Recommendation for Group - Google, Yahoo, ???

[IronMac]

The problem with Critical Mass, as far as I am concerned, is that the concept is not conducive to working from within society itself. Any group that blocks traffic and ignores traffic laws is showing that it doesn't respect that society's laws nor does it respect other users of the road.

To me that's an exclusionary and adversarial attitude. It breeds "us and them". One CM organizer even told me that if I did my ride that I should make sure that we ride in packs through reds for safety. Schooling behaviour?

I think that bikes should be on the road on an equitable basis with other users of the road. I don't want preferential treatment and I don't want to be coddled with bike lanes. I certainly don't want to be killed by a driver whose defense will be "well, why wasn't he in the bike lane two streets up?" I want to be seen as a valid user of the road who will obey traffic laws as much as the vehicle next to me if not more so.

Oh, you know what ticked me off about CM or my "not in my name" moment? It's when they rode up onto an expressway on Friday evening. If a major accident had happened, then, we'd all be tarred with the "idiot" brush. Even now, I hear more than enough complaints from bike-bashers who talk about cyclists blowing through reds and weaving in and out of traffic.

[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!

[Black Landlord]

[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.

[Stephanie]

[quote Black Landlord]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?
Non-agreement...dunno if I can handle that!

It is less work because, as I pointed out in my original post, not all members end up posting. Most members (on every list I own/moderate) are lurkers.

Also, your method for judging by domain name doesn't catch all spammers. So, unless you have to approve all new members AND moderate all new members' posts, you'll have spammers get through.

It's very rare that someone who starts out posting legitimately will suddenly turn into a spammer.

Also, I've noticed that a lot of the spammers will just "try" to post once and then go away on their own (no action needed other than to ignore/deny the initial post attempt).

On the flip side, I have seen lists that required membership approval where spammers did get through (because the initial posts weren't moderated).

[Black Landlord]

[quote Stephanie][quote Black Landlord]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?
Non-agreement...dunno if I can handle that!

It is less work because, as I pointed out in my original post, not all members end up posting. Most members (on every list I own/moderate) are lurkers.

Also, your method for judging by domain name doesn't catch all spammers. So, unless you have to approve all new members AND moderate all new members' posts, you'll have spammers get through.

It's very rare that someone who starts out posting legitimately will suddenly turn into a spammer.

Also, I've noticed that a lot of the spammers will just "try" to post once and then go away on their own (no action needed other than to ignore/deny the initial post attempt).

On the flip side, I have seen lists that required membership approval where spammers did get through (because the initial posts weren't moderated).
Sure, so have I, when the list owner is clueless.
I've never let a spammer through, but am often in the position of watching other list mods apologize for the post of a spammer I rejected.

[beerman]

I moderate several yahoo groups also and I agree that it is necessary to approve each new member. Alot of people try to join that should never be on the list. Keep it tight and keep it relevant.

[Black Landlord]

Some examples of spammers I've rejected:

Hello,

The following person would like to join the XXXX group:
Email address: acebae

Comment from user:
pls add me

Google the addy . . . easy one.

Another-

Hello,

The following person would like to join the YYYYY group:
Email address: a35mmlife

Comment from user:
Hiya... just a rider spreading the word of a project i put together...

Google "Obamaspoke"-- easy decision for a list with a purpose of connecting local riding partners.
A guy in California who thought he'd join every bike related list he could find to promote Obama.

Easy "approve":

Hello,

The following person would like to join the ZZZZZ group:
Email address: ______13 <________@gmail.com>

Comment from user:
I'm working at The Recyclery in South Evanston, a non-profit community
bike shop in South Evanston.

[Stephanie]

but that's the great thing about yahoogroups - you can set up whatever style of moderation (or lack thereof) that you want.

I'll stick to my style. It's served me well thus far.

[Black Landlord]

[quote Stephanie]but that's the great thing about yahoogroups - you can set up whatever style of moderation (or lack thereof) that you want.

I'll stick to my style. It's served me well thus far.
I agree-- it's pretty well done and I've come to trust it a lot over the years.
The biggest drawback for me is that some of the moderation controls are next to impossible to find-- completely unintuitive-- but eventually I always do (tyrpically by resorting to the help menu .. .)

[Stephanie]

Yeah BL, I feel the same way about trying to find certain controls but by now, I've pretty much found everything I need.

As for your example - too much work for me - especially since one of the ones I moderate is a freecycle list. Luckily, the list owner shares my philosophy for how to moderate the list. Open membership but posts by new members are moderated. If they're not spammers, the moderation is removed.