¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

  1. GroupManagersForum
  2. Messages
Expanded Topics Messages Polls
Date
Re: editingposts

 

D R Stinson wrote:>>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.<<

By muting in the archives, do you mean not enabling the person viewing via web to see the previous versions? I wouldn't want that.

Brenda
Re: Wiki Database page #howtoguide

 

Okay. I'm trying to reply to this again...Not sure where the first one went. Duane, did I somehow accidentally send it to you?

Duane wrote:>>I just added a page to the Wiki for "Setting up a Database". I think I covered most of it, but please make changes if appropriate.<<

Great, now can that be copied into a Word file?

Duane wrote:>> I'm thinking that we could do a lot of the documentation for Mark on how
things work.<<

I agree. I was thinking of asking you to help, because I can write some of the simpler stuff, but when it comes to using e-mail methods, or things like integrations, I have no clue. My main concern is that it has to somehow be transferrable to a Word document, so that I can have a mailable document to send people.

Duane wrote:>>I know that things are changing, some quite often, and that can make it difficult for less computer comfortable folks to keep up.<<

Especially if you're trying to follow it in Beta. I get so confused about what is currently implemented and working, and what has been changed or isn't.

I can't work on the Wiki, but I can write things that you can paste into the Wiki, if that's doable. I know next to nothing about the Wiki, and don't have time to learn a new process right now. I still don't even know how to do Wordpress on my own. But a Word document, that I can send people as well as store in my files section, and people can download it and read it.

Brenda
Re: Wiki Database page #howtoguide

 

Duane wrote:>>I just added a page to the Wiki for "Setting up a Database". I think I covered most of it, but please make changes if appropriate.<<

Great! Can that be pasted into a Word document, or is that not doable?

Duane wrote:>> I'm thinking that we could do a lot of the documentation for Mark on how things work.<<

I agree. I could write some of it, but things like how to do from e-mail, or the more complex things, I have no clue. Maybe we could create it together, but I would need one in Word that I can send people.

See my post in Beta: /g/beta/message/5878

I know that things are changing, some quite often, and that can make it difficult for less computer comfortable folks to keep up.


As far as

I'm concerned, Mark is more than welcome to use any of the information that I
post if it will help others. If/when Shal feels that a page is pretty much
set, he can lock it so that "Only moderators can edit this page" if he chooses
so that there's less chance of it being messed up.

Duane
Re: Creating a How-To Guide for groups.io #howtoguide

 

Did Mark ever absolutely clearly define the how to set a password or join a group process?

I'm still waiting to invite people until it's able to be explained step by step.

Thanks,

Brenda
Re: Creating a How-To Guide for groups.io #howtoguide

 

Could GMF's wiki be copied into Word documents and used as a separate mailable document?

That's what I'm looking for, something we could send people.

Brenda
Re: Creating a How-To Guide for groups.io #howtoguide

 

Daddy Dean wrote:>>Even those who have had computers but only use to Yahoo are are at lost as to how to do some simple things.<<

Exactly, so we would need a guide for the following:

How to use groups.io via website
How to use groups.io via e-mail
How to create groups and moderate in groups.io
And probably the simple commands vs the complex ones in each.

Brenda
Re: Creating a How-To Guide for groups.io #howtoguide

 

I just made a suggestion in Beta for a simple sort of manual for more challenged users, and also a manual for more complex things.

I would write it myself, except I don't know enough about it to do that. But I'm willing to try, if I can get some help with the things I don't understand.

Brenda
Re: Ro -editingposts

vickie
 

Just Ro Shal,
She ?found out you have to be longed in ?for the like to show up

Vickie
?



From: Shal Farley <shals2nd@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 2:35 AM
Subject: Re: [GMF] Ro -editingposts

Vickie,

> 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..

Just 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: Ro -editingposts

vickie
 

Ro>>>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.
?
Oh? Interesting. Learned something new. Now ?we know.

Thank you Ro
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 multiple
edited emails. Most edits are not done for erroneous info, but for
spelling error or to add new info.
Playing 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 its
important, and if its not, then it will be let go, which is what we
want.
Well, 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 the
group Beta page
so I am adding it here..
Just 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

vickie
 

Dano,

It does not matter what ?is the logical ?way to go about this ?by anyone's opinion.
This subject is so ongoing ?I ?feel to find a middle ground to resolve this
allow an option to turn it off or on , this way everyone is happy.?


I feel bad because everyone has ?an opinion ?and I don't want anyone left out. ~sigh~
I want you to have what you want also..

Vickie

?









From: D R Stinson
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2016 2:59 PM

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: Ro -editingposts

vickie
 

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
?



From: Ro
Sent: Sunday, February 7, 2016 10:58 PM

a 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


[excess quote trimmed by moderator]
Re: editingposts

 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

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

?

----- Original Message -----

From: vickie via Groups.io <vickie_00@...>

Reply-To: <[email protected]>

To: <[email protected]>

Sent: 2/8/2016 10:49:58 AM

Subject: [GMF] editingposts

Shal


?I have been reading this subject editing post and I ?agree with Ro ?
?
?>>>If they want to make a change, they can just make a new post.
??
She seems stressed ?trying to get her point across.?
This is not a one way street.
If editing post ?is ? the majority ?fine but Ro does not want it done that way
Neither do I.?
"Option to ?block editing post." is what I want. ?

Peace! ?

Vickie
Re: editingposts

vickie
 

Shal


?I have been reading this subject editing post and I ?agree with Ro ?
?
?>>>If they want to make a change, they can just make a new post.
??
She seems stressed ?trying to get her point across.?
This is not a one way street.
If editing post ?is ? the majority ?fine but Ro does not want it done that way
Neither do I.?
"Option to ?block editing post." is what I want. ?

Peace! ?

Vickie

?









From: Shal Farley <shals2nd@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, February 7, 2016 10:10 PM
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,

Members? 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!
Touch¨¦, 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 my
perspective, it drives me crazy to read edited posts. In fact, edited
posts are pointless cause I delete them all unread. ... The only members
"benefiting" are those on digest or reading on web, not the majority in
my group.
So 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 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.
Hmm... 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 ensuring
that the folks who make decisions realize that it (whatever IT is) needs
to BE an option ...
Well, 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

 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

Members? 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
>
>
>
>

48861 - 48880 of 49106