Topics

locked removing "new members moderated" setting doesn't remove "NuM" badge #bug


 

The group is SmallCellAdminTeam. It previously had "new members moderated" and "unmoderate after" activated, and the member felinesclmoderators@... had the NuM badge with the number "4".

I updated the settings to remove "new members moderated," but the member's badge did not go away.

You can still see the situation: the member has the badge, but the group does not have "new members moderated" checked. I'm not sure whether just the badge did not get removed or whether the moderation is actually still in effect. I didn't test that.

J


 

J,

I updated the settings to remove "new members moderated," but the
member's badge did not go away.
Nope, shouldn't have.

The badge indicates that member's posting privilege, not the state of the group settings. Turning off the group setting does not retroactively change the privileges of members who joined while it was in effect.

I'm not sure whether just the badge did not get removed or whether
the moderation is actually still in effect. I didn't test that.
The moderation override is still in effect for that member. And any others with "NuM" or "M" showing.

However members who join(ed) after you unchecked the group setting will be set to "Default Group Policy" (no badge).

-- Shal


 

Well, that seems odd or wrong to me. For example, if I set up a group to be moderated, and then change it to unmoderated, everyone should become unmoderated. I realize no badges are set for the case of a moderated group, but that's a different issue. The users, in my opinion, should become unmoderated if I change the group setting. I think the same should hold here.

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:
J,

> I updated the settings to remove "new members moderated," but the
> member's badge did not go away.

Nope, shouldn't have.

The badge indicates that member's posting privilege, not the state of the group settings. Turning off the group setting does not retroactively change the privileges of members who joined while it was in effect.

> I'm not sure whether just the badge did not get removed or whether
> the moderation is actually still in effect. I didn't test that.

The moderation override is still in effect for that member. And any others with "NuM" or "M" showing.

However members who join(ed) after you unchecked the group setting will be set to "Default Group Policy" (no badge).

-- Shal





 

J,

Well, that seems odd or wrong to me. For example, if I set up a group
to be moderated, and then change it to unmoderated, everyone should
become unmoderated.
Everybody who does not have an override set does. The overrides though stay in place - that's why they're called overrides.

I think the same should hold here.
I adamantly ‎disagree.

Consider a group which has been running for some time (years perhaps) with New User Moderation set. If the group is typical, most people who join will be lurkers who may never achieve the the number of messages set by the "Unmoderate after" control. Or, the group may have deliberately left that control disabled - preferring to have a purely manual decision to take members off moderation.

In either circumstance, there may be a very large number of members with the "NuM" override set. To have all of those members suddenly lose the override because a moderator decides to change policy going forward (or worse, flips the checkbox by accident) could be a very nasty surprise for the moderator.


I think part of the problem here is that these two controls, "New Users Moderated" and "Unmoderate After" are misplaced. They should not be on the group's Settings tab; they belong on the "Default Sub Settings" tab. That would make it clear that they apply to a member at the moment that member joins.

And on the Default Sub Settings tab, instead of just a checkbox for "New Users Moderated", the page could have all five posting privileges, the same as the Membership page (that you get to by clicking on the member's row in the Members list). That would be more consistent and more flexible.


I would also suggest that Groups.io fix the other bug-a-boo that's always been associated with this feature: the word "new". It has always been problematic, conjuring up all sorts of connotations in moderators minds when in this context it has, in Groups.io as well as Yahoo Groups, only ever meant "at the moment of joining".

So I would also suggest that "Override: new user moderated" be rephrased as "Override: temporarily moderated" and the description of Unmoderate after could be changed to "Automatically remove temporary moderation after N consecutive approved posts.".

-- Shal


 

That's exactly the issue for me. The "new members moderated" status is in some sense not really an override. It's the group policy to moderate new members - it't not really an "override" in my opinion (and this is semantics) when a new member is moderated. We could argue this until the cows come home. It's the same thing - the same issue - that has bothered me from Day One about the "override" feature. 

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:
J,

> Well, that seems odd or wrong to me. For example, if I set up a group
> to be moderated, and then change it to unmoderated, everyone should
> become unmoderated.

Everybody who does not have an override set does. The overrides though stay in place - that's why they're called overrides.

> I think the same should hold here.

I adamantly ‎disagree.

Consider a group which has been running for some time (years perhaps) with New User Moderation set. If the group is typical, most people who join will be lurkers who may never achieve the the number of messages set by the "Unmoderate after" control. Or, the group may have deliberately left that control disabled - preferring to have a purely manual decision to take members off moderation.

In either circumstance, there may be a very large number of members with the "NuM" override set. To have all of those members suddenly lose the override because a moderator decides to change policy going forward (or worse, flips the checkbox by accident) could be a very nasty surprise for the moderator.


I think part of the problem here is that these two controls, "New Users Moderated" and "Unmoderate After" are misplaced. They should not be on the group's Settings tab; they belong on the "Default Sub Settings" tab. That would make it clear that they apply to a member at the moment that member joins.

And on the Default Sub Settings tab, instead of just a checkbox for "New Users Moderated", the page could have all five posting privileges, the same as the Membership page (that you get to by clicking on the member's row in the Members list). That would be more consistent and more flexible.


I would also suggest that Groups.io fix the other bug-a-boo that's always been associated with this feature: the word "new". It has always been problematic, conjuring up all sorts of connotations in moderators minds when in this context it has, in Groups.io as well as Yahoo Groups, only ever meant "at the moment of joining".

So I would also suggest that "Override: new user moderated" be rephrased as "Override: temporarily moderated" and the description of Unmoderate after could be changed to "Automatically remove temporary moderation after N consecutive approved posts.".

-- Shal





 

Changing the language as you suggest here, Shal, would go part of the way towards making the semantics match better what is actually happening. I agree with that much.

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:00 PM, J_Olivia Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
That's exactly the issue for me. The "new members moderated" status is in some sense not really an override. It's the group policy to moderate new members - it't not really an "override" in my opinion (and this is semantics) when a new member is moderated. We could argue this until the cows come home. It's the same thing - the same issue - that has bothered me from Day One about the "override" feature. 

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:
J,

> Well, that seems odd or wrong to me. For example, if I set up a group
> to be moderated, and then change it to unmoderated, everyone should
> become unmoderated.

Everybody who does not have an override set does. The overrides though stay in place - that's why they're called overrides.

> I think the same should hold here.

I adamantly ‎disagree.

Consider a group which has been running for some time (years perhaps) with New User Moderation set. If the group is typical, most people who join will be lurkers who may never achieve the the number of messages set by the "Unmoderate after" control. Or, the group may have deliberately left that control disabled - preferring to have a purely manual decision to take members off moderation.

In either circumstance, there may be a very large number of members with the "NuM" override set. To have all of those members suddenly lose the override because a moderator decides to change policy going forward (or worse, flips the checkbox by accident) could be a very nasty surprise for the moderator.


I think part of the problem here is that these two controls, "New Users Moderated" and "Unmoderate After" are misplaced. They should not be on the group's Settings tab; they belong on the "Default Sub Settings" tab. That would make it clear that they apply to a member at the moment that member joins.

And on the Default Sub Settings tab, instead of just a checkbox for "New Users Moderated", the page could have all five posting privileges, the same as the Membership page (that you get to by clicking on the member's row in the Members list). That would be more consistent and more flexible.


I would also suggest that Groups.io fix the other bug-a-boo that's always been associated with this feature: the word "new". It has always been problematic, conjuring up all sorts of connotations in moderators minds when in this context it has, in Groups.io as well as Yahoo Groups, only ever meant "at the moment of joining".

So I would also suggest that "Override: new user moderated" be rephrased as "Override: temporarily moderated" and the description of Unmoderate after could be changed to "Automatically remove temporary moderation after N consecutive approved posts.".

-- Shal






 

On 15 Jan 2016 at 12:00, J_catlady wrote:

> That's exactly the issue for me. The "new members moderated" status is in
> some sense not really an override. It's the group policy to moderate new
> members - it't not really an "override" in my opinion (and this is
> semantics) when a new member is moderated.

Against my better judgment, I'll give a shot to explanation:

When driving a car with an automatic transmission, the car selects what gear you're in:  1st, 2nd, 3rd, whatever.

If you want to stay in a specific gear - for more torque, or to slow down going down a hill, whatever - you can move the lever to a specific gear, like 2nd.  The car will stay in that gear because it's an override.

The car might have selected the same gear on its own, but when you override its decision, the gear can't change.

So, in groups.io, the member status - moderated or unmoderated - is separate from how it got there - default group policy or override.  If the status is set by group policy, you can change it by changing the group.  If it's set by override, changing the group won't change individual status.


--
Jim
Poston@...

<<              Optimist: Hyundai owner with a radar detector.               >>
  


 

That's just it. In the case of. NuM, the status •is• set automatically by the group policy. It's not a manual override. I'm not sure I would call it an override at all. That's been my problem with it  (or one of them) all along. Shak'a suggestion for changing the language is a start.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 15, 2016, at 12:26 PM, Jim Poston <poston@...> wrote:

On 15 Jan 2016 at 12:00, J_catlady wrote:

> That's exactly the issue for me. The "new members moderated" status is in
> some sense not really an override. It's the group policy to moderate new
> members - it't not really an "override" in my opinion (and this is
> semantics) when a new member is moderated.

Against my better judgment, I'll give a shot to explanation:

When driving a car with an automatic transmission, the car selects what gear you're in:  1st, 2nd, 3rd, whatever.

If you want to stay in a specific gear - for more torque, or to slow down going down a hill, whatever - you can move the lever to a specific gear, like 2nd.  The car will stay in that gear because it's an override.

The car might have selected the same gear on its own, but when you override its decision, the gear can't change.

So, in groups.io, the member status - moderated or unmoderated - is separate from how it got there - default group policy or override.  If the status is set by group policy, you can change it by changing the group.  If it's set by override, changing the group won't change individual status.


--
Jim

<<              Optimist: Hyundai owner with a radar detector.               >>
  


 

I would say, and said from the beginning of this, that in the particular case of new members, a group with "new members moderated" and "unmoderate after" set has a temporal aspect to the group policy. The policy is "x" at one point in time and "y" later on down the line. The "x" is not really an override. It's just a different point in time.

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:03 PM, J_Olivia Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
Changing the language as you suggest here, Shal, would go part of the way towards making the semantics match better what is actually happening. I agree with that much.

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:00 PM, J_Olivia Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
That's exactly the issue for me. The "new members moderated" status is in some sense not really an override. It's the group policy to moderate new members - it't not really an "override" in my opinion (and this is semantics) when a new member is moderated. We could argue this until the cows come home. It's the same thing - the same issue - that has bothered me from Day One about the "override" feature. 

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:
J,

> Well, that seems odd or wrong to me. For example, if I set up a group
> to be moderated, and then change it to unmoderated, everyone should
> become unmoderated.

Everybody who does not have an override set does. The overrides though stay in place - that's why they're called overrides.

> I think the same should hold here.

I adamantly ‎disagree.

Consider a group which has been running for some time (years perhaps) with New User Moderation set. If the group is typical, most people who join will be lurkers who may never achieve the the number of messages set by the "Unmoderate after" control. Or, the group may have deliberately left that control disabled - preferring to have a purely manual decision to take members off moderation.

In either circumstance, there may be a very large number of members with the "NuM" override set. To have all of those members suddenly lose the override because a moderator decides to change policy going forward (or worse, flips the checkbox by accident) could be a very nasty surprise for the moderator.


I think part of the problem here is that these two controls, "New Users Moderated" and "Unmoderate After" are misplaced. They should not be on the group's Settings tab; they belong on the "Default Sub Settings" tab. That would make it clear that they apply to a member at the moment that member joins.

And on the Default Sub Settings tab, instead of just a checkbox for "New Users Moderated", the page could have all five posting privileges, the same as the Membership page (that you get to by clicking on the member's row in the Members list). That would be more consistent and more flexible.


I would also suggest that Groups.io fix the other bug-a-boo that's always been associated with this feature: the word "new". It has always been problematic, conjuring up all sorts of connotations in moderators minds when in this context it has, in Groups.io as well as Yahoo Groups, only ever meant "at the moment of joining".

So I would also suggest that "Override: new user moderated" be rephrased as "Override: temporarily moderated" and the description of Unmoderate after could be changed to "Automatically remove temporary moderation after N consecutive approved posts.".

-- Shal







 

J,

That's exactly the issue for me. The "new members moderated" status
is in some sense not really an override. It's the group policy to
moderate new members ...
Point taken on the terminology of using the override mechanism as a simple way to implement a group policy.

The technical justification for it is that the only thing being overridden by the members' posting privilege is the group's default policy (the "Moderated" checkbox). In that point of view, new member moderation is a feature that "overrides" the group's default policy.

You argue that the Moderated checkbox, the New Members Moderated checkbox, and the Unmoderate After control together constitute "the group policy". I can see that point of view, but I'm not sure how to go forward from there to change either terminology or function in a way that makes the functionality simpler to understand or to use.

Hence my suggestion to go in the opposite direction: remove New Members Moderated and Unmoderate After from among the group settings, and put them in the Default Sub Settings, where they are in the right context (initial settings for members when they join the group).

-- Shal


 

If you do that, I think you lose the convenience factor that Mark was trying to achieve. I think the feature needs further thought.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 15, 2016, at 12:50 PM, Shal Farley <@Shal> wrote:

J,

That's exactly the issue for me. The "new members moderated" status
is in some sense not really an override. It's the group policy to
moderate new members ...
Point taken on the terminology of using the override mechanism as a simple way to implement a group policy.

The technical justification for it is that the only thing being overridden by the members' posting privilege is the group's default policy (the "Moderated" checkbox). In that point of view, new member moderation is a feature that "overrides" the group's default policy.

You argue that the Moderated checkbox, the New Members Moderated checkbox, and the Unmoderate After control together constitute "the group policy". I can see that point of view, but I'm not sure how to go forward from there to change either terminology or function in a way that makes the functionality simpler to understand or to use.

Hence my suggestion to go in the opposite direction: remove New Members Moderated and Unmoderate After from among the group settings, and put them in the Default Sub Settings, where they are in the right context (initial settings for members when they join the group).

-- Shal



 

J,

If you do that, I think you lose the convenience factor that Mark
was trying to achieve.
That's a valid concern with moving the feature off of the primary Settings tab - people may not know where to look for it.

I think the feature needs further thought.
Or perhaps less thought. It already seems clear and simple to me. ;-)

-- Shal


 

Haha.:-)

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 15, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Shal Farley <@Shal> wrote:

J,

If you do that, I think you lose the convenience factor that Mark
was trying to achieve.
That's a valid concern with moving the feature off of the primary Settings tab - people may not know where to look for it.

I think the feature needs further thought.
Or perhaps less thought. It already seems clear and simple to me. ;-)

-- Shal



 

Well, here's some more food for needless thought.

As I pointed out, if you change the group setting from "new members moderated", "unmoderate after" to unmoderated, the NuM badge does not go away on new members. Let's say I accept (which I don't entirely) the reasoning that "NuM" is an override status, so changing the group settings should not change the badge.

Then what about this: If I keep the "new members moderated", "unmoderate after" setting, but I change the number of posts required to unmoderate, that number DOES change in the badges of all new members. (In the case in question - a different group - I changed it from 1 to 4. The new members' badges changed from 1 to 4, in concert with that.)

I think that's inconsistent. If the NuM"x" is an override status, then, according to the responses here so far, the "x" should not change just because the group's setting changed to "y." Yet it does.

J


 

J,

Then what about this: If I keep the "new members moderated",
"unmoderate after" setting, but I change the number of posts required
to unmoderate, that number DOES change in the badges of all new
members. (In the case in question - a different group - I changed it
from 1 to 4. The new members' badges changed from 1 to 4, in concert
with that.)
Not too surprising.

I'm going to speculate that "under the hood" what's being kept per member is the number of consecutive approved posts, but what's being displayed is the difference between that and the current group setting (the number remaining before unmoderation).

So, to achieve a foolish consistency[1] Mark would have to store the group setting when the member joined and decrement from there, rather than count up and subtract.

So I guess I would have to argue, from the same pragmatic grounds as I took with the posting privilege itself, that decrementing from the group setting would be preferred, lest the same problem occur (many long-term lurking members unexpectedly becoming unmoderated).

Too, incrementing risks the classic programming mistake of comparing for equality as the end condition. That is, with the reverse change (from 4 to 1) if a member already had two approved posts would their badge go to 1 minus 2 equals negative one, or worse the unsigned integer equivalent.

-- Shal
1: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Consistency ;-)


 

Whatever is going on "under the hood," for whatever "pragmatic" reason, it is inconsistent behavior and can confuse users. "NuM x" either is or is not an override status, that respectively either should or should not change when the group settings change. 

I'm sure there's a way to accomplish consistency one way or the other (either ditch the override concept for NuM, or keep it and make it consistent) but I'm not being paid.;)

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:
J,

> Then what about this: If I keep the "new members moderated",
> "unmoderate after" setting, but I change the number of posts required
> to unmoderate, that number DOES change in the badges of all new
> members. (In the case in question - a different group - I changed it
> from 1 to 4. The new members' badges changed from 1 to 4, in concert
> with that.)

Not too surprising.

I'm going to speculate that "under the hood" what's being kept per member is the number of consecutive approved posts, but what's being displayed is the difference between that and the current group setting (the number remaining before unmoderation).

So, to achieve a foolish consistency[1] Mark would have to store the group setting when the member joined and decrement from there, rather than count up and subtract.

So I guess I would have to argue, from the same pragmatic grounds as I took with the posting privilege itself, that decrementing from the group setting would be preferred, lest the same problem occur (many long-term lurking members unexpectedly becoming unmoderated).

Too, incrementing risks the classic programming mistake of comparing for equality as the end condition. That is, with the reverse change (from 4 to 1) if a member already had two approved posts would their badge go to 1 minus 2 equals negative one, or worse the unsigned integer equivalent.

-- Shal
1: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Consistency  ;-)





 

Of course, (a) there are more pressing issues (the join language, etc.) and (b) putting this in context, it still beats the hell out of Yahoo. :-)

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 6:14 PM, J_Olivia Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
Whatever is going on "under the hood," for whatever "pragmatic" reason, it is inconsistent behavior and can confuse users. "NuM x" either is or is not an override status, that respectively either should or should not change when the group settings change. 

I'm sure there's a way to accomplish consistency one way or the other (either ditch the override concept for NuM, or keep it and make it consistent) but I'm not being paid.;)

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:
J,

> Then what about this: If I keep the "new members moderated",
> "unmoderate after" setting, but I change the number of posts required
> to unmoderate, that number DOES change in the badges of all new
> members. (In the case in question - a different group - I changed it
> from 1 to 4. The new members' badges changed from 1 to 4, in concert
> with that.)

Not too surprising.

I'm going to speculate that "under the hood" what's being kept per member is the number of consecutive approved posts, but what's being displayed is the difference between that and the current group setting (the number remaining before unmoderation).

So, to achieve a foolish consistency[1] Mark would have to store the group setting when the member joined and decrement from there, rather than count up and subtract.

So I guess I would have to argue, from the same pragmatic grounds as I took with the posting privilege itself, that decrementing from the group setting would be preferred, lest the same problem occur (many long-term lurking members unexpectedly becoming unmoderated).

Too, incrementing risks the classic programming mistake of comparing for equality as the end condition. That is, with the reverse change (from 4 to 1) if a member already had two approved posts would their badge go to 1 minus 2 equals negative one, or worse the unsigned integer equivalent.

-- Shal
1: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Consistency  ;-)






 

I wrote:

Too, incrementing risks the classic programming mistake of comparing
for equality as the end condition. That is, with the reverse change
(from 4 to 1) if a member already had two approved posts would their
badge go to 1 minus 2 equals negative one...
ROFL, it does.

For a moment I had -1 messages remaining until I become unmoderated in my test group.

However, Mark didn't make the classic mistake, he apparently used the appropriate inequality rather than test for equality -- On the next approved message I became "Default Group Policy" (the badge and count disappeared).

That avoids my concern with suddenly unmoderating long-term lurkers (their status only changes if they make a posting that is approved, not as an immediate result of a group settings change). But it does leave J's observed inconsistency in place.

However, while this is esoterically entertaining, I have to agree with J's observation that there are far more important that deserve attention, and this works wonderfully well already.

-- Shal


Nightowl >8#
 
Edited

Shal Farley wrote:>>Too, incrementing risks the classic programming mistake of comparing for equality as the end condition. That is, with the reverse change (from 4 to 1) if a member already had two approved posts would their badge go to 1 minus 2 equals negative one, or worse the unsigned integer equivalent.<<

ACCKK! MATH! Owls hate math! (runs and hides in Hollow Tree)

Seriously? I don't understand 1 thing you've said, but hopefully I don't need to!

I would never set a group to automatically unmoderate people, because I work hard to keep certain people OUT of my groups, and that would let them in.

Brenda


 

"That avoids my concern with suddenly unmoderating long-term lurkers (their status only changes if they make a posting that is approved, not as an immediate result of a group settings change)"

I don't see any reason for "long-term lurkers" NOT to have their status changed to the group default if the settings change such that new members are no longer moderated. That's exactly my point. 

I don't see this complaint as esoteric or seeking "foolish consistency." If I have some large number of NuM members, and I want to ditch that setting and let everybody post, then even if I change the settings I'm still stuck with moderating those unknown number of members until they age out.

J

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 6:53 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:
I wrote:

> Too, incrementing risks the classic programming mistake of comparing
> for equality as the end condition. That is, with the reverse change
> (from 4 to 1) if a member already had two approved posts would their
> badge go to 1 minus 2 equals negative one...

ROFL, it does.

For a moment I had -1 messages remaining until I become unmoderated in my test group.

However, Mark didn't make the classic mistake, he apparently used the appropriate inequality rather than test for equality -- On the next approved message I became "Default Group Policy" (the badge and count disappeared).

That avoids my concern with suddenly unmoderating long-term lurkers (their status only changes if they make a posting that is approved, not as an immediate result of a group settings change). But it does leave J's observed inconsistency in place.

However, while this is esoterically entertaining, I have to agree with J's observation that there are far more important that deserve attention, and this works wonderfully well already.

-- Shal