locked Proposal: All groups must be moderated or new user moderated


 

Hi All,

One of the things I'm seeing with the spammer is that they'll subscribe to an existing group and post their spam. If a group is moderated or has NuM set, the group members never see the spam and it's not a problem (and no incentive for the spammer to continue). But for open groups, it's not a good experience for anyone involved. So I propose to make it so that all groups must be either moderated or have new users be moderated.  I have not yet thought through whether this should apply to sub-groups as well. But I wanted to get everyone's take on this proposal first. Is there a good reason to allow open groups at all?

Thanks,
Mark


Ro
 

What would the time frame be for taking people off New User Moderated?   as soon as Owner is sure its not a spammer?  any time?  if so, I have no object.  I dont currently moderate either of my groups...


Ro

with Sally and Silk waiting at their feed dishes, and Handy, Feliz &  Police Kitty patrolling in the Great Beyond.





From: beta@groups.io <beta@groups.io> on behalf of Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io>
Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 8:51 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: [beta] Proposal: All groups must be moderated or new user moderated
 
Hi All,

One of the things I'm seeing with the spammer is that they'll subscribe to an existing group and post their spam. If a group is moderated or has NuM set, the group members never see the spam and it's not a problem (and no incentive for the spammer to continue). But for open groups, it's not a good experience for anyone involved. So I propose to make it so that all groups must be either moderated or have new users be moderated.  I have not yet thought through whether this should apply to sub-groups as well. But I wanted to get everyone's take on this proposal first. Is there a good reason to allow open groups at all?

Thanks,
Mark


 

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:53 PM, Ro <recarlton@...> wrote:

What would the time frame be for taking people off New User Moderated?   as soon as Owner is sure its not a spammer?  any time?  if so, I have no object.  I dont currently moderate either of my groups...

I wouldn't enforce any time frame. It'd either be after the set number of approved messages for NuM (if there is one specified), or by action of the moderator. 

Thanks,
Mark


christopher hallsworth <challsworth2@...>
 

There is really, general chat forums for example should not need moderating by default.

On 5 Oct 2016, at 04:51, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:

Hi All,

One of the things I'm seeing with the spammer is that they'll subscribe to an existing group and post their spam. If a group is moderated or has NuM set, the group members never see the spam and it's not a problem (and no incentive for the spammer to continue). But for open groups, it's not a good experience for anyone involved. So I propose to make it so that all groups must be either moderated or have new users be moderated. I have not yet thought through whether this should apply to sub-groups as well. But I wanted to get everyone's take on this proposal first. Is there a good reason to allow open groups at all?

Thanks,
Mark


 

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 08:51 pm, Mark Fletcher wrote:
So I propose to make it so that all groups must be either moderated or have new users be moderated.  I have not yet thought through whether this should apply to sub-groups as well. But I wanted to get everyone's take on this proposal first. Is there a good reason to allow open groups at all?

 Hi Mark,

My preference would be to allow group moderators to choose to leave their group unmoderated if that is what they want to do. I am a current owner/moderator of several groups here, all of which are currently unmoderated. Two of my groups were hit by a couple of spam messages yesterday, but deleting these messages this morning was not difficult. My experience managing groups on other platforms (Yahoo and Facebook) is that an open group is good for startup and encouragement of timely discussion. I have a fairly large community of participants on Yahoo and Facebook that much prefer open posting privileges and are willing to overlook the occasional spammer as long as spammers are dealt with swiftly.

Roy


Maria
 

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 08:51 pm, Mark Fletcher wrote:
So I propose to make it so that all groups must be either moderated or have new users be moderated.  I have not yet thought through whether this should apply to sub-groups as well. But I wanted to get everyone's take on this proposal first. Is there a good reason to allow open groups at all?

We moderate all our groups (prevention of spam being one of the major reasons we do so - even when someone is a legit member their account can be hacked and then it's a snowball effect ( if links are clicked) plus gives appearance of a group that has no oversight which in turn impacts the depth of conversations). That said, it takes a ton of time of our end and impacts immediacy. So it's not for all.

But the idea of someone being moderated when they are new - or the idea of a new member having to earn the privilege of being unmoderated is reasonable to me and in line with what many other forums also do. And forums don't always have a mailing list component - yet they also make you achieve a certain level before you can post links or photos, and similar privileges. Maybe there could be privileges/trust levels that need to be earned here on groups.io before you can post links/photos?

I think it's reasonable to have all newbies moderated by default and that the owner can decide after a set amount of messages when they become unmoderated or leave it to their discretion if not linked to post frequency. Also reasonable would be to have any posts with links and images in them moderated if the member is new or even beyond if that's a control the group finds eases their moderation workload. Most spam depends on links i think (?) so if you quarantine messages with links, and moderate on the basis of content rather than member, that could also be something that might help.

And I think it's worth restating that even though the service is free, creating a group under the good name of groups.io should be a privilege and there needs to be a system in place so it cannot be abused. Because the abuse hurts all us good group owners and participants. ("But he that filches from me my good name. Robs me of that which not enriches him. And makes me poor indeed").

Most of what we use online requires some form of verification. We do so much online these days (shop/communicate/business/official info/school). I think that while some of us are used to not having to provide verification, it's pretty common place to have to do so these days, even if only by virtue of using APPs on your phone bought through your account at the app store. And if you don't provide verification, then on many services there are limits on how you can use the service.

I think that if you need to provide something valid in order to create a basic website from one of those online template places, then you should maybe have to do same (or more) to create a mailing list that allows you to bypass the send quotas of email providers. And  again, maybe it doesn't need to be sensitive info - maybe it's those captcha codes or the code + a verification method, or captcha plus human questions, but something that can stop these people from hurting the service and stealing Mark's valuable time and energy.

I get the concerns that requiring more intense verification could drive business away. Except for that this doesn't seem to be the case with many of the examples we have been looking at for ideas. I'd think that the argument could be made that the quality and reputation of the site would be enhanced which would counteract any downside of more detailed verification methods being required for the privilege of creating a group.

Maria


Jeff Powell <jrpstonecarver@...>
 

I need to sanity check the lingo here, please, and then ask a question, because as stated this proposal confuses me. I thought:

  • "Moderated" meant all posts have to be approved by a moderator. The opposite - that members can post messages without moderation is called "Un-moderated", right?
  • "NuM" means New User Moderated (right?) in which all new users have some undetermined period of time during which the group's moderators have to approve their posts before they go out
  • "Restricted" means that users must be approved by the moderators before being allowed to join the group
  • "Open" means that a group accepts new users with no vetting process; sign up, you're in. No human approval involved

If I have all of that right, is the proposal really to require all groups be "moderated" (or have NuM set), or did you mean "restricted"?

This matters a lot to me.

Our neighborhood list moves a LOT of email, quite a bit of it is timely in nature. A requirement that moderators must approve every message would be awful, and would - in fact - cause us to go looking for some other provider (again).  NuM is better, but not critical in my mind given our past experience. (We rarely had new users cause issues in Y!G, and so far it hasn't been an issue here either, even with over 200 new members in the last week thanks to the nearby wildland fire.)

That said, we are a restricted group. Users have to prove they are human to get in, which helps with the spam issue a lot.

So, are we really talking about making all groups be Moderated or NuM? I hope I've just misunderstood the terminology involved.

For the record, I have no issue with not allowing Open groups as defined above. In the modern internet they aren't much better - and possibly much worse than - the comment sections at any news site. Getting rid of that option is just fine in my mind. But let's not throw out un-moderated groups as well. That's not a good idea.

--jeffp


On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 08:51 pm, Mark Fletcher wrote:

Hi All,

One of the things I'm seeing with the spammer is that they'll subscribe to an existing group and post their spam. If a group is moderated or has NuM set, the group members never see the spam and it's not a problem (and no incentive for the spammer to continue). But for open groups, it's not a good experience for anyone involved. So I propose to make it so that all groups must be either moderated or have new users be moderated.  I have not yet thought through whether this should apply to sub-groups as well. But I wanted to get everyone's take on this proposal first. Is there a good reason to allow open groups at all?

Thanks,
Mark

 


 

I'd absolutely have no problem with it, and it's how I run my groups anyway, specifically to avoid spammers.

Everett


Steph Mathews <smathews@...>
 

I have my groups listed in the directory except for one.  Because it's one for the bible study group at my church.
 
But for my Christian discussion groups I currently have them set where we approve the new members and we have a pending membership application in place with our group guidelines on top.  Then once someone that we allowed into the group is in, we have them on moderated status till we are certain that they are trusted.  I hope that this helps.  Steph

Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 10:51 PM
Subject: [beta] Proposal: All groups must be moderated or new user moderated

Hi All,

One of the things I'm seeing with the spammer is that they'll subscribe to an existing group and post their spam. If a group is moderated or has NuM set, the group members never see the spam and it's not a problem (and no incentive for the spammer to continue). But for open groups, it's not a good experience for anyone involved. So I propose to make it so that all groups must be either moderated or have new users be moderated.  I have not yet thought through whether this should apply to sub-groups as well. But I wanted to get everyone's take on this proposal first. Is there a good reason to allow open groups at all?

Thanks,
Mark


 

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 6:58 AM, Jeff Powell <jrpstonecarver@...> wrote:

That said, we are a restricted group. Users have to prove they are human to get in, which helps with the spam issue a lot.

So, are we really talking about making all groups be Moderated or NuM? I hope I've just misunderstood the terminology involved.

For the record, I have no issue with not allowing Open groups as defined above. In the modern internet they aren't much better - and possibly much worse than - the comment sections at any news site. Getting rid of that option is just fine in my mind. But let's not throw out un-moderated groups as well. That's not a good idea.


You make a good point. How about I modify the proposal: All (parent) groups must either be restricted or set to moderated or NuM (or some combination thereof). In each case there's at least one approval step before a member can post.

Thanks,
Mark


Joseph Hudson <jhud7789@...>
 

Hi Mark, I say instead of moderating all groups, just make it to where all groups require subscription approval from an owner/moderator. This will make it easier on people who have lots of traffic coming to their groups and so they don't have to sit here constantly approving messages from each individual member.

On Oct 4, 2016, at 10:51 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:

Hi All,

One of the things I'm seeing with the spammer is that they'll subscribe to an existing group and post their spam. If a group is moderated or has NuM set, the group members never see the spam and it's not a problem (and no incentive for the spammer to continue). But for open groups, it's not a good experience for anyone involved. So I propose to make it so that all groups must be either moderated or have new users be moderated.  I have not yet thought through whether this should apply to sub-groups as well. But I wanted to get everyone's take on this proposal first. Is there a good reason to allow open groups at all?

Thanks,
Mark


toki
 

On 05/10/2016 17:26, Joseph Hudson wrote:

Hi Mark, I say instead of moderating all groups, just make it to where all groups require subscription approval from an owner/moderator.
For some types of lists, such as those for PR purposes, requiring
subscription approval can be counter-productive.

Easier on people who have lots of traffic coming to their groups and
so they don't have to sit here constantly approving messages

That is why you put users you trust on unmoderated status. Or simply
default to moderation for new users only.

jonathon


Joseph Hudson <jhud7789@...>
 

Hi Jonathan, as our group is slowly building up traffic, I weighed hate to have to do this. As I run multiple different groups on multiple platforms myself./I would also like to keep everything easier for my other owner/moderators. As to them are in school. And our group, is very smoothly ran. We may not get many postings, but would like the Group to stay Open as far is inside and membership goes. So pretty much, once we have let you in the door we are trusting dad these users will keep a very close eye on their email accounts and let us know, if something does happen dinner we will take action.

On Oct 5, 2016, at 12:52 PM, toki <toki.kantoor@...> wrote:

On 05/10/2016 17:26, Joseph Hudson wrote:

Hi Mark, I say instead of moderating all groups, just make it to where all groups require subscription approval from an owner/moderator.

For some types of lists, such as those for PR purposes, requiring
subscription approval can be counter-productive.

Easier on people who have lots of traffic coming to their groups and
so they don't have to sit here constantly approving messages

That is why you put users you trust on unmoderated status. Or simply
default to moderation for new users only.

jonathon





David P. Dillard
 

To answer Mark's question, I think open and publically archived groups are an extremely important option in this wonderful network. Actually, Groups.IO has exccellent search engine optimization at this time and its public content is well indexed by Google. Yahoo Groups is actually minimally indexed by Google at this time. People create groups for lots of different reasons and group managers as well as members put a great deal of time into the content they produce. In any network I have been affiliated with including Groups.IO, spammers have been a very minor part of my operations in those resources and are easily handled with methods like deletion of messages and banning of spammers. The open and visible nature of Groups.IO is quickly making Groups.IO a go to resource for new groups, new group members and quality content. Any moves that cut access to this network will harm its visiblilty and usefulness and certainly there if also plenty of room for private groups with private archives. Mark, be very wary of using a nuclear bomb on a problem that a fly swatter will handle well. I have had one spammer so far on all of my Groups.IO lists and the matter was handled rapidly with a message deletion. If members want to join my lists they are more than welcome and if they spam, they will be banned. There is no need or desire to keep them out a priori as they will not get away with much once in the group in the area of spamming. They will be quickly banned by me.




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

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016, Joseph Hudson wrote:

Hi Mark, I say instead of moderating all groups, just make it to where all groups require subscription approval from an
owner/moderator. This will make it easier on people who have lots of traffic coming to their groups and so they don't have to sit
here constantly approving messages from each individual member.
Joseph Hudson 
Group administrator for the following
groups
chat
http://list.ntxability.org/mailman/listinfo/chat_list.ntxability.org
blind apples
http://cruising.ultragroups.com/mailman/listinfo/blindapples_cruising.ultragroups.com
blind square GPS
http://cruising.ultragroups.com/mailman/listinfo/blindsquaregps_cruising.ultragroups.com
 blind handyman
http://cruising.ultragroups.com/mailman/listinfo/blindhandyman_cruising.ultragroups.com
iPad help for the blind
https://groups.io/g/IPadhelpfortheblind
Email
jhud7789@gmail.com
I device support
Telephone
2543007667
Skype
joseph.hudson89
facebook
https://www.facebook.com/joseph.hudson.9404
Twitter
https://twitter.com/josephhudson89 
FaceTime/iMessage
jhud7789@yahoo.com

On Oct 4, 2016, at 10:51 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
Hi All,
One of the things I'm seeing with the spammer is that they'll subscribe to an existing group and post their spam. If a group is
moderated or has NuM set, the group members never see the spam and it's not a problem (and no incentive for the spammer to
continue). But for open groups, it's not a good experience for anyone involved. So I propose to make it so that all groups must
be either moderated or have new users be moderated.  I have not yet thought through whether this should apply to sub-groups as
well. But I wanted to get everyone's take on this proposal first. Is there a good reason to allow open groups at all?
Thanks,
Mark


 

Hi Mark and others,
After reading David's message below and other responses, I think a
compromise solution could be to add an entry to FAQ's or on a similar place
that creating moderated/new user approval list is recommended for certain
types of lists, and it should be up to moderators of various lists to decide
how moderation should be done on their turf. Thus we keep the possibility of
creating open lists, at the same time, telling potential list owners to
think about security in deciding what to do about new members, moderations
and so on by directing them to read a post from you and other moderators on
best practices.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Joseph

-----Original Message-----
From: beta@groups.io [mailto:beta@groups.io] On Behalf Of David P. Dillard
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 11:30 AM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Proposal: All groups must be moderated or new user
moderated




To answer Mark's question, I think open and publically archived groups are
an extremely important option in this wonderful network. Actually,
Groups.IO has exccellent search engine optimization at this time and its
public content is well indexed by Google. Yahoo Groups is actually
minimally indexed by Google at this time. People create groups for lots of
different reasons and group managers as well as members put a great deal of
time into the content they produce. In any network I have been affiliated
with including Groups.IO, spammers have been a very minor part of my
operations in those resources and are easily handled with methods like
deletion of messages and banning of spammers. The open and visible nature of
Groups.IO is quickly making Groups.IO a go to resource for new groups, new
group members and quality content. Any moves that cut access to this
network will harm its visiblilty and usefulness and certainly there if also
plenty of room for private groups with private archives.
Mark, be very wary of using a nuclear bomb on a problem that a fly swatter
will handle well. I have had one spammer so far on all of my Groups.IO
lists and the matter was handled rapidly with a message deletion. If
members want to join my lists they are more than welcome and if they spam,
they will be banned. There is no need or desire to keep them out a priori as
they will not get away with much once in the group in the area of spamming.
They will be quickly banned by me.




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


On Wed, 5 Oct 2016, Joseph Hudson wrote:

Hi Mark, I say instead of moderating all groups, just make it to where
all groups require subscription approval from an owner/moderator. This
will make it easier on people who have lots of traffic coming to their
groups and so they don't have to sit here constantly approving messages from
each individual member.
Joseph Hudson
Group administrator for the following
groups
chat
http://list.ntxability.org/mailman/listinfo/chat_list.ntxability.org
blind apples
http://cruising.ultragroups.com/mailman/listinfo/blindapples_cruising.
ultragroups.com

blind square GPS
http://cruising.ultragroups.com/mailman/listinfo/blindsquaregps_cruisi
ng.ultragroups.com

 blind handyman
http://cruising.ultragroups.com/mailman/listinfo/blindhandyman_cruisin
g.ultragroups.com

iPad help for the blind
https://groups.io/g/IPadhelpfortheblind

Email
jhud7789@gmail.com
I device support
Telephone
2543007667
Skype
joseph.hudson89
facebook
https://www.facebook.com/joseph.hudson.9404
Twitter
https://twitter.com/josephhudson89

FaceTime/iMessage
jhud7789@yahoo.com

On Oct 4, 2016, at 10:51 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io>
wrote:

Hi All,
One of the things I'm seeing with the spammer is that they'll
subscribe to an existing group and post their spam. If a group is
moderated or has NuM set, the group members never see the spam and
it's not a problem (and no incentive for the spammer to continue). But
for open groups, it's not a good experience for anyone involved. So I
propose to make it so that all groups must be either moderated or have new
users be moderated.  I have not yet thought through whether this should
apply to sub-groups as well. But I wanted to get everyone's take on this
proposal first. Is there a good reason to allow open groups at all?

Thanks,
Mark





Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

I got alerted to this by Joseph Lee, so thought I'd briefly jump back in on beta.

On another forum I participate on we had issues with spam that kept getting worse and worse.  The forum as a whole is unmoderated and the desire was to keep it that way.  What was done there was that a "New Member Introductions" group was created (and I'd suppose the same in the form of subgroup could be used) and new members must post there before posting privileges are opened for any other venue.  This drove spam to as close to zero as I've seen it, and very quickly, since most spam attacks are machine-driven, not done by human hands.

Something akin to that could be implemented here.

--
Brian

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


David P. Dillard
 

My praise for a very creative possible solution (if others approve) to this problem. This sounds like a great idea.



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

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016, Brian Vogel wrote:

I got alerted to this by Joseph Lee, so thought I'd briefly jump back in on beta.
On another forum I participate on we had issues with spam that kept getting worse and worse.  The
forum as a whole is unmoderated and the desire was to keep it that way.  What was done there was that
a "New Member Introductions" group was created (and I'd suppose the same in the form of subgroup
could be used) and new members must post there before posting privileges are opened for any other
venue.  This drove spam to as close to zero as I've seen it, and very quickly, since most spam
attacks are machine-driven, not done by human hands.
Something akin to that could be implemented here.
--
Brian
A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


Joseph Hudson <jhud7789@...>
 

Hey Brian, I think this will work very well especially for groups like mine. Going to discuss it over with my staff as soon as possible.

On Oct 5, 2016, at 3:22 PM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

I got alerted to this by Joseph Lee, so thought I'd briefly jump back in on beta.

On another forum I participate on we had issues with spam that kept getting worse and worse.  The forum as a whole is unmoderated and the desire was to keep it that way.  What was done there was that a "New Member Introductions" group was created (and I'd suppose the same in the form of subgroup could be used) and new members must post there before posting privileges are opened for any other venue.  This drove spam to as close to zero as I've seen it, and very quickly, since most spam attacks are machine-driven, not done by human hands.

Something akin to that could be implemented here.

--
Brian


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




Linda
 

Hi Mark, you wrote: "How about I modify the proposal: All (parent) groups must either be restricted or set to moderated or NuM (or some combination thereof). In each case there's at least one approval step before a member can post."

I think this is the best idea, since one-size does not fit all. My groups both have open membership but all messages are moderated. Spam does not get through, period.

Brian's idea of "New Member Introductions" would not work at all in my health support group, where most folks prefer to anonymously lurk and learn until they feel comfortable enough to post, if ever.

I'm not even sure the members of my travel discussion group would be happy about having to introduce themselves before posting. It's like having to present your passport just to talk about travel. ;-)

Linda


Sue
 

>I think this is the best idea, since one-size does not fit all.  My groups
both have open membership but all messages are moderated.

Likewise. My group requires a response from any applicant before we allow them membership and they are then moderator for a period - several messages - before we unmoderate them.  Problems with spam have been few and far between; mainly only when an existing member's email address has been hacked and then the odd spam mail might slip through but we then put that person back on moderator until such time as they sort out the problem.

>Brian's idea of "New Member Introductions" would not work at all in my
health support group, where most folks prefer to anonymously lurk and learn
until they feel comfortable enough to post, if ever.

Delightful though it would be to have everybody contributing to the group, we would have a very small group indeed if this were to be the case. We are also happy to allow long term lurkers.

Sue