moderated RFE: Moderate messages with keywords
|
Hello
How feasible is it to allow moderators to moderate messages based on keywords that occur in those messages? For example, I don't want people to send "thank you" messages to the group, but many do (they feel it's polite to flood the group with thank-you notices), so it would help me tremendously if any message containing "thanks", "thank you" and "thankyou" can be held back to be moderated. Of course, teaching users to use the hashtag #thanks would be ideal, but I suspect most of my users won't do that (or, by the time I realise that a user needs to be reminded of it, it's too late because the message has already gone to the list). Samuel
|
|
|
|
Dave Wade
Samuel,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Probably a waste of time. When some one twigs what is going on they will use "T H A N K S" Or some HTML with   perhaps, or even simply substitutes the Spanish "Thañks" ... ... people are inventive, technology issn't Gracias Dave
-----Original Message-----
|
|
|
|
On 2019/02/26 06:30 PM, Dave Wade wrote:
Probably a waste of time. When some one twigs what is going on they will useI'm not trying to catch out people who are trying to catch me out. I just want to catch people who are in auto-pilot mode. As soon as a member starts doing what you're talking about, he'll get one last laugh, and then the boot. I don't fool myself into thinking that such a filter will catch all instances of flagged terms, but it may catch enough of them to make it worth while. Samuel
|
|
|
|
Dave Wade
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
-----Original Message-----Why bother delaying the agony. Just one transgression and boot them off... Dave
|
|
|
|
Even if such a filter were (realistically) feasible, which I don't think it is, it would be overly sensitive. Do you really want to moderate every post containing the word "thanks"? I think not. The problem is not that it would not "catch all instances of flagged terms." The problem is that it would catch too many of them.
I would just put problem members on moderation. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
|
Bob Bellizzi
And tell them why.
What might be a good Idea is to put them on New Member Moderation with a count of 4 and inform them they are moderated because of the profuse thanking. Don't tell them it's only for the next 4 msgs they send but if they don't change their ways by the 4th, put them on permanent moderation. Or Cannot Post, telling them their posting rights have been suspended. I think you will have more issue with people Replying to other messages with out of topic content -- Bob Bellizzi Founder, Fuchs Friends ®t
|
|
|
|
[I realize that this thread is a bit old, but there has been some recent discussion elsewhere about 'thank-you' posts so I thought that I'd add some thoughts to it.]
On our group we discourage 'Thank-you' posts and other one-line replies such as 'I agree' since that creates useless posts to wade through. This can be a real problem for many of out members living in a 3rd world country with slow internet plus per-minute charges while online. So we suggest that 'thank-yous' be sent privately, off-list directly to the person the poster wishes to thank. We do, however, allow 'Thank-you' posts when they also include new or useful information to the thread in addition to the 'thank-you'. The real difficulty we have found with not permitting 'thank-yous' is that with some folks posting a 'thank-you' is so ingrained that they become miffed when told that's not allowed and get mad and leave the group. This is despite the explanation in our posting guidelines explaining the 'thank-yous' and other 'one-line' posts are not allowed. Maybe it would be useful to have an optional feature added which can be toggled on or off in the settings for the group whereby each new member would have to check a box verifying that they have read and do agree to abide by the posting guidelines for the group before their membership is validated. OK – HTH Paul M. CostaRicaLiving https: //groups.io/g/CostaRicaLiving ==
|
|
|
|
You mean so they can not read it, scroll quickly down to the bottom, and check the box, just like I and many (if not most) others do for most TOU checkboxes on websites?
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
We have a statement at the top of our guidelines, which are automatically sent to new members, saying that they agree to the guidelines by virtue of belonging to the group. I don’t think a checkbox will increase compliance.
On Jul 25, 2019, at 7:43 AM, Epicatt2 <stanhopi@gmail.com> wrote: --
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
|
|
|
|
No one reads those rules, I don't. I just check a bot and go. It's like a license agreement. I don't read them, I of corse agree to have my data sold and to abide by 50 pages of rules, and that my data is not mine etc etc etc. Sarah Alawami, owner of TFFP. . For more info go to our website. This is also our libsyn page as well. Our telegram channel is also a good place for an announce only in regard to podcasts, contests, etc. Finally, to become a patron and help support the podcast go here
On 25 Jul 2019, at 7:43, Epicatt2 wrote:
|
|
|
|
Most in my group seem to not read the guidelines until they repeatedly violate one, are notified that they’ve been put on mod, and are sent a review copy with a note calling their attention to the applicable guideline. Most comply after that. This, I might add, can be done in a nice way, with a note to the effect that we understand most people don’t read the guidelines when they first join and (in our group’s case) are too worried about their sick cats. Etc.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Jul 25, 2019, at 8:39 AM, Sarah k Alawami <marrie12@...> wrote:
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|