Topics

moderated Why not allow Edit w/o resending


KWKloeber
 

I have no clue why a grp would not allow msgs to be edited, but that’s none of my business!  But, not allowing members to Edit, and choose to Save w/o Resending to the grp seems counter productive.  

There’s many times I fix a simple typo or faux pas, and save w/o bothering the members w/another email.  If it’s critical/important then I resend. But my understanding is that common folk don’t have that option?  Only to resend an edited msg. 
Extending that option not to resend to the masses (with owner option to allow it) would seem to be a valuable enhancement

ok, let ‘er rip. 

Ken


 

Allowing members to edit and save without sending would be 10 times worse. We have been over and over and over this years ago. Please let's not do it again!
--
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


Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...>
 

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 05:50 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Allowing members to edit and save without sending would be 10 times worse. We have been over and over and over this years ago. Please let's not do it again!
--
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

Biting my tongue is not working, back into the fray ...

I like "edit and save without sending" for fixing typos and so forth. I even occasionally make a big enough mess on a post that if the opportunity is available and I think that deleting the post won't make things worse, then I do.

I cannot say that I would trust everyone else though. That is why I am very happy that edited messages are flagged as such.

--
Gerald


 

The issue is non-moderators editing without sending. That’s unacceptable and was never even under serious consideration.


On Dec 18, 2018, at 4:09 PM, Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 05:50 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Allowing members to edit and save without sending would be 10 times worse. We have been over and over and over this years ago. Please let's not do it again!
--
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

Biting my tongue is not working, back into the fray ...

I like "edit and save without sending" for fixing typos and so forth. I even occasionally make a big enough mess on a post that if the opportunity is available and I think that deleting the post won't make things worse, then I do.

I cannot say that I would trust everyone else though. That is why I am very happy that edited messages are flagged as such.

--
Gerald

--
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 Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 01:30 PM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
I have no clue why a grp would not allow msgs to be edited
After much debate here over the option to disable editing, Mark finally implemented the option, and soon afterwards even he saw the value in it, as evidenced by his starting to use the option. You can't edit messages in beta.

There are many reasons why letting members edit messages is undesirable to many, many group owners. In fact, all the groups I'm in - and I'm in a lot - have now disabled it.

If you want to understand why, it's best to go back and search on past threads here rather than open the conversation again. It's not even debatable any more, really. 
 
--
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


 

Ken,

I have no clue why a grp would not allow msgs to be edited, but that’s none of my business!  But, not allowing members to Edit, and choose to Save w/o Resending to the grp seems counter productive.  

Agreed. I'd like to be able to enable that in my groups. Possibly with an option to cause such edits to be moderated.

But my understanding is that common folk don’t have that option?

Correct. I think that decision was an overreaction.
I've seen enough cases now where a member made an inconsequential spelling or grammatical fix which really didn't merit re-sending to everyone's email Inbox, the Edited flag on site would have been sufficient.

Shal


Bruce Bowman
 

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 08:03 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
Correct. I think that decision was an overreaction.
 
I've seen enough cases now where a member made an inconsequential spelling or grammatical fix which really didn't merit re-sending to everyone's email Inbox, the Edited flag on site would have been sufficient.
All I can say is, you're lucky. I have seen the flip side of this -- where the edits made are NOT inconsequential, and in fact changed the entire tone of the original post.

Unlike group owners, the vast majority of my subscribers do the most of their interaction via email. These folks do not routinely have access to the Edited flag, or previous message revisions...they don't even know such features exist. They only know what has appeared in their inbox.

Please consider how disconcerting it would be to reply to someone's email -- even perhaps quote part of the text -- only to eventually log on and find that the original post now bears no resemblance to the email they replied to. If we're going to allow people to edit their posts at all, forcing those edits to be resent to the group is one thing that groups.io got right.

My $0.02,
Bruce


 

Bruce,

Please consider how disconcerting it would be to reply to someone's email -- even perhaps quote part of the text -- only to eventually log on and find that the original post now bears no resemblance to the email they replied to.

Most of my group members are predominantly email-using, as am I.

But if they eventually do log on there's no need to be disconcerted - there's the Edited flag and particularly the ability to compare revisions.

If I (as moderator) find that a member is abusing the edit w/o send ability I can always moderate or otherwise discipline the member.

If we're going to allow people to edit their posts at all, forcing those edits to be resent to the group is one thing that groups.io got right.
 
If you think it will cause trouble in your groups don't enable it (allow members to edit without re-send), or enable it and require such edits be moderated, or don't allow members to edit at all.

Shal


 

Right. And this is apparently Ground Hog Day. 🦊


On Dec 18, 2018, at 5:18 PM, Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 08:03 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
Correct. I think that decision was an overreaction.
 
I've seen enough cases now where a member made an inconsequential spelling or grammatical fix which really didn't merit re-sending to everyone's email Inbox, the Edited flag on site would have been sufficient.
All I can say is, you're lucky. I have seen the flip side of this -- where the edits made are NOT inconsequential, and in fact changed the entire tone of the original post.

Unlike group owners, the vast majority of my subscribers do the most of their interaction via email. These folks do not routinely have access to the Edited flag, or previous message revisions...they don't even know such features exist. They only know what has appeared in their inbox.

Please consider how disconcerting it would be to reply to someone's email -- even perhaps quote part of the text -- only to eventually log on and find that the original post now bears no resemblance to the email they replied to. If we're going to allow people to edit their posts at all, forcing those edits to be resent to the group is one thing that groups.io got right.

My $0.02,
Bruce

--
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


Duane
 

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 06:35 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
It's not even debatable any more, really.
I believe Mark has always encouraged revisiting topics, especially when new people come along and have different, possibly better, ideas.  In this case, it could be an additional option for owners to use or not.

Duane


 

Sure, an option is fine. It’s frustrating to spend time and energy to fight so hard for something, and not just personally but with a genuine interest in the product; get a decision from Mark; and then have to fight the same battle over again with newcomers who have not had a chance to even familiarize themselves with the reasoning that went behind the original decision. I have not noticed Mark particularly or spevifically encouraging this and hope he realizes the demoralizing effect it can have on those of us who fought so hard. I wish somehow that stare decisis applied in this situation. The ruling has already come down and then suddenly, here we go again...I doubt the arguments pro and con will be any different from what they were two years ago. There’s no reason for them to be. So why do it all over again?

On the plus side. we don’t have to implement it only to have it dismantled by marketing. 😉



On Dec 18, 2018, at 7:03 PM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 06:35 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
It's not even debatable any more, really.
I believe Mark has always encouraged revisiting topics, especially when new people come along and have different, possibly better, ideas.  In this case, it could be an additional option for owners to use or not.

Duane

--
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 Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 7:18 PM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
Sure, an option is fine. It’s frustrating to spend time and energy to fight so hard for something, and not just personally but with a genuine interest in the product; get a decision from Mark; and then have to fight the same battle over again with newcomers who have not had a chance to even familiarize themselves with the reasoning that went behind the original decision.

It does feel like there's been some re-litigating recently on beta@, and I can completely understand how that can feel demoralizing. Let's please drop this subject for now.

Thanks,
Mark


KWKloeber
 

If you think it will cause trouble in your groups don't enable it (allow members to edit without re-send), or enable it and require such edits be moderated, or don't allow members to edit at all.
 
Shal
EXACTLY!  Why believe it's proper to impose ONE owner's or ONE group's preference onto everybody? 
It's the old story that 99% of the rules are made for 1% of the people.  Simple - just don't allow it if YOU don't want it. 
Adults that can edit their posts needn't be treated like other kindergarteners.


KWKloeber
 

Re: Bringing up an old, scabbed-over wound.  

Excuse me for caring, but YES, sometimes newcomers do see a missing feature that makes sense, or conversely one that doesn't make sense, and possibly should be revisited.

And just as other forums say, there's always the DELETE button or just IGNORE the message -- or just don't feel as though you must get back into the fray.  No one is forcing anyone to explain a position, or forcing them to revisit anything themselves specifically.  One does so because one CARES, and so does the newcomer bring up what one might see as being a commonsense feature because of the same reason.

Personally. we have no need for a gazillion hashtags on a topic, but if one needs it, who one group to say that another owner cannot/should not be able -- if it is technically viable and Mark is willing to implement it?  


 

J_Catlady wrote:
"... It’s frustrating to spend time and energy to fight so hard for something, and not just personally but with a genuine interest in the product; get a decision from Mark; and then have to fight the same battle over again with newcomers who have not had a chance to even familiarize themselves with the reasoning that went behind the original decision."
_______________________________

J, You're not alone in your frustration. You joined beta not too long after I did and we remember years of past discussions. I used to be much more active in beta, but any more it seems as though there's just no quick way to repost the history of efforts to find resolutions. And if one does that, there are a dozen other ideas that other people have decided to rehash in the mean time, even though they don't understand (or possibly even know the existence of) past threads and history. I've found myself skimming threads or ignoring some because of that frustration. I'm concerned that things I worked for might be undone by people who don't understand, but I'm losing enthusiasm for defending things from the new people who don't care about past reasoning.

I am so very thankful for Mark's passion to groups.io, and his patience and insight into what groups potential is. We seem to have a lot of very tech savvy newcomers here who don't understand that some of us fought for the ability to keep things *very* simple for our groups. My groups are plain text and don't even allow hashtags because they're just noise to our members. We're focused primarily on historical subjects, and those older members and their memories are priceless - we don't want to risk losing them to frustrations with technology. I pay for two premium groups just so I can have the additional moderator abilities to help them when they get messed up and sideways.

For those who still remember our roots, please don't give up. I haven't, but it gets harder as more newbies appear wanting to reinvent the wheel their own way. There are days I feel like I'm surrounded by second-graders and they all have boxes of matches. *sigh*

Dano


 

Hi Dano,

It's nice to hear from you!
--
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


Barbara Byers
 

Just a comment on bringing up "old" topics.  As Groups.io grows rapidly and adds new groups and owners, it is the nature of the growth that topics will be brought up again, and that as the dynamics change, the majority of members may want to revisit the way something is done.  I do feel like there are folks that want to control everything and have a quasi-dictatorship, and others who simply want a collective group where people can do what they wish (within reason), and everything in between. And of course there is a spectrum to it, so there are folks in the middle too, who want a few controls but not everything.

Personally I get tired of hearing from the umpteenth new person about the bouncing of members when they delete a message from their spam, and I didn't like it at first either, but I came around to it.  It's part of the good problem of the product growing rapidly.

But sometimes an idea doesn't age well, even if it was all battled out years ago, things do sometimes change, and sometimes new members do have good ideas that might even be better.  Just my .02

Barb


 

In responding here, I'm assuming that the topic of the feature itself is closed (per Mark's exhortation), but that the meta-conversation about relitigating (as Mark put it) or bringing up old topics (as Barbara put it) is not yet closed. 

I don't think there's anything wrong with "bringing up old topics." But as Dano said, I think that newer people should make some effort to understand the issues, and gain some familiarity, when an already "litigated" issue comes up. A few people in this thread have jumped in to ask that people explain to them, here in beta, why a certain feature is the way it is, and then, before even understanding, jump in and state that they're for or against it. They are completely unaware of the months-long, unbelievably exhaustive debates that went on prior to their arrival, and Mark's ultimate decision.

You don't revisit every feature of a piece of software when someone new shows up. They're expected to make some effort to understand and gain familiarity before criticizing the work that went on before they got here. If someone has a great idea, I am *always* all for it, even if I turned out to be wrong, recently in the past.

Like Barbara, I also don't get tired of the "umpteenth new person" who brings up the "removed due to spam" issue. Because that is still an unresolved issue. But resolved, decided upon, EXHAUSTIVELY explored and debated issues in the past, about things that are basically working fine, and whose change are just a matter of opinion, and about which ALL possible opinions have already been explored (and they have - I defy anybody new here to come up with a new angle) - these issues are different.  And people have been entering some of these threads very naively (I use the word in the best sense, although I will avoid Dano's term kindergarteners) and jumping in, asking "why" and expecting the old-timers to take the time to educate them all over again. It's very possible for them to look up these issues in past threads here, instead of simply and blatantly contradicting the status quo in a rootless way, and asking others to summarize what in many cases was a months long and highly complicated debate. I don't feel it's being a "dictator," as Barbara puts it, to ask, expect, or hope that they would do so before jumping in.

We are not talking about issues "aging well" or not. We are talking about issues from within the past two or three years.
--
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 Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 06:35 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
but that the meta-conversation about relitigating (as Mark put it) or bringing up old topics (as Barbara put it) is not yet closed. 
the operative word being "yet." 
 
--
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


Barbara Byers
 

We are not talking about issues "aging well" or not. We are talking about issues from within the past two or three years.
-- 
J

But Groups.io has grown exponentially in the last 2 or 3 years - so I wouldn't expect something that might have been "settled" for 50 owners might still be "settled" for 1000 or 10,000, or whatever the current number might be.  And who decides if something is settled "forever", which is what you seem to be implying?  Other than Mark, of course.  I get a bit tired of the folks who have been around the longest acting like they get to dictate what is worthy of change and what is not.  The attitude of scorn about new group owners really isn't warranted.  Yes, there are some basic and perhaps even foolish questions, but we also have some really good ones.  But again, Mark can decide what to shut down and what to revisit, and he seems fairly tolerant of recurring debates.
Barb