06-02-2008, 04:34 AM
[quote Stephanie][quote graylocks]make sure you set up your group so that you approve every member. this prevents spammers from joining. another option is to let anyone join but moderate initial postings; after they've proven themselves to be posting legitimate stuff, you can unmoderate that member.
I don't like the first route graylocks mentioned. Here's why:
1. You have to approve EVERY member. If you end up with a lot of members, this is a PITA.
2. Unless you plan to tackle your duties as owner/moderator several times a day, those who have not yet been approved will get impatient and pissy (yes, I have seen this lots on lists I have no control over).
For all the groups I have control over, I chose the second option graylocks mentioned which is to let anyone/everyone join but moderate all members (initially). Once they've done 1-2 legitimate posts, you can be pretty sure they're not spammers. At that point, go in and remove the moderation.
You may be thinking, "doesn't the second option require just as much as the first?"
No. It definitely doesn't. You may get a lot of members but not everyone is there to post. A lot are strictly lurkers. Also, a lot of people don't like waiting to be approved for a group. Many will simply not join at all.
The second option really does a good enough job at catching spammers. When one tries to post, simply go look up his user id and ban him!
I am in non-agreement with you Steph.
I own or manage about 40 Yahoogroups (and a few mailman lists and a few university-hosted lists, memberships up to 500+) and for me the only way to go is to approve new members, via e-mail alert (you just hit reply/send); you can almost always tell a potential spammer on sight, usually by the domain. If you received a moderation message for all the new members' posts, how would that be less work?
Only one out of all those lists is moderated-- it's a club "announcement" list with a membership that can never seem to grasp the "announcement" concept. I consider the need for a moderated list to be a failure of intelligent and effective list management.
Ironmac, I'm familiar with your position and was also 100% Vehicular Cyclist (what the old-timey CM purists would have called a "Forrester" follower (dark cloud obscures the sun with mention of name) about 8-10 years ago-- I thought CM was going to ruin it for everyone and I was an outspoken critic; when the Chicago Bike fed ran positive views of it in their newsletter I'd call and make 'em listen to me complain for like, way too long... but somewhere along the way I met some great people who helped me see things differently.
I wish you could see the positive change I've witnessed with the growth of the Chicago Critical Mass ride to several thousand in the summer months. There are no rules as to what a Critical Mass ride has to be-- every city is free to have whatever sort of ride it wants to. So, why not express your views directly to the folks that need to hear them?
It seems to me that the list you plan to create would attract a handful of anti-CM people and a supporter or two who would quickly burn out on the same old argument.
Or maybe I don't understand what it is you intend exactly.
I don't like the first route graylocks mentioned. Here's why:
1. You have to approve EVERY member. If you end up with a lot of members, this is a PITA.
2. Unless you plan to tackle your duties as owner/moderator several times a day, those who have not yet been approved will get impatient and pissy (yes, I have seen this lots on lists I have no control over).
For all the groups I have control over, I chose the second option graylocks mentioned which is to let anyone/everyone join but moderate all members (initially). Once they've done 1-2 legitimate posts, you can be pretty sure they're not spammers. At that point, go in and remove the moderation.
You may be thinking, "doesn't the second option require just as much as the first?"
No. It definitely doesn't. You may get a lot of members but not everyone is there to post. A lot are strictly lurkers. Also, a lot of people don't like waiting to be approved for a group. Many will simply not join at all.
The second option really does a good enough job at catching spammers. When one tries to post, simply go look up his user id and ban him!
I am in non-agreement with you Steph.
I own or manage about 40 Yahoogroups (and a few mailman lists and a few university-hosted lists, memberships up to 500+) and for me the only way to go is to approve new members, via e-mail alert (you just hit reply/send); you can almost always tell a potential spammer on sight, usually by the domain. If you received a moderation message for all the new members' posts, how would that be less work?
Only one out of all those lists is moderated-- it's a club "announcement" list with a membership that can never seem to grasp the "announcement" concept. I consider the need for a moderated list to be a failure of intelligent and effective list management.
Ironmac, I'm familiar with your position and was also 100% Vehicular Cyclist (what the old-timey CM purists would have called a "Forrester" follower (dark cloud obscures the sun with mention of name) about 8-10 years ago-- I thought CM was going to ruin it for everyone and I was an outspoken critic; when the Chicago Bike fed ran positive views of it in their newsletter I'd call and make 'em listen to me complain for like, way too long... but somewhere along the way I met some great people who helped me see things differently.
I wish you could see the positive change I've witnessed with the growth of the Chicago Critical Mass ride to several thousand in the summer months. There are no rules as to what a Critical Mass ride has to be-- every city is free to have whatever sort of ride it wants to. So, why not express your views directly to the folks that need to hear them?
It seems to me that the list you plan to create would attract a handful of anti-CM people and a supporter or two who would quickly burn out on the same old argument.
Or maybe I don't understand what it is you intend exactly.