Date
1 - 19 of 19
Site updates #changelog
|
Changes to the site this week: May 15, 2023:
May 17, 2023:
May 19, 2023:
The next #changelog will be published on May 26, 2023. Take care everyone. Mark |
|
|
|
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 08:05 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Mark, I just checked this out and it doesn't make sense to me. The word "notice" to me means just that the group member is notified - not that there's necessarily a message (the "reason") to go along with the notification. I thinks mods should be able, as before, to reject a message and have the member receive the "your message was not approved" notification, without a reason. As it stands now, that's no longer possible. The only other choice now is "Delete," in which the member gets no clue at all. So I think that should be restored. I don't see any reason to disable that option just because the mod chooses not to include a reason. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. |
|
|
|
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 10:38 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I thinks mods should be able, as before, to reject a message and have the member receive the "your message was not approved" notification, without a reason. As it stands now, that's no longer possible.Actually, it is, though an extra click unless you reject via email. Create a Rejected Message notice with minimal text and use that as the standard rejection notice. Duane |
|
|
|
Duane,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
This is non-obvious, it differs from the way other standard (automatic) notices work (they don’t display the text of the message when you do the action), and it’s actually not a solution (“minimal text” is not “no text”). On May 20, 2023, at 2:31 AM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:
--
J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. |
|
|
|
That said, I do like the idea of displaying the text of *every* automatic notification message. For example, if you reject a pending member or remove a member, etc., it's impossible to see in real-time whether you have an active notice, and if so, what's in it. Displaying that text, if any exists (as well as the ability to tailor it to the specific case each time), would be very helpful. Along those lines, I've long advocated for the ability to choose each auto-notice at the time of doing the action, similar to when you use "Send Message" and can (optionally) choose a Member Notice, such as the guidelines (or whatever) rather than fill it in by hand. I think this whole area could use some cleaning up and some consistency. For now, I think just allowing either "Delete" or "Reject with Notice," and for the latter, allowing an optional "reason" - is simplest, most intuitive and consistent with before, and least confusing.
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. |
|
|
|
Also, it seems the change (disabling Reject when the text box is blank) was made only when viewing a pending message. When you select the pending message (by using the checkbox) without viewing it, there's no disablement. So this is now inconsistent.
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. |
|
|
|
Hi J, On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 8:38 PM J_Catlady <JanetOliviaCatlady@...> wrote:
You're right. I had originally made that change because some people were accidentally sending the notice without a message, when they intended to select a message. There does still need to be a way to send the reject notice without a custom message. I have reverted the behavior. I also re-arraigned the buttons, to make them more consistent with other dialog boxes on the site. Thanks, Mark |
|
|
|
Mark,
Somewhat better, but it's still inconsistent with the structure of reject/delete when you use the checkbox, and it still does not really match what was there before. Using the checkbox, you first select either "reject" or "delete." And if you select "reject," you have the option to include a message. Whereas while viewing the pending message, you can only "reject," and WITHIN "reject" are the options to "delete" or "reject with notice." And if you select "reject with notice," a textbox appears saying "The post will be returned to the sender along with the following message:" In other words, it STILL implies that "notice" = "message." At minimum, that text should include the word "optional" in "following message." Better yet would be to actually revert to how it was, and to how the checkbox still words: you select "reject" or "delete," and then if you select "reject," you have the choice of including an optional message. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. |
|
|
|
I would call the options "delete (without notice)," "delete and notify sender," and "delete and send message to sender." Something along those lines. Or, same thing but with the word "reject" in all three places: "reject (without notice)," "reject and notify sender," and "reject and send message to sender."
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. |
|
|
|
On 2023-05-23 16:57, J_Catlady via
groups.io wrote:
... After initially liking the new streamlining, I've started wondering now if it would had been better to also have the Delete button in the viewing pending screen, alongside Approve & Edit, and have Reject bring up the current reject dialog but sans Delete. That would take care of the extra step when one wants to jut delete the message, and one only goes to reject if they want to include some message/notice with the user. Cheers, Christos |
|
|
|
On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 03:10 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
There does still need to be a way to send the reject notice without a custom message.It seems to me that if you're going to reject a message without explaining why, then you should just use Delete. Therefore, not allowing a Reject without a message/notice makes sense. Does anyone have an example of why they would only notify a sender that their message was rejected, but not explain why? Duane |
|
|
|
Niman H
Agree. It's not so obvious or intuitive (especially for all those not following all these changes) to realize that "delete" is hidden under "reject". To my mind at least, those are 2 very different things.
Thanks, Sally |
|
|
|
Example: a sender who consistently breaks a certain rule, or generally, any repeat offender. There are probably many, many other cases, including possibly the policy of a certain group.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
It should not be necessary to justify this. On May 24, 2023, at 5:33 AM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:
--
J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. |
|
|
|
Bruce Bowman
On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 08:33 AM, Duane wrote:
It seems to me that if you're going to reject a message without explaining why, then you should just use Delete.I haven't been following this thread closely, so forgive me. You can still use Reject, and simply not type anything into the editor before sending. Right? Is that extra mouseclick really a hardship? I guess I'm struggling to understand the problem. Regards, Bruce |
|
|
|
On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 08:53 AM, Bruce Bowman wrote:
You can *again* use Reject without typing anything into the box (you couldn't before Mark reverted it back, or somewhat reverted it back). It's not so much the extra mouseclick that's the problem, in my view. In my view, the remaining problems are (1) inconsistency with the way it works when you use the checkbox instead of viewing the message; (2) the text about the explanation sounds like you have to type something in (it should include the word "optional"); (3) the word "notice" is still used in a way that makes it sound synonymous with "message"; and (4) it's not really a reversion to back to the way it was before, as Mark said it was. It's different and, in my view, slightly confusing, especially given the ambiguous diction and the inconsistency with the checkbox flow. I don't see any reason not to simply put it back to the way it was before. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. |
|
|
|
Bruce Bowman
I'm sure I can adapt to whatever the final product looks like, but at this point I'd like to suggest that a test environment be set up for these email moderating functions before it's rolled out to production. Doing otherwise seems to be causing real hardship.
Regards, Bruce |
|
|
|
But still the worst - IN MY VIEW - is having to click “approve” twice for every message to be approved.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
In a way, the reject and approve problems are similar, requiring what seem like redundant mouse licks. But the approval process seems much worse. On May 24, 2023, at 9:11 AM, J_Catlady via groups.io <JanetOliviaCatlady@...> wrote:
--
J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. |
|
|
|
On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 9:33 AM J_Catlady <JanetOliviaCatlady@...> wrote:
That only happens because the user is moderated or new user moderated, or the sender isn't a member of the group. For 'normal' users, there is no extra click. What if I changed it so that if a user is moderated, but not new user moderated, the approval dialog doesn't come up? If you've specifically moderated someone, maybe you don't need to be asked every time they post a message whether to unmoderate them?
I know it was a typo, but I really love the phrase "mouse licks". :-) I'm happy to continue to iterate on the pending message screen (and after that the edit pending message screen). But going back to a screen that had upwards of 10 buttons in a row I think would be a step backwards. That was a mess, and I can say that because I designed it! Thanks, Mark |
|
|
|
On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 09:56 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
That only happens because the user is moderated or new user moderated, or the sender isn't a member of the group. For 'normal' users, there is no extra click.Mark, Part of the problem for me is the fact that the info about "this message requires approval because the user is moderated" doesn't come up until AFTER you click on the first "approve" button. So you click Approve, and then you get a second box asking you to approve and saying why. You've already "clicked "approve and the "why" seems to be in the wrong place and should come first. If you've specifically moderated someone, maybe you don't need to be asked every time they post a message whether to unmoderate them?That would be an improvement at least in efficiency. But the flow still seems wrong, and possibly even worse. I feel strongly that the info on why you need to approve or reject the message (namely, the user is moderated, or new user moderated, or whatever) should come up FIRST. And if you're going to provide a reason why the message needs approval, it seems distinctly odd to give the reason only in one (or two) case(s) and not in others. For example: why not state that the message needs approval "because the topic is moderated"? It seems very odd to me to leave that reason out. So, several problems for me: (1) the redundancy/ineffeciency (having to approve twice); (2) the reason is in the wrong place; (3) why give some reasons and not others? In fact, I often have to go back and look at the emailed pending message notification to remind myself of why the message needs approval, specfically in the case of a moderated topic. I know it was a typo, but I really love the phrase "mouse licks". :-)Haha! Well, I'm the catlady, after all! Yum yum! :-) That was a mess, and I can say that because I designed it!LOL. It never bothered me before.... I guess it's always space vs. time. And I vote for prioritizing time. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. |
|
|