|
Re: Ro -editingposts
Vickie,
?
I did not see the "Like" option either until I looked up at the upper right corner of the web page and saw that I was not logged in.? Once I logged in, I was able to see the options.
?
Donna
?
From:?"vickie via Groups.io" <vickie_00@...>
? Ro,
?
I don't see a like option for ?any of your messages. ?Not even in the group Beta ?page
so I am adding it here..?
?
Likes!! lol
?
Vickie
?
|
|
Re: editingposts
Ro,
You are missing the whole point, of not wanting to deal with multiplePlaying devil's advocate for a bit longer, why not put those members on individual moderation. Then you can reject their edits and tell them why. If they clean up their act you can take them back off moderation. That resolves the flood-of-trivial-edits problem, at least outside of the moderator pool, without removing the functionality for cases when it makes sense. (Yeah, I know, there I go again presuming that members of other people's groups can be trained.) so there is no reason not to do a new post in the same thread if itsWell, there is, as Dano pointed out: even if posted in the same thread the correcting message doesn't hide the erroneous information. Someone finding the original post wouldn't necessarily know that they should read down the thread to see if there is a correction later. But that has a much lower importance in a group which is primarily read by email, and the archive is not treated as a repository of knowledge. This points to my "One size does not fit all" mantra. I haven't experienced a group where most edits are trivial, but within such a group, I imagine the people doing the trivial edits are primarily reading by web, without an appreciation for how their edits impact the members that read via email. In its way this is comparable to the post-trimming conflict that crops up in some Y!Groups: members who read individual messages often don't appreciate the impact long trails of bottom quotes have on people trying to read by digest. The founder of Y!GMF, for example, wanted to solve that problem (and a host of others) by having a control which would allow him to disable posting by email in his groups. I, being primarily email oriented, have always been glad that Yahoo never saw fit to give him that option. -- Shal |
|
Re: Ro -editingposts
Vickie,
I don't see a like option for any of your messages. Not even in theJust Ro's messages? or anyones? I'm seeing the Like link at the bottom of Ro's posts, just to the left of the Reply link, same as anyone else's, on both GMF@ and beta@. I don't know of any way that feature can be turned off, and especially not for a specific poster. Or am I misunderstanding you? -- Shal |
|
Re: editingposts
You are missing the whole point, of not wanting to deal with multiple edited emails.? Most edits are not done for erroneous info, but for spelling error or to add new info.? so there is no reason not to do a new post in the same thread if its important, and if its not, then it will be let go, which is what we want.? Ro with Sally and Silk waiting at their feed dishes, and Handy, Feliz &? Police Kitty patrolling in the Great Beyond. From: dano@... Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 12:59:28 -0700 Vickie - As Shal pointed out, that's exactly what what groups.io does with edits. They are sent out as new posts, with the ability for a reader to follow a link and go back and to what was changed. ? The alternative, to send out a new post without linking it to the original posts, leaves the original post with possibly erroneous information in the message archives where a person may read it and, not realizing it was corrected, assume it to be accurate. To delete the original post takes it out of any thread that it might be linked to and may affect whether the new reply even connects to the thread. ? Groups.io's method retains the corrections in the archives and holds the message's place in the thread. I can see muting the previous versions of a post?in the archives as long as the final revision stays in the same place in a thread. ? If your group only cares about what comes through email, then what's in the archives doesn't matter anyway, and the revised post will give you the new post you want. ? Dano [excess quote trimmed by moderator] |
|
Re: editingposts
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýVickie - As Shal pointed out, that's exactly what what groups.io does with edits. They are sent out as new posts, with the ability for a reader to follow a link and go back and to what was changed. ? The alternative, to send out a new post without linking it to the original posts, leaves the original post with possibly erroneous information in the message archives where a person may read it and, not realizing it was corrected, assume it to be accurate. To delete the original post takes it out of any thread that it might be linked to and may affect whether the new reply even connects to the thread. ? Groups.io's method retains the corrections in the archives and holds the message's place in the thread. I can see muting the previous versions of a post?in the archives as long as the final revision stays in the same place in a thread. ? If your group only cares about what comes through email, then what's in the archives doesn't matter anyway, and the revised post will give you the new post you want. ? Dano ?
|
|
Re: editingposts
Ro,
Members? behave responsibly? get out of here! LOL. You can hardlyTouch¨¦, sort of. I don't even trust myself without review in pending. Unrestricted membership is also a significant factor. I dont really care about the members perspective on it, cause from mySo that suggests a different option: the ability to mute edits. That would give each member control over the excess messages. Of course what you really want is a TARDIS-powered accessory that would let you mute all but the final edit. I am STILL getting emails in the other group I belong to by peopleHmm... Did that ever get raised in beta@? My search-fu is failing me and I can't find it if it was. Definitely post it there before giving up. I agree it would be better to have only one send button showing, with its function matching the group's Reply To setting. But I would still give the user the other ability, just not so prominently. /g/GroupManagersForum/message/172 -- Shal |
|
Re: editing posts
Xaun Loc,
People are not resisting the idea of an OPTION -- people are ensuringWell, not all people. I'm considering the merits of having it as an option. I'll agree with Ro on this: I'm not worried about Groups.io adopting a lazy but defective answer, nor making and sticking with a bad decision. And also this: here we're just talking about it. Actual support or opposition, and suggested implementations, would go back to beta@ for Mark's attention. -- Shal |
|
Re: editingposts
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýMembers? behave responsibly??? get out of here!?? LOL.?? You can hardly trust members to trim a post, much less put notes in why they edit, etc.?? Why is this group so heavily moderated if members can be trusted to behave responsibly???? Well, we cant!
I dont really care about the members perspective on it, cause from my perspective, it drives me crazy to read edited posts.? In fact, edited posts are pointless cause I delete them all unread.? I am not reading that stuff twice, nor going to the website to figure out some miniscule sentence is changed.? I suspect others do likewise.? Well, I know they do. ? The only members "benefiting" are those on digest or reading on web, not the majority in my group.? If members want that feature, they can join another IO group.? There will always be someone with it, just as there are moderated and unmoderated groups.? My group is unmoderated and has few rules.? I dont even care much about trimming. ? I prefer to just set things up so I dont have to explain things like editing.?? I would rather have a few more twiddly buttons and be able to do that. ? Strangely, my group is extraordinarily well behaved.? By having such settings, I feel I can better keep it that way.? thats what it boils down to.? I am STILL getting emails in the other group I belong to by people mistakenly hitting "reply to sender" instead of "reply to group", but have come to accept that is probably a lost cause in objecting to it.? Ok, thats enough from me on this issue! Ro with Sally and Silk waiting at their feed dishes, and Handy, Feliz &? Police Kitty patrolling in the Great Beyond. > Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2016 22:03:11 -0800 > To: [email protected] > From: shals2nd@... > Subject: Re: [GMF] editingposts > > Ro, > > > As with my last suggestion, I dont understand the resistance to having a > > setting available to owners that doesnt impact those that dont want to > > click on that setting. > > I'm up in the air about it. > > I'm explaining how editing messages works, and asking questions to help me understand why people want to disable it in their group. I want to understand whether disabling edits would actually solve the concerns that are being raised, and I want to probe whether the desire to disable it is in part merely because it is unfamiliar. So far: > > > Pro implementing a member edit disable: > > o One size does not fit all. Moderators should be able to tailor group characteristics to suit their groups. > > o In some groups edits may contribute to a "crush" of messages with minor edits. > > > Cons: > > o One more twiddley control for moderators to understand, and for Groups.io to implement, document, and explain. > > o From a member's perspective it may remove a useful and unique capability of Groups.io without corresponding benefit. > > o The "crush" of edits may be illusory or transitory: over time members may learn to use the edit feature responsibly. > > > -- Shal > > > > |
|
Re: editing posts
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýSeems to me that here, and in Beta, ALL changes being requested are being done so by a small minority, and if these small minority did not post, there would be no changes at all.?? Thats sort of like life really.??
Frankly I dont see Mark as unwilling to recognize a bad change, or not roll it back, quite the opposite.? I have been QUITE clear in both my requests that I wanted it as an option only in settings, with the original settings choices preserved for those who want it that way.? I dont see why people get confused about this.?? I dont try to insist that because I dont moderate my groups, that others shouldnt, nor should they have the option.? I believe people should have the options they need and want to make their groups easy to manage.? And that is all I have been asking in my requests. You are right that HOW to implement it is important, but the majority of both my thread, and thread responses did not focus on this, but more on WHY I wanted such a change and people pointing out why they didnt need it, or why they felt I didnt need it, not on HOW the software should be implemented.??? In fact, not a single post in this thread on how to implement it, and likely that should be in Beta anyway where I have already posted.? Ro with Sally and Silk waiting at their feed dishes, and Handy, Feliz &? Police Kitty patrolling in the Great Beyond. > From: xaunloc@... > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [GMF] editing posts > Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 00:22:48 -0500 > > From: Ro > > > As with my last suggestion, I dont understand the > > resistance to having a setting available to owners > > that doesnt impact those that dont want to click > > on that setting. > > People are not resisting the idea of an OPTION -- people are ensuring that > the folks who make decisions realize that it (whatever IT is) needs to BE an > option - not merely a change - and (especially in the case of your earlier > suggestion) that it needs to be a stand-alone option, not tied to some > 'similar' setting. > > Many of us have learned the simple truth that software designers look for > the easiest way to implement ANYTHING - which generally means changing > existing functions rather than adding more options. > > And that when faced with a small minority clamoring for some specific > change, those same software designers will often implement the change with > zero regard for the SILENT majority who were perfectly happy the way things > were. > > Unfortunately it is almost always impossible to roll back a bad change, > because the decision to roll back a bad change requires management to admit > that they made a bad decision. Many of us are here because of the > repetitive cycle of BAD CHANGES at Yahoo. > > > > > |
|
Re: editingposts
Ro,
As with my last suggestion, I dont understand the resistance to having aI'm up in the air about it. I'm explaining how editing messages works, and asking questions to help me understand why people want to disable it in their group. I want to understand whether disabling edits would actually solve the concerns that are being raised, and I want to probe whether the desire to disable it is in part merely because it is unfamiliar. So far: Pro implementing a member edit disable: o One size does not fit all. Moderators should be able to tailor group characteristics to suit their groups. o In some groups edits may contribute to a "crush" of messages with minor edits. Cons: o One more twiddley control for moderators to understand, and for Groups.io to implement, document, and explain. o From a member's perspective it may remove a useful and unique capability of Groups.io without corresponding benefit. o The "crush" of edits may be illusory or transitory: over time members may learn to use the edit feature responsibly. -- Shal |
|
Re: editingposts
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýThats exactly the problem!? Sending an edited post as a new post!? I dont want that, and obviously, others here dont want that either.? WE dont consider it a new post, irregardless of whether YOU do and we dont want them.? We dont want to have re read it, or go to the website to figure out whats new, etc etc.? We just want the option to eliminate that in settings.??? Nothing in this conversation is about viewing on the web.? The whole purpose is to not have to read repetitive posts when recieving posts as individual emails.???
This conversation seem fruitless.? Its clear that several of us want this setting, I have asked for it to be done in the Beta group, and its up to Mark now. Ro with Sally and Silk waiting at their feed dishes, and Handy, Feliz &? Police Kitty patrolling in the Great Beyond. > Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2016 19:10:43 -0800 > To: [email protected] > From: shals2nd@... > Subject: Re: [GMF] editingposts > > Ro, > > > If they want to make a change, they can just make a new post. > > That's what editing a message does: re-sends it by email as a new post (with a note at the top saying that it was edited). Unless you're a moderator and choose not to resend it. > > If you read messages on the web the difference between editing and posting a new message is that if the message is edited you'll see only the most recent version. Unless you click on the Edited badge, which will let you see prior versions and compare versions. > > > Has nothing to do with closing threads, in fact, I dont want to close > > threads, my group has never needed to do so..... > > I didn't think so, I only mentioned it because it is the only thing I know of that disables editing. > > -- Shal > > > > |
|
Re: editingposts
Ro,
If they want to make a change, they can just make a new post.That's what editing a message does: re-sends it by email as a new post (with a note at the top saying that it was edited). Unless you're a moderator and choose not to resend it. If you read messages on the web the difference between editing and posting a new message is that if the message is edited you'll see only the most recent version. Unless you click on the Edited badge, which will let you see prior versions and compare versions. Has nothing to do with closing threads, in fact, I dont want to closeI didn't think so, I only mentioned it because it is the only thing I know of that disables editing. -- Shal |
|
Re: editingposts
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýa lot of work for those of us on direct email, which is the whole purpose of those of us that are wanting the Settings option to eliminate the ability to edit.? The whole problem is fixed by just not letting editing occur by the membership.?
And many will choose not to send a new message, when the edit was something non crucial, so inbox clutter IS reduced.? As with my last suggestion, I dont understand the resistance to having a setting available to owners that doesnt impact those that dont want to click on that setting. Ro with Sally and Silk waiting at their feed dishes, and Handy, Feliz &? Police Kitty patrolling in the Great Beyond. > Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2016 19:26:06 -0800 > To: [email protected] > From: shals2nd@... > Subject: Re: [GMF] editingposts > > Donna, > > > I think if a group member makes a mistake that changes the meaning of > > what he or she intended, a new message should be written. > > I'm curious: why? > > Sending a new message doesn't reduce the "clutter" of having both versions of the message in one's inbox. And it can be more confusing if the member doesn't clearly state that the new message is an edit of the old one. At least with the Edit feature the new version is clearly marked as an edit. > > > I come across many edited posts in the beta group in the digests which I > > get. Often, I can't tell what is changed. Sometimes, even comparing > > the edited message with the non-edited message, it is difficult for me > > to tell. > > I find the easiest way to find out, if I care, is to click through to the message on the group's web page and then click the Edited badge that appears near the upper right (under the date/time of the post). > > That gives you a list of revisions, and a button to compare them. Inserted text is shown with an underline and a green highlight, deleted text is shown in strike-through with a red highlight. > > -- Shal > > > > |
|
Re: editingposts
Louise,
I was once in an academic group (!), not yahoo, where someone was veryYes. And not just the moderators... In Groups.io everyone can see the revision history of an edited post. Everyone who can see the post at all, that is. And of course, everyone receiving the individual posts by email will have been sent each version. This level of transparency is intended to discourage members from trying to "get away with something" by editing their message. They know, or will soon find out, that editing a message cannot be used to "cover-up" what they first wrote. In fact it does the opposite: it highlights their changes. That said, Groups.io has a message moderation facility similar to that of Yahoo Groups. If the someone had sent the message in a moderated group, or in a group where he personally was subject to moderation, then no one but the moderators would see the pending message until/unless a moderator approved the message. For an abusive message hopefully a moderator would reject it instead. -- Shal |
|
Re: editingposts
Donna,
I think if a group member makes a mistake that changes the meaning ofI'm curious: why? Sending a new message doesn't reduce the "clutter" of having both versions of the message in one's inbox. And it can be more confusing if the member doesn't clearly state that the new message is an edit of the old one. At least with the Edit feature the new version is clearly marked as an edit. I come across many edited posts in the beta group in the digests which II find the easiest way to find out, if I care, is to click through to the message on the group's web page and then click the Edited badge that appears near the upper right (under the date/time of the post). That gives you a list of revisions, and a button to compare them. Inserted text is shown with an underline and a green highlight, deleted text is shown in strike-through with a red highlight. -- Shal |
Donna
Shal Farley
Ro
D R Stinson