moderated Beta Group Guidelines #meta


 

On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 07:13 AM, Duane wrote:
For me, the rest of that line covers things,
Yes, of course,  the rest of it is correct. So why not make it correct from the get-go?
 
--
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


Duane
 

On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 08:59 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
I've noticed one slightly inaccurate and possibly confusing statement in the guidelines: "All new topics are moderated."
For me, the rest of that line covers things, "Therefore, if your message creates a new topic, expect a delay before it is posted to the group."

Duane


 

Mark,

I've noticed one slightly inaccurate and possibly confusing statement in the guidelines: "All new topics are moderated." That reads, and may sound to newcomers, as if the whole topic is moderated (and what does that even mean - what is required for a topic to be a "new topic"?) To be more accurate or clear, it could be changed to "The first message of every topic is moderated." It could even say, although slightly redundant, "The first message of every new topic is moderated."
--
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


 

>>> Why is this thread in the Group Guidelines topic?

It's kind of "mission creep", it just happened so as it seems to happen occasionally, but Mark can always take the question and the subsequent replies to it and split it into a new #misc topic, and that will clean this GG topic.
 
Cheers,
Christos


 

On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 11:49 AM, Christos G. Psarras wrote:

 

>>> If you reply with +1 as message text and leave the original post below, your reply apparently vanishes in thin air and does not show in the group.

This is by design, using email, you can either like a post or reply to a post, but you can't do both in the same reply.

That did not happen in my test. I didn't trim the prior post, I used gmail, and the Like was recorded just fine. If you reply to a message using a quote of the prior message *above* your message, then that's another story, and it will not go through because the +1 isn't there solely on its own. But the +1 goes through perfectly if the prior text is below, treated as a prior post, even if untrimmed. Groups.io does not treat it as part of the reply. I don't know what went wrong in Marina's case but maybe for some reason, the prior text was placed above, rather than below, her +1. (Why is this thread in the Group Guidelines topic? In accordance with GG, I will stop here...)
 
--
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


 

Marina,

>>> I've just run a test in my group by replying to a post via Gmail and found out that the Like is recorded only if the reply doesn't quote the original post (i.e. you trim the post "tail")

I also tested this a couple of days ago in a beta/docs topic, albeit not from Gmail but from my local Thunderbird app.  One can either reply to a message with +1 (or Like) as the only message body text, or reply but leave the quoted text in the message below, and add +1 as the first line.  In both cases the like was recorded, I guess with the non-moderated stipulation J mentioned (which I didn't know but it's good to know)


>>> If you reply with +1 as message text and leave the original post below, your reply apparently vanishes in thin air and does not show in the group.

This is by design, using email, you can either like a post or reply to a post, but you can't do both in the same reply.  Correctly-formatted email Like "replies" get recorded as Likes to the replied-to message/post but the message itself is not entered in the archive. (again I guess with the non-moderated stipulation)

Cheers,
Christos



 

I've used +1 for years and it has always worked, and still does work, fine (I just tested it). However, I just discovered one exception: if the member sending the +1 is moderated, the message requires approval and after approval, becomes a reply message instead of a Like. So I think +1's should not be subject to moderation. I don't know if the problem you were having was related to that.
--
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


Marina
 

On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 08:15 AM, Andy Wedge wrote:
If you reply to a post by email and just put +1 as your message text, it will be recorded as a Like.
Sorry for reviving this topic.
I've just run a test in my group by replying to a post via Gmail and found out that the Like is recorded only if the reply doesn't quote the original post (i.e. you trim the post "tail").
If you reply with +1 as message text and leave the original post below, your reply apparently vanishes in thin air and does not show in the group.

Marina


 

Glenn, it's one of those undocumented features, I didn't know it existed either until only a few months ago.  There's only a single (somewhat cryptic) line about it, in the Owner's manual, and in the Enterprize group admin section no less which most folks don't read:

Disable +1 Functionality
Select this checkbox to disable the automatic conversion of +1 email messages to likes.

I'll suggest in docs to add something about it in the User manual.

Cheers,
Christos



On 2021-06-01 10:17, Glenn Glazer via groups.io wrote:
If you reply to a post by email and just put +1 as your message text, it will be recorded as a Like. You cannot see Likes unless you use the Web UI though.

Andy

Oh, thanks. I didn't know that. TIL.



Glenn Glazer
 

On 05/31/2021 23:15, Andy Wedge wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 06:26 AM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
Like does not work in email in either direction: I cannot like a post by email and I do not see likes in my email.
If you reply to a post by email and just put +1 as your message text, it will be recorded as a Like. You cannot see Likes unless you use the Web UI though.

Andy

Oh, thanks. I didn't know that. TIL.

Best,

Glenn

--
#calcare
PG&E Delenda Est


Andy Wedge
 

On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 06:26 AM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
Like does not work in email in either direction: I cannot like a post by email and I do not see likes in my email.
If you reply to a post by email and just put +1 as your message text, it will be recorded as a Like. You cannot see Likes unless you use the Web UI though.

Andy


Glenn Glazer
 

On 05/31/2021 21:21, KWKloeber via groups.io wrote:

Adding to list below:

- It likely would be helpful to cut down on unnecessary chafe in replies by avoiding reminding us that "it's Mark's business" or that  "Mark can implement a #Suggestion (or not) as he sees fit," or that "Mark can decide whether a #Suggestion will benefit enough members," and so on and so forth. 
It's intuitively obvious that Mark can do whatever he wants - we neither need to be reminded nor do we need to remind others.


I have most often seen this as a response to criticism. If we cut down on that, I think much of this sort of comment will be unnecessary.


Here is a prior msg to Mark (just copied verbatim so forgive my not fine-tuning it) when we had been discussing the "new" beta group back in Jan 2020.  Could we use this as a jumping-off point for interested-others to add to and suggest guidelines to Mark he could fine tune to whatever will help him the most?

Will you be publishing guidelines - specifically referring to what is most helpful to you and want to see added (or refrained from) re: discussion of a #suggestion.  Some thoughts if you decide to go that route:

- "I agree" and "me too" be forever banned (unless Beta is intended to be a popularity poll.)  "LIKE" works.

Like does not work in email in either direction: I cannot like a post by email and I do not see likes in my email. I for one, almost never use the web interface and I do not believe I am unique in this.

- "No one will use that" -  no one has enough foresight to definitively predict what the average user (or non-average) will or will -

- "That would cause a mess" or "cause more confusion than now" or "can't be implemented"  or ..... similar type replies.  

- For the most part "opinions" have little value and add to unnecessary chaff on Beta.  Everyone has one and every one (just as everyone) is as valid as another.

- "Fact-based" -  discussions/additions/clarifications that are fact-based and add to understanding or clarification (or forbid improvement) of someone else's suggestion, not leading to needing to defend one's opinions (rather than presenting or clarifying facts,) which adds tons of chaff.

The rest of these seem good.

Best,

Glenn


--
#calcare
PG&E Delenda Est


KWKloeber
 

Adding to list below:

- It likely would be helpful to cut down on unnecessary chafe in replies by avoiding reminding us that "it's Mark's business" or that  "Mark can implement a #Suggestion (or not) as he sees fit," or that "Mark can decide whether a #Suggestion will benefit enough members," and so on and so forth. 
It's intuitively obvious that Mark can do whatever he wants - we neither need to be reminded nor do we need to remind others.


Here is a prior msg to Mark (just copied verbatim so forgive my not fine-tuning it) when we had been discussing the "new" beta group back in Jan 2020.  Could we use this as a jumping-off point for interested-others to add to and suggest guidelines to Mark he could fine tune to whatever will help him the most?

Will you be publishing guidelines - specifically referring to what is most helpful to you and want to see added (or refrained from) re: discussion of a #suggestion.  Some thoughts if you decide to go that route:

- "I agree" and "me too" be forever banned (unless Beta is intended to be a popularity poll.)  "LIKE" works.

- "No one will use that" -  no one has enough foresight to definitively predict what the average user (or non-average) will or will -

- "That would cause a mess" or "cause more confusion than now" or "can't be implemented"  or ..... similar type replies.  

- For the most part "opinions" have little value and add to unnecessary chaff on Beta.  Everyone has one and every one (just as everyone) is as valid as another.

- "Fact-based" -  discussions/additions/clarifications that are fact-based and add to understanding or clarification (or forbid improvement) of someone else's suggestion, not leading to needing to defend one's opinions (rather than presenting or clarifying facts,) which adds tons of chaff. 


Glenn Glazer
 

On 05/29/2021 14:46, Duane wrote:
It's Mark's group (as well as his site), so it's up to him how 'hard' any enforcement should be or is. 

Yes, of course. But he also asked for our thoughts, so I gave mine.

Best,

Glenn

--
#calcare
PG&E Delenda Est


Duane
 

On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 03:15 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
I'm fairly agnostic to what the group rules are or will be, but I object to hardline enforcement techniques. 
It's Mark's group (as well as his site), so it's up to him how 'hard' any enforcement should be or is.  I know in the past he has warned some people, then moderated them, then I believe he banned them (but only he knows for sure.)  If he does publish guidelines, we have the choice of accepting them in order to post or of not posting, same as with any group.

Duane


Glenn Glazer
 

On 05/29/2021 12:22, Marv Waschke wrote:
In general, this is a well-intentioned and polite group. For me, keeping it that way is guideline number one!

THIS.

I'm fairly agnostic to what the group rules are or will be, but I object to hardline enforcement techniques.  I feel they stifle conversation and actually make things less polite or at least, less respectful of contributors.

Best,

Glenn

--
#calcare
PG&E Delenda Est


Marv Waschke
 

I was a development manager for large software projects for many years and I designed and implemented several defect/enhancement tracking systems. Here are my suggestions, which are not original. Some of them have been mentioned before, all are commonplace among development managers.

  • One issue per thread. Don't add new issues to existing threads. Think hard before piling additional features onto others suggestions.
  • Keep in mind three general classes of issue and try to make clear where your issue fits when you post it.
    • Defects. The system is performing contrary to specification, documentation, or reasonable expectation. Remember that what one person sees as a reasonable expectation, another person may see as an enhancement.
    • Design flaws. The system is performing to specification, but the spec is inconsistent or fails to comply with the overall design and intent of the system.
    • Design enhancements. Suggestions for improving the system.
  • Describe the issue in a way that makes it reproducible. Just saying that something is wrong without describing exactly how to make it happen is worse than useless to developers because they waste time guessing how to reproduce the problem, and often end up fixing the wrong issue. Don't report an issue until you have figured out how to make it happen again. When describing enhancements, describe the results you want. Resist the temptation to tell the developer what to do rather than the result you want. Let them figure out how to implement a solution. They know more about the system works than you do, but they don't know how you use it or want to use it.
  • Developers have to decide what to work on next. Help them by explaining how urgent or important the issue is. How often does the issue appear in your group or groups? When it does appear, how disruptive is it in real terms? Not how angry or upset people are, but how are they materially affected? Are all groups subject to the disruption, or does some special characteristic of your group make it vulnerable? If you are upset about an issue, wait until you have calmed down to report. The system has been working for years. The sky won't fall if you wait a day or two.
In general, this is a well-intentioned and polite group. For me, keeping it that way is guideline number one!
Best, Marv


 

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 11:03 AM, KWKloeber wrote:
unsure how to succinct it into a guideline
"If you make a suggestion, please motivate the suggestion: include the reason why it would be useful and/or the problem it solves; any use cases you know exist, or that may exist; and current workarounds you are aware of and why you think they are insufficient or could stand improvement."
 
--
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


KWKloeber
 

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 11:09 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
You can just do [xyz inconvenient workaround].
Toward cutting off such replies before they occur, it might be helpful if the original #suggester was as complete as humanly possible in the original po,t  i.e., *I realize we can work around this by... but the downside is....* or whatever.  There's no way to know if the #suggester is even aware there's a workaround, so oftentimes we ass/u/me s/he doesn't know. -- #suggesters,  put yourself in your recipients' shoes.
  
It may also be helpful to succinctly explain why a #suggestion is made.  Just posting *I #suggest xyz* gives MF no clue as to the utility of doing that, or what the problem is leaving it where is it.  *Here's why #suggestion would be better ....* gives everyone involved more information.
We might think we shouldn't need to explain our "whys and wherefores" but in the long game it can make life easier.  We aren't making suggestions to only MF (otherwise this group isn't needed -- it could be via email,) we're doing it for discussion.  i.e., if we don't need *some point* discussed then it's critical to provide enough information to demonstrate that *the point* doesn't NEED to be discussed - i.e., that the #suggester has already considered it.

just 0.02, unsure how to succinct it into a guideline.


 

Ok, so one more message from me in this topic, given Mark's request:

Mark, I like your previously mentioned exhortations not to shoot down ideas without an affirmative reason that they are bad or might actually hurt something or be bad for the product. What gets my goat are messages that say, "Why do we really need this? You can just do [xyz inconvenient workaround]." There are almost always workarounds. Heck, there's a workaround to groups.io! Why do we need it? Just create your own email list!

The answer to those kinds of comments is always the same: "Yes, there's a workaround, but we are just trying to make things better, make mods' and members' lives easier than having to do the workaround, and the suggestion doesn't hurt anything." It's like rinse-and-repeat.

I think arguments against a suggestion are fine if they describe why they could actually have a negative effect.

And I have one more pet-peeve subservient to this: "I'm not arguing against this" followed by the above ("but we don't really need it" yada yada).
--
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