Topics

moderated Date column in Pending Approval (Members) should be "Applied"


 

Mark,

We have an inquiry on GMF which highlighted a minor semantic issue with the Pending Approval list in the Members page.

The column of dates has a heading that says "Joined". That lead the person to worry how much access the "joined" applicants have to the group's web pages. My understanding is that they have the same access as a non-member (i.e. public info only).

To make that clearer, I think that column heading should perhaps be "Applied", matching the wording of the home page "Apply For Membership in This Group" button.

Shal


 

This is just the manifestation of what I think is a bigger problem, and which came up yesterday about banned and past members, namely: there is a "date joined" field in the member record that does not always really mean the date the member joined the group. In the case of banned members, it means the date they were banned. In the case of past members, it means ONE of the (possibly many) times the member left or was removed.

It seems that the field is actually used for various purposes but the name of it is never changed in displays. So I strongly support the suggestion to call a spade a spade here and call it "date applied." I believe I've made this suggestion in the past.

Once you break the ice and let the field be renamed in one display, perhaps other contexts will follow - e.g., "date banned," "date left," "date removed." 
--
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. In recalling discussions about this in the past, I think there was some controversy, in a restricted group, over whether the date kept and displayed should be the date the member applied or the date they were approved. I don't remember the details of that discussion but this could be hashed out again. Either way, I think the text used in the display should reflect the actual event.
--
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


Donald Hellen
 

While I don't have a need to see this information in the groups I run,
I can see where, if I did want to know about a member, I wouldn't want
to see "joined" there when their membership hadn't even been approved
yet or even if they were banned. Making it clear what the date was
referring to seems to make the best sense to me.

Donald

On Sat, 09 Mar 2019 14:29:37 -0800, "J_Catlady"
<@J_Catlady> wrote:

Once you break the ice and let the field be renamed in one display, perhaps other contexts will follow - e.g., "date banned," "date left," "date removed."

Join the Icom group, a general Icom discussion group on Groups.io:
https://groups.io/g/ICOM (just launched)


 

J,

I believe I've made this suggestion in the past.
I thought maybe you had, but I failed to turn it up in a search. Might have been mixed in with your comments about banned members.

p.s. In recalling discussions about this in the past, I think there
was some controversy, in a restricted group, over whether the date
kept and displayed should be the date the member applied or the date
they were approved.
I don't recall, and don't immediately see, a use case that would make either of them the obviously "right" answer. Both (two columns) seems to me like overkill.

Since one can learn both for any particular member from the group's activity log I'm content to have the Members list itself remain the same as an unrestricted group, and show "Joined" meaning approved date/time, if that's what it shows.

Either way, I think the text used in the display should reflect the
actual event.
I agree with that. If the Members list of a Restricted group is actually showing the application date then it should say that instead, just for clarity.

Shal


 

On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 02:55 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
Both (two columns) seems to me like overkill.
Absolutely would be overkill. Pick one and label it correctly one way or the other.
 
--
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 Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 02:50 PM, Donald Hellen wrote:
Join the Icom group, a general Icom discussion group on Groups.io:
https://groups.io/g/ICOM (just launched)
Donald, I was thrown for a loop by this. Since it doesn't appear below the "--" indicating a signature, I thought it was part of your message to us in beta, and I actually went to the group to see if I should join "Join the Icom group!" (not knowing what "Icom" is, I thought, "ok, a general groups.io discussion group"), only to discover that it's about ham radio. ;) So maybe you could change this wording somehow? 
 
--
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


Donald Hellen
 

It's part of my email program and I forgot to turn this off for my
post. I rarely post here in beta so it didn't occur to me.

It's a ham radio group totally unrelated to this.

Maybe I should at least put some ----- after some spaces before the
sig line to separate it.

Sorry about that. It may happen again but I remembered this time.

Donald


On Sat, 09 Mar 2019 15:06:43 -0800, "J_Catlady"
<@J_Catlady> wrote:

On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 02:50 PM, Donald Hellen wrote:


Join the Icom group, a general Icom discussion group on Groups.io:
https://groups.io/g/ICOM (just launched)
Donald, I was thrown for a loop by this. Since it doesn't appear below the "--" indicating a signature, I thought it was part of your message to us in beta, and I actually went to the group to see if I should join "Join the Icom group!" (not knowing what "Icom" is, I thought, "ok, a general groups.io discussion group"), only to discover that it's about ham radio. ;) So maybe you could change this wording somehow? 


 

On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 03:23 PM, Donald Hellen wrote:
Sorry about that.
No problem! Just thought I'd let you know. :)
 
--
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 Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 02:55 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
I'm content to have the Members list itself remain the same as an unrestricted group, and show "Joined" meaning approved date/time, if that's what it shows.
I think the approval date is (incrementally) more relevant than the application date but I have no strong feelings about it. If it's the approval date, then "Joined" would be sort of ok, except it may later confuse people because it's NOT the date they applied. I think "applied" or "approved" is the most clear.
 
--
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


Donald Hellen
 

Let's see how it does this time. I added some dashes and a blank line
or two above it.

Donald

On Sat, 09 Mar 2019 15:26:05 -0800, "J_Catlady"
<@J_Catlady> wrote:

On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 03:23 PM, Donald Hellen wrote:


Sorry about that.
No problem! Just thought I'd let you know. :)
 

----------------------------------------------------


Join the Icom group, a general Icom discussion group on Groups.io:
https://groups.io/g/ICOM (just launched)


 

On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 06:08 AM, Donald Hellen wrote:
Let's see how it does this time.
That's much better! One teeny little further improvement might be to add something like "for ham radio" after "discussion group," for us ignoramuses who have no idea what Icom is. (OTOH if that sounds stupidly redundant to your target audience, leave it alone. :)
 
--
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 Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 2:08 PM Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:

The column of dates has a heading that says "Joined". That lead the
person to worry how much access the "joined" applicants have to the
group's web pages. My understanding is that they have the same access as
a non-member (i.e. public info only).

To make that clearer, I think that column heading should perhaps be
"Applied", matching the wording of the home page "Apply For Membership
in This Group" button.

It now is labeled Applied. As for changing the column titles for the other types of subs, I have a question. But first, an overview of how the database works right now: Each sub record has a Created field. That's what I use for Joined and Applied.  

For restricted groups, when you approve someone, is it ok for the Joined date to be the date that they applied, or do you want the Joined date to be the date that the person's application was approved? If it's former, I can just continue to use the Created field. If it's the latter, I'll need to add an additional field to indicate the date of a subscription status change.

Thanks,
Mark


 

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 01:13 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Each sub record has a Created field. That's what I use for Joined and Applied... For restricted groups, when you approve someone, is it ok for the Joined date to be the date that they applied, or do you want the Joined date to be the date that the person's application was approved?

I have a very slight preference for the approved date, but if you use that, I hope it is called Approved. 

Further down in that thread, other categories were discussed, and I'm wondering what your plan is, or thoughts are, for the banned member list. Right now the date is called Joined, but it's actually the date the email address was banned. I think(?) that's because it's the date the "banning" record was created. It's as if there's a separate group, the "banned" group for the particular group, and the creation date reflects the date that member "joined" the banned group. I think this is crying out for a fix, and that the date should be called Banned in the banned list.

Related to that is the issue that Removed members appear in the Past Members list more than once if they have left more than once, by leaving, rejoining, and leaving again. So the list is really keyed on removal actions, rather than removed members. I hope this also becomes more reflective of the actual situation - either by renaming the list "removals" or by possibly removing all but the latest leaving action for each member.

--
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


Mark Irving
 

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 08:13 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
For restricted groups, when you approve someone, is it ok for the Joined date to be the date that they applied, or do you want the Joined date to be the date that the person's application was approved?
I'm happy with either. Generally I don't need better resolution than a month for this field, and Applied and Joined dates are not far enough apart to make any significant difference.

  - Mark I.


Andy Wedge
 

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 08:13 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
or do you want the Joined date to be the date that the person's application was approved?
That would make more sense to me as it as the point of approval that a member can effectively join in with group communications.

Andy


 

Mark,

For restricted groups, when you approve someone, is it ok for the
Joined date to be the date that they applied, or do you want the
Joined date to be the date that the person's application was approved?
I concur with J that either way it goes the column header should reflect that choice: "Applied" or "Approved"; saving "Joined" for unrestricted groups.

But since you asked, I also concur with the slight preference for Approved.

And on a general principles basis, I think keeping distinct metadata for distinct events is probably good. You never know when it might enable a feature no one has thought of yet. Like an entry in a proposed group statistics page showing the average time to approve new members.

Shal


 

On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 03:48 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
I concur with J
Shal, do you also concur with the problematic title ("joined" instead of "banned") in the "banned" list, and with the (somewhat) problematic situation where past members have multiple entries in the "past members" list? 
 
--
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 Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 03:48 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
And on a general principles basis, I think keeping distinct metadata for distinct events is probably good.
I concur there.
 
--
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,

Shal, do you also concur with the problematic title ("joined" instead
of "banned") in the "banned" list, ...
Yes.

and with the (somewhat) problematic situation where past members have
multiple entries in the "past members" list?
I've no experience with that. And it is distinct enough that it probably merits a Topic of its own (if there isn't one).

I've heard a rumor that the PTA unit I assist is planing to stay Premium year-round, so I might see more of the Past Members list in the future. But I think it is relatively unlikely in that case that any would come back later (much younger sibling maybe?).

Shal