moderated unify moderation response #suggestion


Duane
 

On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 09:19 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
On 02/13/2021 19:17, Duane wrote:
That would be the way you have Thunderbird set up.  For me, the 'sent' message goes in the Sent folder of my Gmail account, not the Inbox.

Duane

Sure, but it's still a duplicate I don't need.
In that case, I would use POP3 for email so there are never duplicates in various email clients.

Duane


Mark Murphy
 

I agree with Glenn's suggestion and his subsequent replies to comments. He is just asking for a third link for this purpose. What exactly is the downside?


Glenn Glazer
 

On 02/14/2021 00:53, Andy Wedge wrote:
It's probably less important to make a wrong decision between Reject or Delete than it is to mistakenly approve a message when it should not have been or to Reject/Delete a message when it should have been approved. So, the fact that the Approve and Reject/Delete actions employ different techniques is entirely logical and helps to avoid mistakes.

That's opinion. You are trying to make your preference the preference of all users. I'm trying to create a scenario in which different preferences can be satisfied.

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est


Andy Wedge
 

On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 12:14 AM, Glenn Glazer wrote:

As it stands though, there is a logical separation of moderator actions in the current approach as you Reply to Approve or tap/click a link to Reject or Delete; thereby eliminating the risk of tapping/clicking the wrong link if an Approve link was present.  Anything that reduces the chance of the wrong option being selected is a plus point for me (and the Discard button on the Web UI was recently moved to prevent accidental use) so I would say keep the notification email as it is.

Well you could say the same thing of the situation now, one could click reject when they meant delete or vice-versa. While I grant human error exists, I tend to think more highly of people who sign up to be admins and moderators as being rather more savvy than the average group member. I think going after 100% error free user interfaces results inevitably in loss of reasonable functionality, making it less useful rather than more so.
Nobody is talking about 100% error free and that can never be the case when you ass human interaction into the mix.

When you receive an email notification for a pending message your primary decision is "Do I approve this?" If your answer is Yes then you Reply. If your answer is No then you have a secondary decision "Reject or Delete?".  It's probably less important to make a wrong decision between Reject or Delete than it is to mistakenly approve a message when it should not have been or to Reject/Delete a message when it should have been approved. So, the fact that the Approve and Reject/Delete actions employ different techniques is entirely logical and helps to avoid mistakes.

Andy


 

Glenn,

One thing that the URL lets me do is fast access to all pending
messages. E.g., if there are many pending messages, taking me to the
pending page is more convenient than replying to all of them since I
can select all at that page.
That use case is already covered by the link at the top of the email: "View this message online".

I believe that link used to be below the quoted message, where the others are, but it was #suggested that it be moved to the top for convenience. On the theory that if you'd rather deal with the message on site you don't need to scroll through it in the email message.

On my Android phone I use that rather than reply. Not because I care about the extra Sent message but because I like the web interface better than the email interface on my phone.

On my desktop I generally switch to a pinned tab in my browser to review pending messages, and simply treat the email notice as a reminder to go check.

Shal


Glenn Glazer
 

On 02/13/2021 19:17, Duane wrote:
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 09:05 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
If I use gmail on my phone to reply to a moderation request, when I go to my mail in Thunderbird, I get an extra copy of my sent mail in my inbox that I don't need.
That would be the way you have Thunderbird set up.  For me, the 'sent' message goes in the Sent folder of my Gmail account, not the Inbox.

Duane

Sure, but it's still a duplicate I don't need.

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est


Duane
 

On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 09:05 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
If I use gmail on my phone to reply to a moderation request, when I go to my mail in Thunderbird, I get an extra copy of my sent mail in my inbox that I don't need.
That would be the way you have Thunderbird set up.  For me, the 'sent' message goes in the Sent folder of my Gmail account, not the Inbox.

Duane


Glenn Glazer
 

Here's another reason.

If I use gmail on my phone to reply to a moderation request, when I go to my mail in Thunderbird, I get an extra copy of my sent mail in my inbox that I don't need.

This doesn't happen if I use "view message online" URL.

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est


Glenn Glazer
 

On 02/13/2021 15:12, Andy Wedge wrote:
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 09:51 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
Ease of use for the moderator. You keep focusing on the sender part, which is actually not relevant to the proposal.

I'm not saying get rid of the email response, I'm saying that different moderators have different use cases and that having both supports everyone. If you don't need the link, don't use it.
The current links at the bottom of a notification email for Reject and Delete are Mailto: links which start a new email whereas the action required to approve a message is to reply to the notification.  What you are really asking for is a Mailto: link that starts a new email that can be used to approve a message rather than use an email client reply function.

Exactly, though I would say "in addition to" instead of "rather than".


I don't think the way you phrased your original suggestion was very clear and use of the term 'do not notify the sender' doesn't make sense in terms of a message being approved. 

Possibly. It was clear to me when I wrote it ;) but clearly also there's been some confusion. Which is why we have dialog. I hope the intention is clear now.


As it stands though, there is a logical separation of moderator actions in the current approach as you Reply to Approve or tap/click a link to Reject or Delete; thereby eliminating the risk of tapping/clicking the wrong link if an Approve link was present.  Anything that reduces the chance of the wrong option being selected is a plus point for me (and the Discard button on the Web UI was recently moved to prevent accidental use) so I would say keep the notification email as it is.

Well you could say the same thing of the situation now, one could click reject when they meant delete or vice-versa. While I grant human error exists, I tend to think more highly of people who sign up to be admins and moderators as being rather more savvy than the average group member. I think going after 100% error free user interfaces results inevitably in loss of reasonable functionality, making it less useful rather than more so.

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est


Glenn Glazer
 

On 02/13/2021 14:58, Duane wrote:
especially if the internet happens to be a bit 'clogged' at the moment you want to

Packets are packets. Generally speaking, if the internet is clogged with respect to HTTP packets going to the groups.io domain, it is going to be clogged for SMTP packets going to the same domain.

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est


Andy Wedge
 

On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 09:51 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
Ease of use for the moderator. You keep focusing on the sender part, which is actually not relevant to the proposal.

I'm not saying get rid of the email response, I'm saying that different moderators have different use cases and that having both supports everyone. If you don't need the link, don't use it.
The current links at the bottom of a notification email for Reject and Delete are Mailto: links which start a new email whereas the action required to approve a message is to reply to the notification.  What you are really asking for is a Mailto: link that starts a new email that can be used to approve a message rather than use an email client reply function. I don't think the way you phrased your original suggestion was very clear and use of the term 'do not notify the sender' doesn't make sense in terms of a message being approved.  As it stands though, there is a logical separation of moderator actions in the current approach as you Reply to Approve or tap/click a link to Reject or Delete; thereby eliminating the risk of tapping/clicking the wrong link if an Approve link was present.  Anything that reduces the chance of the wrong option being selected is a plus point for me (and the Discard button on the Web UI was recently moved to prevent accidental use) so I would say keep the notification email as it is.

Regards
Andy


Glenn Glazer
 

On 02/13/2021 14:58, Duane wrote:
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 03:51 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
Ease of use for the moderator.
But I don't see how going to the site (especially if the internet happens to be a bit 'clogged' at the moment you want to) to hit Approve would be easier than hitting Reply, Send since you're already reading the email requesting approval.  Apparently you're seeing something different than I am.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be such an option, if it makes sense.

Duane

One thing that the URL lets me do is fast access to all pending messages. E.g., if there are many pending messages, taking me to the pending page is more convenient than replying to all  of them since I can select all at that page.

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est


Duane
 

On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 03:51 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
Ease of use for the moderator.
But I don't see how going to the site (especially if the internet happens to be a bit 'clogged' at the moment you want to) to hit Approve would be easier than hitting Reply, Send since you're already reading the email requesting approval.  Apparently you're seeing something different than I am.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be such an option, if it makes sense.

Duane


Glenn Glazer
 

On 02/13/2021 13:48, Duane wrote:
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 03:38 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
So is that an argument to remove the two URLs that exist?
Those are for other functions, same as hitting reply to approve.

All I'm asking for here is consistency, I don't understand why that generates controversy.
I don't see it as consistency, just an added (and unneeded, to me) function.  The approval email you get has the message and an easy means to approve, reject, or delete it.  As was said, senders aren't notified anyway when approving messages, so I don't see what another link would accomplish.

Duane

Ease of use for the moderator. You keep focusing on the sender part, which is actually not relevant to the proposal.

I'm not saying get rid of the email response, I'm saying that different moderators have different use cases and that having both supports everyone. If you don't need the link, don't use it.

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est


Duane
 

On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 03:38 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
So is that an argument to remove the two URLs that exist?
Those are for other functions, same as hitting reply to approve.

All I'm asking for here is consistency, I don't understand why that generates controversy.
I don't see it as consistency, just an added (and unneeded, to me) function.  The approval email you get has the message and an easy means to approve, reject, or delete it.  As was said, senders aren't notified anyway when approving messages, so I don't see what another link would accomplish.

Duane


Glenn Glazer
 

So is that an argument to remove the two URLs that exist?

All I'm asking for here is consistency, I don't understand why that generates controversy.

Best,

Glenn

On 02/13/2021 13:35, Bob Bellizzi wrote:
For the same reason that you are already in email, reading an email, wouldn't it be easier to simplly tap reply and be done with it?
 
--

Bob Bellizzi
FuchsFriends@groups.io online  support  group for corneal dystrophy patients & caregivers
The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation 



--
PG&E Delenda Est


Bob Bellizzi
 

For the same reason that you are already in email, reading an email, wouldn't it be easier to simplly tap reply and be done with it?
 
--

Bob Bellizzi
FuchsFriends@groups.io online  support  group for corneal dystrophy patients & caregivers
The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation 


Glenn Glazer
 

On 02/13/2021 12:41, Duane wrote:
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 02:21 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
The point is to allow moderators to approve using a URL
So you're asking for a link to approve online?  May I ask why?  Doesn't seem very useful to me.  Just go to the group and look at pending messages.

Duane

For the same reasons that the reject messages are useful as URLs. One could just as easily say "go and look at pending messages" for those also. Sometimes (particularly on mobile devices), it is more convenient to use a URL than an email response.

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est


Duane
 

On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 02:21 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
The point is to allow moderators to approve using a URL
So you're asking for a link to approve online?  May I ask why?  Doesn't seem very useful to me.  Just go to the group and look at pending messages.

Duane


Glenn Glazer
 

On 02/13/2021 12:18, Chris Jones via groups.io wrote:
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 06:55 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
Would it be possible, while retaining the reply functionality to add a link for "Approve this message and do not notify the sender"?
Like Shal I cannot see the point of this. Senders are not "notified" that a message has been approved anyway; they either see it using the web UI or receive the same email that other members get when the message is released.

Chris

The point is to allow moderators to approve using a URL, it has nothing really to do with member notification. I was simply following the language used for the two existing.

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est