Topics

moderated Notify Members checkboxes #update

 

Chris,


I only found out about this uploading because I was looking in the Activity Log for something else entirely.

This problem is addressed by the additional Moderator Notices currently under test. I thought they were due to go live to all moderators yesterday, but I'm not sure if that happened.


While I can understand the point about members being informed about edits, relocations and so on ...

Ok, good.

I cannot see any reason why I should have to "defend" myself for wanting to maintain some sense of order in our Photos section or anywhere else,

I don't think you should either, in the sense that I don't think a reasonable member would challenge you on it (unless you did something unreasonable). But I also am not comfortable with a moderator's desire to be able to change member's content under cover of darkness.

I am still firmly of the view that moderators not only have the right but a duty to try to maintain order in a group's limited storage without having to explain their actions in detail on each and every occasion.
 
I don't disagree with any of that, and I don't think knowing that the particular member involved will be informed of your efforts should in any way deter you. It certainly does not deter me on those occasions where I find that a member's message that has already been posted needs to be redacted or otherwise modified.

Shal

 

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 04:22 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
am still firmly of the view that moderators not only have the right but a duty to try to maintain order in a group's limited storage without having to explain their actions in detail on each and every occasion.
Agree 100%.
 
--
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

Chris Jones
 

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 03:03 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
For edit I'd say the member deserves to know (and you likely deserve to fend off such questions). Maybe move too (if not notified the member might look and not find his/her content, and believe that it was deleted). I'm more willing to concede on delete: as J points out that's already a fact with messages.
I know that quite a lot of water has flowed under the bridge in the 7 days since the above was written, but...

This morning a member of the group I moderate uploaded some photos into an album he had created especially for the purpose.

He did not look to see if there was already a suitably titled album into which he could upload more photos.
He did not compose an album title that properly reflected the contents other than in a sense that was so broad as to be meaningless. .
He did not choose to notify the membership of anything, either by using the checkbox or by posting a separate message about his uploads.

He is not unique in taking a rather haphazard approach to making sure that uploads "make sense". I only found out about this uploading because I was looking in the Activity Log for something else entirely.

While I can understand the point about members being informed about edits, relocations and so on I cannot see any reason why I should have to "defend" myself for wanting to maintain some sense of order in our Photos section or anywhere else, especially when we have had a group wiki page about this sort of random uploading in existence for months.

I am still firmly of the view that moderators not only have the right but a duty to try to maintain order in a group's limited storage without having to explain their actions in detail on each and every occasion. It's also the sort of problem where the longer it's left the harder it is to do.

Chris

Sandi D
 

"Up until now the owners/mods determine if something reaches the
attention of the members."

I would like to clarify the above sentence. If I as a mod make an edit I would like to have continued control over whether or not my action reaches the attention of those in my group.

Much of my wiki edits are "clean up". It's a waste of time to notify everyone when I clean something up and then spend more time in answering posts asking me what had changed or they can't find the "new" information.

It sounds like Mark may understand that aspect. I do understand that I am fortunate to have only one area impacted but that one area created a 3 day "migraine" for myself and a headache for the members of my group. 

Shal's interim fix and then Mark's temporary one worked perfectly for my need. I am very appreciative and hope Mark's permanent solution does the same.

--
Sandi Dickenson
ASG Volunteers Group.

Chris Jones
 

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 08:06 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
The only other option is (I think) that a moderator did the edit. I would want the member to be notified in that case, you and other group owners/mods may disagree.
Again I can see the validity of this view, although I am not entirely convinced!

It raises an issue of "what is an edit?" A change of album / photo name? The addition of (or change to) the descriptive text? (Silly but valid case... correction of a spelling mistake!) Unless the notification  includes some detail what has been edited may be less than clear, leading to "what has been done, what is this notification actually telling me?

Chris

 

Chris,

I am also concious that the more "individual" notifications that there
are the more important it becomes that individual members can have a
pick list of those that they (might) want and those that they don't.
That's in the group's Hashtags page already.

The member sees a Mute/Notify button (grid view) or link (list view). That brings up a page where the member can choose whether to receive the related notifications by email (Mute or not) and choose to opt-in to Web/App notification (immediate "push" notifications).

Members who've chosen the Following Only setting for Message Selection (the Advanced Preferences panel in their Subscription page) will see Follow/Notify instead.

This raises another issue; someone chooses not to receive information
about photo edits (however defined) but would that choice also apply
to edits to a photo that they themselves had uploaded?
That's an interesting case. If it was they themself that did the edit I'd say no notification is needed. The only other option is (I think) that a moderator did the edit. I would want the member to be notified in that case, you and other group owners/mods may disagree.

Shal

 

Sandi,

Is what you are doing changing the concept of how notifications will
function?
Yes in one major regard: you can now opt in to immediate ("push") notifications by web, and soon in the mobile device apps. See GMF's wiki page:
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/wiki/21482

Also, there are new per-user controls for muting or following notifications. See that same wiki page.

Up until now the owners/mods determine if something reaches the
attention of the members.
Not exactly. Members have long had the option of checking the Notify Members box on the File Upload page. This remains the same, plus now that checkbox also appears on Photos upload and Wiki page create/edit.

Will the eventual change mean that is negated? That notifications will
reach the member unless they log in and change a setting?
Probably not. But not everything is settled yet (to my knowledge).

We have no photos, database and just a few files. Have used the
calendar twice in our history. Have used the pool once. We don't make
use of hashtags.
So you won't have much to be notified about. ;-)

Whatever is being changed with hash tags, I hope I will be able to
prevent a notification reaching them for superficial edits ...
Right now you have to check the Notify Members box if you want a notification posted to the group. But this is one of the areas Mark has said he's still working on.

Shal

Chris Jones
 

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 04:24 PM, Sandi D wrote:
Up until now the owners/mods determine if something reaches the attention of the members.

Will the eventual change mean that is negated?
Perhaps...

That notifications will reach the member unless they log in and change a setting?
I sincerely hope not. They ought to be able to suppress the worst effects by using the Mute this Hashtag function in the footer of a relevant email.

Two-thirds haven't ever logged in. I'm not sure I can convince them to do so.
A point that is, I think, common to many groups and one that is frequently overlooked.


Insofar as I can dictate policy to the group that I moderate that policy will be to set the various hashtags to "No Email" until a way of minimising the annoyance to individual members can be implemented. Although it would require members to log in my personal preference is a selection along the lines that exists for Email Delivery options now.

Chris

Sandi D
 

Is what you are doing changing the concept of how notifications will function?
Up until now the owners/mods determine if something reaches the attention of the members.

Will the eventual change mean that is negated? That notifications will reach the member unless they log in and change a setting?

Two-thirds haven't ever logged in. I'm not sure I can convince them to do so. They may find it easier to leave the group than to endure an uptick in notifications.

We have no photos, database and just a few files. Have used the calendar twice in our history. Have used the pool once. We don't make use of hashtags.

The wiki is our resource and reference. It links to current policy and directiveshoused off-sitem and a few files housed in the group. 

Whatever is being changed with hash tags, I hope I will be able to prevent a notification reaching them for superficial edits such as transferring content between pages, adding new pages to capture existing content, deleting information and pages that no longer serve a purpose (or conflict with changed policy) and fixing broken links, spelling and grammar. The only time I can envision a notification for a wiki change or a file change useful is if it is new information or a newly introduced policy.

--
Sandi Dickenson
ASG Volunteers Group

Chris Jones
 

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:57 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
And given that such an aggregation wouldn't be tied to any single hashtag, perhaps it should be Moderated.

This gives the moderator the option to approve or not, which satisfies the desire for optional exclusion rather than aggregation.
Definitely worth considering. I am also concious that the more "individual" notifications that there are the more important it becomes that individual members can have a pick list of those that they (might) want and those that they don't. This raises another issue; someone chooses not to receive information about photo edits (however defined) but would that choice also apply to edits to a photo that they themselves had uploaded?

Traditionally office desks have In, Out, and Pending Trays. I cannot comment about civil service practice anywhere in the world other than the UK, but here we have a fourth tray called "Too Difficult". It's not difficult to see why.

Chris

 

Chris,

I wrote:

given that the first event kicks off a timer it might be possible for
the software to look for a sequence by the same user as well as a
sequence of the same event.
And given that such an aggregation wouldn't be tied to any single hashtag, perhaps it should be Moderated.

This gives the moderator the option to approve or not, which satisfies the desire for optional exclusion rather than aggregation.

Shal

 

Chris,

A further possible complication is that any given "tidying up" session
might involve renaming an Album or Photo(s) or deleting an Album or
Photos, or moving a Photo; that list is not exhaustive. It might
easily not fit into a single Notification /however/ long the
aggregation time was.
That's an interesting point. For that use case the aggregation (or exclusion) would be better focused on the user than the activity.

I'm not sure how difficult it would be to detect that automatically, but given that the first event kicks off a timer it might be possible for the software to look for a sequence by the same user as well as a sequence of the same event. Maybe only if the user is a mod/owner, but maybe not.

It has the potential to be complicated...
Too true. Sometimes simple to implement is not simple to use, and vice versa. Great things happen when you find a concept that makes the two align.

Shal

 

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 8:50 AM Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:


Also, currently the wait time to see if there are additional notifications is under 5 minutes.

"Currently"? Does this imply implementation is rolled out?


Sorry. Not any of the new notifications. We already have a system that combines notifications; it's currently only used for Github and Trello integration messages. Github especially can generate a bunch of notifications when you're manipulating a source code repository hosted there. It's also easy to generate a bunch of notifications from Trello. If you look back at the #trello messages on beta, they're an example of the combining system. And I was wrong about the timing. Right now, it's set so that if there are no additional notifications for 4 minutes after the first one, it sends out the original notification. If it receives a new notification in that time, it resets the clock for another 4 minutes. Right now it only resets the clock once, therefore there's a maximum of an 8 minute delay.


Mark

Chris Jones
 

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 03:03 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
The blizzard effect is something that needs a better solution than not notifying. Maybe that's aggregating notices, maybe something else we haven't thought of yet.
Perhaps so; the difficulty is identifying the "aggregation time". A further possible complication is that any given "tidying up" session might involve renaming an Album or Photo(s) or deleting an Album or Photos, or moving a Photo; that list is not exhaustive. It might easily not fit into a single Notification however long the aggregation time was.

For edit I'd say the member deserves to know (and you likely deserve to fend off such questions). Maybe move too (if not notified the member might look and not find his/her content, and believe that it was deleted)
I do understand the point you are making, but we have a wiki section about Files & Photo uploads* that makes it clear that the Group Moderators have the right to carry out such editing (in its widest sense) as they deem necessary. That being the case members' expectation of detailed notifications ought to be reduced.

It has the potential to be complicated...

* Which is not to say that anyone's actually read it.

Chris

 

Mark,


Also, currently the wait time to see if there are additional notifications is under 5 minutes.

"Currently"? Does this imply implementation is rolled out?

One more question, for the new moderator notifications, should they default the same as the existing moderator notifications? That is, should they default to Email And Web/App?

I concur with J, "Yes".

I think otherwise they're out of sight out of mind. Moderators should be a bit more resilient and ready to learn than rank-and-file members, so I don't mind as much giving them new things to learn.

Shal

 

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 08:36 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
for the new moderator notifications, should they default the same as the existing moderator notifications? That is, should they default to Email And Web/App?
I "vote" yes on this.
 
--
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 Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 7:30 PM Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:

 > My thinking with aggregation is that when an email notification is
 > generated, I'll wait N minutes to send it out to see if any
 > additional, similar email notifications are generated. If so, I'll
 > combine them.

I still have concerns about timeliness, but maybe it isn't such a big
deal that I should worry about first-one-out delay.
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/25395

For the aggregated notifications, if you're worried about timeliness, there's always web/app notifications, which won't be aggregated and are delivered instantly. Also, currently the wait time to see if there are additional notifications is under 5 minutes.

 
But it suddenly occurs to me that moderator notices (such as
member/message approval) should not be aggregated, under any scheme.

Agreed.

One more question, for the new moderator notifications, should they default the same as the existing moderator notifications? That is, should they default to Email And Web/App? These are the Chats/Files/Photos/Wikis/Database notifications.

Thanks,
Mark 

 

Beth,

I have attempted to keep up with this discussion, and I have to
confess that I have gotten lost.
If it helps, I've been trying to keep track of the current implementation in a page on GMF's Wiki:
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/wiki/21482

Shal

Janice
 

As a group of longarm quilters, we rely a lot on the photos feature.  My members would like to have the ability to comment directly in the photo album of a particular quilt and they would also like a like/dislike button on each photo.  This would help to cut down on message traffic giving praises to the photo owner for their quilting.  They are very thankful for the new Notify Members check box. 

Thank you for all your hard work trying to please a large number of people.

Janice B
New Statler Siblings
Worldwide Long Arm Quilters 

Beth Weld
 

I have attempted to keep up with this discussion, and I have to confess that I have gotten lost.  As an aside, I was going to reply at the end of the topic, but there is no reply "button"  - so - Mark, sorry for replying to your original message.

As we talk about all of these notifications, I see way too many notifications in my future as an owner, for my moderators and for my members.
I do not want to receive a blizzard of notifications, and neither do my moderators or members.  As long as we can turn them off, I think it is great for others who need all of the tracking.  I already have people telling me that they receive too many messages so this is a sensitive subject for my group. 
Many thanks
Beth