Topics

moderated "Pending Message" notification that could be clicked on to delete it. #suggestion

Bill Hazel
 

Add a way to cancel a message before it gets approved.

Once i hit "Send" or "Reply to Group" I get the green banner with "Your message will be sent when it's approved by the moderators." but nothing about canceling the message. 

Also, once I leave the message page there is no indication that the message is in limbo.

I mentioned in a reply to the question "Can moderators reduce joined their own moderator settings?", that I had to wait for the message to go through the Moderators before I could fess up to figuring it out on my own.

It would be nice if there was a "Pending Message" notification that could be clicked on to delete it.

I kind of hope I'm not the only person who clicks either "Send" or "Reply to Group" then wishes I hadn't.

Bill

 

I'm not sure I understand the middle part of this message, but I do get that the suggestion is for a way to delete a submitted pending message. I would disagree with that feature and think it would be superfluous.

What I do think would be very useful (and have suggested in the past) would be to send the member a record of the submitted message. When you post via email, you have a record of what you sent. But when you post via the web and the message is moderated, you have no record of it unless you explicitly make a copy for yourself. 
--
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 Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 01:11 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I would disagree with that feature and think it would be superfluous.
How so?  Wouldn't it be better to allow the sender to remove the message from the queue than to add clutter by needing to post a "my mistake" followup?  In some cases though, I do like having something like that posted for all to see when it might make something more clear to another user later.

Duane

 

I’m all for the most consistency possible between posting via email vs posting via the web. Adding the suggested feature decreases consistency (you can’t take back a sent email) whereas my suggestion adds consistency (you’d have a record of what yoh sent whether you posted via email or via the web, as opposed to currently, where you have it only if post via email). 

The feature suggested here also raises a complication  of the person trying to delete the message before knowing whether a mod has already acted on it some way, if they haven’t kept up either on email or the web. This would probably take some thinking through and there may or may not be issues.


On Feb 19, 2020, at 12:02 PM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 01:11 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I would disagree with that feature and think it would be superfluous.
How so?  Wouldn't it be better to allow the sender to remove the message from the queue than to add clutter by needing to post a "my mistake" followup?  In some cases though, I do like having something like that posted for all to see when it might make something more clear to another user later.

Duane

--
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 Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 02:16 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Adding the suggested feature decreases consistency (you can’t take back a sent email)
I don't think it necessarily would.  If the message hasn't been approved, the sender could go online and delete it.  Maybe that would be a limitation.

Duane

 

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:34 PM, Duane wrote:
If the message hasn't been approved, the sender could go online and delete it.
How would they do that? If they sent it via email, there's no notification that their message will post when approved, no banner,  no nothing.
 
--
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 Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:36 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
there's no notification that their message will post when approved, no banner,  no nothing.
Now I'm thinking (as you may be too) that maybe there should be some such notification when members post via email. If that's added, and a copy of the message sent is also added, that would make things very consistent.

My gut feeling is still against adding the ability to delete, but I can't really justify it. Something just bothers me about it.
 
--
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 Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 02:36 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
How would they do that?
The same mechanism that would allow one posted online to be deleted.  If it's already been approved, their 'sent' list would be empty.

Duane

 

Ok, that's somewhat convincing. :)
--
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

 

Pondering this further, I think what bothers me is the effect on moderators. Someone (or someones, until Shal's "claimed" feature is implemented, if it is) may be hard at work moderating the message and then it can disappear out from under them. This just seems really messy.
--
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

 

Re messy: so to fix that, you'd have to do something like a "too late to delete" feature if a mod has already claimed the message. And that's assuming "claimed" even gets implemented. If it doesn't, things are even worse.
--
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

 

How about a way to attach a note to the moderator for a message that's pending approval? It would only be seen by a moderator who is able to approve the pending message. Then the original author could note, "I found out the answer to my question, so this message doesn't have to be posted," and the moderator could decide to reject it to reduce clutter, or could approve it anyway if he/she thinks it would be helpful to others.

JohnF

 

Seems cleaner and easier for the poster of the message to just send a PM to the group owner address asking them to delete the pending message.
My two cents.
--
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 Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 05:59 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Seems cleaner and easier for the poster of the message to just send a PM to the group owner address asking them to delete the pending message.
But (ain't there always at least one) how do you know which will be read first?  Catch-22.  After thinking on it a bit, I don't know if this is really worth pursuing much (of course, that's up to Mark.)  As it is now, the poster could attempt to notify the group mods to reject/delete it.  Failing that, the poster has 2 options, follow up with an oopsy report or just delete the message.  (As I mentioned before, I'd rather see an oopsy in hopes it may help someone else.)  There doesn't seem to be much, if any, damage done and I don't remember it happening all that often.  Maybe this can go on Mark's pie-in-the-sky list for when he runs out of things to do and the site is running perfectly. ;>)

Duane

 

Or maybe the can-of-worms-in-the-sky list.;)


On Feb 19, 2020, at 4:12 PM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 05:59 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Seems cleaner and easier for the poster of the message to just send a PM to the group owner address asking them to delete the pending message.
But (ain't there always at least one) how do you know which will be read first?  Catch-22.  After thinking on it a bit, I don't know if this is really worth pursuing much (of course, that's up to Mark.)  As it is now, the poster could attempt to notify the group mods to reject/delete it.  Failing that, the poster has 2 options, follow up with an oopsy report or just delete the message.  (As I mentioned before, I'd rather see an oopsy in hopes it may help someone else.)  There doesn't seem to be much, if any, damage done and I don't remember it happening all that often.  Maybe this can go on Mark's pie-in-the-sky list for when he runs out of things to do and the site is running perfectly. ;>)

Duane

--
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

Michael Pavan
 

On Feb 19, 2020, at 12:19 PM, Bill Hazel <william.j.hazel@...> wrote:

Add a way to cancel a message before it gets approved.
Posting via an online form (anywhere) typically fails to provide the option to receive a copy of one's 'sent' message.
I try to avoid posting online for that reason
A checkbox could offer that option.

A email notification would be sent to any Sender of a message (posted via email or online) that requires Moderation.
This notification would look similar to that sent to the Moderators/Owners that a message requires Moderation.
The Sender's notification would include a 'reply' or 'forward' option to delete the Pending message.

An online Pending Message feature for the Sender, similar to that of Moderators/Owners would be required.
The Sender's options would be to Edit or Delete the Pending Message.

If the message had already been approved, it would be too late for the Sender.
If a Moderator/Owner attempted to moderate a deleted Pending message, it would no longer exist.

Whether a Pending message had been Claimed or not would only affect where Moderators/Owners could moderate the message. (No change)

The Activity log would show whatever happened to the Pending message.

 

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 01:48 AM, Michael Pavan wrote:
The Sender's options would be to Edit or Delete the Pending Message.

If the message had already been approved, it would be too late for the Sender.
If a Moderator/Owner attempted to moderate a deleted Pending message, it would no longer exist.
Not bad except for this part. The issue is when a moderator starts to moderate a message first, and then the sender gives the instruction to delete. None of this solves that, which is really the only problematic issue.

Whether a Pending message had been Claimed or not would only affect where Moderators/Owners could moderate the message. (No change)
The idea is that if the message is claimed (assuming that feature even gets implemented), the sender would not be allowed to delete it. That would solve the issue. But it would involve fairly massive changes to the UI (web and email notifications) that seem overly complicated just in order to let a user change their mind about a message sent.

The part about giving the sender a copy of their message if posted via email sounds fine. I still see no reasonable way to allow a sender to delete a pending message.
 
--
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 Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 02:48 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
The part about giving the sender a copy of their message if posted via email sounds fine
should read "if posted via web"
 
--
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 Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 01:48 AM, Michael Pavan wrote:
Posting via an online form (anywhere) typically fails to provide the option to receive a copy of one's 'sent' message.
BTW this is mostly true, but it's an apt comparison with groups.io only in the case that messages are moderated and the user can't see their message on the site while it's still pending. (NYT, whose comments section is moderated, is an odd exception. They don't send you a copy of the comment while it's still on moderation, but they do send it to you after it's approved.) 
 
--
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

Michael Pavan
 

On Feb 20, 2020, at 5:48 AM, J_Catlady <@J_Catlady> wrote:

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 01:48 AM, Michael Pavan wrote:
The Sender's options would be to Edit or Delete the Pending Message.

If the message had already been approved, it would be too late for the Sender.
If a Moderator/Owner attempted to moderate a deleted Pending message, it would no longer exist.
Not bad except for this part. The issue is when a moderator starts to moderate a message first, and then the sender gives the instruction to delete. None of this solves that, which is really the only problematic issue.
Valid, but minimal point.
If one Moderator/Owner currently starts to moderate a message, are all other Moderators/Owner prevented from doing so?
OR
If more than one Moderator/Owner currently is moderating at the same time, does who ever finishes first prevail?

Although the slim likelihood of both the Sender and a Moderator/Owner would be interacting with a Pending Message at the same time might be greater than two (or more) Moderators/Owners doing so, there currently seems to be little or no problem. I suspect that would continue to be the case.

If there currently is a 'lock' that prevents more than one Moderator/Owner from interacting with a Pending Message, could it not also be used to prevent any second party (whether Sender or Moderator/Owner) from doing so.

That being said, such a 'coincidence' seems too rare to be worried about.
If it is such a worry, Senders should think more about what they post before sending...



Whether a Pending message had been Claimed or not would only affect where Moderators/Owners could moderate the message. (No change)
The idea is that if the message is claimed (assuming that feature even gets implemented), the sender would not be allowed to delete it. That would solve the issue. But it would involve fairly massive changes to the UI (web and email notifications) that seem overly complicated just in order to let a user change their mind about a message sent.
Currently Claim only prevents other Moderators or Owners from moderating a Claimed message (or approving/rejecting a Claimed subscription request) by email.
All Moderators (with appropriate privileges) and Owners can alway moderate/approve via the web.
I agree that "fairly massive changes" don't seem worthwhile to change the Claim feature.
Otherwise the suggestion is to use existing structures in more places.


The part about giving the sender a copy of their message if posted via email sounds fine. I still see no reasonable way to allow a sender to delete a pending message.
The same way a Moderator/Owner can Forward a Message Approval Require email notification to Reject a Pending Message,
a Sender should be able to Forward their Your Message Requires Approval email notification to Delete the Pending Message.


I agree with the original poster's notion, but it is not a pressing concern of mine.
It does seem that the current way Groups.io functions in a 'parallel manner' for Moderators/Owners, it could also for Senders.

I wouldn't argue against this improvement because it might prevent whoever acted first from determining the outcome...