Subject:
|
Re: Mentors (was: Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 18 Aug 1999 02:03:34 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@novera.SPAMLESScom
|
Viewed:
|
296 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote:
> But better yet, I think, is your suggestion to queue up posts and let the
> mentors browse and address them directly via the website -- clicking a Pass
> or Fail button and being able to add comments. That avoids the whole messy
> issue of the 'Approved-By' header. But that's also presumes the existence
> of other things which aren't yet in.
Yes. The web being as universal as it is today, it doesn't bother me
much that the volunteer moderators have to do their tasks via a web
interface you provide. That's the only minus really.
On the (minor) plus side is the fact that you don't have to, as a
moderator, get all tangled up in modifying headers, etc, by hand, or
messing around with lightly supported add-ins to your mail client.
But, and this is the key point of this argument, that's FAR outweighted
by the big upside of the web interface approach in flexibility and
visibility. No more having posts disappear into the ether, for instance,
or requiring just one moderator, or etc. With a modular moderator
interface ( almost said mechanism.. too many m's ) you can:
- let people see their posts queued up for moderation, retract them
before they're voted on, etc, see unapproved posts of others before
they're approved (not normally a good idea but I can think of reasons
for certain group types).
- add annotation to returned posts that only the user and moderators can
see (while housing them on the site instead of being at the mercy of
mail delivery)
- set up arbitrarily complex categories of moderators and moderator
approvers, etc.
- set up arbitrarily complex rules about what it takes to approve a post
(at least 2 of the 5 moderators have to approve, 3 of 5 have to but
Joshua D. has to be one of the 3, each moderator can set an "accuracy
percentage" instead of a straight up/down, any 1 moderator can approve
but any one moderator can veto which can't be overridden, etc.)
- redirect posts to another, unmoderated group instead of rejecting them
outright, or fancier variations on that... (redirect unless the user
checked "do not forward" on his submission form, assume all mail or new
originated posts are "do not forward" or "forward" depending on the
group)
and lots of other stuff I haven't thought of yet. But it's a lot more
flexible, I think that comes through, eh? And more modular. Did I say
that yet?
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
101 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
