Topics

locked Editing messages


 

Hi All,

Sometimes people will tweak their messages using the Edit function and instead of doing all their changes in one fell swoop, they'll edit and edit, each time generating a new email to the group. Off the top of my head, here are some ideas about how to address this. I have not thought through all the implications of these. Just brainstorming.

- Group setting so that all edits are moderated, regardless of the subscriber's settings.
- Like we do with some integrations, hold off for a minute or two before sending out the edited message, in case another edit comes in. Only send out the last one received.
- Queue up edits and only send them out once a day, and if there are multiple edits, only send the last one.

Other suggestions appreciated.

The suggestion was made for a preview window. I don't see how that'd help, given that the edit window is already WYSIWYG.

Thanks,
Mark


Ro
 

That seems like a lot of work.  I would rather have the setting to turn off peoples ability to edit at all if the group owner so desires.   Most edits in the groups I am in are tiny things, not worthy of multiple posts. 

No I am absolutely against all edited posts going to moderation!  that is more work, not less!  But of course, this would be an optional setting for the moderators to choose.  since i would never choose it, it of course would be useless for me.   I am already annoyed at GETTING all these edited posts via direct mail, much less having to moderate them.  The whole point is not to have to re read these posts for some tiny correction.  My time is more valuable than that.

Delaying the posts a minute or two does nothing for those on direct email.

Likewise, queuing up edited emails again does nothing for those on direct email.  We still get them. 

yes, the ability to turn off peoples editing is the most direct and efficient way to solve the direct email problem. 


Ro

with Sally and Silk waiting at their feed dishes, and Handy, Feliz &  Police Kitty patrolling in the Great Beyond.





Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:51:52 -0800
Subject: [beta] Editing messages
From: markf@corp.groups.io
To: beta@groups.io

Hi All,

Sometimes people will tweak their messages using the Edit function and instead of doing all their changes in one fell swoop, they'll edit and edit, each time generating a new email to the group. Off the top of my head, here are some ideas about how to address this. I have not thought through all the implications of these. Just brainstorming.

- Group setting so that all edits are moderated, regardless of the subscriber's settings.
- Like we do with some integrations, hold off for a minute or two before sending out the edited message, in case another edit comes in. Only send out the last one received.
- Queue up edits and only send them out once a day, and if there are multiple edits, only send the last one.

Other suggestions appreciated.

The suggestion was made for a preview window. I don't see how that'd help, given that the edit window is already WYSIWYG.

Thanks,
Mark


 

I think queueing the edits up for a minute or two and only sending the last one might be a good idea. But any longer than that, or moderating all edits, seems like a bait and switch. I can see it causing users anger and frustration ('where did my edit go?' etc). 
J

J

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 15, 2016, at 3:05 PM, Ro <recarlton@...> wrote:

That seems like a lot of work.  I would rather have the setting to turn off peoples ability to edit at all if the group owner so desires.   Most edits in the groups I am in are tiny things, not worthy of multiple posts. 

No I am absolutely against all edited posts going to moderation!  that is more work, not less!  But of course, this would be an optional setting for the moderators to choose.  since i would never choose it, it of course would be useless for me.   I am already annoyed at GETTING all these edited posts via direct mail, much less having to moderate them.  The whole point is not to have to re read these posts for some tiny correction.  My time is more valuable than that.

Delaying the posts a minute or two does nothing for those on direct email.

Likewise, queuing up edited emails again does nothing for those on direct email.  We still get them. 

yes, the ability to turn off peoples editing is the most direct and efficient way to solve the direct email problem. 


Ro

with Sally and Silk waiting at their feed dishes, and Handy, Feliz &  Police Kitty patrolling in the Great Beyond.





Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:51:52 -0800
Subject: [beta] Editing messages
From: markf@corp.groups.io
To: beta@groups.io

Hi All,

Sometimes people will tweak their messages using the Edit function and instead of doing all their changes in one fell swoop, they'll edit and edit, each time generating a new email to the group. Off the top of my head, here are some ideas about how to address this. I have not thought through all the implications of these. Just brainstorming.

- Group setting so that all edits are moderated, regardless of the subscriber's settings.
- Like we do with some integrations, hold off for a minute or two before sending out the edited message, in case another edit comes in. Only send out the last one received.
- Queue up edits and only send them out once a day, and if there are multiple edits, only send the last one.

Other suggestions appreciated.

The suggestion was made for a preview window. I don't see how that'd help, given that the edit window is already WYSIWYG.

Thanks,
Mark


 

Here's why turning off editing may be desirable for some groups and not others (and this is just an example): in a group in which almost all users use web-access only,  the editing feature would be very useful and would cause few problems.  But in group where almost everyone is using email, the owner might want to set editing to 'only moderators can edit' if Groups.io were to provide that option.

 I, or any group owner, might want to allow editing by subscribers in one group but not in another, depending on the characteristics of the group, its members, and how people are using it. Providing the option just gives group owners more flexibility.

J

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 15, 2016, at 3:12 PM, J_Olivia Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

I think queueing the edits up for a minute or two and only sending the last one might be a good idea. But any longer than that, or moderating all edits, seems like a bait and switch. I can see it causing users anger and frustration ('where did my edit go?' etc). 
J

J

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 15, 2016, at 3:05 PM, Ro <recarlton@...> wrote:

That seems like a lot of work.  I would rather have the setting to turn off peoples ability to edit at all if the group owner so desires.   Most edits in the groups I am in are tiny things, not worthy of multiple posts. 

No I am absolutely against all edited posts going to moderation!  that is more work, not less!  But of course, this would be an optional setting for the moderators to choose.  since i would never choose it, it of course would be useless for me.   I am already annoyed at GETTING all these edited posts via direct mail, much less having to moderate them.  The whole point is not to have to re read these posts for some tiny correction.  My time is more valuable than that.

Delaying the posts a minute or two does nothing for those on direct email.

Likewise, queuing up edited emails again does nothing for those on direct email.  We still get them. 

yes, the ability to turn off peoples editing is the most direct and efficient way to solve the direct email problem. 


Ro

with Sally and Silk waiting at their feed dishes, and Handy, Feliz &  Police Kitty patrolling in the Great Beyond.





Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:51:52 -0800
Subject: [beta] Editing messages
From: markf@corp.groups.io
To: beta@groups.io

Hi All,

Sometimes people will tweak their messages using the Edit function and instead of doing all their changes in one fell swoop, they'll edit and edit, each time generating a new email to the group. Off the top of my head, here are some ideas about how to address this. I have not thought through all the implications of these. Just brainstorming.

- Group setting so that all edits are moderated, regardless of the subscriber's settings.
- Like we do with some integrations, hold off for a minute or two before sending out the edited message, in case another edit comes in. Only send out the last one received.
- Queue up edits and only send them out once a day, and if there are multiple edits, only send the last one.

Other suggestions appreciated.

The suggestion was made for a preview window. I don't see how that'd help, given that the edit window is already WYSIWYG.

Thanks,
Mark


Duane
 

Of those ideas, I think the delay would work best. That should prevent multiple emails in most cases, unless the edits are a bit too far apart. A notice on the edit page (near the Save button?) could let folks know that there will be a delay for the edited post to appear. Since you're sort of doing this with integrations, it might be the easiest to implement.

Duane


Judy F.
 

Here is another reason why editing should be an option on/off.  The buying/selling group that I moderate, has a rule that DOES NOT allow an ad that has been submitted and approved to be edited.  That message is rejected and the seller must submit an entirely new ad. 

 

Want to make sure everyone understands that this is not a ‘Freecycle’ type group, but a regular Yahoo Group that is dedicated to buying and selling certain types of items. 

Judy F.

SW Florida - USA

 

From: J_catlady [mailto:j.olivia.catlady@...]
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 6:32 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Editing messages

 

Here's why turning off editing may be desirable for some groups and not others (and this is just an example): in a group in which almost all users use web-access only,  the editing feature would be very useful and would cause few problems.  But in group where almost everyone is using email, the owner might want to set editing to 'only moderators can edit' if Groups.io were to provide that option.

 

 I, or any group owner, might want to allow editing by subscribers in one group but not in another, depending on the characteristics of the group, its members, and how people are using it. Providing the option just gives group owners more flexibility.

 

J


Sent from my iPhone


On Feb 15, 2016, at 3:12 PM, J_Olivia Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

I think queueing the edits up for a minute or two and only sending the last one might be a good idea. But any longer than that, or moderating all edits, seems like a bait and switch. I can see it causing users anger and frustration ('where did my edit go?' etc). 

J

 

J

Sent from my iPhone


On Feb 15, 2016, at 3:05 PM, Ro <recarlton@...> wrote:

That seems like a lot of work.  I would rather have the setting to turn off peoples ability to edit at all if the group owner so desires.   Most edits in the groups I am in are tiny things, not worthy of multiple posts. 

No I am absolutely against all edited posts going to moderation!  that is more work, not less!  But of course, this would be an optional setting for the moderators to choose.  since i would never choose it, it of course would be useless for me.   I am already annoyed at GETTING all these edited posts via direct mail, much less having to moderate them.  The whole point is not to have to re read these posts for some tiny correction.  My time is more valuable than that.

Delaying the posts a minute or two does nothing for those on direct email.

Likewise, queuing up edited emails again does nothing for those on direct email.  We still get them. 

yes, the ability to turn off peoples editing is the most direct and efficient way to solve the direct email problem. 


Ro

with Sally and Silk waiting at their feed dishes, and Handy, Feliz &  Police Kitty patrolling in the Great Beyond.

 




Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:51:52 -0800
Subject: [beta] Editing messages
From: markf@corp.groups.io
To: beta@groups.io

Hi All,

 

Sometimes people will tweak their messages using the Edit function and instead of doing all their changes in one fell swoop, they'll edit and edit, each time generating a new email to the group. Off the top of my head, here are some ideas about how to address this. I have not thought through all the implications of these. Just brainstorming.

 

- Group setting so that all edits are moderated, regardless of the subscriber's settings.

- Like we do with some integrations, hold off for a minute or two before sending out the edited message, in case another edit comes in. Only send out the last one received.

- Queue up edits and only send them out once a day, and if there are multiple edits, only send the last one.

 

Other suggestions appreciated.

 

The suggestion was made for a preview window. I don't see how that'd help, given that the edit window is already WYSIWYG.

 

Thanks,

Mark


 

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 02:51 pm, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
The suggestion was made for a preview window. I don't see how that'd help, given that the edit window is already WYSIWYG.

 That's interesting, because the member who edited her post 11 times last night told me it was because the font size looked different after the message posted from how it looked in the edit window. I've asked her next time to leave it alone and let me know, so that I can see the font-size problem she's referring to. I think she was copying and pasting links, so perhaps there's something strange or different going on with that.

As far as a preview window in general, the other forum I mentioned (in response to Shal's suggestion for a preview window) is also WYSIWYG. Yet somehow, seeing the post come through in a preview always helped me tremendously. It might be psychological. There was no technical reason for the other site to do it, either. Sometimes things look different after you hit "Send" and see the message come through.

J


 

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 04:07 pm, J. Faulkner <jfaulkner44@...> wrote:
The buying/selling group that I moderate, has a rule that DOES NOT allow an ad that has been submitted and approved to be edited. 

 That's a good example, too. I could even see legal, or semi-legal, issues with an offer that's accepted and then changed without the other party's knowledge (because, for example, that person wasn't using email or hadn't checked the site for any update to the offer).

J


 

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 05:07 pm, J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
the other forum I mentioned (in response to Shal's suggestion for a preview window) is also WYSIWYG.

I take that back. It actually allows some HTML.

J


 

Judy,

Here is another reason why editing should be an option on/off. The
buying/selling group that I moderate, has a rule that DOES NOT allow an
ad that has been submitted and approved to be edited. That message is
rejected and the seller must submit an entirely new ad.
If the member's messages are moderated then their edits are too. So you still would catch any attempted edit.


Shal
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


Judy F.
 

Shal, are you saying that's how it works in Groups.io? If yes, that could
still be a problem since ads are approved/rejected based on the timestamp
date. So if the actual ad came in at 10:04am and the edit didn't make it
until 10:12am, there may be 10 messages in between and we don't have time to
look through all of the messages to see if there is an edited one.

If members can't edit period, the problem is solved.
Judy F.
SW Florida - USA

-----Original Message-----
From: Shal Farley [mailto:shals2nd@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 1:17 AM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Editing messages

Judy,

Here is another reason why editing should be an option on/off. The
buying/selling group that I moderate, has a rule that DOES NOT allow
an ad that has been submitted and approved to be edited. That message
is rejected and the seller must submit an entirely new ad.
If the member's messages are moderated then their edits are too. So you
still would catch any attempted edit.


Shal
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


 

Shal,

That's a good point. I didn't catch thst Judy's group is moderated.

However, while that particular group might be moderated, another, similar one might not be. Not all groups are alike. Providing the option allows group owners to create a good fit, just like all the existing settings about who can edit what currently do.

I don't see this proposed setting -'who can edit posts' - as much different from who can edit other entities in a group, except that the posts are the users' own.

J

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 15, 2016, at 10:16 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@gmail.com> wrote:

Judy,

Here is another reason why editing should be an option on/off. The
buying/selling group that I moderate, has a rule that DOES NOT allow an
ad that has been submitted and approved to be edited. That message is
rejected and the seller must submit an entirely new ad.
If the member's messages are moderated then their edits are too. So you still would catch any attempted edit.


Shal
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum




 

Mark,

- Group setting so that all edits are moderated, regardless of the
subscriber's settings.
This would likely put an end to tweak sessions. Once the member clicks "Save And Send" on an edit they can no longer see the changes they made, they have to wait for moderator approval (or rejection).

One thing I don't like: although immediately after "Save And Send" there's a banner to tell the user that their edit awaits moderator action, if the member navigates away and comes back to that message there is no longer any indication of a pending edit. That could lead to multiple attempts, not tweaking but simply forgetting whether they did the edit yet or not.

- Like we do with some integrations, hold off for a minute or two before
sending out the edited message, in case another edit comes in. Only send
out the last one received.
What would appear on the web site, from that member's point of view? Would they see only the original post until the time-out elapses? If so, that would tend to slow the tweak session, encouraging the member to wrap it up in fewer tries.

I agree with Duane that an advance notice of the delay near the "Save And Send" button would help this along, and that goes for the Moderated Edits option (above) as well. And like moderated edits, after clicking "Save And Send" the member probably needs to be made aware of the pending post, even if they navigate away and come back.

- Queue up edits and only send them out once a day, and if there are
multiple edits, only send the last one.
I think that's too much delay.

The suggestion was made for a preview window. I don't see how that'd
help, given that the edit window is already WYSIWYG.
As J suggested, the effect may be mostly psychological, but there is at least one difference in how a message appears in the editor versus after posting: the edit box itself. That constrains the width and height of the visible portion of the text.

Granted, anyone who thinks they've got that much fine control of message appearance when working in HTML hasn't worked in HTML very long. And hasn't seen their work presented on someone else's screen. But that's likely true of novice members.


Shal
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


 

Judy F.,

Shal, are you saying that's how it works in Groups.io?
Yes. In Groups.io edits to messages follow the same rules as messages.

If yes, that could still be a problem since ads are approved/rejected
based on the timestamp date. So if the actual ad came in at 10:04am and
the edit didn't make it until 10:12am, there may be 10 messages in
between and we don't have time to look through all of the messages to
see if there is an edited one.
Since you would reject (or delete) the edit anyway, I don't see the problem.

If you wanted to look ahead, and you moderate on the web, that at least would be easy: the edited messages carry an Edit badge in the pending list.

If moderating by email no, you'd need to look at the top of the body to see if it has the [Edited Message Follows] notice. In Gmail that may be evident in the message list, if there's room between the subject text and the time stamp, but in most email systems you'd at least need to skim the message previews.

If members can't edit period, the problem is solved.
True.

My "one size does not fit all" mantra is the only thing that holds me back from being fully opposed to giving group owners the ability to disable edits.

I oppose giving group owners the ability to prevent members from deleting their contributions (posts, files, etc.) because I view that as something that the service promises to members in consideration of their contributions. Likewise I oppose giving group owners the ability to disable the "No Email" delivery setting because I view control of one's inbox to be a member's prerogative. In my mind, giving group owners the ability to prevent edits to messages falls very close to the case with deleting messages.



Shal
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


Judy F.
 

But as we have discussed before, there are many groups that have different
rules and procedures. Some are very structured while others are free as the
wind. We don't allow members to edit their ads, period. So if there is an
Edit off and on feature, we could have what we need and you others have what
they want. When members join our group, 'if' they read the rules of the
group, they know they can't edit their ad. Now if they don't read the Group
rules, they will find out when a rejected ad is returned to them.

When you have on an average of 30 ads per day and at the beginning of the
month far more than that, looking to see if there is an Edited ad would be a
pain.

Judy F.
SW Florida - USA

-----Original Message-----
From: Shal Farley [mailto:shals2nd@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 3:26 AM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Editing messages

Judy F.,

Shal, are you saying that's how it works in Groups.io?
Yes. In Groups.io edits to messages follow the same rules as messages.

If yes, that could still be a problem since ads are approved/rejected
based on the timestamp date. So if the actual ad came in at 10:04am
and the edit didn't make it until 10:12am, there may be 10 messages in
between and we don't have time to look through all of the messages to
see if there is an edited one.
Since you would reject (or delete) the edit anyway, I don't see the problem.

If you wanted to look ahead, and you moderate on the web, that at least
would be easy: the edited messages carry an Edit badge in the pending list.

If moderating by email no, you'd need to look at the top of the body to see
if it has the [Edited Message Follows] notice. In Gmail that may be evident
in the message list, if there's room between the subject text and the time
stamp, but in most email systems you'd at least need to skim the message
previews.

If members can't edit period, the problem is solved.
True.

My "one size does not fit all" mantra is the only thing that holds me back
from being fully opposed to giving group owners the ability to disable
edits.

I oppose giving group owners the ability to prevent members from deleting
their contributions (posts, files, etc.) because I view that as something
that the service promises to members in consideration of their
contributions. Likewise I oppose giving group owners the ability to disable
the "No Email" delivery setting because I view control of one's inbox to be
a member's prerogative. In my mind, giving group owners the ability to
prevent edits to messages falls very close to the case with deleting
messages.



Shal
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


 

Judy F.,

But as we have discussed before, there are many groups that have different
rules and procedures.
Hence what I said about "one size does not fit all".

When you have on an average of 30 ads per day and at the beginning of
the month far more than that, looking to see if there is an Edited ad
would be a pain.
In the situation you describe, I'm not sure what you mean by "looking to see". I'm assuming you already look at the body of each pending message to make sure it is fit to post. That being the case, if the top line contains the [Edited Message Follows] notice then you're done looking: delete or reject. Nothing else about your existing procedure would change.

If you moderate by web it is even faster: you put a checkmark on each message in the list with an Edit badge, then delete or reject them all at once.

Am I misunderstanding you?

Or is it that you're concerned there will be a large number of edited messages? I wouldn't think so with that being a stated group rule, and given a blanket delete/rejection each time it does happen.


Shal
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


Nightowl >8#
 

Shal wrote:>>I oppose giving group owners the ability to prevent members from deleting their contributions (posts, files, etc.) because I view that as something that the service promises to members in consideration of their contributions. Likewise I oppose giving group owners the ability to disable the "No Email" delivery setting because I view control of one's inbox to be a member's prerogative. In my mind, giving group owners the ability to prevent edits to messages falls very close to the case with deleting messages.<<

This was and still is, my highest concern. When you start thinking about whether users can edit their own posts, it inevitably brings up whether they can delete their own posts. I would be strongly against them not being able to delete their own posts, because it IS their content, and they should be able to remove it if they so desired. Even Yahoo allowed us to delete our own posts.

I don't care if edit is an option to turn off or on, but I would be firmly against taking away the privilege of being able to delete one's own content.

Brenda


 

Shal wrote " I oppose giving group owners the ability to disable the "No Email" delivery setting because I view control of one's inbox to be a member's prerogative."

You don't take away group owners' ability to disable "no email" by not creating the setting. Not creating the setting just make it more difficult for them to do so. There are ways around not having a "no-email disallowed" setting: contacting the no-email members privately, en masse, when there are important announcements. Or simply manually setting everyone who selects "no email" to "special announcements," as I do. Not having the setting doesn't prevent us from implementing what some of us feel we need here. It just makes it inconvenient.

In some forums, access to a member's mailbox is an exchange: members are allowed to be in the group but must, in exchange, allow the owner to contact them in the case of important group announcements. I see it as a two-way street. The group member makes contributions, as Shal points out, but also gains something (hopefully) by being in the group. Owners should be allowed to have reasonable requirements, as well. I see being able to contact all members easily when necessary as a reasonable requirement/trade-off for group membership.

J


Judy F.
 

Brenda, there are groups that have different rules from others and are totally set up for different reasons. The buying and selling group has a rule that sellers/members cannot delete their ads. They are archived and then we delete them after a period of time.

So just because you don't agree with that rule doesn't mean there shouldn't be a method to either allow or not allow members to delete their messages.

Judy F.
SW Florida - USA

-----Original Message-----
From: Feathered Leader [mailto:featheredleader@att.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 10:04 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: [beta] Re: Editing messages

Shal wrote:>>I oppose giving group owners the ability to prevent members from deleting their contributions (posts, files, etc.) because I view that as something that the service promises to members in consideration of their contributions. Likewise I oppose giving group owners the ability to disable the "No Email" delivery setting because I view control of one's inbox to be a member's prerogative. In my mind, giving group owners the ability to prevent edits to messages falls very close to the case with deleting messages.<<

This was and still is, my highest concern. When you start thinking about whether users can edit their own posts, it inevitably brings up whether they can delete their own posts. I would be strongly against them not being able to delete their own posts, because it IS their content, and they should be able to remove it if they so desired. Even Yahoo allowed us to delete our own posts.

I don't care if edit is an option to turn off or on, but I would be firmly against taking away the privilege of being able to delete one's own content.

Brenda


 

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 07:15 pm, J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

In some forums, access to a member's mailbox is an exchange: members are allowed to be in the group but must, in exchange, allow the owner to contact them in the case of important group announcements. I see it as a two-way street. The group member makes contributions, as Shal points out, but also gains something (hopefully) by being in the group. Owners should be allowed to have reasonable requirements, as well. I see being able to contact all members easily when necessary as a reasonable requirement/trade-off for group membership.

J

 In my groups what J_catlady wrote is EXACTLY our position;  in return for having access to the group the members agree and accepts that they make themselves available to Special Messages from the group in return -- an even trade or exchange.  I for one do not feel that I should have to go through my members list changing the No Email members preferences so that I can get a message through to them, nor do I feel a need to go off-group and send them emails directly.  If they wish to have the privilege of having access to my group then they in return give the group access to them in the case of Special Messages.

Additionally, I would note that oftentimes the info in Special Messages is info that group members who have chosen the No Email option eventually come back and ask about, requiring the same info to be repeated over again for the benefit of those who couldn't bother to receive emails from the group yet ask us for our time to repeat the information for their benefit, oftentimes at the cost of all of the other members who now have to re-read the same info over and over again.  For this reason I do not allow the No Email option in my Yahoo! Groups, I actively go through the members list on a regular schedule and change the email preferences from No Email to Special Messages, and for repeat offenders I delete them from my groups.  I would much prefer not to have to do this in Groups.io, so being able to disable the No Email option would be greatly appreciated here in Groups,io,

Best,

Mark Bielecki