Topics

setting to moderate every thread a member starts #suggestion


 

Helen, J,

So I go and change them, but then people responding via e-mail end up
in the original thread with the original subject line, and then I have
to keep merging the threads.
If Mark were looking for something to do there's a solution to this problem.

When splitting, merging, or renaming a topic - any time the Subject text can be changed - Groups.io could retain a copy of the prior Subject text for all the affected messages. Or I should say a list of prior texts, as a moderator could make more than one edit (or split, or merge) affecting any given message.

Then when an inbound message is being evaluated for where it threads those prior texts would be available as potential matches to the inbound subject line.

In cases where the inbound message includes an In-Reply-To and/or References field this restores the unambiguous match to the original message, sparing the moderator of the necessity of doing it.

In most cases of Edits and Merges there would likely be only one topic (within the two-week cutoff) with a matching Subject text, either present or past.

Splits would leave one topic with the original subject (as now) and one topic with a new subject plus the original in its history. Absent one of the referencing header fields an arbitrary choice must be made as to which of those two topics the inbound message belongs with. Choosing the topic with the most recent message is probably the least wrong choice.

Shal
File this as a "not quite FUSSP"
(Final Ultimate Solution to the Split Problem)


Bruce Bowman
 

On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 09:13 AM, ro-esp wrote:
This thing starts to make sense now. Yes, it can be a nuisance when people use the reply-button for things that are not replies.

However, a "new threads moderated" feature won't solve that...
Exactly why I *don't* like this idea. To avoid moderation, subscribers will simply start hijacking threads instead of starting a new one.

To me, this is a far worse scenario than the original problem.

Bruce


 

I haven’t experienced that happening in the three+ years of running my group. Strangely, my group members tend to start *too many* new threads. But if your group members do that, then don’t use the festure. Simple.


On Sep 2, 2018, at 4:34 AM, Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...> wrote:

On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 09:13 AM, ro-esp wrote:
This thing starts to make sense now. Yes, it can be a nuisance when people use the reply-button for things that are not replies.

However, a "new threads moderated" feature won't solve that...
Exactly why I *don't* like this idea. To avoid moderation, subscribers will simply start hijacking threads instead of starting a new one.

To me, this is a far worse scenario than the original problem.

Bruce

--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

I'll walk that back a little. I do see you point: they might *start* doing it, even if they're not doing it now. 

Yesterday I heard an NPR "Freakonomics Radio" piece on incentives and rules backfiring. In one South American country recently (which one it was escapes me at the moment), there was so much traffic congestion and pollution that they came up with a program where you could only drive on certain days of the week, depending on the last digit of your license plate. So people starting buying one more car. Then two more. Some people even got three or four more cars! And they were buying old clunkers, so the pollution got worse. 

In another situation, somewhere in the U.S., the area was being overrun by pigs. They started a "pig eradicatio"n incentive program, paying people $45 per pig tail, incentivizing them to kill the pigs. Strangely, the pig overpopulation problem got worse: people were buying pigs somewhere else for $5 each, killing them, and presenting the tails for their $45. (I know, this is awful...)

Anyway, it is odd sometimes how people getting around rules can make situations worse. However, I am confident this will not happen in my group if the feature is implemented, and probably not in Helen's, either. I think the bad subject lines would be caught and fixed so fast that the senders might not even realize it was happening. Same with putting the thread on moderation (if that part is implemented).


On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 5:03 AM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
I haven’t experienced that happening in the three+ years of running my group. Strangely, my group members tend to start *too many* new threads. But if your group members do that, then don’t use the festure. Simple.


On Sep 2, 2018, at 4:34 AM, Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...> wrote:

On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 09:13 AM, ro-esp wrote:
This thing starts to make sense now. Yes, it can be a nuisance when people use the reply-button for things that are not replies.

However, a "new threads moderated" feature won't solve that...
Exactly why I *don't* like this idea. To avoid moderation, subscribers will simply start hijacking threads instead of starting a new one.

To me, this is a far worse scenario than the original problem.

Bruce

--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 01:02 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
when an inbound message is being evaluated for where it threads those prior texts would be available as potential matches to the inbound subject line.
In theory this sounds great, but I wonder how much it would slow things down.
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

J,

In theory this sounds great, but I wonder how much it would slow
things down.
I think that would be negligible. What might not be negligible is the effort Mark might have to put in to implement it.

Shal


 

On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
I think that would be negligible. What might not be negligible is the effort Mark might have to put in to implement it.
Probably right on both counts. :)
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

However, it would solve a really terrible problem!


On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 12:53 PM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
I think that would be negligible. What might not be negligible is the effort Mark might have to put in to implement it.
Probably right on both counts. :)
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

Going back to the beginning of this thread, I recall that I originally said I'd envisioned the "moderate all threads started by the member" setting as a sub-setting under "override - moderated."

With the new ideas being floated, specifically Helen's idea of a setting to moderate only the initial message in all threads started by the member, my request could be implement as a subsetting under that one, rather than as a subsetting under "override - moderated." (Clearly, a moderated member would already have all first messages of any topic they start moderated, because all of their messages are moderated.)

I thought it would be good to clarify that.
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


ro-esp
 

On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 01:34 PM, Bruce Bowman wrote:


Exactly why I *don't* like this idea. To avoid moderation, subscribers will
simply start hijacking threads instead of starting a new one.
Is life that bad where you live?

In my experience, people don't hijack threads "to avoid moderation". It's more like they are too lazy or too full of themselves to create a new thread and invent a subjectline. It gets worse when moderators don't (know how to) do their job - by which I mean put the user on moderated and reject messages that have a wrong subjectline.

groetjes, Ronaldo


Jim Higgins
 

Received from ro-esp at 9/2/2018 10:45 PM UTC:

In my experience, people don't hijack threads "to avoid moderation". It's more like they are too lazy or too full of themselves to create a new thread and invent a subjectline. It gets worse when moderators don't (know how to) do their job - by which I mean put the user on moderated and reject messages that have a wrong subjectline.

I don't have an appreciable problem with hijacked threads, but I sure do find the direct approach Ronaldo suggests to be an effective solution to other issues. I've said it before... not much substitutes for simply managing our groups when the problem is people doing things they shouldn't... tho sometimes that management involves educating before moderating.

Jim H


 

It is sometimes a function of a ‘bad’ group member, but more often it is a function of the particular situation the member’s cat is in. You can assume that this would be a helpful feature for our group.


On Sep 2, 2018, at 11:31 PM, Ken Kloeber via Groups.Io <KWKloeber@...> wrote:

Is a member who, forever reason, doesn’t play nice, worth keeping s/he in the playground. Just pull the plug and be fine with it. 

Ken

Sent from my phone

--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


KWKloeber
 

(Since we can’t edit our posts.....)

Is a member who, FOR WHATEVER reason, doesn’t play nice, worth keeping s/he in the playground?

Just pull the plug and be DONE with it. 


 

I understood you the first time. And again, it's not a matter of not playing nice. It has to do with the particular situation of the group member and their cat.
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

Specifically, their cat's illness. I think any more details would be a distraction here. As I said, the feature would be helpful for us. 'Nuff said.


On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 10:28 AM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
I understood you the first time. And again, it's not a matter of not playing nice. It has to do with the particular situation of the group member and their cat.
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

Mark,

Here is another solution to my problem/request. I have actually thought about requesting this in a different context, so it would solve two separate problems: Would it be possible to specify, for any given member, a hashtag that is automatically affixed to any thread they start? That would allow me to set a certain hashtag to "moderated," so that any threads a person with that hashtag starts is automatically moderated. 

It would also solve another problem, where I want all threads started by someone whose cat has a certain subset of the disease we deal with to have the hashtag for that subset of the disease. Often, the people fail to append the hashtag. Having this feature would allow me to do it automatically.

On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 10:32 AM J_Olivia Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
Specifically, their cat's illness. I think any more details would be a distraction here. As I said, the feature would be helpful for us. 'Nuff said.

On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 10:28 AM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
I understood you the first time. And again, it's not a matter of not playing nice. It has to do with the particular situation of the group member and their cat.
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

I'm going to start a separate thread with this request. I think it can apply in a lot of situations.


On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 10:43 AM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
Mark,

Here is another solution to my problem/request. I have actually thought about requesting this in a different context, so it would solve two separate problems: Would it be possible to specify, for any given member, a hashtag that is automatically affixed to any thread they start? That would allow me to set a certain hashtag to "moderated," so that any threads a person with that hashtag starts is automatically moderated. 

It would also solve another problem, where I want all threads started by someone whose cat has a certain subset of the disease we deal with to have the hashtag for that subset of the disease. Often, the people fail to append the hashtag. Having this feature would allow me to do it automatically.

On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 10:32 AM J_Olivia Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
Specifically, their cat's illness. I think any more details would be a distraction here. As I said, the feature would be helpful for us. 'Nuff said.

On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 10:28 AM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
I understood you the first time. And again, it's not a matter of not playing nice. It has to do with the particular situation of the group member and their cat.
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


Michael Pavan
 

It would also solve another problem, where I want all threads started by someone whose cat has a certain subset of the disease we deal with to have the hashtag for that subset of the disease. Often, the people fail to append the hashtag. Having this feature would allow me to do it automatically.
It sounds like you need to Moderate everyone, so that you can determine and apply the appropriate hashtag(s).

Or set up all the appropriate hashtags that match the "certain subsets of the diseases we deal with” and mandate that all messages must use one of those hashtags. I’m not sure if this is currently possible, and if it is you still would have to hope (or Moderate so) that they are correctly applied.

I doubt software could be written that would know and/or diagnose all your members’ cats and their diseases (especially if it has to be done by email) and/or if members do not yet know what "certain subset of the disease we deal with” any of their cats might have. Also how would it handle members who use the same email address for different cats who may have different ailments?


 

On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Michael Pavan wrote:
It sounds like you need to Moderate everyone
No, I absolutely don't need or want to moderate everyone.

I doubt software could be written that would know and/or diagnose all your members’ cats and their diseases
This kind of comment is exactly why I did not want to get into the specific application. I am not asking for anything like that. Sigh.

 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 11:10 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
This kind of comment is exactly why I did not want to get into the specific application
I'm sorry. I tend to get exasperated when people don't understand me after I've failed to explain myself. ;)

The idea is that either the member or the mod applies the hashtag at some point, thus *eliminating* the need to moderate on a per-message basis and/or add it later. In our group, we deal with one main disease that has subdiagnoses. We know a priori when a member joins which their cat has (or the cat may be diagnosed with it later). We would apply the hashtag to the member immediately upon joining, or when their cat's diagnosis becomes known.

I've started a separate thread about this, since it's a different feature on its own.

--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu