moderated "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion


 

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 06:30 AM, KWKloeber wrote:
The user did not remove him/herself
Ths user did the triggering action (in this case, marking themselves as spam), and that is always the case in these log entries. The log entry always refers to the user's originating action.
 
--
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


 

Here's a suggestion besides the commas or the dash or the upper-casing. It seems to be the sentence format that's bothering some of you. So do away with that and don't even try to make the entry into a sentence. Just write something like this -

user: [user name] action: [user action] time: [timestamp] result: [e.g., was removed] [via email or web]

You could put the via email or via web abter the timestamp if that helps some of you. I myself would still keep it at the end to create shorter reading.
--
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 Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 06:36 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
Ths user did the triggering action (in this case, marking themselves as spam
typo - marking the message as spam
 
--
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


KWKloeber
 


Ths user did the triggering action 


The root cause of confusion is that the Log combines two actions into one entry.  One can attempt to "figure it out" or justify it combining them, but that's the truth.  There are simply and unequivocably TWO actions, not ONE.  No more, no fewer.  If the Log simply reflected the accurate sequence of steps, there would be no confusion (e.g., using JCatz e.g. log-speak:)

[username] action: Reported msg #nnnnn as SPAMtime: [timestamp[via email]

[username] action: Removed for reporting msg #nnnnm as spam time: [timestamp] [via system]

I agree:

- mea culpa. There’s no point parse this into a custom entry for each and every type logged action - that’s unreasonable and inappropriate (I didn’t realize initially that the [via xxxxx] was merely appended.)
- it should be @ the end for ease of understanding/scanning log entries. 
log-speak is very appropriate (as one alternative.)
- the modified entry example surely serves its purpose well.

However:

- the Log *should* be accurate and list ALL actions - by user email, by user web, AND by the system. 
- use Log-Speak, not try to construct full sentences (which contributed to this confusion) because one fitz-all doesn’t ever, ever fit all (the thread *proves* that.) 
- the automated spam mechanism is dumb.  If a user validly reports a “valid spam", who gets *punished*?  The originator of the spammed message or the innocent who reported the offender?
 
The member doesn’t want to be removed from his/her group, s/he merely wants unwanted (potentially nefarious) messages to stop coming to his/her inbox.  Imagine the confusion generated and directed at octogenarians and nonagenarians who can barely hang on to the concept of the web and email and messages and spam and junk folders and contact lists.  Why are we trying to make it even more confusing to them? 
 
- “The system *should* send an email to the reporting, e.g.:

You reported a message posted by <mmm> [append other identifying info as appropriate] as SPAM.  
* Click this link if you want to be muted from receiving future messages posted by <mmm>. * 
* Click this link to report <mmm> for posting spam. *  
* If you reported that message as Spam in error, click this link for tips how to avoid this happening in the future.*
(obviously, the prose is subject to whatever appropriate tuning)

- The current auto-mechanism accomplishes zero to prevent the same “valid spams" from occurring again and again from the same offender.  
I’ve been thru this with recurring unwanted (seemed to be nefarious) messages from offenders — the offending messages/offender had to be addressed manually by reporting them to @support. 
- i.e., the system misses the mark by a wide mile as to appropriate handling of spam messages, spammers, and unintended spam reporting.

Just my 0.02


Andy
 

J wrote:

    "You're the one who wants it to be literature, classical or otherwise."

I never said that.

I want the log entries to make sense.  They don't.

    " I keep saying it's not literature and it shouldn't be."

Fine -- so why keep bringing up literature?  I don't want classical literature either.  I want sentences that make sense.  That's what sentences are for; they are supposed to convey information.  They should convey information correctly, and when they don't, it's a problem.

    "It does not matter. What matters is that you can't fix just this particular entry."

Mark Fletcher can fix whatever he wants!  I brought up just this particular entry because it was the one **I** noticed.  I didn't say that this is the only one to be fixed, and that the others should remain incorrect.  Why do you imply that?

    "You would have to go through and create individually customized syntax for each and every log entry with the issue or the potential issue."

Hey, man, this was a suggestion!  A SUGGESTION, man.

#suggestion -- "For suggestions for improvements to the service"

As a suggestion, Mark can use it, or not use it.  I did not order Mark to change anything, and I'm not going to weed through the activity log looking for every possible example of syntax errors that are similar to the one I noticed.

    "It's a log entry! It's a who, what, when, and how: the member, the action, the tie, and how (email or web)."

Except that it's a jumbled mix of those things.  If the log entry was: "RobertPerson was spam and removed @outlook.com as #129643 email via message", would you know what it means?  I wouldn't.  I'm thrilled for you that your magical parsing skills are so advanced, but for the rest of us humans, the entry in the log needs to make sense and convey what happened.  Currently it says that someone was removed via email, which is not what happened.

If Mark changes anything in the log entries (add uppercase, commas, or dashes), why not change it to be syntactically correct so that it conveys the right information?  Why mess with some of it but not mess with what was wrong about it?

Andy


 

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 12:43 PM, Andy wrote:
I'm not going to weed through the activity log looking for every possible example of syntax errors that are similar to the one I noticed.
It's almost all of them and many of us have noticed this for years. If people want correct sentences, one solution is to get rid of sentences and just use log-speak. And you DID accuse me of wanting the log entries to be classical literature.

I'm done here.
 
--
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


Andy
 

J, this is what you wrote:

    "I don’t think we’re aiming for great literature here."

Your words, not mine.  And then:

    "It's a log entry. It's not literature."

Again, those were your words, not mine.  I never asked for great literature.  I don't want great literature.  I didn't ask for great literature.

    "If people want correct sentences, one solution is to get rid of sentences and just use log-speak."

In my opinion, a better solution is to use correct sentences, ones that correctly convey what happened.

Andy


Duane
 

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 03:21 PM, Andy wrote:
a better solution is to use correct sentences
I don't believe they're intended to be sentences, just log entries giving basic information, which I believe they do.

Duane


 

Hi All,

I've added a comma before the 'via' in activity logs. Also, for all new log entries for being removed for spam, they will be listed as 'via system'.

Thanks,
Mark


 

I am loving that comma. It makes all the difference.
--
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