Posting Limits #suggestion


Andy Wedge
 

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 06:55 PM, Jim F. wrote:
but only a couple dozen are subscribed to receive email distributions of member posts.
So your suggested change is to satisfy the needs of just over 20 members. Is there any reason why they can't mute topics or change their subscription to Following Only with First Message Also? That way they would get the first message from one the your frequent posters and could elect to follow that to receive the rest.  If you are choosing a new topic every couple of weeks then you could assigned a hashtag to that and your 20+ members could mute the hashtag if they think they have received too many emails. They can always read every message posted via the Groups.io site if they wish.

I come back to my original thought that you have plenty of existing tools to control the situation but you are choosing not to use them.

Regards
Andy


Bruce Bowman
 

If too many messages from one or two people is driving other subscribers away, delaying their posts and delivering them in a bolus doesn't seem like a solution. The annoying people are still posting too much, and their annoying messages are still being delivered.

The ability to mute individual members has been asked for many times and I think is already on the "to do" list. I offer that as the best answer.

Regards,
Bruce


Duane
 

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 05:09 PM, Andy Wedge wrote:
they would get the first message from one the your frequent posters and could elect to follow that to receive the rest
And then could elect to 'unfollow' when it gets to be a problem for them.

Duane


Tommy Meehan
 

I agree, seventy plus messages from two members is too much. Right now, the only way to mute them that I know of would be to moderate them and choose 'not allowed to post.' The only other solution would seem to be announcing a limit on messages posted per day. Then delete everything over that limit.

But if appealing to the members, asking them to essentially self-regulate doesn't work, if other members won't chime in with support, then what can you do?

tommy0421


Jim F.
 

Bruce-

Individual muting would work.  It seems harsher on the posters, who would not even know that their posts aren't getting through.  And you would need an easy way to unmute them (an 'unmute all' link?) without logging into the website which would be a hurdle for many members.  But it would mostly solve our problem.  Best regards.

-Jim 


On Jan 14, 2022, at 7:54 AM, Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...> wrote:

If too many messages from one or two people is driving other subscribers away, delaying their posts and delivering them in a bolus doesn't seem like a solution. The annoying people are still posting too much, and their annoying messages are still being delivered.

The ability to mute individual members has been asked for many times and I think is already on the "to do" list. I offer that as the best answer.

Regards,
Bruce


Jim F.
 

Tommy-

Exactly.

Best regards.

-Jim 


On Jan 14, 2022, at 8:57 AM, Tommy Meehan <tmeehan0421@...> wrote:

I agree, seventy plus messages from two members is too much. Right now, the only way to mute them that I know of would be to moderate them and choose 'not allowed to post.' The only other solution would seem to be announcing a limit on messages posted per day. Then delete everything over that limit.

But if appealing to the members, asking them to essentially self-regulate doesn't work, if other members won't chime in with support, then what can you do?

tommy0421


 

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 04:54 AM, Bruce Bowman wrote:
The ability to mute individual members has been asked for many times and I think is already on the "to do" list. I offer that as the best answer.
Even if muting could be reasonably accomplished (and I have my doubts), that would put the burden of the few (the bad actors) on the many (their recipients). Why not set the bad actors to "can't post."
 
--
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


Jim F.
 

Andy-

<< I come back to my original thought that you have plenty of existing tools to control the situation but you are choosing not to use them. >>

Muting topics wouldn't help both because people DO want to get the less frequent and more considered emails from other members, and because some of our members (including one of the excessive posters) somehow seem to start a new topic with many of their posts.  (Yes, we could limit new topics but that would be too restrictive, and policing posting conventions would not be worth it, so we just merge them in later.) 

A hashtag would let people more consistently mute the topic (unless the poster omitted the hashtag), but it would still mute the entire topic rather than just the excessive posts (which appear in every topic), which would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

And in any case, frankly, most members are not about to log on to the site in order to adjust their subscriptions--or even use the muting links at the bottom of an email.  (It would be like figuring out how to set the clock on your VCR, for those who remember.)  Most members never log in, so our moderators offer to set their email preferences for them.  (And sometimes, I suspect, people unsubscribe from the site because they are sick of getting too many emails, even though they would want to continue getting the moderator special notices if they realized that they could.)

I'm not sure why you think that incomplete or labor-intensive workarounds qualify as 'plenty of existing tools to control the situation'.  As I said before, the goal should be to make the moderators' job easier, not to expect more of them.  Our site mostly runs itself--which is what's great about Groups-io--and anything that required constant monitoring and action by the moderators would be a nonstarter. 

J-Catlady:  We've had the hard conversations and they haven't worked.  But we don't operate offlist, at all. 

(Note: For some reason, I didn't get an email of Andy's post, or J-Catlady's which is also on the site, but I did receive Duane's response.)

Best regards.

-Jim 


On Jan 14, 2022, at 8:39 AM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 05:09 PM, Andy Wedge wrote:
they would get the first message from one the your frequent posters and could elect to follow that to receive the rest
And then could elect to 'unfollow' when it gets to be a problem for them.

Duane


Bärbel Stephenson
 

Jim,
It is a very difficult situation you find yourself in.

From experience I can tell you that you might just have to risk upsetting those 2 members or risk losing the group.

Thinking of many years ago (years before the end of yahoo groups) I was in a much loved group with most members actively involved with posting.  Then 2 new people joined and started posting excessively and probably looking for problems.  Several members pleaded many times with the owners/moderators to do something.  This was declined saying that these 2 people had their rights to post etc etc.

What happened?  Exodus of the members and group eventually finished as everybody who enjoyed the group as once was had left…

Barbara

On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 at 17:55, Jim F. via groups.io <JimF56s=icloud.com@groups.io> wrote:
Tommy-

Exactly.

Best regards.

-Jim 


On Jan 14, 2022, at 8:57 AM, Tommy Meehan <tmeehan0421@...> wrote:

I agree, seventy plus messages from two members is too much. Right now, the only way to mute them that I know of would be to moderate them and choose 'not allowed to post.' The only other solution would seem to be announcing a limit on messages posted per day. Then delete everything over that limit.

But if appealing to the members, asking them to essentially self-regulate doesn't work, if other members won't chime in with support, then what can you do?

tommy0421


Peter Cook
 

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 01:57 PM, Jim F. wrote:
We've had the hard conversations and they haven't worked.
IMHO, this has nothing to do with "hard questions." It's about having guidelines, deciding to enforce them, and sticking to it to change behavior. If you're unwilling or unable to do that, then your original request is obviously the only solution.

It seems to me this at this point that there is much (well-intentioned) repetition and beating of dead horses.

Pete


Jim F.
 

Barbel-

Thanks.  Yes, that is what I think is happening.  But while I would be willing to upset those two members (and have), I'm not the 'owner' (in a broad sense) of the group (which existed long before I got there), and given its history and customs I can't just throttle people unilaterally.  So I think that the only solution would be to have a transparent and impartial technical solution that most of the active members, I think, would gladly agree to see implemented. 

It's helpful to know that this is not a unique problem.  

I agree with Pete that this has probably been enough discussion of the issue. 

Best regards.

-Jim 


On Jan 14, 2022, at 1:58 PM, Bärbel Stephenson <Lismibaebi@...> wrote:

Jim,
It is a very difficult situation you find yourself in.

From experience I can tell you that you might just have to risk upsetting those 2 members or risk losing the group.

Thinking of many years ago (years before the end of yahoo groups) I was in a much loved group with most members actively involved with posting.  Then 2 new people joined and started posting excessively and probably looking for problems.  Several members pleaded many times with the owners/moderators to do something.  This was declined saying that these 2 people had their rights to post etc etc.

What happened?  Exodus of the members and group eventually finished as everybody who enjoyed the group as once was had left…

Barbara

On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 at 17:55, Jim F. via groups.io<JimF56s=icloud.com@groups.io> wrote:
Tommy-

Exactly.

Best regards.

-Jim 


On Jan 14, 2022, at 8:57 AM, Tommy Meehan <tmeehan0421@...> wrote:

I agree, seventy plus messages from two members is too much. Right now, the only way to mute them that I know of would be to moderate them and choose 'not allowed to post.' The only other solution would seem to be announcing a limit on messages posted per day. Then delete everything over that limit. 

But if appealing to the members, asking them to essentially self-regulate doesn't work, if other members won't chime in with support, then what can you do?

tommy0421





Chris Jones
 

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 07:14 PM, Peter Cook wrote:
It seems to me this at this point that there is much (well-intentioned) repetition and beating of dead horses.
Sadly that may well be true.

Jim F: in a post earlier today you wrote It seems harsher on the posters, who would not even know that their posts aren't getting through.

Why do you seem to consider the feelings of the "miscreants" more than those of the wider ("well behaved") membership? I may be mistaken but this seems to run through your various posts. They have (from your account) not lived up to the agreement to moderate their own conduct, but you seem opposed to taking any action using the tools that are available to you, and seem more concerned about not upsetting them while fed - up group members leave or take themselves off email delivery out of sheer frustration with what is going on. IMHO you are letting your wider membership down badly.

Again IMHO asking Mark to provide a technical solution to the problem is simply wrong, not least because (at the risk of repeating myself) you have shunned the idea of using what exists at the moment without even trying it. Now I have no idea whatsoever what Mark's view of this request might be, but consider this: what are you going to do if he decides not to provide what you have requested? You will still have the problem and will be no closer to a solution.  

The likely outcome? As Barbara stated: Exodus of the members and group eventually finished as everybody who enjoyed the group as once was had left…

Is that what you want, because I really think you are risking it.

Chris

(Yes I know this post is probably not in the spirit of the Group Charter but I am getting more than a little frustrated myself... sorry!)


Jim F.
 

Chris-

I don't want to prolong this, but I should note that, as in Barbel's case, we have a contingent (not just the two offenders) who oppose any limits on anyone.  And as I've indicated, I just don't have the authority to impose restrictions unilaterally.  I believe that a transparent and impartial technical solution would meet with widespread assent; dictates from me as moderator would not.

Best regards.

-Jim 


On Jan 14, 2022, at 2:38 PM, Chris Jones via groups.io <chrisjones12@...> wrote:

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 07:14 PM, Peter Cook wrote:
It seems to me this at this point that there is much (well-intentioned) repetition and beating of dead horses.
Sadly that may well be true.

Jim F: in a post earlier today you wrote It seems harsher on the posters, who would not even know that their posts aren't getting through.

Why do you seem to consider the feelings of the "miscreants" more than those of the wider ("well behaved") membership? I may be mistaken but this seems to run through your various posts. They have (from your account) not lived up to the agreement to moderate their own conduct, but you seem opposed to taking any action using the tools that are available to you, and seem more concerned about not upsetting them while fed - up group members leave or take themselves off email delivery out of sheer frustration with what is going on. IMHO you are letting your wider membership down badly.

Again IMHO asking Mark to provide a technical solution to the problem is simply wrong, not least because (at the risk of repeating myself) you have shunned the idea of using what exists at the moment without even trying it. Now I have no idea whatsoever what Mark's view of this request might be, but consider this: what are you going to do if he decides not to provide what you have requested? You will still have the problem and will be no closer to a solution.  

The likely outcome? As Barbara stated: Exodus of the members and group eventually finished as everybody who enjoyed the group as once was had left…

Is that what you want, because I really think you are risking it.

Chris

(Yes I know this post is probably not in the spirit of the Group Charter but I am getting more than a little frustrated myself... sorry!)


Duane
 

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 02:20 PM, Jim F. wrote:
we have a contingent (not just the two offenders) who oppose any limits on anyone
In that case, you wouldn't be able to turn the feature on even if it was added.  Once the members found out that it wasn't a mandatory setting for the site, they'd come back on you for imposing the limit.  I seriously doubt that most groups would use it and I certainly wouldn't on any of my groups.

Duane


 

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 02:29 PM, Duane wrote:
In that case, you wouldn't be able to turn the feature on even if it was added.  Once the members found out that it wasn't a mandatory setting for the site, they'd come back on you for imposing the limit.  I seriously doubt that most groups would use it and I certainly wouldn't on any of my groups.

 I run a group with ~1,000 members. Occasionally somebody starts to make a pest of himself by posting the same or similar messages again and again. I put such people in moderation. I explain to them that their actions are harmful to the group. If they don't shape up, I kick them out. So far (two years) I have warned about 25 people, and kicked out one who consistently refused to follow the rules.

Jim F., you should enunciate some rules, and then enforce them. It's not terribly difficult. It jut takes some grit and determination.
--
David Bryant
Canyon Lake, Texas
https://t-vog.groups.io/g/main    https://davidcbryant.net