Topics

moderated Web-only group #suggestion


 

This is a suggestion for a ‘web only’ option for groups. In a web-only group, everybody would essentially be set to either ‘no email’ or ‘special notice’. Everybody would have to access the group via the web in order to send or read messages. Nobody would have access to anybody else’s email address, which would be the main reason to use the feature. I haven’t thought this through and there may be some flaws in it, but it strikes me as possibly a way to easily implement the long-ago asked-for ‘anonymous group’ idea.


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Tom H
 

I endorse that suggestion. The disappearing Wikispaces operated similarly. Posts were distributed by email but replies had to be via the website interface. That eliminates a lot of email signature bloat and lazy quoting.

Couple that with making the website publicly visible (images...) and I would have been more strongly tempted to migrate my Wikispaces site to groups.io. Instead, I'm off to WordPress.


 

The idea is not to even send the emails. The emails are what give people access to other members’ email addresses.

As for whether any aspects of the group are public or restricted, those would remain as separate options and not conflict with this.


On Sep 27, 2018, at 10:19 AM, Tom H <ve3meo@...> wrote:

I endorse that suggestion. The disappearing Wikispaces operated similarly. Posts were distributed by email but replies had to be via the website interface. That eliminates a lot of email signature bloat and lazy quoting.

Couple that with making the website publicly visible (images...) and I would have been more strongly tempted to migrate my Wikispaces site to groups.io. Instead, I'm off to WordPress.

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


ro-esp
 

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 04:22 AM, J_Catlady wrote:

possibly a way to easily implement the long-ago asked-for ‘anonymous
group’ idea.
Yahoogroups allows groups in which people can post anonymously, if they post from the web-interface.

Your proposal seems to do the same, without people having the option to show their email-address.

I'm not sure which one is better, or whether it's worth having both options.

groetjes, Ronaldo


 

J,

The idea is not to even send the emails. The emails are what give people access to other members’ email addresses.

You could still allow members to have their usual Subscription options - the difference would be that the From: field would contain a no-reply address instead of a member's address. And of course the footers (and digests) wouldn't have any Reply to sender or Reply to Group links.

The messages by email would serve as an activity notice, for those who want it; but they'd have to go to the site to post.

Shal


 

Ronaldo,

Yahoogroups allows groups in which people can post anonymously, if they post from the web-interface.
...
I'm not sure which one is better, or whether it's worth having both options.

The primary advantage of the Yahoo Groups mechanism is that it allows email-only members to participate in the group. Their address is exposed in the outbound From field, as normal, but that is their choice and trade-off for not having to log in and post at the group.

That might be one reason to allow both options. Some groups I'm sure would want to prevent members from participating with their email address exposed (and ward off the evils of email posting mentioned by Tom H), others might let the member choose.

Shal


 

J,

I haven’t thought this through and there may be some flaws in it, but it strikes me as possibly a way to easily implement the long-ago asked-for ‘anonymous group’ idea.

There are some features to think about, such as Private replies and the Email button in the Directory. The simplest answer might be to eliminate those features in such a group. Or maybe send them anyway, with the warning that one's email address goes in the outbound message.

I don't want to blow up your idea by getting bogged down with options and details (as happened to this suggestion before, I think), but another choice would be to handle those two features with outbound no-reply emails. That might be a bit frustrating for the recipient, and making it otherwise starts to lead us down the rabbit-hole.

Shal


 

Shal,

I said I had not thought it through but clearly, features like reply to sender and the directory would be disabled automatically. I was thinking more along the lines that there might be some flaw in the idea.


On Sep 27, 2018, at 3:55 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:

J,

I haven’t thought this through and there may be some flaws in it, but it strikes me as possibly a way to easily implement the long-ago asked-for ‘anonymous group’ idea.

There are some features to think about, such as Private replies and the Email button in the Directory. The simplest answer might be to eliminate those features in such a group. Or maybe send them anyway, with the warning that one's email address goes in the outbound message.

I don't want to blow up your idea by getting bogged down with options and details (as happened to this suggestion before, I think), but another choice would be to handle those two features with outbound no-reply emails. That might be a bit frustrating for the recipient, and making it otherwise starts to lead us down the rabbit-hole.

Shal


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

J,

I was thinking more along the lines that there might be some flaw in the idea.

I don't see any flaw, exactly, but the limitation of not receiving message content by email would be a bit of a show-stopper for me. So that would be my #1 pick for an alteration to your idea.

Even given its extensive notification capability, I seldom find myself pulled back into Facebook, or into traditional web fora for that matter. Not being able to post by email would certainly dampen my participation in most groups. So a distant #2 would be to allow members to choose whether or not to be anonymous.
Shal


 

Shal,

The idea of an anonymous group (as suggested here long ago, I think first by me?) is that the entire group membership is purposely anonymous so that members would not have access to each other's email addresses. Making it a by-member option would defeat the purpose (i.e., make it into another feature). 

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:
J,

I was thinking more along the lines that there might be some flaw in the idea.

I don't see any flaw, exactly, but the limitation of not receiving message content by email would be a bit of a show-stopper for me. So that would be my #1 pick for an alteration to your idea.

Even given its extensive notification capability, I seldom find myself pulled back into Facebook, or into traditional web fora for that matter. Not being able to post by email would certainly dampen my participation in most groups. So a distant #2 would be to allow members to choose whether or not to be anonymous.
Shal



--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

p.s. I, too, avoid FB like the plague. So I'm with you there. :)

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 5:06 PM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
Shal,

The idea of an anonymous group (as suggested here long ago, I think first by me?) is that the entire group membership is purposely anonymous so that members would not have access to each other's email addresses. Making it a by-member option would defeat the purpose (i.e., make it into another feature). 

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:
J,

I was thinking more along the lines that there might be some flaw in the idea.

I don't see any flaw, exactly, but the limitation of not receiving message content by email would be a bit of a show-stopper for me. So that would be my #1 pick for an alteration to your idea.

Even given its extensive notification capability, I seldom find myself pulled back into Facebook, or into traditional web fora for that matter. Not being able to post by email would certainly dampen my participation in most groups. So a distant #2 would be to allow members to choose whether or not to be anonymous.
Shal



--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu



--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

J,

Making it a by-member option would defeat the purpose (i.e., make it into another feature). 

Fair enough.

One other thing that I think you do not want to copy from the Yahoo Groups feature is that an anonymous member there is anonymous even to the group managers -- not even the group owners or mods are privy to such a member's email address.

Doing that here, I think, would introduce the need for an alternate unique identifier (i.e. the currently unused User Name). That bit of complication may have played a role in the perception of "too complicated" that bothered some people about the prior incarnation of the anonymous group idea.

Shal


Jim Higgins
 

Received from Shal Farley at 9/27/2018 11:55 PM UTC:

J,
I was thinking more along the lines that there might be some flaw in the idea.
I don't see any flaw, exactly, but the limitation of not receiving message content by email would be a bit of a show-stopper for me.

I think calling for a "via web only" group begs the question when what is really desired is a group in which all members remain anonymous.

It strikes me that all it takes to implement a group in which no email addresses are ever exposed is for all mail posted to such a group - via the web or via email - to be posted by Groups.io with a bogus "From:" address and with any other potentially identifying headers stripped. The address of the group itself makes the most sense for a "From:" address because then a reply either via the web or via email would go back to the group.

It also strikes me that such a group will lose any significant sense of community unless some sort of "Display Name" that would have no connection to the real life identity were required, but I won't ever be joining such a group so don't really care. Just saying.

Also... Owners/Moderators would need to be able to identify problem members in order to deal with them. The activity archives probably could be used to provide this info if information sufficient to tie a message to a member account were retained there.

Jim H


Bruce Bowman
 

I like this idea, but what I'm more often seeing requests for in GMF is the opposite -- the option for a disabled message archive, and an email-only interface. Both have their merits and from where I stand both deserve consideration; and perhaps concurrent implementation, if that's going to happen.

My $0.02,
Bruce


 

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 05:25 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
an anonymous member there is anonymous even to the group managers
No, absolutely would not do that here. I agree.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 05:38 PM, Jim Higgins wrote:
It also strikes me that such a group will lose any significant sense of community unless some sort of "Display Name" that would have no connection to the real life identity were required,
I totally disagree. All, or most, social media that uses handles instead of real IDs still create a significant sense of community. Second, you may not want a "sense of community" in some situations. For example, I originally suggested the anonymous group idea for my business. I don't want the group members to know each other or be able to communicate with each other via email. (For the record, there were some "seconds" to the idea of that application.)
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 06:11 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
unless some sort of "Display Name" that would have no connection to the real life identity were required,
Oh, I see you said "no connection." Yes, I envision that everyone would have a display name.  
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Jim Higgins
 

Received from J_Catlady at 9/28/2018 01:11 AM UTC:
 
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 05:38 PM, Jim Higgins wrote:
It also strikes me that such a group will lose any significant sense of community unless some sort of "Display Name" that would have no connection to the real life identity were required,

I totally disagree. All, or most, social media that uses handles instead of real IDs still create a significant sense of community.


I never said "real IDs." Those are your words... your straw man set up only to be shot down.

What I said was "some sort of 'Display Name' that would have no connection to the real life identity." You even quoted what I said above... and then seem to have completely ignored it in your response. So how about you give another look at what I said and then tell me how it differs from the "handle" you just mentioned.


Second, you may not want a "sense of community" in some situations. For example, I originally suggested the anonymous group idea for my business. I don't want the group members to know each other or be able to communicate with each other via email. (For the record, there were some "seconds" to the idea of that application.)


"Some sort of 'Display Name' that would have no connection to the real life identity" used to help create a sense of community would not allow group members to know each other or be able to communicate with each other via email. And nothing else I said/suggested would make it possible to be able to communicate with each other via direct email. In fact I suggested that Groups.io post messages to an anonymous group with the "From:" address replaced by the group address and with all potentially identifying headers stripped from the message. that would kill all possibility of direct email contact. Did you perhaps hit reply and fire off your response before reading that far?

Jim H


 

You missed my previous message. 😊

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:11 PM, Jim Higgins <HigginsJ@...> wrote:
Received from J_Catlady at 9/28/2018 01:11 AM UTC:
 
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 05:38 PM, Jim Higgins wrote:
It also strikes me that such a group will lose any significant sense of community unless some sort of "Display Name" that would have no connection to the real life identity were required,

I totally disagree. All, or most, social media that uses handles instead of real IDs still create a significant sense of community.


I never said "real IDs." Those are your words... your straw man set up only to be shot down.

What I said was "some sort of 'Display Name' that would have no connection to the real life identity." You even quoted what I said above... and then seem to have completely ignored it in your response. So how about you give another look at what I said and then tell me how it differs from the "handle" you just mentioned.


Second, you may not want a "sense of community" in some situations. For example, I originally suggested the anonymous group idea for my business. I don't want the group members to know each other or be able to communicate with each other via email. (For the record, there were some "seconds" to the idea of that application.)


"Some sort of 'Display Name' that would have no connection to the real life identity" used to help create a sense of community would not allow group members to know each other or be able to communicate with each other via email. And nothing else I said/suggested would make it possible to be able to communicate with each other via direct email. In fact I suggested that Groups.io post messages to an anonymous group with the "From:" address replaced by the group address and with all potentially identifying headers stripped from the message. that would kill all possibility of direct email contact. Did you perhaps hit reply and fire off your response before reading that far?

Jim H



--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Dave Sergeant
 

Although I see why you are suggesting this, I am strongly against it. I
assume you intend it to be optional, so a group owner can set their
group as web only when it is set up, but email access to groups is so
essential in my view, like it was in Yahoogroups, that it would be a
huge retrograde step and take away one of the key features of groups.io
over pure forums.

If I were going to subscribe to a new group and found it web only I
would simply not join. Many of our members rarely visit the web
interface and do everything by email - it is far more immediate than
any forum based system where you have to visit a web page once or twice
a day to see what has happened.

Revealing your email address via emails is a fact of life. If you are
worried about it you shouldn't be using email for anything. But do you
really want to hide under a bushel.

Dave

On 26 Sep 2018 at 19:21, J_Catlady wrote:

This is a suggestion for a ~web onlyTM option for groups. In a web-only
group, everybody would essentially be set to either ~no emailTM or
~special noticeTM. Everybody would have to access the group via the web
in order to send or read messages. Nobody would have access to anybody
elseTMs email address, which would be the main reason to use the feature.
I havenTMt thought this through and there may be some flaws in it, but it
strikes me as possibly a way to easily implement the long-ago asked-for
~anonymous groupTM idea.


http://davesergeant.com