if they've somehow fat-fingered something and want to correct it or to make a quick addition, and still have the message go out to e-mail participants in a timely manner, without duplicate messages being generated.

One need not have any sort of delay built in for messages sent to the forum by e-mail because once an e-mail has been sent, it's been sent - there's no calling it back.  (Unless you have an e-mail service like Gmail that allows you to set an "Undo Send" time, which implements the delay in actually sending the e-mail message for which you just hit the Send button for a set time period before it actually sends.   I use that on my e-mail for precisely the same reasons I've mentioned - you often recognize an "oops" or omission the moment after you've hit the Send button).

Brian


 

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 08:53 am, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:
I have yet to see an instance where there's much of any "reaction in real time" from e-mail list exchanges.  

It happens *constantly* in my group. Constantly. More often than not. 

I still feel it would be a very good idea to put, say a 5-minute hold on stuff posted via the web forum interface before shooting off the e-mail message it would generate.  

I think it would be disastrous because some people are reading via web and some are reading via email. The chronology of the responses could turn into a train wreck.

--

J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


 

In fact, that last exchange was an example of a near-real-time chat. The only reason for the short delay was that Groups.io did the hang thing it's been doing after you hit "send." :-)
--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

J,

        Well, without naming group names, the chronology of responses on the groups that I'm regularly participating on via groups.io are routinely a train wreck.

         A great deal of this comes from the fact that most participants are e-mail only, it appears that a number of them are "individual message" subscribers, and that many of them do not read all of the messages that are threaded into a conversation, if they're even using conversation view in their e-mail clients, before responding.

         The amount of repetition, answering questions already answered hours ago, or challenging people on mistakes that were real, but that have already been corrected by the original poster(s), is quite epic.

          Some of this could be easily avoided were certain participants willing to change their reading habits, response habits, or both or going to digest mode and reading through an entire set of contributions on a thread before responding.  I am not sanguine that this is ever going to happen.

Brian, who's simply accepted that things vary based on history, culture, and other factors and to go with the flow


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

J,

           Not to be argumentative, but a 9 minute lag between my post and your initial response does not, in my book, qualify as anything even near to "near-real-time."

           Near real time has to be 2 minutes or less.  Real time is one minute or less (for things that allow one to type responses that brief - I get that one cannot compose a long, detailed response in near real time).

Brian


 

Brian,

Not to be argumentative (which I totally am too LOL), the first time-lag was two minutes, and that was only because Groups.io "send" hung on me. It's been doing that consistently this morning.
--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


 

LOL.
--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

J,

         Message headers do not lie (and, yes, I'm being both argumentative and precise).  That prior exchange had my message come in at 8:53 and your response come in at 9:01, based strictly on viewing the original source for each.

         I'm getting the send hang online this morning, too, but it's never caused *that* big a lag!!

Brian


 

I'm not sure what you mean by "based strictly on viewing the original source," but I can tell you that on my end, the time lag between your timestamped message and when I hit "send" on my reply was approximately 30 seconds, and the lag between the two timestamps I saw was approximately 2 minutes. Perhaps we are talking about different messages? But this is pointless now. So I'll agree to disagree. :-)
--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


 

Brian,

One need not have any sort of delay built in for messages sent to the
forum by e-mail because once an e-mail has been sent, it's been sent
- there's no calling it back.
That's true, and it is why I usually moderate myself on groups I own or moderate. It gives me that second look.

However in groups I don't moderate, the time I'm most likely use the edit feature is just after receiving my post back, seeing the error, and then using the "View this message" link to go make the edit.

Knowing that will cause a new message send tempers my reaction. Depending on the nature of the error I my just reply to my own message with a retraction or correction as I would have in a system that doesn't offer the Edit feature. Here I get to choose which method will provide the clearest result, in consideration of both email and web readers.

(Unless you have an e-mail service like Gmail that allows you to set
an "Undo Send" time, which implements the delay in actually sending
the e-mail message for which you just hit the Send button for a set
time period before it actually sends.
I tried that and didn't find it effective. Maybe it is a psychological thing. Too often the time-out just didn't provoke the same point-of-view change needed to see the mistake. For that reason I'm skeptical about the value of having a delay built in to the email delivery of web posts.

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


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Shal,

          I find the feature less usable in Gmail simply because in many cases the actual sent message text is not presented to me the moment after I send it (like when it's a brand new message composition).  In contrast, online forums instantly present, in "the text," what I've just posted and for some reason I'll often catch some glaring (or at least glaring to me - I'm picky) error in a post within a few seconds.

          Because I participate on groups primarily frequented by participants who are "email only" posters I have virtually stopped using the edit feature altogether on groups.io.  Most of those groups are "blind or low vision centric," so having duplicate full messages where I may be correcting a typo, adding a brief bit I'd missed, or the like makes is infinitely harder for the readership to plow through the material.  At the same time, it also makes the accuracy of the online archive that gets compiled over time lower, or at least atomically lower at the level of a single message.

           Now I almost always post follow-up messages of the forms:

                      - That last "insert bad phrasing here" should have been "insert substitute phrasing here."

                     -  That last post presumes "condition(s) X, and/or Y, and/or Z" which I forgot to mention and that are important

or similar.  I've stopped correcting things like putting "it's" for "its" (or vice versa) or similar typos or write-oes (e.g. there for their or they're) because of the creation of additional email messages.  I've accepted that I'll occasionally have to come off as "less polished" in certain venues because polishing something to suit myself makes life much, much harder on the readership.

I still feel that a brief hold of a couple of minutes between web post and email distribution would solve that problem in well over 99.9% of the cases I can think of.  But I've also accepted that this is not going to be, and life goes on.

Brian


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

That "makes is infinitely harder" should have been "makes it infinitely harder."