This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1theapparatus
Just tried to flag a post in this thread: (Possible NSFW - Text/Content)
http://www.librarything.com/topic/71206
It's part of a group that one has to joint to post.
I just noticed that I don't have an option to flag the post in question nor any post in that thread.
Are they related? Does one have to join the group to be able to flag a post in that thread?
http://www.librarything.com/topic/71206
It's part of a group that one has to joint to post.
I just noticed that I don't have an option to flag the post in question nor any post in that thread.
Are they related? Does one have to join the group to be able to flag a post in that thread?
2AnnieMod
Why would someone be able to flag if they are not allowed to post? I would expect that if you cannot post, you have read only access - and flagging is influencing the discussion... so it is nor read-only action...
3timspalding
Flagging is available on messages. There is no thread-level flagging. It is tried to group membership.
FWIW, "Possible NSFW - Text/Content" is not grounds for flagging on LibraryThing. No doubt if you had flagged it you would have seen the directions there, which address what flagging is and is not for.
(closing)
FWIW, "Possible NSFW - Text/Content" is not grounds for flagging on LibraryThing. No doubt if you had flagged it you would have seen the directions there, which address what flagging is and is not for.
(closing)
4theapparatus
I didn't say that the NSFW was the reason why I was flagging. Some of us are just polite and know that when one links to somewhere where some folks may have an issue with, one normally gives a warning.
If you must know, one of those links redirects from one site to another commercial site with affiliate cookies. That's why I was flagging.
Nor did I say anything about thread level flagging.
That's completely besides the point though.
I saw a questionable message. When I go to flag that message, there's no method to do so. To me, that's a bug as I now have to jump through hoops to flag such message by joining the group to do so.
>Flagging is available on messages.
I would be happy to provide a screen capture to show that no in fact it's not.
If you must know, one of those links redirects from one site to another commercial site with affiliate cookies. That's why I was flagging.
Nor did I say anything about thread level flagging.
That's completely besides the point though.
I saw a questionable message. When I go to flag that message, there's no method to do so. To me, that's a bug as I now have to jump through hoops to flag such message by joining the group to do so.
>Flagging is available on messages.
I would be happy to provide a screen capture to show that no in fact it's not.
5lilithcat
> 4
I didn't say that the NSFW was the reason why I was flagging.
For what it's worth, I read your message the same way Tim did, particularly because, when I looked at the thread, there was nothing obviously flag-worthy.
As to your main point, you are correct. You cannot flag messages in a group that requires you to join to post (unless you're a member). Based on Tim's comment in #3 ("It is tied to group membership."), I assume this is not a bug, but intentional.
I didn't say that the NSFW was the reason why I was flagging.
For what it's worth, I read your message the same way Tim did, particularly because, when I looked at the thread, there was nothing obviously flag-worthy.
As to your main point, you are correct. You cannot flag messages in a group that requires you to join to post (unless you're a member). Based on Tim's comment in #3 ("It is tied to group membership."), I assume this is not a bug, but intentional.
6lorax
4,5>
Well, FWIW, I read it as it was intended, that the NSFW was a warning rather than a reason for flagging.
Well, FWIW, I read it as it was intended, that the NSFW was a warning rather than a reason for flagging.
8timspalding
Nor did I say anything about thread level flagging.
You said "I just noticed that I don't have an option to flag the post in question nor any post in that thread." I misread this. I thought you were referring to two levels, but you were referring to different messages within the topic.
I would be happy to provide a screen capture to show that no in fact it's not.
I should have said "Flagging is a message-level feature." It's available or not depending on whether you are able to post. If you can't post, you can't flag.
You said "I just noticed that I don't have an option to flag the post in question nor any post in that thread." I misread this. I thought you were referring to two levels, but you were referring to different messages within the topic.
I would be happy to provide a screen capture to show that no in fact it's not.
I should have said "Flagging is a message-level feature." It's available or not depending on whether you are able to post. If you can't post, you can't flag.
9jjwilson61
But isn't taking offense at a post a function of reading that post, not writing a different post. So why should being able to flag it depend on being able to post to the group?
10AnnaClaire
>6 lorax:
Same here, though I did see the potential ambiguity. In other words, I saw both meanings and picked the one I thought was meant, and turned out to be correct.
Same here, though I did see the potential ambiguity. In other words, I saw both meanings and picked the one I thought was meant, and turned out to be correct.
11timspalding
>9 jjwilson61:
Because being a member of the group involves a level of responsibility and connectedness. If you want to flag messages in the Conservatives or Atheists groups you need to fess up to being a member of that group.
Because being a member of the group involves a level of responsibility and connectedness. If you want to flag messages in the Conservatives or Atheists groups you need to fess up to being a member of that group.
12lorax
I have to say that the "must be able to post to flag" rule does create loopholes:
Evil Spammer creates a group, with the settings of "anyone can see posts, only members can post, must be invited to join". Evil Spammer then proceeds to use this as a mouthpiece for spamming, either for the googlejuice or to get the spam posts on the view of people who view Talk using All Posts. While the group is flaggable, the posts themselves cannot be flagged by anyone, since the only member is Evil Spammer himself.
Evil Spammer creates a group, with the settings of "anyone can see posts, only members can post, must be invited to join". Evil Spammer then proceeds to use this as a mouthpiece for spamming, either for the googlejuice or to get the spam posts on the view of people who view Talk using All Posts. While the group is flaggable, the posts themselves cannot be flagged by anyone, since the only member is Evil Spammer himself.
13jbd1
> 12 - Then evil spammer's profile should be flagged, which I'll see and zap 'im, along with the group.
15brightcopy
Do your flags get reversed when you leave the group? I'd expect not. So really, there's nothing keeping you from joining, flagging, then leaving, is there?
I understand the reasoning behind it, but with the join/leave mechanism as it is today I think it doesn't really have much effect. But there are probably a few people that it might catch who don't realize they can just join and then leave immediately.
To me, simply being a member of a group creates no responsibility or connectedness whatsoever. Actually posting to a group does that.
ETA: It occurred to me that it's possible to create a group which is public, join-to-post and invite-only. I never realized you could even do that. So I suppose it could be helpful for those kinds of groups. I wonder how many of them there are, though.
I understand the reasoning behind it, but with the join/leave mechanism as it is today I think it doesn't really have much effect. But there are probably a few people that it might catch who don't realize they can just join and then leave immediately.
To me, simply being a member of a group creates no responsibility or connectedness whatsoever. Actually posting to a group does that.
ETA: It occurred to me that it's possible to create a group which is public, join-to-post and invite-only. I never realized you could even do that. So I suppose it could be helpful for those kinds of groups. I wonder how many of them there are, though.
16brightcopy
FYI, just noticed you can tag a group even if you can't post to it.
17lorax
15>
It occurred to me that it's possible to create a group which is public, join-to-post and invite-only. I never realized you could even do that. So I suppose it could be helpful for those kinds of groups.
That sort of loophole was the first thing that occurred to me, too. Fortunately, as Tim says, spammers aren't that smart, and there are far easier ways to insult someone here that don't run foul of the TOS and are thus nonflaggable.
It occurred to me that it's possible to create a group which is public, join-to-post and invite-only. I never realized you could even do that. So I suppose it could be helpful for those kinds of groups.
That sort of loophole was the first thing that occurred to me, too. Fortunately, as Tim says, spammers aren't that smart, and there are far easier ways to insult someone here that don't run foul of the TOS and are thus nonflaggable.
18brightcopy
#17 by @lorax> That sort of loophole was the first thing that occurred to me, too. Fortunately, as Tim says, spammers aren't that smart, and there are far easier ways to insult someone here that don't run foul of the TOS and are thus nonflaggable.
But without that loophole, as I said in #15, you can always join-flag-leave.
But without that loophole, as I said in #15, you can always join-flag-leave.
