Topics

moderated Message edit in archive #suggestion


 

That's true. I just go back to my gut feeling, and common understanding of "edit," that this is the wrong treatment for an edit rather than for a new message. However, given that the edit in this case does create a new message (at least in email), maybe it's not so bad.  


On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 11:08 AM Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 11:45 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 09:31 AM, Duane wrote:
Since you don't allow members to edit a post, it shouldn't make any difference if it's only effective with Save and Send. 
Not so. Moderators don't always save without sending.
I just wonder about consistency from the user's perspective.
It seems there are conflicting statements here.  If a moderator uses Save and Send, then those on email will see the change, but those who read online won't unless they go back to old messages.  It should be consistent if anything is changed, so that Save and Send updates the posting information as well as sending the email.  Save Without Sending would update neither.  As long as it always works the same way, it should be relatively easy for moderators to learn or be trained.

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


Duane
 

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 11:45 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 09:31 AM, Duane wrote:
Since you don't allow members to edit a post, it shouldn't make any difference if it's only effective with Save and Send. 
Not so. Moderators don't always save without sending.
I just wonder about consistency from the user's perspective.
It seems there are conflicting statements here.  If a moderator uses Save and Send, then those on email will see the change, but those who read online won't unless they go back to old messages.  It should be consistent if anything is changed, so that Save and Send updates the posting information as well as sending the email.  Save Without Sending would update neither.  As long as it always works the same way, it should be relatively easy for moderators to learn or be trained.

Duane


 

[EDIT')] However: maybe you have a point. Maybe save without sending would not bump the message, but save with sending would. I just wonder about consistency from the user's perspective. It might seem strange that the groups they're in vary with respect to this feature.
--
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, Jul 23, 2019 at 09:31 AM, Duane wrote:
Since you don't allow members to edit a post, it shouldn't make any difference if it's only effective with Save and Send. 
Not so. Moderators don't always save without sending. 
 
--
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, Jul 23, 2019 at 09:52 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
not usually understood to mean "create brand new content."
One of my groups is very technical and it's quite common to add additional content, either to clarify information in a post, or to add part numbers (etc.) to complete the information originally posted.  Since you don't allow members to edit a post, it shouldn't make any difference if it's only effective with Save and Send.  Do others have thoughts?

Duane


 

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 07:52 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
The origin date of the content is the date of the original message.
although the "edited" date is substituted for the creation date
 
--
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 don't even think "save and send" should update the position as the default. I think it should be an explicit option, because I don't think it is normally be expected per the standard meaning of "edit," which is not usually understood to mean "create brand new content." The origin date of the content is the date of the original message. My two cents. I'm pretty sure we're just rehashing a prior conversation.


On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 7:49 AM Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 09:12 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
we have disabled editing because everyone was editing their posts many times in a row, which caused a big mess. (Yeah, we asked them to minimize it but they couldn't, or they didn't really get the message about why they shouldn't do that.) We, OTOH, make people send a new comment with any edits that they may have.
So if "Save Without Sending" didn't update the positioning, that would work for you (and exceptional cases for me.)  A "Save And Send To Group" that did update positioning would work for me.  Are there situations needed that would combine other possibilities?

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


Duane
 

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 09:12 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
we have disabled editing because everyone was editing their posts many times in a row, which caused a big mess. (Yeah, we asked them to minimize it but they couldn't, or they didn't really get the message about why they shouldn't do that.) We, OTOH, make people send a new comment with any edits that they may have.
So if "Save Without Sending" didn't update the positioning, that would work for you (and exceptional cases for me.)  A "Save And Send To Group" that did update positioning would work for me.  Are there situations needed that would combine other possibilities?

Duane


 

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 07:24 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
It is simply not de rigueur.
Let me edit that (lol): It is simply not what "editing" is usually taken to mean.
 
--
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


 

Better or worse is not the issue. Editing content typically is not conflated with creating new content. Users and readers will not have expected a minor edit to move a message to the top of the space, whether that space be a groups.io message archive or the NYT front page. It is simply not de rigueur.


On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 7:14 AM Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 09:03 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
does not typically move that content to the top of the space in other media
Hopefully, this won't be "other media" and will be much better.

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


Duane
 

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 09:03 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
does not typically move that content to the top of the space in other media
Hopefully, this won't be "other media" and will be much better.

Duane


 

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 06:56 AM, Duane wrote:
  I encourage users of my groups to edit rather than double post, so this would be very useful to us.
I can see why you might want this in your group, then. It's the polar opposite of my group, where we have disabled editing because everyone was editing their posts many times in a row, which caused a big mess. (Yeah, we asked them to minimize it but they couldn't, or they didn't really get the message about why they shouldn't do that.) We, OTOH, make people send a new comment with any edits that they may have. In fact, the few other groups I'm in (including beta, BTW) also happen to have disabled editing, probably for the same reason as us. But for a group that encourages editing, it's a different situation. 
 
--
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


 

Well, since it's not happening, that seems like a decision! :)
Seriously: I think it would be unacceptable to do this as the default. Sometimes very old messages are edited (at least in my group) to fix something small. 
Also, editing a message, post, comment, article, or story does not typically move that content to the top of the space in other media. 
So although I would not be opposed to having an option, which actually sometimes might be handy, I think doing it as the default would be a big mistake.

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:56 AM Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 08:35 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
Often in our group, edits are very minor. And also, often they are saved without sending.
I could see a Save Without Sending not being updated because only moderators can do that.  But when an author makes the change, it must be sent, so should get a new date/time as far as positioning.  I encourage users of my groups to edit rather than double post, so this would be very useful to us.  It helps to keep things coherent instead of having multiple short posts in a row by one person.

I believe this was discussed before, but don't remember a decision being made.

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


Duane
 

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 08:35 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
Often in our group, edits are very minor. And also, often they are saved without sending.
I could see a Save Without Sending not being updated because only moderators can do that.  But when an author makes the change, it must be sent, so should get a new date/time as far as positioning.  I encourage users of my groups to edit rather than double post, so this would be very useful to us.  It helps to keep things coherent instead of having multiple short posts in a row by one person.

I believe this was discussed before, but don't remember a decision being made.

Duane


 

Maybe it could be an option upon editing a message? I can see some (rare, in my group) situations where you might want to treat the edit as a new message in the sense of moving it to the top.
--
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 this suggestion. Often in our group, edits are very minor. And also, often they are saved without sending. Then the argument might go that you should move it up if it's saved and sent, but again, the edit may be very minor and I would still not like to see this happen. Didn't we have this discussion before and the matter was decided? Am I having deja-vu?


On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 1:59 AM Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:
I would like to see a message edit move the topic to the top of the archive list.  It gets sent to those receiving email, but isn't noticeable to those that read online because it doesn't come to the top of the Topics/Messages/Expanded page.

Thanks,
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


Duane
 

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 03:59 AM, Duane wrote:
move the topic to the top of the archive list
To clarify, I realize that actual position would depend on the sort order chosen, so an edit should cause the topic/message/expanded to be treated as if a new message had posted.

Thanks again,
Duane


Duane
 

I would like to see a message edit move the topic to the top of the archive list.  It gets sent to those receiving email, but isn't noticeable to those that read online because it doesn't come to the top of the Topics/Messages/Expanded page.

Thanks,
Duane