Date
1 - 20 of 48
Moderated Posting Limits #suggestion
|
Jim F.
I moderate a site for a philosophy discussion group. Unfortunately we have a couple chatterboxes who treat it as their personal blog and post multiple times daily. We could moderate their posts but that would be too much work and raise censorship concerns; and we don't want to cut them off completely. (After all, even a broken clock is right twice a day.)
It would be very helpful to have a moderation function that would hold a moderated person's posts during the day and then automatically distribute them at a set time (say, 6 PM) each day. It would be even more helpful if such a moderation function could be automatically triggered after the person posted a threshold number of posts within a set time period (weekly, for us), and then be automatically reset at the end of that time period. (So the daily hold would only apply after the person had posted, say, 15 times that week, and then the count would start over again the next week.) For us it would be better for such limits to apply to all of a person's posts, rather than by topic, because some members often seem to accidentally start new topic threads on the same subject. (We could limit the creation of topics but that would cause frustration and complaints, so we just clean them up afterwards.) Thanks for a great site. Best regards. -Jim F. |
|
|
|
Andy I
How would delaying messages until 6pm accomplish anything?
If you moderate their posts (whether all the time or after 15 posts), do you reject any? Maybe the solution is more feedback and encouragement to do better. Andy |
|
|
|
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 04:03 PM, Andy wrote:
Maybe the solution is more feedback and encouragement to do better.I agree. I have on occasion had to have conversations like this and I've found most people to be very cooperative. Pete |
|
|
|
Jim F.
Andy and Pete-
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Oh, we've tried, to the point of some nastiness that drove others away. But some people just cannot limit themselves (despite having agreed to try), and for better or worse it isn't a group where the moderators can act unilaterally. The problem is similar to someone hogging the floor at an in-person meeting; but those were more actively moderated and even so it wasn't always easy to deal with. Online, people seem even quicker to take offense, which in turn makes it personal and acrimonious. So, as I suggested, it would be very helpful to have an automatic, impersonal way to address the problem (after getting consensus on a numerical limit), rather than to see the substantive discussion sidetracked yet again. For some reason I got Pete's comment but not Andy's. Best regards. -Jim F. On Jan 12, 2022, at 4:05 PM, Peter Cook <peterscottcook@...> wrote: On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 04:03 PM, Andy wrote: Maybe the solution is more feedback and encouragement to do better.I agree. I have on occasion had to have conversations like this and I've found most people to be very cooperative. Pete |
|
|
|
Andy I
Jim, I still wonder what you would have the group interface do, when someone exceeds their quota.
Reject all messages from them until the next week? Queue them up for a Moderator to deal with? That might be the most 'fair', because the Moderator could Merge them into one (or a once daily) reply. Andy |
|
|
|
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 08:43 PM, Jim F. wrote:
I moderate a site for a philosophy discussion group. Unfortunately we have a couple chatterboxes who treat it as their personal blog and post multiple times daily.If you have group rules/guidelines that state you will accept a maximum number of posts per person per day then just reject those that exceed the limit and refer the posters to the guidelines when doing so. It may take a bit of moderation and a few rejections to start with but I'm sure they'll get the message. It seems like you are asking for a system change to deal with something that already have the tools for but are not prepared to use. Regards Andy |
|
|
|
Jim F.
Andy-
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
If feasible, I would just hold the affected messages until some set time each day when they would all be distributed at once. (Or they could automatically be merged into a single email, but that wouldn't matter much.) The problem is that people get sick of receiving emails throughout the day from the same two posters (and so they unsubscribe or turn email distributions off); but a batch of emails all arriving at, say, 6 PM daily would be much less annoying. (And meanwhile the ongoing posts from others would continue to be distributed as posted.) The issue is not when messages are posted on the website, but how often they are distributed by email to those who are subscribed for email distributions. (It isn't the content of the posts, just the volume of emails that is the problem.) There would be no need to delay the website posts unless that was technically easier. Holding the messages for a moderator to deal with individually would be outside our bandwidth (and possibly raise objections: an automatic process with a set threshold is harder to blame for unfairness). Best regards. -Jim F. On Jan 12, 2022, at 5:37 PM, Andy <AI.egrps+io@...> wrote: Jim, I still wonder what you would have the group interface do, when someone exceeds their quota. Reject all messages from them until the next week? Queue them up for a Moderator to deal with? That might be the most 'fair', because the Moderator could Merge them into one (or a once daily) reply. Andy |
|
|
|
Donald Hellen
Jim . . .
On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 12:14:34 -0800, "Jim F. via groups.io" <JimF56s@...> wrote: It would be very helpful to have a moderation function that would hold a moderated person's posts during the day and then automatically distribute them at a set time (say, 6 PM) each day.You already effectively have that by moderating these people's posts, then checking at 6 PM and deciding if they've reached their limit and whether to approve or reject their posts. This seems like something only very few people would use and for that reason, I doubt that Mark would spend the time to implement such a function of posting limits on # of posts per week or one to hold all of moderated person's posts until a certain time. If there were a need for this across many groups, it might be something he would add. If there's only a couple of people doing this excessive posting, then why not address the problem people and not try to do it through a group function? Train them by moderating their posts up to the limit then rejecting them. You could create a custom rejection message and make it look like it's an automatic function, pasting it into the rejection message. But first announce to the group that you are going to be testing a function (they don't need to know it's not automatic and it's you doing it) to limit posts to so many per week. Then put the two or so people on moderation and keep count. If you're going to hold everyone's post until a certain time of day, moderate everyone, then, assuming you trust all but two people, approve all posts except those posts from the problem people at that time, then those from those people up to the limit you set. You could instead just ban the two people for not following your rules after several warnings. That seems to be a much simpler approach. You could tell them what you're doing--or not. If you tell them this is a last warning and then ban them, they could always ask for forgiveness and you could decide if you want to try them again. If people act like children and don't follow the rules, perhaps they need to be treated as children and have a time-out. You could just turn off posting for them for a week as an alternative. If you let personal feelings get in the way of you taking action, perhaps you're the one hurting the group? Don't be afraid to take action. It's your group, and it's not a democracy. You set the rules, not them. They have to follow them or else. Donald KX8K ---------------------------------------------------- Some ham radio groups you may be interested in: https://groups.io/g/ICOM https://groups.io/g/Ham-Antennas https://groups.io/g/HamRadioHelp https://groups.io/g/Baofeng https://groups.io/g/CHIRP https://rf-amplifiers.groups.io/g/main |
|
|
|
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 06:33 PM, Jim F. wrote:
people get sick of receiving emails throughout the day from the same two postersThe folks in my groups who feel that way get the digest or the daily summary. As others have pointed out, this seems like something of very limited utility and a band-aid for using our abilities as moderators. When you say your group isn't one where moderators can act unilaterally, it sounds to me like you have stakeholders who are resistant to moderators being, well, moderators. If that's the case, there's probably a conversation that needs to happen. Pete |
|
|
|
I could see some groups wanting to auto-moderate above a certain number of messages and other groups wanting to auto-reject, to give their moderators less work to do (and the offenders would just eventually learn not to post more than X number of messages a day). So wherever the daily message limit is specified, also select if messages over the limit are moderated or rejected.
JohnF |
|
|
|
Jim F.
Andy, Donald, and Peter-
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Different groups operate differently Our group IS close to a democracy: the website moderators cannot act unilaterally, and achieving an adequate consensus on anything is a long and painful process. There would be objections to delaying posts at the moderators' discretion--or according to rules that, being manually implemented, would be inconsistently applied. And we certainly wouldn't do anything under false pretenses. But most members, I think, would support a transparent limit on excessive posting that was implemented automatically and without cutting anyone off entirely. The two-part suggestion I made would do exactly that. First, an account would become subject to automatic delay after a set number of weekly posts (and both this delay status and the post count would automatically reset every week). Second, while on automatic delay, posts from that account would be held and distributed at a set time each day. (Or, as JohnF suggests, such accounts might instead be placed on moderation or simply have further posts rejected. Our group probably wouldn't accept that, but it might be useful for others.) It's hard for me to believe that many other groups don't also have issues with people effectively monopolizing the discussion board with excessive posts. (I've certainly heard people complain about that regarding online groups generally, as well as in our group; their solution is generally to drop out.) To say that the moderators should be more forceful, or initiate (yet another) difficult and damaging conversation, really isn't an answer. The goal should be to facilitate the moderators' job, not to demand more of them. Regarding arguments that this capability is already available through monitoring, issuing warnings, and placing accounts on moderation: sure, if you have the authority and the time. But our group is not actively moderated and our moderators have day jobs. Even if they tried that approach, a flat daily limit wouldn't work because there are often lively exchanges that go on for a several days. (The problem is the people who continue posting at that rate all the time.) So you would need a weekly limit, and then to place each account that exceeds it on moderation, and then to deal individually with each post, and then to turn the moderation off at just the right time to start the new week. Even if the group accepted it, that process wouldn't be practical for us. Best regards. -Jim F. On Jan 12, 2022, at 5:44 PM, Andy Wedge <andy_wedge@...> wrote: On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 08:43 PM, Jim F. wrote: I moderate a site for a philosophy discussion group. Unfortunately we have a couple chatterboxes who treat it as their personal blog and post multiple times daily.If you have group rules/guidelines that state you will accept a maximum number of posts per person per day then just reject those that exceed the limit and refer the posters to the guidelines when doing so. It may take a bit of moderation and a few rejections to start with but I'm sure they'll get the message. It seems like you are asking for a system change to deal with something that already have the tools for but are not prepared to use. Regards Andy |
|
|
|
Jim I don't think you stated this but how many posts a day are you talking about?
tommy0421 |
|
|
|
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 07:33 PM, Jim F. wrote:
But most members, I think, would supportMaybe you should find out exactly what they'd support. If you got what you asked for and they didn't support it, think of the time and effort that would be wasted. Duane |
|
|
|
In all things, there's one thing to remember: you are the Moderator, essentially the police officer of your Group. If you are the Group Owner, you have the final say in all matters pertaining to the Group. I have found that the best thing to do (for me, anyway) is to post a monthly message, at the beginning of the month, which contains the Group's rules and posting guidelines. After that, Members will KNOW what the rules are and what's expected of them, and what could happen if a Member violates the Forum Rules. If you have more than one Moderator, one thing you could do is delegate specific responsibilities/tasks to specific Moderators, so that you, as Group Owner, don't have to do everything yourself (you still have, as Group Owner, the final say in all matters if a conflict arises). The Members of my Group generally behave and police themselves, so there is often little for me to do. Remember, it is your Group, you have the final say about "what goes" within your Group. And always remember to put your pride into your pocket when dealing with miscreants, to ensure emotions/feelings do not get in the way of your duty. -- Paul Gray. ××××××××××~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~×××××××××× “Time, hurries swiftly on, Each fleeting year seems shorter than the last, And many hopes which cheered its opening dawn, Are buried with the past.” ~~ Mary Ann H. Dodd Shutts (1813–1878), "Passing Time" ××××××××××~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~×××××××××× |
|
|
|
Jim F.
Tommy-
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
We choose a new topic every two weeks with the online discussion leading up to a video meeting (although the two excessive posters don't attend the meeting). For our last three topics the online totals were: 125 posts from 10 people, including 77 from two people. 107 posts from 9 people, including 72 from the same two people. 128 posts from 8 people, including 72 from the same two people. Of course it varies by day, with no posts sometimes for days at a time, but often you can get 5-10 posts/day from the same two people for several days running. We used to have more posters (and fewer posts), but I think that many of them felt drowned out and just gave up. Best regards. -Jim On Jan 13, 2022, at 9:14 AM, Tommy Meehan <tmeehan0421@...> wrote: Jim I don't think you stated this but how many posts a day are you talking about? tommy0421 |
|
|
|
Jim F.
Duane-
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
That's a bit of a chicken and egg problem. As I said, we've already been through some acrimony, which itself drove some people away, and all we got were some vague promises that were not then kept. (For maintaining group participation, the only thing worse than a couple of loud bores is a louder fight to restrain them.) I'm not about to restart that discussion unless I have an available solution that would actually work. Best regards. -Jim On Jan 13, 2022, at 9:35 AM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote: On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 07:33 PM, Jim F. wrote: But most members, I think, would supportMaybe you should find out exactly what they'd support. If you got what you asked for and they didn't support it, think of the time and effort that would be wasted. Duane |
|
|
|
John Wirtz SF
Paul Gray. You speak absolute sense. If you run a group you take on the resp[onsibility over what is published irrespective of legal requirements that vary across borders anyway. Its that lack of responsible management that has ruined social media though their motives were not to provide a friendly platform for users.
We monitor who joins, no one can hide behind an alias. Any post that look offensive or inappropriate is blocked, etc. No compromise. Our group was on Egroups, then Yahoo and now here and we have hardly had any issues to deal with. People know the rules and genraly abide by them without constant reminding.
Good words.
John Wirtz
From: main@beta.groups.io <main@beta.groups.io>
On Behalf Of Paul Gray via groups.io
Sent: 13 January 2022 17:42 To: main@beta.groups.io Subject: Re: [beta] Posting Limits
In all things, there's one thing to remember: you are the Moderator, essentially the police officer of your Group. If you are the Group Owner, you have the final say in all matters pertaining to the Group.
I have found that the best thing to do (for me, anyway) is to post a monthly message, at the beginning of the month, which contains the Group's rules and posting guidelines. After that, Members will KNOW what the rules are and what's expected of them, and what could happen if a Member violates the Forum Rules.
If you have more than one Moderator, one thing you could do is delegate specific responsibilities/tasks to specific Moderators, so that you, as Group Owner, don't have to do everything yourself (you still have, as Group Owner, the final say in all matters if a conflict arises). The Members of my Group generally behave and police themselves, so there is often little for me to do.
Remember, it is your Group, you have the final say about "what goes" within your Group. And always remember to put your pride into your pocket when dealing with miscreants, to ensure emotions/feelings do not get in the way of your duty.
-- Paul Gray.
|
|
|
|
Jim F.
Tommy-
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Also, the group has about 250 members who receive special notices from the moderators, but only a couple dozen are subscribed to receive email distributions of member posts. It was more in the past, but I think that the problem of excessive posting caused some to turn off the feed. Best regards. -Jim On Jan 13, 2022, at 1:30 PM, Jim F. via groups.io <JimF56s@...> wrote: Tommy- We choose a new topic every two weeks with the online discussion leading up to a video meeting (although the two excessive posters don't attend the meeting). For our last three topics the online totals were: 125 posts from 10 people, including 77 from two people. 107 posts from 9 people, including 72 from the same two people. 128 posts from 8 people, including 72 from the same two people. Of course it varies by day, with no posts sometimes for days at a time, but often you can get 5-10 posts/day from the same two people for several days running. We used to have more posters (and fewer posts), but I think that many of them felt drowned out and just gave up. Best regards. -Jim On Jan 13, 2022, at 9:14 AM, Tommy Meehan <tmeehan0421@...> wrote: Jim I don't think you stated this but how many posts a day are you talking about? tommy0421 |
|
|
|
Jim F.
John and Paul-
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Thanks for the inspirational talk, but that's not how our group works. Maybe it's because we began with in-person meetings (and still have video meetings). In any case, I didn't make the technical suggestion until exhausting my other options. It really isn't a solution to tell me that you run your groups differently. Best regards. -Jim On Jan 13, 2022, at 1:51 PM, John Wirtz SF <john@...> wrote: Paul Gray. You speak absolute sense. If you run a group you take on the resp[onsibility over what is published irrespective of legal requirements that vary across borders anyway. Its that lack of responsible management that has ruined social media though their motives were not to provide a friendly platform for users. We monitor who joins, no one can hide behind an alias. Any post that look offensive or inappropriate is blocked, etc. No compromise. Our group was on Egroups, then Yahoo and now here and we have hardly had any issues to deal with. People know the rules and genraly abide by them without constant reminding. Good words. John Wirtz From: main@beta.groups.io <main@beta.groups.io> On Behalf Of Paul Gray via groups.io Sent: 13 January 2022 17:42 To: main@beta.groups.io Subject: Re: [beta] Posting Limits In all things, there's one thing to remember: you are the Moderator, essentially the police officer of your Group. If you are the Group Owner, you have the final say in all matters pertaining to the Group. I have found that the best thing to do (for me, anyway) is to post a monthly message, at the beginning of the month, which contains the Group's rules and posting guidelines. After that, Members will KNOW what the rules are and what's expected of them, and what could happen if a Member violates the Forum Rules. If you have more than one Moderator, one thing you could do is delegate specific responsibilities/tasks to specific Moderators, so that you, as Group Owner, don't have to do everything yourself (you still have, as Group Owner, the final say in all matters if a conflict arises). The Members of my Group generally behave and police themselves, so there is often little for me to do. Remember, it is your Group, you have the final say about "what goes" within your Group. And always remember to put your pride into your pocket when dealing with miscreants, to ensure emotions/feelings do not get in the way of your duty. -- Paul Gray.
|
|
|
|
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 02:01 PM, Jim F. wrote:
it would be very helpful to have an automatic, impersonal way to address the problemI think "impersonal" would be worse. They'd be screaming to you offlist about it - "what happened?" "why am I being blocked?" etc. In the past I've trtied to avoid the hard conversations by setting up a notice. It has only exacerated the situation. I don't think you can avoid the hard conversation. You just need to have it, and better initiated by you than by the system. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. |
|
|