Sam Darwin via Mailman-users writes:
> His answer: "the user is set to 'list default'. Isn't that
> right??" No. It should be 'default processing'.
>
> Notice the reasoning. he just thinks "default", and that's all,
> which is a mistake.
Sure, and it wouldn't have happened if he'd been instructed more
precisely. The options are very nuanced. I doubt most untrained
moderator candidates would be able to state the differences between
"discard" and "reject", or "accept" and "default processing", and
there are reasons why each of those options might be the preferred
policy for the moderator's action on a given list. The list owner
should explain these things to a new moderator.
Perhaps some kind of documentation (popup help on mouseover, for
example) could be added to the moderation page template. I think
that's the most plausible improvement, and a merge request would
likely be approved.
> There isn't a mnemonic device where the settings have different
> names.
The problem isn't that the names aren't mnemonic. It's that the
moderator doesn't understand the semantics, and has nothing for a
mnemonic to refer to. Any names that reflect the semantics ("list
fallback" for "list default", "standard processing" for "default
processing") are going to have the same problem, although possibly not
to the same degree.
You're welcome to submit a merge request to change to alternative
names, but I will be -1 if they don't reflect the semantics, Most
likely I will be negatively biased because (a) I think properly
educating moderators is important, which would likely eliminate the
problem, and (b) I don't want to make work for the translators (who
also are frequently not native speakers of English and might not
understand why the change was made, and the proper translation!)
> But it brings up another idea also. When accepting a held
> moderated message, could there be an option, which is enabled by
> default, so it just works, that is "and switch this user from
> moderation-action1 to moderation-action2. That is, from 'list
> default' to 'default processing', at the same moment as accepting a
> message, and even without further mouse clicks. Then there would
> need to be an option, which is clickable, when accepting a message,
> "keep this member in moderation".
This is a more plausiable suggestion, but it's clearly inadequate (or
perhaps the last part is redundant). The "accept", "discard", and
"reject" options are present for reasons, so they must be available as
well as "do nothing" (which is not exactly the same thing as "keep in
moderation"). I am concerned about whether "bad things" could happen
if a moderator clicks "and switch this user from moderation-action1 to
moderation-action2" when one of the other options should have been
chosen. It seems you envision that "moderation-action1" and
"moderation-action2" could be configurable, or that there might be
several such options. I wonder how that would look.
In your merge request, please document how you address those design
considerations.
--
GNU Mailman consultant (installation, migration, customization)
Sirius Open Source https://www.siriusopensource.com/
Software systems consulting in Europe, North America, and Japan
_______________________________________________
Mailman-users mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://lists.mailman3.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.mailman3.org/
Archived at:
https://lists.mailman3.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/VZICMRH4PTUCHIRVUN3G5D5IMOM5KENK/
This message sent to [email protected]
