moderated Reply Audience Confusion


 

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 12:23 PM Barry_M via Groups.Io <bmwiner=zoho.com@groups.io> wrote:

Would it be easier/more sensible to build the notify/don't notify choice into both "reject" and "delete" though?  I'm not sure how many others might value that but it only makes sense if the group is using the two for two different, pragmatic, purposes aside from notification.

It feels like this is the wrong solution to what you want to achieve. I can see people being completely confused by which function to use. You want analytics, and I'm not sure this is the right way to get that.

Thanks,
Mark 


Barry_M
 

That makes sense, Mark.  I bet it is email client driven. Being able to change the reply-to default helps so, if a subscriber does want to reply-all (to the group), they then have to scroll to that link at the bottom of the message.

Would it be easier/more sensible to build the notify/don't notify choice into both "reject" and "delete" though?  I'm not sure how many others might value that but it only makes sense if the group is using the two for two different, pragmatic, purposes aside from notification.

Thank you!
Barry


 

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:13 PM Barry_M via Groups.Io <bmwiner=zoho.com@groups.io> wrote:

More specifically, the way such members get their comments made to the group via email has two fields at the top labeled "To:" and "Reply-to:".  Since not in the typical email format of "From" and "To", some of our members just reply to the email, using whatever email client, without realizing they are replying the entire group (whose address is in both of those fields at top).

Are you referring to what individual email clients display when viewing an email? There's nothing we can do about that, that's a function of the email client the person is using to read the message.

 
1.  Including more clearly labeled "reply to individual commenter" and "reply to entire group" at the top of a group-sent email

I think adding a header to messages would be problematic at best.

Thanks,
Mark 


Barry_M
 

Hi Gerald,

Thanks for the question.  There are two things related to the suggestion of considering a "without notification" option for both delete and reject.  On the tracking piece, we're finding that we use reject when some type of group rule or norm has been violated, typically on content or tone or whatever.  Alternatively, we'll use delete if a more administrative or technical issues, such as when the commenter mistakenly replies to the group when they intended to reply to an individual commenter.  Separate and related to that, allowing for auto-notification or no-notification (different from whether an owner/mod chooses to write a reply message), seems like it would just be more compressive in allowing group leaders to handle the full gamut of possible situations most effectively and efficiently.

Finally, aside from allowing that choice for both reject and delete, I do think better if the default top fields on emails sent to group members were more literal, descriptive and consistent with what most are familiar with from normal email.  That was my #1 below in the original post.

Barry


Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...>
 

Barry,

I don't understand what nuance you are trying to track. The way I see it, there are only two possible cases, not three, or four. The difference between Rejecting and Deleting is only whether or not you want to bother to reply to the submitter.

--
Gerald


On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 08:45 PM, Barry_M wrote:
Thanks J_Catlady and Leeni!  I should have been more specific on that bit.  Knew about delete but was suggesting the "without notification" option be added to "Reject" since enables better/different trend analysis.  And, the bigger issue for us is the delivery preference driven email formatting stuff described but maybe that's addressable by owners a different way?  Thanks again.


Michael Pavan
 

2. Making the default for a generic reply to the individual commenter rather than to the group email address
Group Owner(s) and Moderator with "Modify Group Settings" permissions can:
Admin: Settings: Message Policies: Reply To: Sender

You can reinforce this by checking the box just below that for: Remove Other Reply Options

THEN click on the "Update Group" blue button at bottom of page.
The page will then jump to the top and display "Your changes have been saved." in the green bar.


Barry_M
 

Thanks J_Catlady and Leeni!  I should have been more specific on that bit.  Knew about delete but was suggesting the "without notification" option be added to "Reject" since enables better/different trend analysis.  And, the bigger issue for us is the delivery preference driven email formatting stuff described but maybe that's addressable by owners a different way?  Thanks again.


Leeni <leeniluvsgroups@...>
 

You can reject a post without notifying the subscriber.
Instead of clicking reject, click delete. 
 
 
 
 

-------Original Message-------
 
Date: 6/17/2019 6:19:21 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Reply Audience Confusion #reply #email
 
Also, related to the above, would it be possible to build an option to reject a post without notify the subscriber?  Unless I'm wrong (always possible! ), I think now the only owner/moderator option when rejecting a post is to reject it and notify the affected member with or without an explanation.  I'd think helpful for others, as well as us, to have the option to reject without notification since, for some subscribers, they can get alarmed by learning their post was "rejected" since they don't understand the context. We've had that happen a couple of times when we chose to communicate with the member beyond the platform with explanation.
 


 

You can just Delete it from pending. You’ll get a confirmation dialog, “Delete this message without notifying the sender?” and you click “yes”. 


On Jun 17, 2019, at 4:19 PM, Barry_M via Groups.Io <bmwiner@...> wrote:

Also, related to the above, would it be possible to build an option to reject a post without notify the subscriber?  Unless I'm wrong (always possible! ), I think now the only owner/moderator option when rejecting a post is to reject it and notify the affected member with or without an explanation.  I'd think helpful for others, as well as us, to have the option to reject without notification since, for some subscribers, they can get alarmed by learning their post was "rejected" since they don't understand the context. We've had that happen a couple of times when we chose to communicate with the member beyond the platform with explanation.

--
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


Barry_M
 

Also, related to the above, would it be possible to build an option to reject a post without notify the subscriber?  Unless I'm wrong (always possible! ), I think now the only owner/moderator option when rejecting a post is to reject it and notify the affected member with or without an explanation.  I'd think helpful for others, as well as us, to have the option to reject without notification since, for some subscribers, they can get alarmed by learning their post was "rejected" since they don't understand the context. We've had that happen a couple of times when we chose to communicate with the member beyond the platform with explanation.


Barry_M
 

As I'd imagine true for many groups here, our group has subscribers with widely varying levels of tech savvy and background.  We made the decision early to moderate less to prevent inappropriate or divisive posts and more to prevent mistaken posts intended for an individual commenter versus the entire group.

I've realized that some of our members who don't use the website are confused about how to post and reply despite our writing guidelines and messaging with the basics.  I think some of this confusion may be lessened with changes to the layout of the template for subscribers with "individual emails" and "daily summary" delivery preferences.

More specifically, the way such members get their comments made to the group via email has two fields at the top labeled "To:" and "Reply-to:".  Since not in the typical email format of "From" and "To", some of our members just reply to the email, using whatever email client, without realizing they are replying the entire group (whose address is in both of those fields at top).  Though clear at the bottom of an email sent by the group (per the attached screenshot) to reply to an individual commenter or to the group, many of our members never look down there, hit reply and then we have to email them to explain and hopefully educate.

Can this be made more intuitive?  Specific suggestions would include:

1.  Including more clearly labeled "reply to individual commenter" and "reply to entire group" at the top of a group-sent email
2.  Making the default for a generic reply to the individual commenter rather than to the group email address

Maybe some of this is something I can set within settings or elsewhere?

Thank you!
Barry
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/32101217?p=Created%2C%2C%2C20%2C2%2C0%2C0
beta.groups.io
crawl=CC-MAIN-2022-21
119874
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:C65LBPE2CCVDYTBJIGPYMF5KS6KRRMMV
<urn:uuid:cf51c839-6e4f-4efe-a2d0-0ed0d213258a>
2022-05-17T11:53:20Z
45.79.81.153
text/html
sha1:OALPMZKFSUQX6HKTPVQI5HDTIOZMFGZP
<urn:uuid:4bddf834-42ec-461a-8d53-ef39dc6b5ff0>
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/32101217?p=Created%2C%2C%2C20%2C2%2C0%2C0
response
<urn:uuid:80545df9-0210-4fa1-95e8-e081213fbd6d>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2022-21
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for May 2022
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-26
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.3-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/