moderated Why not allow Edit w/o resending


Bill Hazel
 

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 05:34 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
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.
I don't see a setting for requiring edited messages to be moderated. I would prefer that, at minimum, moderators should receive a notice of the edit, regardless of their settings. I don't really "need" to moderate but it seems prudent to at least be aware.

Bill


RickGlaz-WEB <rickglaz4742435@...>
 

Thanks JC and Duane.
The easiest thing for me to do is just (only) post from my
WEBmail hosting servers and hope people limit editing like
the real-time pop-up warning says <grin>.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Group.IO poster page, but it
has some limitations -- So, to each his or her own...

Rick

On January 10, 2020 at 12:33 PM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@gmail.com> wrote:


On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 07:11 AM, RickGlaz-WEB wrote:


Glad I edit my own stuff sparingly
and generally right away...
Sometimes a moderator, rather than the member, may edit messages much later, for various reasons.

That said, your statement gives me a couple of ideas that could solve much or all of this. In no particular order, and with no suggestions as to whether or not to make them standard or group options:

1. Specify an "edit window," as do comments sections of news sites, such as "3 minutes" (or whatever - could be standard, could be optional, could be zero if the group wants to turn off editing, etc) in which non-mod members can "save don't send."

Instead of or in conjunction with (1):

2. All non-mod "save don't send" edits could be moderated.

In any case, just as they do in other media, all edited messages should still keep their place in the conversation and not move around simply because of an edit.

--
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 Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 07:11 AM, RickGlaz-WEB wrote:
Glad I edit my own stuff sparingly
and generally right away...
Sometimes a moderator, rather than the member, may edit messages much later, for various reasons.

That said, your statement gives me a couple of ideas that could solve much or all of this. In no particular order, and with no suggestions as to whether or not to make them standard or group options:

1. Specify an "edit window," as do comments sections of news sites, such as "3 minutes" (or whatever - could be standard, could be optional, could be zero if the group wants to turn off editing, etc) in which non-mod members can "save don't send."

Instead of or in conjunction with (1):

2. All non-mod "save don't send" edits could be moderated.

In any case, just as they do in other media, all edited messages should still keep their place in the conversation and not move around simply because of an edit.
 
--
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


RickGlaz-WEB <rickglaz4742435@...>
 

Duane, Thanks. Not what I was expecting. Glad I edit my own stuff sparingly
and generally right away...

Rick

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 06:14 PM, Duane wrote: (that)

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 04:38 PM, RickGlaz-WEB wrote:
If you (another poster)  "continuously refine" your posts I hope/(guess?) they *move up*
in the timeline on the Group site. I never tried to notice how that
worked.
Actually, they don't.  They're sorted by the original posting time, so only those on email are really aware that an edit was made.  (I believe that those on Digest only get the most recent version when the digest is sent.)  That has bugged me sometimes, but not enough to raise an issue.

Duane


 

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 03:14 PM, Duane wrote:
They're sorted by the original posting time... That has bugged me sometimes
I wanted to expand on why I think it's so important to maintain the posted-date, rather than the edited-date, sort order of messages in the message list. I especially want to contrast this with the display of updated date of files, which I myself recently requested, and which (I think correctly) implemented. Messages, unlike files, are part of a flow of conversation. If I edit a message a week or a month after it was posted to, say, fix a spelling error, it should emphatically NOT move up a week out of its place in the conversation. That (IMHO) would be crazy and could very possibly make conversations very hard to follow. Not everyone quotes snippets of the message they're responding to in order to make it clear; many people, including those posting via email, simply post their answer. Imagine what would happen if their reply jumped a month, or a year, out of place because of a small edit. 

Updates to files, on the other hand, are a different beast. They are not part of chronological conversations, as I've already said, and updates to files would, or might, normally consist of more major changes in content than edits to messages.
 
--
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, Jan 9, 2020 at 03:14 PM, Duane wrote:
not enough to raise an issue
I recall it having been raised (perhaps not by you) and debated at length. I've found a couple of prior topics (threads) referring to it but not yet the original. Here's one of them
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/2231163
 
--
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 Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 04:38 PM, RickGlaz-WEB wrote:
If you "continuously refine" your posts I hope/(guess?) they *move up*
in the timeline on the Group site. I never tried to notice how that
worked.
Actually, they don't.  They're sorted by the original posting time, so only those on email are really aware that an edit was made.  (I believe that those on Digest only get the most recent version when the digest is sent.)  That has bugged me sometimes, but not enough to raise an issue.

Duane


RickGlaz-WEB <rickglaz4742435@...>
 

OTHERS Editing does not affect me (I guess). I mostly read and write
on the Group.io site so I don't see older versions unless I dig into
the edit logs....

If you "continuously refine" your posts I hope/(guess?) they *move up*
in the timeline on the Group site. I never tried to notice how that
worked.

Rick

On January 9, 2020 at 4:46 PM Samuel Murray <samuelmurray@yandex.com> wrote:


On 09/01/2020 20:54, RickGlaz-WEB wrote:

It sounds like your members edit to move the thread forward or
some reason I do not understand...
Speaking for myself, on other online forums, if editing is allowed, I
make good use of it to continuously refine my post. I want my post to
make a good impression to readers who read it, and in many web-based
forums, most readers don't read the post within seconds after it is
created. I sometimes add paragraphs to clarify things, or I delete
paragraphs that I feel detract from the central message that I was
aiming for. So, yes, my posts may change significantly after people
responded to my post, but that's their own fault for not quoting.

I do not regard making edits to a post, even significant edits, as
malicious. Sure, there will always be people who change their post to
say the exact opposite, after lots of folks "liked" their post or posted
"I agree", but forum designers should have thought about that before
they allowed editing.

A nice touch is if anyone can see a history of edits. Or, people can
write a comment about why they edited the post, and if a moderator feels
that their reason isn't valid or is misleading, they can take action
against that user, if they care enough.

The fact is that users who are used to editing on other platforms may
edit on Groups.io without realising that it has unintended, devastating
consequences for mail users.

An alternative idea to re-posting the entire edited message would be
that Groups.io post a short notice, "So-and-so edited this message,
click this link to see the latest version of this message", ONCE ONLY
(even if the user edits his message several times) to alert other users
that the message that they see in their mail programs is not the one
that the poster intended them to respond to.

Samuel




Duane
 

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 12:07 PM, Scott Chase wrote:
I am already a bit frustrated and disappointed that every single time a member edits a message, another e-mail goes out to hundreds of members again, and again, and again. It got noisy fast, and I had some members already quit.
You could do as other groups do, such as this one, and disable editing - no more problems.

Duane
PS  This isn't FB - thankfully.


 

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 01:54 PM, Samuel Murray wrote:
A nice touch is if anyone can see a history of edits.
That already exists by clicking on the blue "EDIT" button (with the caveat that moderators have the ability to delete prior revisions in case they contain material requiring deleted for some reason such as privacy or copyright).

The fact is that users who are used to editing on other platforms may edit on Groups.io without realising that it has unintended, devastating consequences for mail users.

Not unless they're not paying attention to the banner warning that comes up. 
 
--
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


Samuel Murrayy
 

On 09/01/2020 20:54, RickGlaz-WEB wrote:

It sounds like your members edit to move the thread forward or
some reason I do not understand...
Speaking for myself, on other online forums, if editing is allowed, I make good use of it to continuously refine my post. I want my post to make a good impression to readers who read it, and in many web-based forums, most readers don't read the post within seconds after it is created. I sometimes add paragraphs to clarify things, or I delete paragraphs that I feel detract from the central message that I was aiming for. So, yes, my posts may change significantly after people responded to my post, but that's their own fault for not quoting.

I do not regard making edits to a post, even significant edits, as malicious. Sure, there will always be people who change their post to say the exact opposite, after lots of folks "liked" their post or posted "I agree", but forum designers should have thought about that before they allowed editing.

A nice touch is if anyone can see a history of edits. Or, people can write a comment about why they edited the post, and if a moderator feels that their reason isn't valid or is misleading, they can take action against that user, if they care enough.

The fact is that users who are used to editing on other platforms may edit on Groups.io without realising that it has unintended, devastating consequences for mail users.

An alternative idea to re-posting the entire edited message would be that Groups.io post a short notice, "So-and-so edited this message, click this link to see the latest version of this message", ONCE ONLY (even if the user edits his message several times) to alert other users that the message that they see in their mail programs is not the one that the poster intended them to respond to.

Samuel


RickGlaz-WEB <rickglaz4742435@...>
 

How would anyone know what was edited or when?
In a Group I'm in, I try to never edit, or limit it to one time to
correct a significant typo or an error/mis-communication.
Something that should not stand/stay in the archives.

It sounds like your members edit to move the thread forward or
some reason I do not understand...

Rick

On January 9, 2020 at 1:03 PM Scott Chase <Scott.A.Chase@Gmail.com> wrote:


Hi,
I am a new group owner. I am already a bit frustrated and disappointed that every single time a member edits a message, another e-mail goes out to hundreds of members again, and again, and again. It got noisy fast, and I had some members already quit.

If I unmoderate a member, I already trust them. I personally see no reason that a trusted, unmoderated member can't have the "Save Without Sending" button, too. People are used to Facebook Groups, which allow members to edit their own messages. I don't like the idea of turning editing off, because people like being able to edit spelling, typos, etc.. And I think accurate content in the database is important.

As a group owner, I'd like to have full control over the buttons my members can use in my own group, like "Save Without Sending".

Scott, Owner of GCH1-Discussions



Scott Chase
 

Hi,
I am a new group owner. I am already a bit frustrated and disappointed that every single time a member edits a message, another e-mail goes out to hundreds of members again, and again, and again. It got noisy fast, and I had some members already quit.

If I unmoderate a member, I already trust them. I personally see no reason that a trusted, unmoderated member can't have the "Save Without Sending" button, too. People are used to Facebook Groups, which allow members to edit their own messages. I don't like the idea of turning editing off, because people like being able to edit spelling, typos, etc.. And I think accurate content in the database is important.

As a group owner, I'd like to have full control over the buttons my members can use in my own group, like "Save Without Sending".

Scott, Owner of GCH1-Discussions


 

Dano, I understood what you meant. It's hard to express these frustrating emotions in short messages.

Happy Holidays, everyone.
--
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 wrote:
" "There is no attitude of scorn."

"Really? To quote a previous message, "There are days I feel like I'm surrounded by second-graders.." I also think there is quite a bit of trying to shut down discussions by using the "we've already decided that" statements. It really doesn't make new owners feel welcome.

"I do appreciate folks who have been around a while and hashed through many issues with Mark. But in the tech world, nothing is ever really settled. Barb"

________________

Well, since Barbara has quoted me and misused my statement by taking it out of context, I feel compelled to reply.

My complete comment was "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*"

This was in reference to trying to educate new members about the whys of past decisions. One of the unfortunate results of our instant gratification society is that people are just not interested in doing research. The past is readily found in the archives if one will spend the time to look and read. These things were not worked out by a bunch of elites, and suggesting such denigrates the efforts of those who worked through those issues. You may not realize it, but there were many who *did not* get their way even back then.

As for my analogy, anyone who has ever been tasked with watching a bunch of small children exploring will understand the frustration of not being able to keep up with everyone poking at everything, and worrying that someone may set fire to the cat. My frustration is reaching that level - hence my wording "I feel" which attempted to describe my own personal feelings and did not compare my description to those who read this. Those who wish to feel offended will do so anyway, but I blame that too on our modern social values.

To Ken Kloeber, thank you for the kind wishes of the season. I hope that everyone here can find calm and peace, and come to the understanding that there are polite ways to discuss things without casting aspersions. There is no 'us vs. them' here. We all seek to make the system work better for everyone. We need to recognize that as such, not everyone will get what they want, but we will all get the best overall system that Mark can create. It's very good that the ultimate arbiter of such things is such a patient man. Mark, I wish you a peaceful, relaxing vacation full of the joys of family, friends and good times.

Dano


 

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
I don't believe meta discussions belong in beta.
I agree but it's hard not to get dragged in when someone calls you a dictator. And hard to be "done" when these kinds of comments continue.

That's it, I'm now going to gag myself.
 
--
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 08:21 AM, Barbara Byers wrote:
"There are days I feel like I'm surrounded by second-graders.."

I agree that name-calling should be off limits, and personally would not have used that term. But name-calling also includes your (offensively) referring to some of us as as dictators.

in the tech world, nothing is ever really settled. Barb
That is very true and as a former software engineer, I'm well aware of it. But (a) there are degrees of "settled," and (b) people new to a situation need to make some effort to familiarize themselves before stomping on what already exists. Someone here - I forget who - even asked "what's editing" and then wondered why any group would disable it, which to me is incredibly jaw-dropping, and that was apparently not even realizing that it's been disabled in beta by none other than Mark himself. Anyone want to open THAT topic again? I'm sure there are a ton of newcomers here with better ideas now, because a year has gone by and nothing is ever settled....
 
--
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


 

FWIW,

[Ironically addressing the meta topic]

I don't believe meta discussions belong in beta.

Beta is Groups.io's official product suggestion box. As such the primary audience for all postings here is Mark, and his time is valuable to all of us. The secondary audience would be the OP, to offer information, refinements, constructive criticism (of the suggestion) and/or elicit additional detail about the suggestion and its use case(s).

All else is chaff.

To fret that a suggestion might undo something that was already fought for is first cousin to fretting that it might be too difficult to implement - it doesn't give Mark nearly enough credit for knowing his product's history and design.

I think Barbra's point is spot-on: In a customer service forum having newbies and old-timers alike revisit old topics is both unavoidable and healthy. Attempting to quash other people's suggestions is toxic.

I think the words "fight", "battle", and "litigate" speak volumes. I think we'd all be a lot happier, less exhausted, and more productive if no one took an adversarial approach to other people's suggestions. At least not in this venue.

Therewith I too am "done". Please slap me about off-list, if you feel so inclined.

Shal


KWKloeber
 

(BTW, before adding to this, I searched "relitigate" and found no prior discussion or new member/new user code of conduct) otherwise I would have threaded there. :-)

Just look at how much time and effort has been spent on this, the "issue/topic: how to address an old issue/topic."  
So, I'll submit (then shut up and grab an eggnog) that it might have been considerably easier, simpler, and more courteous to merely point out that <the issue> was visited before and to check it out <LINK> (if someone REALLY wants to be helpful.)

Searching for pre-litigation of such an "obviously helpful and overlooked (IMHO) feature" <smile> was not on my radar.  Different folks, different perspectives, 'eh?

Why not everyone just go to their dresser, select a fresh pair of underwear (that isn't twisted up in a bunch,) and slip them on before jumping into the sword thrashing, swash-buckling, posts?  It's probably just holiday season stress, 

When a newbie asks an "it's obvious, so how come?" question, I will (more than not)  <link> them to the thread or the <photo album> or <files> that help them figure out the "how come?" of their question, or problem.  
Sometimes I "nudge" older members (membership, not age) to just go search (or I throw up the search URL, but NOT find it for him/her.) 
Sometimes after being reminded of their resources (somewheres around the 10th time, give or take), I admit that I do get a little testy and strongly remind them where the resources reside (for their own looking and taking.) 
But most the time I remind myself that just about everyone (ok, math isn't my forte') is on there to be helpful, not just to be a PITA or suck others dry.

My point being, just like a <smile> vs a >frown< in the final count, it's easier to be helpful than not, and yes, there are some (at least come across as such) attitudes of better-than-thou, or I'm-a-moderator-wannabe, or our-time-is-more-valuable, type replies, whether or not intended as such.

Everyone have a great set of Holidaze, wherever/however you celebrate them.
I can't wait to tear into the still-folded-in-the-wrapper and not yet twisted-into-a-bunch, underdrawers that are (wishfully) in my stocking.


Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...>
 

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:08 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
There is no attitude of scorn. But the stated purpose of beta is to suggest and discuss new features. Not to incessantly revisit done features and ask why they are the way they are, which is a lot of what has gone on here. I don't think there's any such thing as a "foolish question," as you put it. But I do think that basic questions about current features belong in GMF, as Mark has said time and time again. An "attitude of scorn" seems more evident in those using the term "dictator" to express our opinions, and in not respecting all the time and effort that went into deciding past issues.

It's always dangerous to say that I will not comment further in a thread. But I will try my best to do that here, even in the face of further possible (and, IMO, inappropriate) insults.
--
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

I disagree with your interpretation of the purpose of the group. I am going by what is on the home page of the group.

Group Description

"A group to discuss the Groups.io service and how it can be improved"

 
--
Gerald