|
I doubt the moderators will let this message go through and so I will be surprised if it does.
Why are we all continually being moderated? In the groups I run and probably in those others run a new member is taken out of moderation status after a few posts. Here, we are continually being moderated which I do not like at all. The members of this list are high quality people who have a lot of skills and knowledge just by virtue of the fact that they are creating discussion groups. Instead, we are being treated like children who might throw a tantrum and have to be continually watched. I find this very offensive. When I first joined this group one responder to a question treated me like I was a dummy. We obviously had a personality conflict. When I tried to defend myself I did it very politely and did not attack this individual in any manner whatsoever, but my message was not approved. The moderator said he regretted he had not watched the other person more closely, but I was the one who was targeted. Now, again, as part of the frivolity on a topic within the past day, my post was not approved. There was absolutely nothing offensive about it. I just added to the frivolity. Yet my post was not approved but the other person's post, which my post was based on, was approved.
I find this continual moderation very offensive. We are adults. If someone gets out of line or too far off topic, all a moderator has to do is remind the group to stay on topic, not continually moderate each and every message all of us send which, I think, is very biased. I could point to posts showing it is biased.
Stan
[Mod note: while in most groups a complaint like this would be considered off-topic GMF's mission is to discuss issues of group management. Just don't take it personally nor take issue with other members.]
|
Stan, Why are we all continually being moderated? That's answered in GMF's guidelines. Shal GMF Moderator -- Help: /static/helpMore Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wikiEven More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list
|
Shal,
Okay, I now remember reading this:
"All messages sent to GMF are moderated. This is done to avoid malicious attachments, spam, off-topic messages, and messages from spoofed or compromised mail accounts. Despite these measures, be aware that the bad guys are clever so there's no guarantee that we'll always succeed; you are encouraged to be vigilant against any and all threats arriving via email. Your GMF moderators make no guarantees regarding the safety of emails arriving from this or any other Groups.io address."
But that still begs the question. I can understand moderating to eliminate spoofed (I don't know what that means) or compromised mail accounts, but I feel moderation is being carried beyond what I would say most moderators do in their own discussion group. Once I know a member is not a spammer, and I know the person is not using the group to push an offensive agenda they are taken out of moderation. If the individual becomes malicious, there are ways of dealing with that, the ultimate step being to place them in moderation status again. It is not necessary to moderate each and every post of every member of the group. If spam starts coming from a member that had been taken out of moderation, they are immediately put back in moderation. It has always been because their email account was compromised. Once that is cleared up they are taken out of moderation. It is not necessary to moderate each and every post and member of the group. We have already had members get off topic, most recently about what we know for sure, i.e., death and taxes. I think some members needed a little levity as a break from the details of understanding and setting up IO. I think that is good, and if it becomes too much all the moderator(s) have to do is post a message to get back on topic. If a member continually posts after the group was told to get back on topic, that person can be dealt with individually. It is not necessary to moderate each and every post of each an every member.
Stan
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2/18/2018 12:26 PM, Shal Farley wrote: Stan,
Why are we all continually being moderated? That's answered in GMF's guidelines.
Shal
GMF Moderator
|
It seems to me that those who are in charge of this group set the rules, and the rest of us obey them. I see nothing wrong with being moderated myself, and the groups.io that I'm a co-owner of is totally moderated. They don't complain. If a message is moderated out, perhaps the message poster should look more carefully at what can be said and what cannot.
We are lucky to even have groups.io to use for our groups.
Barb Jones
From: Stan Gorodenski <stanlep@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [GMF] Moderating
Shal,
Okay, I now remember reading this:
"All messages sent to GMF are moderated. This is done to avoid malicious
attachments, spam, off-topic messages, and messages from spoofed or
compromised mail accounts. Despite these measures, be aware that the bad
guys are clever so there's no guarantee that we'll always succeed; you
are encouraged to be vigilant against any and all threats arriving via
email. Your GMF moderators make no guarantees regarding the safety of
emails arriving from this or any other Groups.io address."
But that still begs the question. I can understand moderating to
eliminate spoofed (I don't know what that means) or compromised mail
accounts, but I feel moderation is being carried beyond what I would say
most moderators do in their own discussion group. Once I know a member
is not a spammer, and I know the person is not using the group to push
an offensive agenda they are taken out of moderation. If the individual
becomes malicious, there are ways of dealing with that, the ultimate
step being to place them in moderation status again. It is not necessary
to moderate each and every post of every member of the group. If spam
starts coming from a member that had been taken out of moderation, they
are immediately put back in moderation. It has always been because their
email account was compromised. Once that is cleared up they are taken
out of moderation. It is not necessary to moderate each and every post
and member of the group. We have already had members get off topic, most
recently about what we know for sure, i.e., death and taxes. I think
some members needed a little levity as a break from the details of
understanding and setting up IO. I think that is good, and if it becomes
too much all the moderator(s) have to do is post a message to get back
on topic. If a member continually posts after the group was told to get
back on topic, that person can be dealt with individually. It is not
necessary to moderate each and every post of each an every member.
Stan
On 2/18/2018 12:26 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
> Stan,
>
> > Why are we all continually being moderated?
>
> That's answered in GMF's guidelines.
>
> Shal
> GMF Moderator
>
>
|
Stan, I can understand moderating to eliminate spoofed (I don't know what
that means) Forging the From address of an email. Ten or more years ago this was a serious problem for Yahoo Groups - spambots, scammers, and malcontents were sending messages using the From address of group members, and those messages would be accepted and posted if not caught by a moderator. This has become a much less common threat as email systems in general, and Yahoo Groups and Groups.io in specific, have become better at rejecting spoofed messages before they reach the group or its pending queue. I haven't tried it lately, and I don't know that it isn't still possible. or compromised mail accounts, ... This is the more common method for fraud these days. Email accounts have traditionally been as vulnerable as the user's discretion in choosing a "strong" password. Stolen or guessed email account credentials are a hot-selling item in the nether regions of the internet. Email services are tightening up on this, at least the name-brand ones. But in a group with world-wide reach one may have members with services of various quality. Shal -- Help: /static/helpMore Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wikiEven More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list
|
On 2/18/2018 1:23 PM, Shal Farley wrote: Stan,
This is the more common method for fraud these days. Email accounts have traditionally been as vulnerable as the user's discretion in choosing a "strong" password. Stolen or guessed email account credentials are a hot-selling item in the nether regions of the internet.
Shal, Thanks. Is the above link safe to use? Sometimes I get messages from some of the members of my Yahoo discussion group that end up in my IP's Spam folder. It has their name on the message but it is not them. Is this a good link to post in my yahoo discussion group for members to check their email address for being compromised? Would it end up causing me a big headache in ways unseen by posting it? Stan
Email services are tightening up on this, at least the name-brand ones. But in a group with world-wide reach one may have members with services of various quality.
Shal
|
I agree with everything here Barb. ?Although my group is not moderated as we have been together a very long time.
Cherrill
Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Feb 18, 2018, at 1:12 PM, Barbara Jones < northbaj@...> wrote: It seems to me that those who are in charge of this group set the rules, and the rest of us obey them. I see nothing wrong with being moderated myself, and the that I'm a co-owner of is totally moderated. They don't complain. If a message is moderated out, perhaps the message poster should look more carefully at what can be said and what cannot.
We are lucky to even have to use for our groups.
Barb Jones
|
Stan, Is the above link safe to use? I think the site is safe. My company has used it to check all of our company email addresses and haven't had any problems. It did turn up a couple of addresses in data breaches of retail stores and the like. So we advised employees to change the password on those accounts (and to stop using their company addresses for on-line shopping and other purposes). In those cases the stolen credentials were still encrypted, so it isn't certain whether or not anyone ever managed to gain access to the accounts. But just to be safe... Sometimes I get messages from some of the members of my Yahoo
discussion group that end up in my IP's Spam folder. It has their name
on the message but it is not them. Another kind of fraud that I've seen, that sounds like this, is a message using the Display Name of a friend, or other trustworthy person, but when you look at the details the actual From email address isn't theirs, it is some unrelated compromised account. Something like: Shal Farley <footballer @ oddballdomain.ru> (Not to pick on the Russians, but country-code top-level domains seem to host lots of compromised email servers.) If your Inbox normally shows only the Display Name, "Shal Farley", you might think the message was from me - unless you check the actual email address itself. Those kinds of messages aren't a threat to an email list, as the member's actual email address wasn't used. But yes, they sure are annoying to get in your spam or Inbox. Is this a good link to post in my yahoo discussion group for members
to check their email address for being compromised? Would it end up
causing me a big headache in ways unseen by posting it? The headache I can imagine is a lot of potentially off-topic chatter about the subject, and perhaps a few panicked members. That depends on the nature of your group and members, of course. Shal -- Help: /static/helpMore Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wikiEven More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list
|
In my group I also have members who have been in it a long time or who I have known outside the group for a long time, but that is not the reason I do not moderate them. Perhaps in some groups it is necessary to moderate everyone because of the temperament of the individuals involved. It may be a blanket trait of people in that narrow field of the group. However, I have found that one should be more understanding and accommodating because the person that is causing some problem initially ends up being an outstanding member. You said "Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle", but I would also add, be more tolerant and understanding. This is what is lacking in many groups, and in our society I believe. If someone makes an abrasive comment, abrasive to some but not all, the immediate reaction is to contact the list owner, in a private message, and get the person banned. I have a member in my discussion group who created problems in other groups. He became a member of my group and many individuals in private email wanted me to ban him. I ban no one. There are other ways to deal with a problem. In this case, I worked with him over a long time and he is now one of the best members I have with what he has to offer the group. Stan On 2/18/2018 1:39 PM, Cherrill wrote: I agree with everything here Barb. Although my group is not moderated as we have been together a very long time.
Cherrill
Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle [excess quote trimmed by moderator]
|
Stan, I said that I agree with Barb that some groups probably need moderating and that is up to the owner of that group, not you or me. ? My group is not moderated and never has been.
Cherrill Your mother is the best friend you will ever have.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Feb 18, 2018, at 2:13 PM, Stan Gorodenski < stanlep@...> wrote: ? You said "Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle", but I would also add, be more tolerant and understanding.?
|
Dear Stan, I think that the term "owner" identifies who sets the rules for a group because they are responsible to groups.io for the group and it's actions. Some groups ( ours included) have a focused purpose and are operated as a benefit to the members as a public service and we fit in that category. Accordingly, we have very well defined rules for the use of the group, what may be posted and even in certain cases, what may be said. The rules are set up? to protect the mission of the group.? They are not completely set in stone but do change when necessary. Each prospective member must formally agree to our rules and by so agreeing, is subject to them. If the rules change all members are informed and they have two options; to implicitly agree with the new rules or to unsubscribe meaning that if they abrogate the new rules they are warned privately and if they persist in their mode of operation are removed from the group permanently. Our mission to help others is very important, not only to us but also to many who don't yet know of their need. We take our duty to protect members' information seriously and rules are necessary to that properly perform that duty. Our group has not been invaded in about 20 years. We moderate all new members till they complete their 4th? posting at which time groups.io automatically removes them from moderation. Our rules contain procedures for complaints by other members, and have other rules of conduct included. Members seldom need more than one reminder to calm down or to apologize for violating our rules. Shal owns GMF and as owner, sets the? rules. I feel that if one doesn't like the rules, one finds another place more amenable to their mode of operation. -- Bob Bellizzi
The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation
|
The problem is that this group is the de facto goto for help, and there¡¯s really no other option for someone who (like me) strongly objects to and, like Stan, feels insulted by indefinite moderation. Mark will no longer answer help-type questions on beta, instead directing people here (or the mostly inactive ¡®groups help¡¯ group). ?
Your ?argument holds water (¡®if you don¡¯t like it, go elsewhere¡¯)if there is somewhere else to go - the equivalent of consumer choice. But in this case, there really is none. It¡¯s a monopoly lol.?
No matter how upright a citizen of this group has been, for no matter how many years, and no matter how much help they¡¯ve provided to others here, they still have to suffer the delays, indignities, and inconveniences of asynchronous communication because every post here must be approved.
I cannot understand, not will I ever be able to understand, why this group does not take advantage of the incredibly convenient and brilliant NuM feature. Shal himself may even have been a party to its original design (I no longer remember). I believe it would make life in this group more pleasant and more convenient for all concerned, including the moderators. My group uses it and it works wonderfully. In the odd case that an established member steps out of line, you can put them back on NuM again.
J
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Feb 18, 2018, at 3:01 PM, Bob Bellizzi < cdfexec@...> wrote: Dear Stan, I think that the term "owner" identifies who sets the rules for a group because they are responsible to for the group and it's actions. Some groups ( ours included) have a focused purpose and are operated as a benefit to the members as a public service and we fit in that category. Accordingly, we have very well defined rules for the use of the group, what may be posted and even in certain cases, what may be said. The rules are set up? to protect the mission of the group.? They are not completely set in stone but do change when necessary. Each prospective member must formally agree to our rules and by so agreeing, is subject to them. If the rules change all members are informed and they have two options; to implicitly agree with the new rules or to unsubscribe meaning that if they abrogate the new rules they are warned privately and if they persist in their mode of operation are removed from the group permanently. Our mission to help others is very important, not only to us but also to many who don't yet know of their need. We take our duty to protect members' information seriously and rules are necessary to that properly perform that duty. Our group has not been invaded in about 20 years. We moderate all new members till they complete their 4th? posting at which time automatically removes them from moderation. Our rules contain procedures for complaints by other members, and have other rules of conduct included. Members seldom need more than one reminder to calm down or to apologize for violating our rules. Shal owns GMF and as owner, sets the? rules. I feel that if one doesn't like the rules, one finds another place more amenable to their mode of operation. -- Bob Bellizzi
The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation
|
On 2/18/2018 4:01 PM, Bob Bellizzi wrote: Dear Stan,
Shal owns GMF and as owner, sets the rules.
I feel that if one doesn't like the rules, one finds another place more amenable to their mode of operation.
I can see where you need to have a very tightly controlled group. My groups are different, and, frankly, I don't see where GMF needs the kind of rigid moderation you require. I didn't know Shal was the owner of the group, but you raise a good point with the above statement. I just need answers to questions about setting up and resolving any problems I have with IO. I would guess about 70% of the messages I see are way beyond me and so they are of no value to me. Also, I think one primary advantage of a group is that it relieves the workload of the people running whatever it is, be it Yahoo or groups.io. From what I have seen, there are only a few individuals who are really answering most of the questions and they appear to be part of the support team, although I could be wrong about being part of the support team. I don't need to belong to a discussion group unless this is the only alternative to getting answers. So, the question is, can I contact the support team ( [email protected] ?) directly with questions instead of going to GMF? If not, then I think GMF needs to be more rigidly controlled instead of letting some messages get through but not approving others. Stan
|
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 03:59 pm, Stan Gorodenski wrote:
there are only a few individuals who are really answering most of the questions and they appear to be part of the support team,
There's no support team. Everyone is a volunteer. And the support email address is mostly for bugs. There really is no other reasonable option besides this group, and that's the point I was making in my post just before this one.? ? -- J
|
I see no problem with 100% moderation if the moderators don't mind doing the work of screening everything. I'm sure Shal has filtered out some things that don't belong being posted here. In our groups, it's not what we want to do, spending our time approving messages all day. We've had to put only one person on moderation twice and they've avoided offensive posts since then. Another we had to ban. Those were the exceptions, though, and the "moderate after X number of posts works out well. Shal wants this group to be a safe place, not one where there's any venom in any posts against another member. Since this is the place where people get help (unless they use the support email), it makes sense that this needs to be a safe place with zero negative posts. Donald On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 15:41:10 -0800, "J_Catlady" <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote: I cannot understand, not will I ever be able to understand, why this group does not take advantage of the incredibly convenient and brilliant NuM feature. Shal himself may even have been a party to its original design (I no longer remember). I believe it would make life in this group more pleasant and more convenient for all concerned, including the moderators. My group uses it and it works wonderfully. In the odd case that an established member steps out of line, you can put them back on NuM again. The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it. --George Orwell
|
Stan, Also, I think one primary advantage of a group is that it relieves the
workload of the people running whatever it is, be it Yahoo or
groups.io. That's precisely how GMF and Group_Help came to be recommended on the beta group's home page. Mark Fletcher, the founder and creator of Groups.io, runs the beta group himself and eventually got overwhelmed with routine usage questions. Much earlier, a few days before Mark created the beta group, another gentleman created Group_Help and I created GMF, both with the mission of being user-to-user help and advice groups. So when Mark felt the traffic in the beta group was unmanageable he put the breaks on and announced that general questions should be directed to either of our two groups. And he added links to both to the beta home page. So that's how we obtained quasi-official status. Mark has said in beta that if there are other user-to-user help groups that want that role he'd be happy to add them to the list. Historically this has a precedent in Yahoo Groups as well. For many years four user-to-user help groups, EmailList-Managers, ListHelp, GroupManagersForum, and Yahoo_group_of_groups were listed in Yahoo's help pages as alternate places for help. From what I have seen, there are only a few individuals who are really
answering most of the questions and they appear to be part of the
support team, although I could be wrong about being part of the
support team. Neither I nor any of the other owners of GMF, nor to my knowledge any member of GMF, is affiliated with Groups.io in any way beyond being avid users of the service. That said, some of us have been active in beta@ since the beginning and are fairly well known by Mark. So, the question is, can I contact the support team
([email protected] ?) directly with questions instead of going to GMF? Ideally no. Mark intends for the support address to be for bugs and other service issues, not general questions. However you can post in Group_Help instead of GMF. Or others, if there are any I don't know about. Shal -- Help: /static/helpMore Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wikiEven More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list
|
I have not joined group_help because the moderators have refused, on some kind of principle, to make a simple change to their group description - namely, removal of the parentheses in this sentence of their group description:
It is intended that any member who has an answer or comment will voice his (or her) response, rather than having any one authority source, this is to be more of a discussion group than some of the other help groups.
Not only would removing the parens eliminate the unfortunate (if unintentional) casting of women as an afterthought, but it would also go a long way towards improving the already suspect grammatical construction of the sentence. C'mon, guys. Removing a set of parens. Why is that so hard? -- J
|
Or even better, replace ¡°his (or her)¡± with ¡°their¡±.
I do agree it could use further edits.
wunder Walter Underwood wunder@...http://observer.wunderwood.org/??(my?blog)
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I have not joined group_help because the moderators have refused, on some kind of principle, to make a simple change to their group description - namely, removal of the parentheses in this sentence of their group description:
It is intended that any member who has an answer or comment will voice his (or her) response, rather than having any one authority source, this is to be more of a discussion group than some of the other help groups.
Not only would removing the parens eliminate the unfortunate (if unintentional) casting of women as an afterthought, but it would also go a long way towards improving the already suspect grammatical construction of the sentence. C'mon, guys. Removing a set of parens. Why is that so hard? -- J
|
Here's your improvement, absolutely free of charge:
It is intended that any member who has an answer or comment will voice their response. Rather than having any one authority source, this is intended as more of a discussion group than some of the other help groups.
You could improve it further, but that would be good enough.
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 5:44 PM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote: I have not joined group_help because the moderators have refused, on some kind of principle, to make a simple change to their group description - namely, removal of the parentheses in this sentence of their group description:
It is intended that any member who has an answer or comment will voice his (or her) response, rather than having any one authority source, this is to be more of a discussion group than some of the other help groups.
Not only would removing the parens eliminate the unfortunate (if unintentional) casting of women as an afterthought, but it would also go a long way towards improving the already suspect grammatical construction of the sentence.
C'mon, guys. Removing a set of parens. Why is that so hard?
--
J
|
¡°Any member can answer or comment. This is a discussion group. Please contribute.¡±
?
Short sentences, clear to people who don¡¯t have English as a first language. Avoids dissing other groups.
?
wunder Walter Underwood wunder@...http://observer.wunderwood.org/??(my?blog) [Mod note: speaking of which, I'm not sure where this sub-thread is going, but there's some peril our advice could be seen as "dissing" another group here. Let's step back from that.]
Here's your improvement, absolutely free of charge:
?
It is intended that any member who has an answer or comment will voice their response. Rather than having any one authority source, this is intended as more of a discussion group than some of the other help groups.
?
You could improve it further, but that would be good enough.
[excess quote trimmed by moderator]
|
Shal Farley
Walter Underwood