Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.project > #11653 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-04-10 21:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2020-04-16 01:00 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 147 — 39 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project
Testing Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-10 21:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-10 21:30 +0200
too many acronyms [was: Testing Discourse for Debian] Luca Filipozzi <lfilipoz@debian.org> - 2020-04-10 22:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org> - 2020-04-11 23:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-12 00:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org> - 2020-04-12 20:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 21:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-04-13 22:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-13 23:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neil@halon.org.uk> - 2020-04-14 15:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 16:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 17:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 17:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-15 01:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-13 23:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2020-04-12 22:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 20:40 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-13 23:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-14 08:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-15 00:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Olek Wojnar <olek@debian.org> - 2020-04-12 03:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> - 2020-04-12 20:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-12 21:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> - 2020-04-12 21:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-12 22:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net> - 2020-04-13 00:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> - 2020-04-13 01:40 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 01:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 02:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> - 2020-04-13 01:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> - 2020-04-13 01:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 03:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Marcin Kulisz <kula@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 09:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-13 10:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Neil McGovern <neil@halon.org.uk> - 2020-04-13 21:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Mathias Behrle <mbehrle@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 22:40 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-13 23:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-14 09:40 +0200
tracking our readers? (Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts) Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2020-04-14 10:30 +0200
Re: tracking our readers? (Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-14 11:10 +0200
Re: tracking our readers? (Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts) Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-04-14 12:20 +0200
Re: tracking our readers? (Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts) Karsten Merker <merker@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 18:50 +0200
[Summary] Discourse for Debian Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> - 2020-04-14 22:40 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 23:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> - 2020-04-15 00:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-04-15 01:00 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2020-04-16 17:40 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Ross Vandegrift <rvandegrift@debian.org> - 2020-04-16 18:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Olek Wojnar <olek@debian.org> - 2020-04-16 20:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Steffen Möller <steffen_moeller@gmx.de> - 2020-04-16 20:40 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2020-04-16 23:40 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Alex Muntada <alexm@debian.org> - 2020-04-19 18:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neil@halon.org.uk> - 2020-04-15 10:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2020-04-15 13:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neil@halon.org.uk> - 2020-04-15 13:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-15 14:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 19:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Karsten Merker <merker@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 21:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 22:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2020-06-17 18:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-06-17 19:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2020-06-18 02:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-16 10:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2020-04-15 14:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 16:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2020-04-15 18:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-15 19:00 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 19:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2020-04-15 19:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2020-04-15 19:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-15 19:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 20:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Peter Ehlert <pb21a@sdi-baja.com> - 2020-04-15 20:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2020-04-15 20:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 21:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 21:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2020-04-15 21:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> - 2020-04-15 20:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-15 19:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-04-15 20:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 20:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Peter Ehlert <pb21a@sdi-baja.com> - 2020-04-15 20:40 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2020-04-16 23:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-04-16 23:40 +0200
[BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2020-04-17 00:30 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-04-17 00:50 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2020-04-17 11:20 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-17 12:00 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2020-04-17 12:30 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2020-04-17 13:50 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2020-04-17 16:10 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-04-17 14:50 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-17 15:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Brian Gupta <brian.gupta@brandorr.com> - 2020-04-15 16:20 +0200
Mandatory Communication Methods was: Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-04-15 16:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 17:00 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Brian Gupta <brian.gupta@brandorr.com> - 2020-04-15 21:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2020-04-15 17:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> - 2020-04-15 19:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> - 2020-04-16 21:10 +0200
Re: tracking our readers? (Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts) Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-15 00:50 +0200
Re: tracking our readers? (Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts) Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-15 00:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2020-04-14 00:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-14 10:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-04-14 12:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-14 14:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-14 11:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Ansgar <ansgar@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 14:40 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 15:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 16:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 10:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 11:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 12:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Ansgar <ansgar@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 13:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 13:30 +0200
"From" at beginning of line gets escaped (was: Re: Testing Discourse for Debian) Ansgar <ansgar@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 16:50 +0200
Re: "From" at beginning of line gets escaped (was: Re: Testing Discourse for Debian) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 17:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 13:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 16:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> - 2020-05-03 21:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-05-04 13:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-05-04 13:40 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 15:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Ansgar <ansgar@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 15:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 22:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 16:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Alternate interactions Neil McGovern <neil@halon.org.uk> - 2020-04-13 21:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Alternate interactions Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> - 2020-04-13 21:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Alternate interactions Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 22:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> - 2020-04-13 02:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-13 22:40 +0200
Discourse usability Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 22:30 +0200
Re: Discourse usability Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 22:50 +0200
Re: Discourse usability Dominic Hargreaves <dom@earth.li> - 2020-04-14 01:10 +0200
Re: Discourse usability Abhijith PA <abhijith@debian.org> - 2020-04-16 21:30 +0200
Re: Discourse usability Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-17 10:00 +0200
alioth-lists and mailman3 (was Re: Discourse usability) Alex Muntada <alexm@debian.org> - 2020-04-19 19:00 +0200
Re: alioth-lists and mailman3 (was Re: Discourse usability) Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-20 08:20 +0200
Re: alioth-lists and mailman3 (was Re: Discourse usability) Alex Muntada <alexm@debian.org> - 2020-04-20 14:10 +0200
Re: alioth-lists and mailman3 (was Re: Discourse usability) Alex Muntada <alexm@debian.org> - 2020-04-20 14:20 +0200
Re: alioth-lists and mailman3 (was Re: Discourse usability) Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-21 01:50 +0200
Re: alioth-lists and mailman3 (was Re: Discourse usability) Alex Muntada <alexm@debian.org> - 2020-04-21 17:20 +0200
Re: alioth-lists and mailman3 (was Re: Discourse usability) Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2020-04-23 17:20 +0200
Re: Discourse usability Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 15:50 +0200
Re: Discourse usability MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> - 2020-04-24 18:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Marco Möller <talby@debianlists.mobilxpress.net> - 2020-04-14 16:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Marco Möller <talby@debianlists.mobilxpress.net> - 2020-04-16 01:00 +0200
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| From | Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-15 00:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: tracking our readers? (Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts) |
| Message-ID | <zVCxr-1wX-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11750 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hello Karsten, On Tue 14 Apr 2020 at 06:42PM +02, Karsten Merker wrote: > As a personal note: compared to my email client I find the > discourse web interface very unwieldly and impractical (like most > web forums). This is of course a matter of taste and personal > preferences, but exactly that is an important point. With > mailinglists everybody can use a client that suits one's personal > preferences, while web-based systems inevitably force a > particular user interface onto every user. This one interface > naturally cannot fit everbody's personal preferences and > therefore makes the task of following and taking part in > discussions actually harder for a significant number of people > compared to performing the same tasks on a mailinglist. Just on this point, if there's sufficient API stability, then there is the possibility of developing other clients for Discourse. Making them operable offline would be a lot of work though. -- Sean Whitton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-15 00:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: tracking our readers? (Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts) |
| Message-ID | <zVCxs-1wX-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11733 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hello, On Tue 14 Apr 2020 at 08:22AM +00, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 02:31:23PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: >> > The trust system gives me no trust at all. It is very closely bound to >> > participation over the web interface, monitors the reading frequency and time >> > spent on reading by users. >> [1] https://meta.discourse.org/t/how-does-post-tracking-work-in-discourse/115790 > > thanks for pointing this out, Sean. This makes even using discourse > inaccepable to me, sorry. > > I also wonder where we will store this private data of our users, how > we will protect it and how users can request their data to be deleted. Just a note that the text Holger quoted is from Mathias Behrle's e-mail, not mine -- and he should have credit for having noticed this. I just Googled a bit. -- Sean Whitton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-14 00:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts |
| Message-ID | <zVfhv-3G3-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11716 |
Hello, On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 10:33:25PM +0200, Mathias Behrle wrote: > * Neil McGovern: " Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts" > (Mon, 13 Apr 2020 19:56:28 +0100): > > I just want to state, I won't debate any issues around freedom of > > speech. I believe that these do not apply in this context > > I think, freedom of speech *can be* an issue when you hand over moderation to > a system and random people that are not explicitely delegated to do those tasks. > > > - especially with Debian being a private entity. > > I tried hard to understand this part of hte sentence, but failed. Could you > please elaborate? Not to speak for Neil, but it's generally argued that private entities cannot censor, because a nation/state can tell you that you cannot express an opinion using your own resources. By contrast a private entity like Debian can only tell you that you cannot express that opinion using *Debian's* resources: Debian can't prevent you from publishing it independently, So Debian can't, under this line of argument, censor you. And if you look back at some of the most vocal critics of Debian recently, they certainly have not been wanting for ways to express their opinions. But on the other hand a lot of people have a much looser definition of censorship which includes "I wanted to say X on site Y, but site Y's admins said I couldn't." Cheers, Andy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-14 10:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts |
| Message-ID | <zVoNP-1Cp-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11724 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 09:33:20PM +0000, Andy Smith wrote: [...] > Not to speak for Neil, but it's generally argued that private > entities cannot censor, because a nation/state can tell you that you > cannot express an opinion using your own resources. By contrast a > private entity like Debian can only tell you that you cannot express > that opinion using *Debian's* resources [...] This is just the ultra-liberal way to see things. He who owns the resources has absolute say on their use. There are other legal systems and points of view. Absolute is almost always wrong :) Cheers -- "all generalizations suck" tomás
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-14 12:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts |
| Message-ID | <zVqPD-2Pe-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11732 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Apr 14, 2020, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 09:33:20PM +0000, Andy Smith wrote: > > [...] > > > Not to speak for Neil, but it's generally argued that private > > entities cannot censor, because a nation/state can tell you that you > > cannot express an opinion using your own resources. By contrast a > > private entity like Debian can only tell you that you cannot express > > that opinion using *Debian's* resources [...] > > This is just the ultra-liberal way to see things. He who owns the > resources has absolute say on their use. "ultra-liberal" -- I don't think that word means what you think it means :). As this veers wildly off topic, would you mind explaining this to me off-list? -- |_|O|_| |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rhkramer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-14 14:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts |
| Message-ID | <zVsRr-41v-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11736 |
On Tuesday, April 14, 2020 06:09:48 AM Dan Purgert wrote: > On Apr 14, 2020, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: ... > > This is just the ultra-liberal way to see things. He who owns the > > resources has absolute say on their use. > > "ultra-liberal" -- I don't think that word means what you think it means > > :). As this veers wildly off topic, would you mind explaining this to > > me off-list? I'm interested as well, can it be posted on-list, the subject changed, and be marked OT?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-14 11:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts |
| Message-ID | <zVpJT-2cj-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11705 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Lu, 13 apr 20, 19:56:28, Neil McGovern wrote: > > Firstly, trust levels. These are the levels of "trust" that the platform > has in any particular user. Instead of explaining it here, please have a > read of the following: > https://blog.discourse.org/2018/06/understanding-discourse-trust-levels/ > The short version is that the more a particular account interacts with > the community in a positive way, the more trust the system has about > them, and the more privileges they are afforded to assist in > moderation. How do trust levels work for users interacting mainly (or even exclusively) via mail? Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ansgar <ansgar@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-14 14:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts |
| Message-ID | <zVt18-44W-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11705 |
On Mon, 2020-04-13 at 19:56 +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> Instead of explaining it here, please have a
> read of the following:
> https://blog.discourse.org/2018/06/understanding-discourse-trust-levels/
> The short version is that the more a particular account interacts with
> the community in a positive way, the more trust the system has about
> them, and the more privileges they are afforded to assist in
> moderation.
I think some features of Discourse can be useful, for example moving
messages to new topic, simple polls (I don't like "like" buttons...),
or even editing messages to make the wording clearer instead of sending
further follow-up messages. Trying to experiment with Discourse for
this seems useful to me.
The "trust levels" though are one of the features that I don't like: in
particular "Trust Level 3 - Regular" mostly requires to constantly
visit the site every day (or every other day), read x% of all posts and
topics (even though they might not be relevant to your interest or in a
foreign language you don't speak), ... to not get demoted again. It
feels more like a customer loyality program to try to bind users to the
Discourse service, like rewards for daily visits in mobile games, not
anything that implies trust to somehow govern the system. The system
also requires tracking active read time and such; I don't really like a
system doing that...
The notifications to welcome new people or that the system hasn't seem
someone for some time[1] also seem designed to manipulate people into
spending more time on the system. Such psychological tricks are
something I would more expect from Facebook than Debian :-/
[1]: https://discourse.debian.net/t/likes-per-post-ratio/152/2
The claim of Discourse having an excellent email interface also feels
exagerrated: unless I missed something[2] it seems very basic. One can
send and receive messages, but quoting in replies already doesn't work
as usual and any additional functionality isn't exposed at all as far
as I can tell. That said I'm in principle fine with trying a mostly
web-only system; just like GitLab also really needs to be used over the
web.
[2]: I couldn't really find much Discourse documentation, even less
than for other things in Debian people say are underdocumented.
> Instead, it encourages community members to flag posts. If a post receives
> sufficient flags, it is then automatically hidden. Users may chose to
> "unhide" the post for themseleves if they wish to view it.
>
> These are then sent to the moderating team to agree, disagree or
> ignore the flag.
What decides who is in the moderation team? That seems to be something
different from the trust levels?
I would also expect Discourse to have some way to entirely remove
messages, or at least remove the original content fully and replace it
with a notice that the message was removed; who can do that? Also the
moderation team?
Ansgar
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin <debacle@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-14 15:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts |
| Message-ID | <zVtNw-4AX-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11740 |
On 2020-04-14 14:30, Ansgar wrote: > That said I'm in principle fine with trying a mostly > web-only system; just like GitLab also really needs to be used over the > web. I'm a salsa.d.o user of course, but how often would I login into the web interface? Once a month? 99 % of the interaction is git push and fetch. I'm happy, that we moved from svn to git, partly because I can do more things offline. While I'm in favour to explore alternatives to email, I don't feel comfortable with anything, that does not support offline usage and that does not work well on the text console. Maybe somebody™ can write a Discourse client? "Discurses"? Something that downloads messages, supports offline reading, answering, editing, "likes" and votes, and uploading results.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-14 16:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts |
| Message-ID | <zVuzT-57g-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11740 |
I'd like to echo the comment that requiring people to regularly visit the site does not seem to meet Debian's needs very well for trust. I'd imagine there are a number of people in our community who will tend to read things via email, but who would only visit the site to help moderate--splitting topics, editing things, flagging posts, etc. You can like a post via email. I think it is great to try new things. But I think that biasing the moderation power too much toward people who visit the website would make me uncomfortable trusting the system for important project discussions in ways that a system that allowed all our trusted users to be trusted would not. I absolutely think it is reasonable to require people to become familiar with the site and its capabilities. I think it is reasonable to expect trusted members to understand how this is different from traditional email. But forcing a particular interface on those people seems problematic. From my personal standpoint, the site isn't horrible from an accessibility standpoint, but reading what I can out of email is always going to be more usable for me. I'll go to the site if I need to, but being forced to go to the site to meet some metric is off-pissing. I'm not saying this needs to be addressed prior to experimenting. I'm saying that as an individual I want to see an improvement here prior to depending on this for any important project decisions. --Sam
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-15 10:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts |
| Message-ID | <zVLr3-7dp-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11740 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hi Ansgar, To start with, I want to say that I found your mail to be quite frustrating. I feel it may have been more constructive to phrase concerns as questions, rather than stating them as facts, and ascribing motivations or inferances which simply aren't correct. That said, I'll try and reply to the factual bits. On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 02:30:52PM +0200, Ansgar wrote: > The "trust levels" though are one of the features that I don't like: in > particular "Trust Level 3 - Regular" mostly requires to constantly > visit the site every day (or every other day), read x% of all posts and > topics (even though they might not be relevant to your interest or in a > foreign language you don't speak), ... to not get demoted again. This is the default configuration. It can be changed to pretty much any limit we want, including zero. However, I should point out that the additional important abilities gained at this level are that the user can: * Recategorize and rename topics * TL3 spam flags cast on TL0 user posts immediately hide the post * TL3 flags cast on TL0 user posts in sufficient diversity will auto-silence the user and hide all their posts The point of the trust levels is to distribute the moderation. Whatever metric we come up with, it will involve a certain amount of actually using the site, and engaging with the community. > The system also requires tracking active read time and such; I don't > really like a system doing that... Could I point out that the email program you wrote this message in is doing the same? Exactly how this work and the reason for it being required is explained here: https://meta.discourse.org/t/how-does-post-tracking-work-in-discourse/115790 > The notifications to welcome new people or that the system hasn't seem > someone for some time[1] also seem designed to manipulate people into > spending more time on the system. Could you explain this please? I feel that having a notification (which only appears for people who regularly interact with the site) that someone is new to the community to be useful. > The claim of Discourse having an excellent email interface also feels > exagerrated: unless I missed something[2] it seems very basic. One can > send and receive messages, but quoting in replies already doesn't work > as usual and any additional functionality isn't exposed at all as far > as I can tell. Quoting does work in most circumstances. Could you explain what additional funtionality is missing? > > Instead, it encourages community members to flag posts. If a post receives > > sufficient flags, it is then automatically hidden. Users may chose to > > "unhide" the post for themseleves if they wish to view it. > > > > These are then sent to the moderating team to agree, disagree or > > ignore the flag. > > What decides who is in the moderation team? That seems to be something > different from the trust levels? Yes. At the moment those in the moderation team is... well, me. I would expect to follow something similar to Mozilla: https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/updates-to-moderation-guidelines/55552 > I would also expect Discourse to have some way to entirely remove > messages, or at least remove the original content fully and replace it > with a notice that the message was removed; who can do that? Also the > moderation team? Yes, that is correct. Neil --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin <debacle@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-15 11:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts |
| Message-ID | <zVMn7-7Nx-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11766 |
On 2020-04-15 08:56, Neil McGovern wrote:
> Could I point out that the email program you wrote this message in is
> doing the same?
Could you elaborate on that? Ansgar seems to use
"User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.1-1"
(While I'm using mutt.) How do such UAs track reading behaviour?
> Quoting does work in most circumstances. Could you explain what
> additional funtionality is missing?
Speeking for myself, I find the email support in Discourse poor,
to the point, that I would not advertise it. It is useful for
notifications, but by far not en par with the web UI.
After reading more about Discourses many features ("likes"...),
this is completely understandable that one cannot mimic one
medium via the other. Trying so, will lead only to frustration.
Btw. do you know by accident, how I can "lurk" in Discourse via
email? E.g. Let's say, I'm subscribed to debian-project, but
only to know what is going on. Can I subscribe to a "category"?
Cheers
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-15 12:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts |
| Message-ID | <zVNsS-8qE-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11767 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:08:45AM +0200, Martin wrote:
> On 2020-04-15 08:56, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > Could I point out that the email program you wrote this message in is
> > doing the same?
>
> Could you elaborate on that? Ansgar seems to use
> "User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.1-1"
> (While I'm using mutt.) How do such UAs track reading behaviour?
>
Evolution tracks how long you've looked at a message in order to mark it
read. This is configurable in Preferences -> Mail Preferences -> Mark
messages read after X seconds. My point is that one cannot simply say
"user tracking is bad", as it may be required for actual functionality.
User tracking is also known as "saving state" :)
> > Quoting does work in most circumstances. Could you explain what
> > additional funtionality is missing?
>
> Speeking for myself, I find the email support in Discourse poor,
> to the point, that I would not advertise it. It is useful for
> notifications, but by far not en par with the web UI.
Interestingly, I've generally mixed replying via email with visiting the
site. I would agree that it's not en par with the web UI, but I don't
think it ever can be, due to email being designed rather differently.
> After reading more about Discourses many features ("likes"...),
> this is completely understandable that one cannot mimic one
> medium via the other. Trying so, will lead only to frustration.
Just on this one, you can a little. Replying with a +1 will turn your
email into a "like". Currently supported actions are:
* +1 or like: likes the post
* watch: watches the topic
* track: tracks the topic
* mute: mutes the topic
> Btw. do you know by accident, how I can "lurk" in Discourse via
> email? E.g. Let's say, I'm subscribed to debian-project, but
> only to know what is going on. Can I subscribe to a "category"?
Yes. You can subscribe to categories, topics and tags (or combinations
of them). For example, if you only ever care about m68k, you could watch
#m68k and get a notification email for that across all categories.
Neil
--
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ansgar <ansgar@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-15 13:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts |
| Message-ID | <zVO5z-sb-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11768 |
On Wed, 2020-04-15 at 11:21 +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:08:45AM +0200, Martin wrote:
> > On 2020-04-15 08:56, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > > Could I point out that the email program you wrote this message
> > > in is
> > > doing the same?
> >
> > Could you elaborate on that? Ansgar seems to use
> > "User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.1-1"
> > (While I'm using mutt.) How do such UAs track reading behaviour?
>
> Evolution tracks how long you've looked at a message in order to mark it
> read. This is configurable in Preferences -> Mail Preferences -> Mark
> messages read after X seconds. My point is that one cannot simply say
> "user tracking is bad", as it may be required for actual functionality.
> User tracking is also known as "saving state" :)
I'm not concerned about marking messages read after some time and
keeping the view time in ephermal storage for that. But that's not
what Discourse does: as described elsewhere it stores all read times
persistently on the server; that would not be neccessary for marking
posts as read even on a web application.
I feel it dishonest to compare storing data persistently in a database
and evaluating it for statistical purposes (or other analytics that
people come up with to increase participation and measure community
engagement for community building) with keeping data in ephermal
storage for a short while.
Evolution also keep track of the mouse cursor, but that is something
different from recording clickstreams and evaluating them to increase
user participation as some people do. Your reply seems to put both on
the same level.
> > > Quoting does work in most circumstances. Could you explain what
> > > additional funtionality is missing?
> >
> > Speeking for myself, I find the email support in Discourse poor,
> > to the point, that I would not advertise it. It is useful for
> > notifications, but by far not en par with the web UI.
>
> Interestingly, I've generally mixed replying via email with visiting
> the
> site. I would agree that it's not en par with the web UI, but I don't
> think it ever can be, due to email being designed rather differently.
>From my tries with Discourse, it just silently stripped all quotes out
from the reply.
> > After reading more about Discourses many features ("likes"...),
> > this is completely understandable that one cannot mimic one
> > medium via the other. Trying so, will lead only to frustration.
>
> Just on this one, you can a little. Replying with a +1 will turn your
> email into a "like". Currently supported actions are:
> * +1 or like: likes the post
> * watch: watches the topic
> * track: tracks the topic
> * mute: mutes the topic
Is this documented in some discoverable place or hidden? I've still not
managed to discover any documentation for Discourse targeting the user
(compared to admin or API documentation).
Ansgar
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-15 13:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zVOoV-yM-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11769 |
Le Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:47:06PM +0200, Ansgar a écrit : > > >From my tries with Discourse, it just silently stripped all quotes out > from the reply. Hello everybody, as we discuss about proper quoting, I would like to take the opportunity of Ansgar's email to note that each time a line starts with "From" in a plain text email, something in the pipeline that delivers emails (at least to me) inserts a ">" sign, which is then misinterpreted as a quotation character. See above… In that sense, the syntax for quotes in Discourse is perhaps better. If mutt would learn to color them in green, that would be enough for me. Have a nice day, Charles -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Akano, Uruma, Okinawa, Japan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ansgar <ansgar@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-15 16:50 +0200 |
| Subject | "From" at beginning of line gets escaped (was: Re: Testing Discourse for Debian) |
| Message-ID | <zVRwu-2oT-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11770 |
On Wed, 2020-04-15 at 20:18 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > as we discuss about proper quoting, I would like to take the opportunity > of Ansgar's email to note that each time a line starts with "From" in a > plain text email, something in the pipeline that delivers emails (at > least to me) inserts a ">" sign, which is then misinterpreted as a > quotation character. See above… Hmm, indeed. And I was wondering what was breaking the DKIM signature... Looking at the headers of my mail I find: | X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.6 required=4.0 | tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, with an invalid signature, but below that (earlier in the pipeline) this signature was still valid: | X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.863 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 | tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, So it looks like the lists setup somehow breaks this... I reported this problem as https://bugs.debian.org/956806 Ansgar
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rhkramer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-15 17:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: "From" at beginning of line gets escaped (was: Re: Testing Discourse for Debian) |
| Message-ID | <zVSsy-2XP-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11782 |
The following is the text of an email that got generated as I tried to make a comment on the bug report you filed. I'm not sure how soon the comment might appear on the bug report, so I decided to add it here as a reply. I guess I should add one thing, that I presume the people who deal with the bug report will recognize: I don't know how much legacy software would be affected if the described behavior changed. <quote> #956806 lists.debian.org: changes messages with lines starting with "From", breaking DKIM signature From: rhkramer@gmail.com To: 956806@bugs.debian.org Date: Wed Apr 15 11:22:37 2020 Aside: This may be the first time that I've responded to a Debian bug -- I expected that when I clicked on reply, I'd be given a text box on the bug report web page to make my comment, instead, I'm apparently writing an email. I presume this will get to the right place. Hmm, I probably should not respond to this as I cannot do a complete or maybe even an adequate job. I do know this. When mail is stored in an mbox file, From at the beginning of a line (admittedly with other requirements after the From) can indicated the beginning of an mbox header, which separates one email from another. A "real" mbox header has other stuff on that line that can and should be parsed and considered to determine if it really is an mbox header, but some software in the email chain typically escapes a From at the beginning of a line (by prefixing it with a >, iirc) to, well, distinguish it from an mbox header and make it easier on the mbox software somewhere in the chain. I'd hesitate to suggest that "feature" should be disabled, there are probably lots of places where that would cause a problem. I don't know if there is another solution. </quote> On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 10:42:10 AM Ansgar wrote: > On Wed, 2020-04-15 at 20:18 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > as we discuss about proper quoting, I would like to take the opportunity > > of Ansgar's email to note that each time a line starts with "From" in a > > plain text email, something in the pipeline that delivers emails (at > > least to me) inserts a ">" sign, which is then misinterpreted as a > > quotation character. See above… > > Hmm, indeed. And I was wondering what was breaking the DKIM > signature... > > Looking at the headers of my mail I find: > | X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.6 required=4.0 > | > | tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, > > with an invalid signature, but below that (earlier in the pipeline) > > this signature was still valid: > | X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.863 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 > | > | tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, > | DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, > > So it looks like the lists setup somehow breaks this... > > I reported this problem as https://bugs.debian.org/956806 > > Ansgar
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-15 13:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts |
| Message-ID | <zVOoW-yM-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11769 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:47:06PM +0200, Ansgar wrote: > I'm not concerned about marking messages read after some time and > keeping the view time in ephermal storage for that. But that's not > what Discourse does: as described elsewhere it stores all read times > persistently on the server; that would not be neccessary for marking > posts as read even on a web application. No, but it is required for things like knowing which posts in a topic is popular, so should be used for auto-summary. It also is used to reduce abuse, as a normal new user would spend time reading topics before posting for the first time. > Evolution also keep track of the mouse cursor, but that is something > different from recording clickstreams and evaluating them to increase > user participation as some people do. Your reply seems to put both on > the same level. My point is that it's unhelpful to automatically equate "user tracking" to something undesireable. > > Interestingly, I've generally mixed replying via email with visiting > > the > > site. I would agree that it's not en par with the web UI, but I don't > > think it ever can be, due to email being designed rather differently. > > >From my tries with Discourse, it just silently stripped all quotes out > from the reply. > Perhaps this is: https://meta.discourse.org/t/single-quote-block-dropped-in-email-reply/144802 > Is this documented in some discoverable place or hidden? I've still not > managed to discover any documentation for Discourse targeting the user > (compared to admin or API documentation). > https://discourse.mozilla.org/c/meta/faq/244 Generally, there isn't a central user documentation, because each discourse instacne can be configured quite heavily, depending on each community need. Neil --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rhkramer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-15 16:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts |
| Message-ID | <zVR3r-2eQ-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11772 |
I reordered the quoted paragraphs to make it more consistent with bottom posting. On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 07:24:03 AM Neil McGovern wrote: > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:47:06PM +0200, Ansgar wrote: > No, but it is required for things like knowing which posts in a topic is > popular, so should be used for auto-summary. It also is used to reduce > abuse, as a normal new user would spend time reading topics before > posting for the first time. > > I'm not concerned about marking messages read after some time and > > keeping the view time in ephermal storage for that. But that's not > > what Discourse does: as described elsewhere it stores all read times > > persistently on the server; that would not be neccessary for marking > > posts as read even on a web application. I think I understand what Ansgar wrote here, but I'm not 100% sure. I use kmail with pop3. As far as I know, even if kmail does keep track of my reading time to mark emails as read (which I think I saw as an option once and disabled), I'm pretty sure, and certainly hope that information is stored (or used and discarded "instantly" (for some value of instantly)) only on my local machine. I don't know if the situation is the same if I used imap, but there are several reasons I don't use imap, some relating to privacy issues. To keep that reading time on any kind of central server would be a big invasion of my privacy. I wouldn't mind something like I mentioned in another email, the writer of an email volunteering information about how thoroughly he has read something before replying, but for something to collect my reading time and make inferences about it is not acceptable to me. Oh, and I guess that is the thing that I forgot in that other email -- I might be willing to say that I didn't read an email (TL;DR) before responding, or some variations, that might imply that I tried to read, but don't think I clearly (or fairly?) understood the email I'm replying to, and some others along those lines.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-03 21:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts |
| Message-ID | <A2s9Y-1LB-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11769 |
* Ansgar: > I'm not concerned about marking messages read after some time and > keeping the view time in ephermal storage for that. But that's not > what Discourse does: as described elsewhere it stores all read times > persistently on the server; that would not be neccessary for marking > posts as read even on a web application. > > I feel it dishonest to compare storing data persistently in a database > and evaluating it for statistical purposes (or other analytics that > people come up with to increase participation and measure community > engagement for community building) with keeping data in ephermal > storage for a short while. > > Evolution also keep track of the mouse cursor, but that is something > different from recording clickstreams and evaluating them to increase > user participation as some people do. Your reply seems to put both on > the same level. It's also not clear whether the presentation requires message-read-state for every addition to a discussion thread. From the user perspective, it might be sufficient to record the last scroll-down position. What I find concerning is that Discourse (the web application) does not clearly communicate how it shares the data it collects about me with users. For example, it seems to notify other users that I'm not active on the site, next to my posts, without showing me that information. Using message-read information could be used for similar notifications. And with the gamification tendency, users might not even be aware that such information is available to users at higher privilege levels (with better scores).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project
csiph-web