Re: [c4lj-articles] Re: discuss list page

[Jodi Schneider]

(cc:c4lj-discuss)

Let's keep the c4lj-discuss list, of course! With many thanks to Andrew and Tom for moderating to reduce the spam overload!

-Jodi

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Andrew Darby <andre...@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, the spam is cleared out of the discuss home page, which was my
immediate concern (thanks, Tom!), Tom and I are moderating the posts,
and I think we all decided previously to stick with -discuss, so why
not keep the status quo unless there's some reason not to.

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Jonathan Rochkind <roch...@jhu.edu> wrote:
>
> If we get rid of c4lj-discuss, then all we have is a private
> editors-only listserv.
>
> As part of the Code4Lib community, I think we need SOME place where
> community members can discuss the journal with us. I suppose it could be
> argued that the Code4Lib Listserv is all we need for that; that could
> maybe be okay if we mention somewhere on our website that discussion of
> the journal can take place on the c4l listserv?   I in general still
> like having c4lj-discuss and carrying out MOST of our business there 'in
> the light of day' except for business that _needs_ to be confidential.
>
> However, we don't do very well at that anyway. Cf this very discussion,
> which has no need to be confidential, but is still taking place on the
> private listserv. Oh well.
>
> Anyway, the reason I hadn't previously set that moderation flag was
> precisely because I didn't want to have to review moderation messages.
> We can always change it back if nobody else does either.
>
> Or we can get rid of c4lj-discuss, if everyone wants to. But only after
> having this conversation ON the public list, to get feedback from anyone
> that might be on it. Really no reason for us to be having this
> discussion in private.
>
> Jonathan
>
> Tom Keays wrote:
>> I'm sort of with Andrew regarding c4lj-discuss. However, I'd help with
>> moderation if you like.
>>
>> I also wouldn't mind seeing more active weeding of spam from
>> c4lj-articles. If moderatorship means I could remove the cruft from
>> the web archives, I'd happily volunteer to help render that service.
>> Being an open list, though, there's no way to block it as incoming as
>> we can do with c4lj-discuss.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Andrew Darby <andre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I have no particular desire to take ownership of c4lj-discuss--I
>>> was the one who suggested getting rid of it!--but I moderated a spam
>>> message yesterday, and will continue to do so.  I'll need someone to
>>> provide backup (if I'm on vacation or whatever), so legitimate
>>> messages don't sit in a moderation queue for a week.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <roch...@jhu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think probably everyone marked as a manager will get those messages.
>>>>
>>>> I have to confess that I filter all management messages from google
>>>> groups into spam, so don't count on me to respond to them! Heh.
>>>>
>>>> Andrew, seriously, feel free to customize any other settings in any way
>>>> you want. It's possible i"m getting too many other messages management
>>>> from google because of some other setting that I could be changed. I
>>>> don't think anyone feels any particular ownership over how the google
>>>> group is setup, if you want to start feeling ownership over it and
>>>> making it better, please feel free to be bold.
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan
>>>>
>>>> Andrew Darby wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Okay, I deleted that page. I also changed settings > access to require
>>>>> that new members' messages are moderated.  I did this on my google
>>>>> group because of these same spam issues--I'm not sure how it works
>>>>> with multiple managers, but with one manager, it means you get an
>>>>> email when someone who has never posted before tries to post.  You
>>>>> then click "ok" or "ban" or something like that, and once you've
>>>>> okayed a posting, you don't need to do it again.  With multiple
>>>>> managers, I don't know if the message just goes to the first one, or
>>>>> everyone.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I just banned a dozen recent joinees with suspicious looking names
>>>>> (i.e., ending in 4 or 5 digits).
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrew
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <roch...@jhu.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, ALL my google groups have been getting a lot of spam in the past
>>>>>> couple months. Someone figured out how to get around google's spam
>>>>>> defenses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have banned nikolebarocio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andrew, I've also made you a manager of the group. If anyone else wants
>>>>>> to be a manager, just ask me or Andrew or anyone else who's already a
>>>>>> manager I have no idea who, but there's no reason any editor can't have
>>>>>> manager permissions there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't figure out how to fix that page, or change the settings on the
>>>>>> group in general in a useful way, but feel free if you can, Andrew.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jonathan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andrew Darby wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi, I was just peeking at the c4lj-discuss page
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/c4lj-discuss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and noticed that one of the attached pages looks sort of unsavory (and
>>>>>>> I guess has been up for over a year now).  Could someone with the
>>>>>>> right privileges delete this?  Also, it looks like most of the recent
>>>>>>> postings are spam--maybe the settings should be tweaked so that
>>>>>>> someone's first message has to be moderated?  nikolebarocio might be a
>>>>>>> good candidate for banning as a spammer (top poster this month with 11
>>>>>>> 100% spam messages!)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andrew
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>> >
>>
>
> >
>