Topics

moderated Site updates #changelog


Bob Bellizzi
 

That is, if Markhad no other system changes, corrections, requests to implement first?
--

Bob Bellizzi

Founder, Fuchs Friends ®
Founder & Executive Director, The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation


 

OTOH I guess you could keep counting the (non-operational) tags even when hashtags are disabled, and do everything else you'd normally do to them, just in case they're enabled again. It seems like more trouble than it's worth IMO.
--
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


 

So do you want any messages created between the time that hashtags are disabled and then re-enabled to be counted in the stats (etc.)for the hashtag(s) that had been temporarily disabled?

You have, say, 48 topics with #tagX. You disable hashtags, time goes by, and 50 more messages are created with #tagX and the tags are treated as plain text. Then you enable hashtags again.

Does the count for #tagX still show as 48, or do you want all of those 50 topics to be added to it? If so, it's a PITA for the system. If not, then the hashtag count is incorrect.

I think there are other issues but that's the first one that comes to mind.
--
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


Tom Vail
 

As I said in my suggestions, "When selected, "#anything" would be treated as plain text."  So if hashtags already exist in your group and hashtags are disabled, they just become plain text.  They are not removed, not invisible, they are just text.  If hashtags are enabled again, then they are processed as hashtags. 

I know this is a very simplistic view, but conceptionally processing the subject line would work like this:

     Are hashtags disabled?

         No - proceed with current processing (no change)

         Yes - go X, where X bypasses the hashtag processing routine

The same would happen when displaying the sidebar.  If disabled, no Hashtag tab is displayed.  So the hashtag page does not "go away" but is just not displayed.  If enabled, they would again display.  New hashtags would be processed according to the group settings.

Hope that makes it clearer.

Peace,
Tom


 

If there is the option to disable hashtags, what exactly would that mean? Specifically, I'm wondering what would happen if there are hashtags already in use and then the group changes to "disable hashtags." What happens to the hashtags page, for example? Would it be truly eliminated or would it just become invisible? Similarly, if the group changes back to undisable hashtags after they've been disabled, are the messages with #xyz suddenly (or again) treated as if they have hashtags?
--
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


Tom Vail
 

I would like to see one more option: Disable hashtags.

When selected, "#anything" would be treated as plain text.  Also when selected, as with other options like Directory, the #Hashtags tab would not be displayed.

I "own" 2 groups.  One of them uses hashtags extensively.  The other one not at all.  For the "Not at all" group the tab just creates confusion and questions.  If the user understands what hashtags do, they try to use them.  If they don't it becomes a question of "That is a hashtag?"  In either case, it creates questions which require time to deal with.

Peace,
Tom


 

"Once the user does get the email and follows up and makes the requested correction, the post goes through. "
That's not what happened in my group member's case, according to her. She made the correction and the post did not go through. There was nothing in pending, and I got no notification. She made the same correction via a new email message (and I believe her - the person is very smart and meticulous, although I will send the relevant details to Mark at support to verify this) and it then went through. 

On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 8:33 PM, Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 11:22 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Re-reading her message more closely, on top of everything it actually seems like this is a bug. She apparently(?) corrected her message to have an allowed hashtag, but that didn't work. She was told it was awaiting release, but I never got anything about it. She finally, according to what she says here, just resent a new message through email. So if what she's saying is right, the system for correcting a hashtag to an allowable one is not functioning.
--
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

I just checked again to see what what happens when a user tries to use a new hashtag and that isn't allowed. If done online, there is a dropdown called "Tags" to pick from valid hashtags. If the user insists on entering a new one in the subject line, there is an error message saying it is not allowed.

If the user is making the post via email, the user is sent an email explaining the issue and requesting it be corrected by clicking on a link. That is not a reply to the original email and can easily end up in a spam bin. Once the user does get the email and follows up and makes the requested correction, the post goes through. So, it is working as designed for these cases. Perhaps with moderation in force, not so much.

My recommendation is to not use the "bounce" option and just use the "strip" option. At least the message gets through.

--
Gerald



--
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


Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...>
 

On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 11:22 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Re-reading her message more closely, on top of everything it actually seems like this is a bug. She apparently(?) corrected her message to have an allowed hashtag, but that didn't work. She was told it was awaiting release, but I never got anything about it. She finally, according to what she says here, just resent a new message through email. So if what she's saying is right, the system for correcting a hashtag to an allowable one is not functioning.
--
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

I just checked again to see what what happens when a user tries to use a new hashtag and that isn't allowed. If done online, there is a dropdown called "Tags" to pick from valid hashtags. If the user insists on entering a new one in the subject line, there is an error message saying it is not allowed.

If the user is making the post via email, the user is sent an email explaining the issue and requesting it be corrected by clicking on a link. That is not a reply to the original email and can easily end up in a spam bin. Once the user does get the email and follows up and makes the requested correction, the post goes through. So, it is working as designed for these cases. Perhaps with moderation in force, not so much.

My recommendation is to not use the "bounce" option and just use the "strip" option. At least the message gets through.

--
Gerald


 

Re-reading her message more closely, on top of everything it actually seems like this is a bug. She apparently(?) corrected her message to have an allowed hashtag, but that didn't work. She was told it was awaiting release, but I never got anything about it. She finally, according to what she says here, just resent a new message through email. So if what she's saying is right, the system for correcting a hashtag to an allowable one is not functioning.
--
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


 

One correction: my group is now on moderation (due to a troll), so it's correct that her message, once corrected, would have been moderated and needed to be "released." However, I received no notice of the original message, anywhere. 

What about putting such messages into the pending queue for editing, with a comment about a disallowed hashtag? That seems preferable to having the system - completely outside the moderator's knowledge - ask the user to substitute a different hashtag. That could go on and on, with the member trying one hashtag and then another, and the mod still having no knowledge that it was even occurring. This leaves everyone in the dark.
--
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


 

This is not working well for my group. A member typed a current hashtag incorrectly in an emailed message this morning, and she emailed me offlist 12 hours later to ask me why her message had not yet been "released" and asked me if I could release it.

I was perplexed because (a) she's not on moderation, and (b) THERE WAS NO RECORD IN ANY OF THE LOGS of her even having sent a message. I even wondered whether she had mistakenly sent it to another group, and asked her to check, and I asked her for details. She wrote:

"I put the wrong hashtag and it had me go to the groups.io site to change it and re-submit. When I did that it said it was being held for the moderator to release. I did it twice today with the same result. I will just resend it through my email with the correct hashtag."

To me this is unacceptable. She had tried to use the #large-cell-lymphoma hashtag, but instead typed just #large-cell. 
At the bare minimum, I think mods should have some sort of notification that this occurred, or at least just a log entry. At best, the message should indicated that members can't create their own hashtags in the group (I'm not sure whether it already contains that info - it's possible the member didn't report that part of it to me).  

I'd actually prefer a straight-up bounce to this behavior. 

--
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


Bruce Bowman
 

On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 02:19 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
That is, if you had checked the Only Moderators Can Create New Hashtags, then your new setting should be messages with new tags are bounced.
Okay thanks, that makes sense. I guess I just haven't had anybody do that before. It's obvious from my inquiry that I prefer the new "strip hashtag" approach and appreciate you making this new option available to us.

Regards,
Bruce


 

On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 8:14 AM, Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 12:23 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
NEW: Replaced the 'Only Moderators Can Create Hashtags' checkbox with a dropdown, allowing messages with new hashtags to be either bounced, or the new hashtags to be removed.
Mark -- When I checked this new setting in my group, I was surprised to find that the default is to bounce the messages. This strikes me as a little harsh. What was the previous behavior?


That was the previous behavior if you had checked the box. Unless I screwed something up with the change, the behavior for your group should be no different today than yesterday. That is, if you had checked the Only Moderators Can Create New Hashtags, then your new setting should be messages with new tags are bounced.

Mark 


Chris Jones
 

On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 04:14 PM, Bruce Bowman wrote:
I suggest the default should be to strip rather than bounce. I don't know where his leaves those groups that require hashtags, though.
I agree with both sentences. I checked the group I moderate and changed the setting PDQ as soon as I read the changelog this morning.

I would be interested to know the rationale for this change, because whatever setting is now chosen it is still only Moderators who can create hashtags (as previously) and members cannot try to create them willy - nilly; whatever the setting they don't get away with it.

Chris


Bruce Bowman
 

On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 12:23 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
NEW: Replaced the 'Only Moderators Can Create Hashtags' checkbox with a dropdown, allowing messages with new hashtags to be either bounced, or the new hashtags to be removed.
Mark -- When I checked this new setting in my group, I was surprised to find that the default is to bounce the messages. This strikes me as a little harsh. What was the previous behavior?

I suggest the default should be to strip rather than bounce. I don't know where his leaves those groups that require hashtags, though.

Thanks,
Bruce


 

Changes to the site this week:

  • NEW: Replaced the 'Only Moderators Can Create Hashtags' checkbox with a dropdown, allowing messages with new hashtags to be either bounced, or the new hashtags to be removed.
  • API: Changed group field: restrict_create_hash_tags is now hash_tag_permissions.
  • SYSADMIN: Fixed log rotation issues on the DNS servers.
  • NEW: When exporting group data, you can now export hashtag data.
  • SYSADMIN: Now serving the cookie consent js/css code locally instead of from a CDN, because that was timing out.
  • OTHER: Sent out the GDPR Privacy Policy update email. Dealt with a bunch of angry responses.
  • INTERNAL: Deleted all user accounts not subscribed to any groups (or only subscribed to updates@) that were at least one month old.
  • BUGFIX: Fix internal crash when a non-moderator of a subgroup rejects via email a pending message.
  • BUGFIX: The FBL processing code was ignoring reports from some domains.
  • CHANGE: Better behavior when uploading multiple files and one of them is a duplicate of an existing file. Previously we would disgard all files in the upload. Now we keep all of them up to the point of the duplicate.
  • BUGFIX: If a file was renamed with either / or \ in the name, the file would be unlinked and unreachable. Fixed the bug and re-linked the affected files.
  • INTERNAL: Made exportuser and exportgroup more reliable when dealing with large amounts of data.

Have a good weekend everyone.

Mark