In the introductions, I introduced myself and described a role [1] that I'm currently sharing with Eran doing moderating new members to this list. Recently we've received some backlash to this procedure, notably:
We've also received private emails questioning this approach.
I am sympathetic to these concerns and in fact, the moderation process has created a some degree of overhead (primarily for me and Eran).
The purpose of moderation is to check to see if people actually get what the list is about and also, in some cases, to learn more about the folks signing up in case there's an opportunity to put people together. We're currently maintaining a private spreadsheet with people's responses because Google Groups does not enable us to record these join messages automatically; believe you me, it's a pain in the ass to do things this way, but generally the benefits seem to outweigh the costs.
Historically it's nice to have this kind of data so we can see who joined, when and why. I've done this with the DiSo and XRDS-Simple lists so far and it's provided very useful and interesting information -- and I've not blocked anyone from joining who gave me at least a couple words for their join message. In other words, it's not meant to block people, but to give me a sense of who's joining and why. I'd happily publish the join messages (ideally, they would be part of your Google Groups member profile!) except that the spreadsheet contains personal email addresses (which are available to members of this group via Google Groups after filling out a captcha, one at a time).
Besides the benefit of getting to know members as they join, there's the ability to preempt spam, as has been the cause for other lists closing up recently:
So the question before me (us) is whether I should keep moderating the list, leaving this small amount of friction in place, or make the list totally open, without moderation.
The BarCamp and Coworking Google Group lists, which I also admin, are open and we do receive spam and offensive messages from time-to-time. We do moderate first-time posters in these lists, but that's almost worse than just moderating initial subscriptions (after someone is subscribed they can post freely).
I don't want to abandon moderation simply because a few folks have questioned it, but if the approach feels onerous or out of sync with ends of this group, let me know and we can take a different tack. If you don't care either way, feel free to say so and I'll keep doing what I've been doing.
It's worth noting that out of 210 members so far, we've only received, at most, maybe five total complaints.
> In the introductions, I introduced myself and described a role [1] that I'm > currently sharing with Eran doing moderating new members to this list. > Recently we've received some backlash to this procedure, notably:
> We've also received private emails questioning this approach.
> I am sympathetic to these concerns and in fact, the moderation process has > created a some degree of overhead (primarily for me and Eran).
> The purpose of moderation is to check to see if people actually get what > the list is about and also, in some cases, to learn more about the folks > signing up in case there's an opportunity to put people together. We're > currently maintaining a private spreadsheet with people's responses because > Google Groups does not enable us to record these join messages > automatically; believe you me, it's a pain in the ass to do things this way, > but generally the benefits seem to outweigh the costs.
> Historically it's nice to have this kind of data so we can see who joined, > when and why. I've done this with the DiSo and XRDS-Simple lists so far and > it's provided very useful and interesting information -- and I've not > blocked anyone from joining who gave me at least a couple words for their > join message. In other words, it's not meant to block people, but to give me > a sense of who's joining and why. I'd happily publish the join messages > (ideally, they would be part of your Google Groups member profile!) except > that the spreadsheet contains personal email addresses (which are available > to members of this group via Google Groups after filling out a captcha, one > at a time).
> Besides the benefit of getting to know members as they join, there's the > ability to preempt spam, as has been the cause for other lists closing up > recently:
> So the question before me (us) is whether I should keep moderating the > list, leaving this small amount of friction in place, or make the list > totally open, without moderation.
> The BarCamp and Coworking Google Group lists, which I also admin, are open > and we do receive spam and offensive messages from time-to-time. We do > moderate first-time posters in these lists, but that's almost worse than > just moderating initial subscriptions (after someone is subscribed they can > post freely).
> I don't want to abandon moderation simply because a few folks have > questioned it, but if the approach feels onerous or out of sync with ends of > this group, let me know and we can take a different tack. If you don't care > either way, feel free to say so and I'll keep doing what I've been doing.
> It's worth noting that out of 210 members so far, we've only received, at > most, maybe five total complaints.
I realize that this is always going to be a little bit controversial, but I think the policy of (trivially) moderating subscriptions is the right one. We simply use sign-up moderation as a very low friction speedbump to keep the obvious negative-value participants (i.e., spammers) out. And the archives are open to everyone -- no secrets here.
I'd have a different opinion if we turned legitimate people away or we were in any way exclusive or discriminatory about who we approve. But we're not -- everyone who asks gets in, so this process seems to be working. I just don't want to deal with spam here.
If people have strong opinions either way please share them here and we can refer to this thread in the public archives if we decide to keep this policy.
-DeWitt
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com>wrote:
> In the introductions, I introduced myself and described a role [1] that I'm > currently sharing with Eran doing moderating new members to this list. > Recently we've received some backlash to this procedure, notably:
> We've also received private emails questioning this approach.
> I am sympathetic to these concerns and in fact, the moderation process has > created a some degree of overhead (primarily for me and Eran).
> The purpose of moderation is to check to see if people actually get what > the list is about and also, in some cases, to learn more about the folks > signing up in case there's an opportunity to put people together. We're > currently maintaining a private spreadsheet with people's responses because > Google Groups does not enable us to record these join messages > automatically; believe you me, it's a pain in the ass to do things this way, > but generally the benefits seem to outweigh the costs.
> Historically it's nice to have this kind of data so we can see who joined, > when and why. I've done this with the DiSo and XRDS-Simple lists so far and > it's provided very useful and interesting information -- and I've not > blocked anyone from joining who gave me at least a couple words for their > join message. In other words, it's not meant to block people, but to give me > a sense of who's joining and why. I'd happily publish the join messages > (ideally, they would be part of your Google Groups member profile!) except > that the spreadsheet contains personal email addresses (which are available > to members of this group via Google Groups after filling out a captcha, one > at a time).
> Besides the benefit of getting to know members as they join, there's the > ability to preempt spam, as has been the cause for other lists closing up > recently:
> So the question before me (us) is whether I should keep moderating the > list, leaving this small amount of friction in place, or make the list > totally open, without moderation.
> The BarCamp and Coworking Google Group lists, which I also admin, are open > and we do receive spam and offensive messages from time-to-time. We do > moderate first-time posters in these lists, but that's almost worse than > just moderating initial subscriptions (after someone is subscribed they can > post freely).
> I don't want to abandon moderation simply because a few folks have > questioned it, but if the approach feels onerous or out of sync with ends of > this group, let me know and we can take a different tack. If you don't care > either way, feel free to say so and I'll keep doing what I've been doing.
> It's worth noting that out of 210 members so far, we've only received, at > most, maybe five total complaints.
> I realize that this is always going to be a little bit controversial, but I > think the policy of (trivially) moderating subscriptions is the right one. > We simply use sign-up moderation as a very low friction speedbump to keep > the obvious negative-value participants (i.e., spammers) out. And the > archives are open to everyone -- no secrets here.
> I'd have a different opinion if we turned legitimate people away or we were > in any way exclusive or discriminatory about who we approve. But we're not > -- everyone who asks gets in, so this process seems to be working. I just > don't want to deal with spam here.
> If people have strong opinions either way please share them here and we can > refer to this thread in the public archives if we decide to keep this > policy.
> -DeWitt
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> In the introductions, I introduced myself and described a role [1] that >> I'm currently sharing with Eran doing moderating new members to this list. >> Recently we've received some backlash to this procedure, notably:
>> We've also received private emails questioning this approach.
>> I am sympathetic to these concerns and in fact, the moderation process has >> created a some degree of overhead (primarily for me and Eran).
>> The purpose of moderation is to check to see if people actually get what >> the list is about and also, in some cases, to learn more about the folks >> signing up in case there's an opportunity to put people together. We're >> currently maintaining a private spreadsheet with people's responses because >> Google Groups does not enable us to record these join messages >> automatically; believe you me, it's a pain in the ass to do things this way, >> but generally the benefits seem to outweigh the costs.
>> Historically it's nice to have this kind of data so we can see who joined, >> when and why. I've done this with the DiSo and XRDS-Simple lists so far and >> it's provided very useful and interesting information -- and I've not >> blocked anyone from joining who gave me at least a couple words for their >> join message. In other words, it's not meant to block people, but to give me >> a sense of who's joining and why. I'd happily publish the join messages >> (ideally, they would be part of your Google Groups member profile!) except >> that the spreadsheet contains personal email addresses (which are available >> to members of this group via Google Groups after filling out a captcha, one >> at a time).
>> Besides the benefit of getting to know members as they join, there's the >> ability to preempt spam, as has been the cause for other lists closing up >> recently:
>> So the question before me (us) is whether I should keep moderating the >> list, leaving this small amount of friction in place, or make the list >> totally open, without moderation.
>> The BarCamp and Coworking Google Group lists, which I also admin, are open >> and we do receive spam and offensive messages from time-to-time. We do >> moderate first-time posters in these lists, but that's almost worse than >> just moderating initial subscriptions (after someone is subscribed they can >> post freely).
>> I don't want to abandon moderation simply because a few folks have >> questioned it, but if the approach feels onerous or out of sync with ends of >> this group, let me know and we can take a different tack. If you don't care >> either way, feel free to say so and I'll keep doing what I've been doing.
>> It's worth noting that out of 210 members so far, we've only received, at >> most, maybe five total complaints.
If it gets to become an issue, the issue is probably only "Why do Chris and Eran have this power! If they don't like me they can block me!"
If that happens then rather than opening up the entire list, how about having a public area that shows the requests that didn't get through and why? If that is transparent, then we are good to go.
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Chris DiBona <cdib...@gmail.com> wrote: > Keep it moderated, otherwise we're looking at 2 to 3 spam accounts a day > being added withint 3 to 6 months.
> Chris
> On 8/4/08, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@google.com> wrote:
>> I realize that this is always going to be a little bit controversial, but >> I think the policy of (trivially) moderating subscriptions is the right >> one. We simply use sign-up moderation as a very low friction speedbump to >> keep the obvious negative-value participants (i.e., spammers) out. And the >> archives are open to everyone -- no secrets here.
>> I'd have a different opinion if we turned legitimate people away or we >> were in any way exclusive or discriminatory about who we approve. But we're >> not -- everyone who asks gets in, so this process seems to be working. I >> just don't want to deal with spam here.
>> If people have strong opinions either way please share them here and we >> can refer to this thread in the public archives if we decide to keep this >> policy.
>> -DeWitt
>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> In the introductions, I introduced myself and described a role [1] that >>> I'm currently sharing with Eran doing moderating new members to this list. >>> Recently we've received some backlash to this procedure, notably:
>>> We've also received private emails questioning this approach.
>>> I am sympathetic to these concerns and in fact, the moderation process >>> has created a some degree of overhead (primarily for me and Eran).
>>> The purpose of moderation is to check to see if people actually get what >>> the list is about and also, in some cases, to learn more about the folks >>> signing up in case there's an opportunity to put people together. We're >>> currently maintaining a private spreadsheet with people's responses because >>> Google Groups does not enable us to record these join messages >>> automatically; believe you me, it's a pain in the ass to do things this way, >>> but generally the benefits seem to outweigh the costs.
>>> Historically it's nice to have this kind of data so we can see who >>> joined, when and why. I've done this with the DiSo and XRDS-Simple lists so >>> far and it's provided very useful and interesting information -- and I've >>> not blocked anyone from joining who gave me at least a couple words for >>> their join message. In other words, it's not meant to block people, but to >>> give me a sense of who's joining and why. I'd happily publish the join >>> messages (ideally, they would be part of your Google Groups member profile!) >>> except that the spreadsheet contains personal email addresses (which are >>> available to members of this group via Google Groups after filling out a >>> captcha, one at a time).
>>> Besides the benefit of getting to know members as they join, there's the >>> ability to preempt spam, as has been the cause for other lists closing up >>> recently:
>>> So the question before me (us) is whether I should keep moderating the >>> list, leaving this small amount of friction in place, or make the list >>> totally open, without moderation.
>>> The BarCamp and Coworking Google Group lists, which I also admin, are >>> open and we do receive spam and offensive messages from time-to-time. We do >>> moderate first-time posters in these lists, but that's almost worse than >>> just moderating initial subscriptions (after someone is subscribed they can >>> post freely).
>>> I don't want to abandon moderation simply because a few folks have >>> questioned it, but if the approach feels onerous or out of sync with ends of >>> this group, let me know and we can take a different tack. If you don't care >>> either way, feel free to say so and I'll keep doing what I've been doing.
>>> It's worth noting that out of 210 members so far, we've only received, at >>> most, maybe five total complaints.
Of course the answer this question is "cause we are suckers".
Everyone is approved unless there is no text in the reply to the question. In which case Chris sends out a nice email and ask for them to signup again. At that point all we have is an email address so I am not sure how we can make that public...
But we can add more people to the list owners so it is less "exclusive".
EHL
On 8/4/08 2:37 PM, "Dion Almaer" <dalm...@gmail.com> wrote:
If it gets to become an issue, the issue is probably only "Why do Chris and Eran have this power! If they don't like me they can block me!"
If that happens then rather than opening up the entire list, how about having a public area that shows the requests that didn't get through and why? If that is transparent, then we are good to go.
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Chris DiBona <cdib...@gmail.com> wrote:
Keep it moderated, otherwise we're looking at 2 to 3 spam accounts a day being added withint 3 to 6 months.
Chris
On 8/4/08, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@google.com> wrote: I realize that this is always going to be a little bit controversial, but I think the policy of (trivially) moderating subscriptions is the right one. We simply use sign-up moderation as a very low friction speedbump to keep the obvious negative-value participants (i.e., spammers) out. And the archives are open to everyone -- no secrets here.
I'd have a different opinion if we turned legitimate people away or we were in any way exclusive or discriminatory about who we approve. But we're not -- everyone who asks gets in, so this process seems to be working. I just don't want to deal with spam here.
If people have strong opinions either way please share them here and we can refer to this thread in the public archives if we decide to keep this policy.
-DeWitt
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com> wrote:
In the introductions, I introduced myself and described a role [1] that I'm currently sharing with Eran doing moderating new members to this list.
Recently we've received some backlash to this procedure, notably:
We've also received private emails questioning this approach.
I am sympathetic to these concerns and in fact, the moderation process has created a some degree of overhead (primarily for me and Eran).
The purpose of moderation is to check to see if people actually get what the list is about and also, in some cases, to learn more about the folks signing up in case there's an opportunity to put people together. We're currently maintaining a private spreadsheet with people's responses because Google Groups does not enable us to record these join messages automatically; believe you me, it's a pain in the ass to do things this way, but generally the benefits seem to outweigh the costs.
Historically it's nice to have this kind of data so we can see who joined, when and why. I've done this with the DiSo and XRDS-Simple lists so far and it's provided very useful and interesting information -- and I've not blocked anyone from joining who gave me at least a couple words for their join message. In other words, it's not meant to block people, but to give me a sense of who's joining and why. I'd happily publish the join messages (ideally, they would be part of your Google Groups member profile!) except that the spreadsheet contains personal email addresses (which are available to members of this group via Google Groups after filling out a captcha, one at a time).
Besides the benefit of getting to know members as they join, there's the ability to preempt spam, as has been the cause for other lists closing up recently:
So the question before me (us) is whether I should keep moderating the list, leaving this small amount of friction in place, or make the list totally open, without moderation.
The BarCamp and Coworking Google Group lists, which I also admin, are open and we do receive spam and offensive messages from time-to-time. We do moderate first-time posters in these lists, but that's almost worse than just moderating initial subscriptions (after someone is subscribed they can post freely).
I don't want to abandon moderation simply because a few folks have questioned it, but if the approach feels onerous or out of sync with ends of this group, let me know and we can take a different tack. If you don't care either way, feel free to say so and I'll keep doing what I've been doing.
It's worth noting that out of 210 members so far, we've only received, at most, maybe five total complaints.
To be clear, I am *very* appreciative that it is you two, and have no need for the pool to grow unless you need it too and people volunteer.
My statement was purely meant as an insurance policy. *If* people have nothing better to do than make a stink about it, and that publicity is getting in the way and we want it to go away, rather than just throwing up our hands and saying "ok, let's open it" we can do something else (like show the transparency, add more people, or whatever).
Status quo works for me.
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com>wrote:
> Of course the answer this question is "cause we are suckers".
> Everyone is approved unless there is no text in the reply to the question. > In which case Chris sends out a nice email and ask for them to signup again. > At that point all we have is an email address so I am not sure how we can > make that public...
> But we can add more people to the list owners so it is less "exclusive".
> EHL
> On 8/4/08 2:37 PM, "Dion Almaer" <dalm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If it gets to become an issue, the issue is probably only "Why do Chris and > Eran have this power! If they don't like me they can block me!"
> If that happens then rather than opening up the entire list, how about > having a public area that shows the requests that didn't get through and > why? If that is transparent, then we are good to go.
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Chris DiBona <cdib...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Keep it moderated, otherwise we're looking at 2 to 3 spam accounts a day > being added withint 3 to 6 months.
> Chris
> On 8/4/08, *DeWitt Clinton* <dew...@google.com> wrote:
> I realize that this is always going to be a little bit controversial, but I > think the policy of (trivially) moderating subscriptions is the right one. > We simply use sign-up moderation as a very low friction speedbump to keep > the obvious negative-value participants (i.e., spammers) out. And the > archives are open to everyone -- no secrets here.
> I'd have a different opinion if we turned legitimate people away or we were > in any way exclusive or discriminatory about who we approve. But we're not > -- everyone who asks gets in, so this process seems to be working. I just > don't want to deal with spam here.
> If people have strong opinions either way please share them here and we can > refer to this thread in the public archives if we decide to keep this > policy.
> -DeWitt
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> In the introductions, I introduced myself and described a role [1] that I'm > currently sharing with Eran doing moderating new members to this list.
> Recently we've received some backlash to this procedure, notably:
> We've also received private emails questioning this approach.
> I am sympathetic to these concerns and in fact, the moderation process has > created a some degree of overhead (primarily for me and Eran).
> The purpose of moderation is to check to see if people actually get what > the list is about and also, in some cases, to learn more about the folks > signing up in case there's an opportunity to put people together. We're > currently maintaining a private spreadsheet with people's responses because > Google Groups does not enable us to record these join messages > automatically; believe you me, it's a pain in the ass to do things this way, > but generally the benefits seem to outweigh the costs.
> Historically it's nice to have this kind of data so we can see who joined, > when and why. I've done this with the DiSo and XRDS-Simple lists so far and > it's provided very useful and interesting information -- and I've not > blocked anyone from joining who gave me at least a couple words for their > join message. In other words, it's not meant to block people, but to give me > a sense of who's joining and why. I'd happily publish the join messages > (ideally, they would be part of your Google Groups member profile!) except > that the spreadsheet contains personal email addresses (which are available > to members of this group via Google Groups after filling out a captcha, one > at a time).
> Besides the benefit of getting to know members as they join, there's the > ability to preempt spam, as has been the cause for other lists closing up > recently:
> So the question before me (us) is whether I should keep moderating the > list, leaving this small amount of friction in place, or make the list > totally open, without moderation.
> The BarCamp and Coworking Google Group lists, which I also admin, are open > and we do receive spam and offensive messages from time-to-time. We do > moderate first-time posters in these lists, but that's almost worse than > just moderating initial subscriptions (after someone is subscribed they can > post freely).
> I don't want to abandon moderation simply because a few folks have > questioned it, but if the approach feels onerous or out of sync with ends of > this group, let me know and we can take a different tack. If you don't care > either way, feel free to say so and I'll keep doing what I've been doing.
> It's worth noting that out of 210 members so far, we've only received, at > most, maybe five total complaints.
More signal to noise is a good thing. You might, however, provide additional or clearer upfront explanation so people understand the request is more about setting tone and intention than filtering "applicants".
From: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com [mailto:open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Messina Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 2:04 PM To: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com Subject: Moderation of this mailing list
In the introductions, I introduced myself and described a role [1] that I'm currently sharing with Eran doing moderating new members to this list.
Recently we've received some backlash to this procedure, notably:
We've also received private emails questioning this approach.
I am sympathetic to these concerns and in fact, the moderation process has created a some degree of overhead (primarily for me and Eran).
The purpose of moderation is to check to see if people actually get what the list is about and also, in some cases, to learn more about the folks signing up in case there's an opportunity to put people together. We're currently maintaining a private spreadsheet with people's responses because Google Groups does not enable us to record these join messages automatically; believe you me, it's a pain in the ass to do things this way, but generally the benefits seem to outweigh the costs.
Historically it's nice to have this kind of data so we can see who joined, when and why. I've done this with the DiSo and XRDS-Simple lists so far and it's provided very useful and interesting information -- and I've not blocked anyone from joining who gave me at least a couple words for their join message. In other words, it's not meant to block people, but to give me a sense of who's joining and why. I'd happily publish the join messages (ideally, they would be part of your Google Groups member profile!) except that the spreadsheet contains personal email addresses (which are available to members of this group via Google Groups after filling out a captcha, one at a time).
Besides the benefit of getting to know members as they join, there's the ability to preempt spam, as has been the cause for other lists closing up recently:
So the question before me (us) is whether I should keep moderating the list, leaving this small amount of friction in place, or make the list totally open, without moderation.
The BarCamp and Coworking Google Group lists, which I also admin, are open and we do receive spam and offensive messages from time-to-time. We do moderate first-time posters in these lists, but that's almost worse than just moderating initial subscriptions (after someone is subscribed they can post freely).
I don't want to abandon moderation simply because a few folks have questioned it, but if the approach feels onerous or out of sync with ends of this group, let me know and we can take a different tack. If you don't care either way, feel free to say so and I'll keep doing what I've been doing.
It's worth noting that out of 210 members so far, we've only received, at most, maybe five total complaints.
> In the introductions, I introduced myself and described a role [1] > that I'm currently sharing with Eran doing moderating new members to > this list.
> Recently we've received some backlash to this procedure, notably:
> We've also received private emails questioning this approach.
> I am sympathetic to these concerns and in fact, the moderation > process has created a some degree of overhead (primarily for me and > Eran).
> The purpose of moderation is to check to see if people actually get > what the list is about and also, in some cases, to learn more about > the folks signing up in case there's an opportunity to put people > together. We're currently maintaining a private spreadsheet with > people's responses because Google Groups does not enable us to > record these join messages automatically; believe you me, it's a > pain in the ass to do things this way, but generally the benefits > seem to outweigh the costs.
> Historically it's nice to have this kind of data so we can see who > joined, when and why. I've done this with the DiSo and XRDS-Simple > lists so far and it's provided very useful and interesting > information -- and I've not blocked anyone from joining who gave me > at least a couple words for their join message. In other words, it's > not meant to block people, but to give me a sense of who's joining > and why. I'd happily publish the join messages (ideally, they would > be part of your Google Groups member profile!) except that the > spreadsheet contains personal email addresses (which are available > to members of this group via Google Groups after filling out a > captcha, one at a time).
> Besides the benefit of getting to know members as they join, there's > the ability to preempt spam, as has been the cause for other lists > closing up recently:
> So the question before me (us) is whether I should keep moderating > the list, leaving this small amount of friction in place, or make > the list totally open, without moderation.
> The BarCamp and Coworking Google Group lists, which I also admin, > are open and we do receive spam and offensive messages from time-to- > time. We do moderate first-time posters in these lists, but that's > almost worse than just moderating initial subscriptions (after > someone is subscribed they can post freely).
> I don't want to abandon moderation simply because a few folks have > questioned it, but if the approach feels onerous or out of sync with > ends of this group, let me know and we can take a different tack. If > you don't care either way, feel free to say so and I'll keep doing > what I've been doing.
> It's worth noting that out of 210 members so far, we've only > received, at most, maybe five total complaints.
I'm glad to have feedback on this policy -- with all responses in favor of the practice so far! To help clarify the process, here's how it goes:
1. Google Groups sends an email to the owners of this list notifying us that a new member has requested membership. 2. One of us visits the moderation page; if the requestor left a message, their membership is approved. If not, we send them this message:
Hello,
In order to keep the quality of discussion high and on topic, the Open Web Foundation group is moderated. If can you describe your interest in the Open Web Foundation and what you hope to contribute or learn, I'd be happy to approve your member application.
I have provisionally deleted your application; just sign up again with a description of your interest.
3. Should they apply for membership again and leave a message, their membership will be approved. 4. As a side-process, Eran either emails me the member emails and join messages in an email or when I approve the applications, I add them one at a time to my spreadsheet. If Eran sends me the lists of applications, I'll go through and add them to my spreadsheet. It's a manual process, but doesn't take that long, and when Eran sends me a joined list, we're able to quickly approve members without the data entry delay. 5. On occasion, where it makes sense, based on our knowledge, we'll introduce ourselves personally to certain members and invite them to join in ongoing discussions that we think they might have something to add to. The basic premise here is to get people into a productive mode as quickly as possible and to meet up with people they might know or have something in common with... like hosts do at good parties. ;)
I'm happy to add more owners/managers of the list, especially from the original group, but I'm also wary of adding too much overhead to folks who'd rather not take on this responsibility.
I should note that every time an email is sent out to someone with a blank join message, we CC each other -- so right now I always email Eran or DeWitt -- as a form of mutual oversight.
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Simon Phipps <webm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Please keep moderating. But consider adding some more moderators so that > the load is shared. > S.
> On Aug 4, 2008, at 22:04, Chris Messina wrote:
> In the introductions, I introduced myself and described a role [1] that I'm > currently sharing with Eran doing moderating new members to this list. > Recently we've received some backlash to this procedure, notably:
> We've also received private emails questioning this approach.
> I am sympathetic to these concerns and in fact, the moderation process has > created a some degree of overhead (primarily for me and Eran).
> The purpose of moderation is to check to see if people actually get what > the list is about and also, in some cases, to learn more about the folks > signing up in case there's an opportunity to put people together. We're > currently maintaining a private spreadsheet with people's responses because > Google Groups does not enable us to record these join messages > automatically; believe you me, it's a pain in the ass to do things this way, > but generally the benefits seem to outweigh the costs.
> Historically it's nice to have this kind of data so we can see who joined, > when and why. I've done this with the DiSo and XRDS-Simple lists so far and > it's provided very useful and interesting information -- and I've not > blocked anyone from joining who gave me at least a couple words for their > join message. In other words, it's not meant to block people, but to give me > a sense of who's joining and why. I'd happily publish the join messages > (ideally, they would be part of your Google Groups member profile!) except > that the spreadsheet contains personal email addresses (which are available > to members of this group via Google Groups after filling out a captcha, one > at a time).
> Besides the benefit of getting to know members as they join, there's the > ability to preempt spam, as has been the cause for other lists closing up > recently:
> So the question before me (us) is whether I should keep moderating the > list, leaving this small amount of friction in place, or make the list > totally open, without moderation.
> The BarCamp and Coworking Google Group lists, which I also admin, are open > and we do receive spam and offensive messages from time-to-time. We do > moderate first-time posters in these lists, but that's almost worse than > just moderating initial subscriptions (after someone is subscribed they can > post freely).
> I don't want to abandon moderation simply because a few folks have > questioned it, but if the approach feels onerous or out of sync with ends of > this group, let me know and we can take a different tack. If you don't care > either way, feel free to say so and I'll keep doing what I've been doing.
> It's worth noting that out of 210 members so far, we've only received, at > most, maybe five total complaints.
> In the introductions, I introduced myself and described a role [1] that I'm > currently sharing with Eran doing moderating new members to this list. > Recently we've received some backlash to this procedure, notably: > http://twitter.com/mdavid/statuses/875811995 > http://news.oreilly.com/2008/08/why-do-i-have-to-apply-for-gro.html > We've also received private emails questioning this approach. > I am sympathetic to these concerns and in fact, the moderation process has > created a some degree of overhead (primarily for me and Eran).
I am sympathetic to the reasons for moderation - on the other hand, especially considering this is a Google Group, it does create an unnatural barrier to entry for those without Google Accounts, and especially for those who do not want Google Accounts. Google is kind enough to provide a help item stating that the list owner can add members who do not have Google Accounts - unfortunately the list owner cannot be contacted through the Google Groups contact form if they do not have a Google Account - bah. I have already had one friend/contact who I feel would be a useful person to include in these discussions (and who is certainly interested) but who keeps running into this "moderated :: get a google account" problem.
-- Stephen Paul Weber, @singpolyma Please see <http://singpolyma.net> for how I prefer to be contacted.
> I am sympathetic to the reasons for moderation - on the other hand, > especially considering this is a Google Group, it does create an > unnatural barrier to entry for those without Google Accounts, and > especially for those who do not want Google Accounts. Google is kind > enough to provide a help item stating that the list owner can add > members who do not have Google Accounts - unfortunately the list owner > cannot be contacted through the Google Groups contact form if they do > not have a Google Account - bah. I have already had one > friend/contact who I feel would be a useful person to include in these > discussions (and who is certainly interested) but who keeps running > into this "moderated :: get a google account" problem.
> Hi, >> I am sympathetic to the reasons for moderation - on the other hand, >> especially considering this is a Google Group, it does create an >> unnatural barrier to entry for those without Google Accounts, and >> especially for those who do not want Google Accounts. Google is kind >> enough to provide a help item stating that the list owner can add >> members who do not have Google Accounts - unfortunately the list owner >> cannot be contacted through the Google Groups contact form if they do >> not have a Google Account - bah. I have already had one >> friend/contact who I feel would be a useful person to include in these >> discussions (and who is certainly interested) but who keeps running >> into this "moderated :: get a google account" problem.
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:31 PM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@google.com> wrote: > I realize that this is always going to be a little bit controversial, but I > think the policy of (trivially) moderating subscriptions is the right one. > We simply use sign-up moderation as a very low friction speedbump to keep > the obvious negative-value participants (i.e., spammers) out. And the > archives are open to everyone -- no secrets here.
> I'd have a different opinion if we turned legitimate people away or we were > in any way exclusive or discriminatory about who we approve. But we're not > -- everyone who asks gets in, so this process seems to be working. I just > don't want to deal with spam here.
> If people have strong opinions either way please share them here and we can > refer to this thread in the public archives if we decide to keep this > policy.
> -DeWitt
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>> In the introductions, I introduced myself and described a role [1] that >> I'm currently sharing with Eran doing moderating new members to this list. >> Recently we've received some backlash to this procedure, notably: >> http://twitter.com/mdavid/statuses/875811995 >> http://news.oreilly.com/2008/08/why-do-i-have-to-apply-for-gro.html >> We've also received private emails questioning this approach. >> I am sympathetic to these concerns and in fact, the moderation process has >> created a some degree of overhead (primarily for me and Eran). >> The purpose of moderation is to check to see if people actually get what >> the list is about and also, in some cases, to learn more about the folks >> signing up in case there's an opportunity to put people together. We're >> currently maintaining a private spreadsheet with people's responses because >> Google Groups does not enable us to record these join messages >> automatically; believe you me, it's a pain in the ass to do things this way, >> but generally the benefits seem to outweigh the costs. >> Historically it's nice to have this kind of data so we can see who joined, >> when and why. I've done this with the DiSo and XRDS-Simple lists so far and >> it's provided very useful and interesting information -- and I've not >> blocked anyone from joining who gave me at least a couple words for their >> join message. In other words, it's not meant to block people, but to give me >> a sense of who's joining and why. I'd happily publish the join messages >> (ideally, they would be part of your Google Groups member profile!) except >> that the spreadsheet contains personal email addresses (which are available >> to members of this group via Google Groups after filling out a captcha, one >> at a time). >> Besides the benefit of getting to know members as they join, there's the >> ability to preempt spam, as has been the cause for other lists closing up >> recently:
>> So the question before me (us) is whether I should keep moderating the >> list, leaving this small amount of friction in place, or make the list >> totally open, without moderation. >> The BarCamp and Coworking Google Group lists, which I also admin, are open >> and we do receive spam and offensive messages from time-to-time. We do >> moderate first-time posters in these lists, but that's almost worse than >> just moderating initial subscriptions (after someone is subscribed they can >> post freely). >> I don't want to abandon moderation simply because a few folks have >> questioned it, but if the approach feels onerous or out of sync with ends of >> this group, let me know and we can take a different tack. If you don't care >> either way, feel free to say so and I'll keep doing what I've been doing. >> It's worth noting that out of 210 members so far, we've only received, at >> most, maybe five total complaints. >> Chris
>> [1] http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss/msg/b866a0915670af0e?... >> -- >> Chris Messina >> Citizen-Participant & >> Open Source Advocate-at-Large >> factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org >> citizenagency.com # vidoop.com >> This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
It would appear I'm in the minority in thinking that this is an
unnecessary barrier to entry. For the record, my thoughts,
communicated to Chris, DeWitt and Eran off-list (apologies) are at the
end of this message.
If the policy is so open, can the sign-up page perhaps make it clear
that all you're trying to do is keep out spammers?
David
I understand your intention, and that it has worked before, but I'm
still not convinced it's the right approach.
The points of friction that I think are potentially harmful are:
1. That it prevents people happening across a conversation/unlurking,
and contributing straight away
- by the time I was approved, I'd forgotten much of what I'd
been thinking about when I signed up
2. That it is (more) intimidating to those whose first language is not
English
- i.e. the first interaction with the group is explicitly being
judged
3. It gives the impression of a group wary of outsiders, and looking
for specific types of people
While I can see a benefit to managing the group with the initial press
attention, I don't see any long term benefits that outweigh the
downsides of the increased friction.
There will always be trolls who have to be dealt with by community
norms/moderation/blacklisting
There will always be valuable contributors who don't make a good first
impression, but who 'get-it' over time
Gatekeeping doesn't deal very well with either, whereas a vibrant
community (in my experience) does
DavidIllsley wrote: > It would appear I'm in the minority in thinking that this is an > unnecessary barrier to entry. For the record, my thoughts, > communicated to Chris, DeWitt and Eran off-list (apologies) are at the > end of this message.
> If the policy is so open, can the sign-up page perhaps make it clear > that all you're trying to do is keep out spammers?
+1. How about a simple CAPTCHA instead of making people write text that (according to the replies on this thread) isn't used to gate the membership anyway, and probably intimidates some people?
> I understand your intention, and that it has worked before, but I'm > still not convinced it's the right approach.
> The points of friction that I think are potentially harmful are: > 1. That it prevents people happening across a conversation/unlurking, > and contributing straight away > - by the time I was approved, I'd forgotten much of what I'd > been thinking about when I signed up
> 2. That it is (more) intimidating to those whose first language is not > English > - i.e. the first interaction with the group is explicitly being > judged
> 3. It gives the impression of a group wary of outsiders, and looking > for specific types of people
> While I can see a benefit to managing the group with the initial press > attention, I don't see any long term benefits that outweigh the > downsides of the increased friction.
> There will always be trolls who have to be dealt with by community > norms/moderation/blacklisting
> There will always be valuable contributors who don't make a good first > impression, but who 'get-it' over time
> Gatekeeping doesn't deal very well with either, whereas a vibrant > community (in my experience) does
>> In the introductions, I introduced myself and described a role [1] that I'm >> currently sharing with Eran doing moderating new members to this list. >> Recently we've received some backlash to this procedure, notably: >> http://twitter.com/mdavid/statuses/875811995 >> http://news.oreilly.com/2008/08/why-do-i-have-to-apply-for-gro.html >> We've also received private emails questioning this approach. >> I am sympathetic to these concerns and in fact, the moderation process has >> created a some degree of overhead (primarily for me and Eran).
> I am sympathetic to the reasons for moderation - on the other hand, > especially considering this is a Google Group, it does create an > unnatural barrier to entry for those without Google Accounts, and > especially for those who do not want Google Accounts. Google is kind > enough to provide a help item stating that the list owner can add > members who do not have Google Accounts - unfortunately the list owner > cannot be contacted through the Google Groups contact form if they do > not have a Google Account - bah. I have already had one > friend/contact who I feel would be a useful person to include in these > discussions (and who is certainly interested) but who keeps running > into this "moderated :: get a google account" problem.
We could fix that by publishing emails for the moderators?
I just joined yesterday and am quite excited to be a part of this group.
I'll just add in a confirmation that when I first came across the group and was required to provide a message stating what I think I could offer or help to get out of the group I had immediately became intimidated as for this is the first open-discussion group I have been involved with. Quite honestly, I'm not really sure how much I'll contribute..I'm hoping a lot; but with a lack of experience and knowledge I can't just say I know for sure that I'll have anything worthwhile to contribute.
I agree on the need to eliminate excessive e-mails from spammers and the such, and truly do understand the reason for the requirement to provide some sort of statement to join.
I'd like to see it made more clear (and if possible less intimidating for the new comer) as to what the text message is for.
That's my 2 cents; I hope to give and gain a lot from this group.
[mailto:open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ben Laurie Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 4:00 AM To: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Moderation of this mailing list
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:15 AM, Stephen Paul Weber <singpol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In the introductions, I introduced myself and described a role [1] that I'm >> currently sharing with Eran doing moderating new members to this list. >> Recently we've received some backlash to this procedure, notably: >> http://twitter.com/mdavid/statuses/875811995 >> http://news.oreilly.com/2008/08/why-do-i-have-to-apply-for-gro.html >> We've also received private emails questioning this approach. >> I am sympathetic to these concerns and in fact, the moderation process has >> created a some degree of overhead (primarily for me and Eran).
> I am sympathetic to the reasons for moderation - on the other hand, > especially considering this is a Google Group, it does create an > unnatural barrier to entry for those without Google Accounts, and > especially for those who do not want Google Accounts. Google is kind > enough to provide a help item stating that the list owner can add > members who do not have Google Accounts - unfortunately the list owner > cannot be contacted through the Google Groups contact form if they do > not have a Google Account - bah. I have already had one > friend/contact who I feel would be a useful person to include in these > discussions (and who is certainly interested) but who keeps running > into this "moderated :: get a google account" problem.
We could fix that by publishing emails for the moderators?
> -- > Stephen Paul Weber, @singpolyma > Please see <http://singpolyma.net> for how I prefer to be contacted.
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:51 AM, John Kemp <j...@jkemp.net> wrote:
> +1. How about a simple CAPTCHA instead of making people write text that > (according to the replies on this thread) isn't used to gate the > membership anyway, and probably intimidates some people?
There are a couple technical limitations here due to our use of Google Groups (which is not up for reconsideration): * we are limited to a somewhat arbitrary Membership question (seems like 200 characters) by Google Groups, so I can change the current message, but not make it longer or more explicit. I could link to a separate membership policy page, but that seems even more irksome. * We can't add a captcha to the membership page because, again, the join page is not under our control.
Presumably Google Account filtering mechanisms should prevent spam accounts from being created, but clearly it doesn't stop all of them (as evidenced on other lists). And, we do get useful information out of the join messages, whereas captchas provide no value to the moderators of this list in getting to know new-signups.
David's points about inhibition of non-native speakers and breaking one's flow are well taken, and of course we don't know how many (IF any) people we're missing from joining because of the friction. Still, it is possible to mail the owners of the group using the following link (ugh, which apparently requires a Google Account):
I looked and it's also not possible to publicly list the members of the group, so we'll have to list the moderators separately on the website, perhaps with a contact form that sends us email...
As to whether we really inhibiting people from posting -- such that they forget their point by the time they're approved -- is of course a subjective experience. If you have something that you want to say badly enough, and no one else has said it, I think that the relatively short lag in conception to posting is not a gross imposition, given the aforementioned benefits (preventative and otherwise). You can of course read or subscribe to the group without signing up, and as far as I'm concerned, that's one of the more important aspects of openness for this group -- that there is at least transparency in the conversations that we have, even if there's a door that you have to knock on to be let in to join the conversation.
So, those points withstanding, I'm still not moved towards ending the current practice. Instead I'd prefer to spell out the policy better on the website and try to make the application process more clear.
Chris
-- Chris Messina Citizen-Participant & Open Source Advocate-at-Large factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org citizenagency.com # vidoop.com This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
> So, those points withstanding, I'm still not moved towards ending the > current practice. Instead I'd prefer to spell out the policy better on > the website and try to make the application process more clear.
Personally, I don't mind that much if there is this extra step to becoming a member, but either it is part of an "application process" with all the benefits and disadvantages discussed, or it is essentially a further way to discourage spam.
Are we "open and inclusive" except of spammers? Or "exclusive" of only those people who actively declare themselves as hostile and negative? Or something else?
I'm certainly in favour of making the policy clearer - it would be nice to have a better understanding of whether one is applying to an organization, or simply signing up to receive emails.
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 11:45 AM, John Kemp <j...@jkemp.net> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
> Chris Messina wrote:
> [...]
>> So, those points withstanding, I'm still not moved towards ending the >> current practice. Instead I'd prefer to spell out the policy better on >> the website and try to make the application process more clear.
> Personally, I don't mind that much if there is this extra step to > becoming a member, but either it is part of an "application process" > with all the benefits and disadvantages discussed, or it is essentially > a further way to discourage spam.
> Are we "open and inclusive" except of spammers? Or "exclusive" of only > those people who actively declare themselves as hostile and negative? Or > something else?
> I'm certainly in favour of making the policy clearer - it would be nice > to have a better understanding of whether one is applying to an > organization, or simply signing up to receive emails.
|
