moderated Proposal: allow group owners to set message approval timeout


 

Hi,

 

The following was observed on one of the lists I manage: an associate owner approved a message that was more than several days old and was not supposed to go to the list, causing confusion for some members.

 

Thus I’d like to propose having a timeout where group owners can specify how long a message needing to be approved stays until an automatic action is taken (remove the message, do not approve, etc.).

 

Thanks.
Cheers,

Josep


 

I'm trying to understand this proposal, strictly out of curiosity. What do you mean that the message 'was not supposed to go to the list,' unless a moderator had already seen and rejected it? I'm not against this proposal but I don't understand it. It seems to be penalizing a group member for the group moderators' failure to act. ???

J

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 10, 2017, at 12:03 AM, Joseph Lee <joseph.lee22590@...> wrote:

Hi,

 

The following was observed on one of the lists I manage: an associate owner approved a message that was more than several days old and was not supposed to go to the list, causing confusion for some members.

 

Thus I’d like to propose having a timeout where group owners can specify how long a message needing to be approved stays until an automatic action is taken (remove the message, do not approve, etc.).

 

Thanks.
Cheers,

Josep


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

Hi,

There might be times when a moderator or an owner may simply ignore a message, say, from a moderated member who posts a message that is considered off-topic. Another use case is to ignore spam from unregistered users or spambots,especially from places such as Linked In and what not and these are sent to the list address.

Cheers,

Joseph

 

From: beta@groups.io [mailto:beta@groups.io] On Behalf Of J_Catlady
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 4:54 AM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Proposal: allow group owners to set message approval timeout

 

I'm trying to understand this proposal, strictly out of curiosity. What do you mean that the message 'was not supposed to go to the list,' unless a moderator had already seen and rejected it? I'm not against this proposal but I don't understand it. It seems to be penalizing a group member for the group moderators' failure to act. ???

 

J

Sent from my iPhone


On Mar 10, 2017, at 12:03 AM, Joseph Lee <joseph.lee22590@...> wrote:

Hi,

 

The following was observed on one of the lists I manage: an associate owner approved a message that was more than several days old and was not supposed to go to the list, causing confusion for some members.

 

Thus I’d like to propose having a timeout where group owners can specify how long a message needing to be approved stays until an automatic action is taken (remove the message, do not approve, etc.).

 

Thanks.
Cheers,

Josep


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

But why couldn't they just delete or reject the message? This sounds like a moderator behavior issue rather than something calling for a software solution.

J

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 10, 2017, at 6:55 AM, Joseph Lee <joseph.lee22590@...> wrote:

Hi,

There might be times when a moderator or an owner may simply ignore a message, say, from a moderated member who posts a message that is considered off-topic. Another use case is to ignore spam from unregistered users or spambots,especially from places such as Linked In and what not and these are sent to the list address.

Cheers,

Joseph

 

From: beta@groups.io [mailto:beta@groups.io] On Behalf Of J_Catlady
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 4:54 AM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Proposal: allow group owners to set message approval timeout

 

I'm trying to understand this proposal, strictly out of curiosity. What do you mean that the message 'was not supposed to go to the list,' unless a moderator had already seen and rejected it? I'm not against this proposal but I don't understand it. It seems to be penalizing a group member for the group moderators' failure to act. ???

 

J

Sent from my iPhone


On Mar 10, 2017, at 12:03 AM, Joseph Lee <joseph.lee22590@...> wrote:

Hi,

 

The following was observed on one of the lists I manage: an associate owner approved a message that was more than several days old and was not supposed to go to the list, causing confusion for some members.

 

Thus I’d like to propose having a timeout where group owners can specify how long a message needing to be approved stays until an automatic action is taken (remove the message, do not approve, etc.).

 

Thanks.
Cheers,

Josep


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


Maria
 

Also a moderator can "claim" the message on this system so that other mods don't touch it and accidentally approve it.

Another great groups.io feature, which I think would resolve the issue you describe.

Maria


 

Curiouser and curiouser....yes, "claiming" is great feature, but in this case, why would they go to the bother of claiming it if they just want to get rid of it? Why not just delete it? And Joseph has said the problem is that they ignore it (meaning, I presume, don't want to deal with it). Claiming it is already dealing with it. Either way, the proposed addition seems unnecessary.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


Ro
 

I understood claiming to be for the purpose of preventing two moderators from working on the same message at the same time, but it certainly seems that it would be the answer for this inexplicable moderator inaction


Ro

with Silk gazing over the fence, and Sally, Handy, Feliz &  Police Kitty patrolling in the Great Beyond.





From: beta@groups.io <beta@groups.io> on behalf of J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 8:15 AM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Proposal: allow group owners to set message approval timeout
 
Curiouser and curiouser....yes, "claiming" is great feature, but in this case, why would they go to the bother of claiming it if they just want to get rid of it? Why not just delete it? And Joseph has said the problem is that they ignore it (meaning, I presume, don't want to deal with it). Claiming it is already dealing with it. Either way, the proposed addition seems unnecessary.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


Maria
 

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 08:15 am, J_Catlady wrote:
Curiouser and curiouser....yes, "claiming" is great feature, but in this case, why would they go to the bother of claiming it if they just want to get rid of it? Why not just delete it? And Joseph has said the problem is that they ignore it (meaning, I presume, don't want to deal with it). Claiming it is already dealing with it. Either way, the proposed addition seems unnecessary.

Agree with you J that the proposed addition appears unnecessary - plus, don't pending messages expire after a certain window of time anyway?

Claiming a message could be an interim solution if you don't want other mods to approve it - but you aren't quite ready to delete/reject.

Maria


 

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 09:18 am, HR Tech wrote:

Claiming a message could be an interim solution if you don't want other mods to approve it - but you aren't quite ready to delete/reject.

Claiming a message satisfies a lot of goals (or "use cases," as Joseph puts it). But it seems irrelevant to the one Joseph is alluding to of mods ignoring a message. If they claim it, they're not ignoring it. ;) 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


Duane
 

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 09:21 am, J_Catlady wrote:


it seems irrelevant to the one Joseph is alluding to of mods ignoring a
message
I've run into a similar situation a time or two. I can't quite decide if the message should be posted, rejected, or deleted. As group owner, I sometimes claim it until I've had time to think it over. Until I got assistants, I just left them pending (and they went away in 2 weeks if I didn't do something, making my decision for me.)

Duane


 

That makes complete sense and 'claiming' is a great solution! Still not what Joseph seems to be talking about. But if it is, I agree with you and Maria that the claiming mechanism fills the bill.

J

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 10, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Duane <txpigeon@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 09:21 am, J_Catlady wrote:


it seems irrelevant to the one Joseph is alluding to of mods ignoring a
message
I've run into a similar situation a time or two. I can't quite decide if the message should be posted, rejected, or deleted. As group owner, I sometimes claim it until I've had time to think it over. Until I got assistants, I just left them pending (and they went away in 2 weeks if I didn't do something, making my decision for me.)

Duane


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


Tony Moody
 

It would be good for a held message to be approved by moderators : Approve, Abstain, Reject.
If the message has been held (circulated) and no-one votes then Reject after say two weeks.
(Two weeks is good for me)

It may be good to have a Remark or Reason field which could be sent as a reject note. :
. Your message was moderated and no-one approved.
. Your message is Off-Topic.
yadda-yadda

Tony

On 10 Mar 2017 at 9:33, Duane wrote about :
Subject : Re: [beta] Proposal: allow group ow

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 09:21 am, J_Catlady wrote:


it seems irrelevant to the one Joseph is alluding to of mods ignoring a
message
I've run into a similar situation a time or two. I can't quite decide if the message should be
posted, rejected, or deleted. As group owner, I sometimes claim it until I've had time to think it
over. Until I got assistants, I just left them pending (and they went away in 2 weeks if I didn't do
something, making my decision for me.)

Duane


toki
 

On 03/10/2017 03:09 PM, J_Catlady wrote:

But why couldn't they just delete or reject the message?
Silent rejection: The theory is that with no human feedback, the poster
will stop posting their material.

jonathon


 

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 11:59 am, toki wrote:
Silent rejection: The theory is that with no human feedback, the poster
will stop posting their material.

I'm not sure I agree with the theory (although it may have validity), but you can currently "delete" a message without "rejecting" it and the member never knows it. 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 12:07 pm, J_Catlady wrote:
and the member never knows it. 

more accurately: they are not notified. 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu