moderated Allow adding attachment in an edit #suggestion


 

On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 11:37 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
I'd like this too. Also for Pending messages.
Agreed, not being able to edit files in a pending message (including attaching them) is a huge and inconvenient lack.
 
--
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


 

J,

You can delete an attachment in a message edit, but the paperclip goes
away when you try to edit. So it's impossible, for example, to edit an
attachment to a post ... Would it be possible to add this ability?
I'd like this too. Also for Pending messages.

In reference to concerns that have been raised by others in this topic, I agree with J and don't see a "consistency of the record" problem with this that the existing edit mechanisms for the message text don't already adequately handle.

I would like the original attachments and/or embedded images to remain connected to the prior revision of the message (accessed through the message's Revisions list) such that each revision in the list is internally consistent.

Shal


KWKloeber
 

>>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 07:24 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
all groups allow mods to save without sending.
all groups allow mods to edit<<<


Yes and that’s inconsistent with the (stated?) goal. 

Perhaps I wasn’t clear.  My point is if the policy (Mark’s intention) is to keep  the two records consistent (I believe that is the intention,  otherwise editing images/attachments wouldn’t have been “banned”) then that policy should be for everyone, mods included to keep the records consistent.   Not to allow mods to make it only a little more inconsistent than member are allowed to do. 

To be clear, I am saying the current setup/permissions are INCONSISTENT with the intrnded goal (as discussed in earlier threads) and the permissions should be backed down so that editing a posted msg  w/o saving shouldn’t be allowed at all, mods included. 

However, if Mark’s goal isn’t for the records to remain consistent, then ALL editing (images, ATT’s, text) should be allowed by anyone/everyone, without saving, mods and members included (but mods could turn off all editing for the entire group.)

I can’t cross the street cuz it’s unsafe, SO I can go only to the center line.  
It’s illogical.  
Either trust me to cross the entire street or keep me from stepping off the curb.  

I prefer crossing the street (ALL editing allowed) but staying safe doing it (edits MUST be sent out. )

Ken K

Sent from my phone


 

On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 07:24 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
all groups allow mods to save without sending.
all groups allow mods to edit
 
--
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 Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 07:14 AM, KWKloeber wrote:
this group doesn’t allow edits
But all groups allow mods to save without sending. You can't stop that.
My group and all the groups I'm in have disallowed editing by non-mods.
 
--
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
 

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 08:49 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 05:07 PM, KWKloeber wrote:
I am leaning toward not allowing save w/o sending
Well, let us know what you decide.

join our group to find out! <grin>


this group doesn’t allow edits and it’s not an impossible hurdle - just resend, delete the first   

No [edit allowed] or [save and send] would be consistent with the spirit of gio, regardless whether it’s text or images or attachments.

if allowed otherwise it should come with a STRONG warning of the potential downside and be discouraged  i.e, if the correct content is important enough fix, then it’s important enough for everyone to receive it  

that’s why I LOVE SimpleForum   Emailed posts go out, but no posting via email, you have the latest edit in front of you when you reply thru the UI   Email posting leads to SO many snafus caused by “inattentive” members unfortunately  

 


 

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 05:07 PM, KWKloeber wrote:
I am leaning toward not allowing save w/o sending
Well, let us know what you decide.
 
--
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
 

>>>you can currently edit a message to DELETE a file. How does that not result in a mismatch between the archive and the email any more than adding a file does?<<<
One can also paste in an image (although that's not always successful/holds its place.)

If I edit/resend (or even not resend)  I put a note [EDIT] - to indicate what was changed. 
Typically not, if it's gramma ore punkuation oar spelling correktions .   
Sometimes after a brain freeze, I have to do an [EDIT 2]  DUH!

Possibly there should be a user-completed tag when editing that gets inserted into the message (more than simply "Edited message follows"

I am leaning toward not allowing save w/o sending although I really prefer to be able to do minor text edits (certainly not deleting or replacing images/attachments w/o sending out a notice.)  There doesn't seem to be an easy answer to this that also maintains consistency/accuracy between online/emailed messages.  One could see a potential problem by changing a file name as well, if someone saved a file and it's then different than the one in the record. Not fatal, but still....


 

Right, there’s no real difference!

And although it’s a separate issue, I agree that adding member notification to editing a pending message is nothing more than simple courtesy. I’ve always wondered why it’s not done and I often do the notification myself by hand anyway, to let them know and often even ask for their approval first. So I agree that it would be a reasonable addition.


On Mar 31, 2021, at 7:34 AM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

﻿On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 08:51 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
currently preventing any mod from changing a message substantially and "save without sending."
As long as the original poster is notified, same as "save without sending",  I don't see a real problem with allowing attachments/images to be edited.  That would give them the opportunity to see what was changed and delete their message if they don't agree.  Since those on email aren't notified of message deletions anyway, there always exists the possibility of "inconsistent records of the same message."  If anything is to be changed, I'd like to see the poster notified when a pending message is edited before being approved (for more consistency.)

Duane

--
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


Duane
 

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 08:51 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
currently preventing any mod from changing a message substantially and "save without sending."
As long as the original poster is notified, same as "save without sending",  I don't see a real problem with allowing attachments/images to be edited.  That would give them the opportunity to see what was changed and delete their message if they don't agree.  Since those on email aren't notified of message deletions anyway, there always exists the possibility of "inconsistent records of the same message."  If anything is to be changed, I'd like to see the poster notified when a pending message is edited before being approved (for more consistency.)

Duane


 

And furthermore, you can currently edit a message to DELETE a file. How does that not result in a mismatch between the archive and the email any more than adding a file does?
--
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 Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 06:18 AM, Bruce Bowman wrote:
"Save without sending" changes should be reserved for fixing typos and the like...anything more substantive is revising history.
There is nothing - NOTHING - currently preventing any mod from changing a message substantially and "save without sending." Furthermore, in the case that prompted me to suggest allowing edits of files, all I wanted to do was change the name of the file, which contained a typo. So it can be the total reverse: editing a file can be a non-substantive edit, and editing message content can be substantive.

There is just no logic here that I can see for allowing one without the other.
 
--
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 Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 05:35 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
As Ken suggested it results in what's in the message archive and what has been sent out by email matching correctly.
And as I've said repeatedly, they don't match currently with "save without sending." A file is just more info. How is it different from the rest of the message content? I am not seeing the slightest bit of logic 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


Bruce Bowman
 

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 08:03 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
Again: doesn't seem any different from edit by mod with "save without sending."
I feel that the online messages should present -- first and foremost -- an accurate representation of what has been previously emailed to the membership. "Save without sending" changes should be reserved for fixing typos and the like...anything more substantive is revising history.

I acknowledge that group use cases may exist where such considerations may not be important (although I can't think of one off the top of my head).

"Save and Resend" should be the only option allowed if attachments/images are edited.   
I don't see that logic.
Changing an attachment is not a trivial alteration of content, and thus fails to comply with the previously stated group ethics. 

Regards,
Bruce


Chris Jones
 

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 01:03 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I don't see that logic.
As Ken suggested it results in what's in the message archive and what has been sent out by email matching correctly.

Which, IMHO, they should.

Chris


 

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 04:34 AM, KWKloeber wrote:
The whole point and argument for not allowing that feature were that there would be inconsistent records of the same message,  On line would be different than those emailed out.
Again: doesn't seem any different from edit by mod with "save without sending."

"Save and Resend" should be the only option allowed if attachments/images are edited.   
I don't see that logic.
 
--
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
 

The whole point and argument for not allowing that feature were that there would be inconsistent records of the same message,  On line would be different than those emailed out.

There's a good argument for not allowing editing of attachments or embedded images, 
That said, there are also good arguments to allow the feature for mods (and members also at the owner's/mod's discretion.) 
However, if the feature is implemented for anyone, it should preserve an accurate record, so "Save and Resend" should be the only option allowed if attachments/images are edited.    


 

On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 08:48 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
Doesn't that have a rather anomalous outcome? Members using the web UI would see the amended or additional attachment(s) while those reading by email would not because the correction / addition(s) would not be sent out to them
It's no different from "save without sending." Whether or not the ability would be implemented for non-mods, who could not save without sending, is a separate issue. I want the ability for mods. Someone else may want it for non-mods as well and I have no particular opinion on or feelings about that, as long as it's implemented for mods.
 
--
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


Chris Jones
 

On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 09:57 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
This was just one particular situation, but I'm sure there are also situations where you might want to edit a message by including additional attachements, without having to send a second message - where you'd want them all in the same archived message.
Doesn't that have a rather anomalous outcome? Members using the web UI would see the amended or additional attachment(s) while those reading by email would not because the correction / addition(s) would not be sent out to them; by definition, the lack of a further email would mean that email users would have no idea about the changes that had taken place.

Far better IMHO (and possibly quicker!) to reissue the message (including an apology if appropriate) with the corrected / additional material followed by the deletion of the original from the message archive.

Chris


 

Haha, yes, totally changed my mind! 😊


On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 3:21 PM Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 04:57 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
So it's impossible, for example, to edit an attachment to a post (you can delete the original but can't add the new one). Would it be possible to add this ability?
Changed your mind since now you need it?  ;>) https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/19764

Duane


--
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
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/81662351?p=Created%2C%2C%2C20%2C2%2C0%2C0%3A%3Arecentpostdate%2Fsticky%2C%2C%23thread%2C20%2C2%2C120%2C81662351
beta.groups.io
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-43
144912
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:QSDEB5GGNOXFMR7WWDXINKVSACLVYW7R
<urn:uuid:bf2f86a2-199c-45c1-b728-f39ec590880c>
2021-10-17T23:40:33Z
173.255.221.194
text/html
sha1:GEFEU7FPHJJ66OBEZWIK7ZZAGZHIGF7Q
<urn:uuid:72000739-1a0e-4ae8-91f5-59cd88be6326>
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/81662351?p=Created%2C%2C%2C20%2C2%2C0%2C0%3A%3Arecentpostdate%2Fsticky%2C%2C%23thread%2C20%2C2%2C120%2C81662351
response
<urn:uuid:6e990a2d-dd39-4252-8ae4-11694912114d>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-43
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for October 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-135
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-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/