New tabs for 'My content' menu: Pending,Editable,Published,Not published

Hi Rik,

Thanks for the explanation. As you have probably guessed I have only just installed the module, and after a few days testing decided it was for the live website. It was pure chance i found the module while looking for Revision Moderation to see if they had fixed the access issues, I have been using a tweaked version for months now, but was not happy with it

Tho only reason for asking for the paging facility was becasue the viewable was was missing so many nodes that may have helped identify what was going on. Though thinking further it woudl definitely be good for all the tabs, in addition to your collumn sorting. I would go one further ad add the ability to Filter by at least content type. An editior may have several roles where he only wants to deal with one area at a time to avoid confusion

The 9000 nodes are public. Baisally its a limited Authentcated user site - Basically building the site in Frontpage got beyond me :)

I will take a look at the Tutorial

As to unpublished being visible before scheduled date. The simplest solution in my view would be to limit the the visible content of all tabs by the Content types the user can create or edit, whether that is as easy in code is another matter. It may not stop them seeing the node if they type the URL, but first they would have to have to figure out the URL

Aditional information

One of my scheduled nodes has just been published but the "by" column is showing Anonymous, however if you look at the Authored info for the node, the corret user is shown. This may be due to Scheduler publishing the node, not the author

Hi Rik,

website is www.crydee.com, and I lied, its only 8551 nodes, memory is failing with old age...

I just counted how many nodes under my Viewable = 189 for user/1 so the 43 looks to be an error (will interrogate wife later). Not sure if you have another parameter in your query limiting to date or something else, maybe you limit the time the query can run?
I would have complained if there were too many nodes, especially without paging, the page would have taken ages to load :)

Rik
"..I am not keen in having the "viewable" tab filtering by edit/creation permission.."

The original idea for implimenting by edit/creation permission was to cover the visibility of Scheduled nodes, However I think what is part of the problem, is my perception, and If i percieve it one way, its likely others may too at some point. Lets explain

The menu item is "My Content" so I am in the mindset of this will only contain those things that are "Mine",

so My Content:-

Pending : My nodes that are Pending,
Editable : My nodes that are Editable,
Viewable : My nodes that are Viewable

Now if the menu were My Moderation:-

Pending : All nodes that I can moderate that are Pending,
Editable : All nodes that I can moderate that are Editable,
Viewable : All nodes that I can moderate that are Viewable

What we seem to have is:-

Pending : All nodes that I can moderate that are Pending,
Editable : All nodes that I can moderate that are Editable,
Viewable : All nodes that I can View

This also brings up another issue in that Viewable, implies Visible which isn't strictly true when a node is not published. So is it a case of another tab is needed Such as Not Published and rename Viewable to Published

Giving us:-

Pending
Editable
Not Published
Published

Now combining that with the above we get

My Content:-

Pending : My nodes that are Pending,
Editable : My nodes that are Editable,
Not Published: My nodes that are Not Published (Not Viewable)
Published: MY nodes that Published (Viewable)

My Moderation:-

Pending : All nodes that I can moderate that are Pending,
Editable : All nodes that I can moderate that are Editable,
Not Published: All nodes that I can moderate that are Not Published (Not Viewable)
Published: All nodes that I can moderate that are Published (Viewable)

In realilty once Editable and Published (Viewable) get past about 100 nodes, they become almost worthless without some form of filtering,

Their may also be a case for providing an option for Admins to disable the Visability of Not Published and/or Published Tabs (Its like having Site Statistics on some people spend more time looking at them, than actually doing the important things on their website, like fixing content) Its an advanced tool, which many "Non Internet Ready" users just don't need.

These are just some thoughts that hopefully give an insight into a different perception, and maybe ideas for the future (some of this may also be done elsewhere, but a one stop shop can be far more rewarding)

Rik
"...Yeah, the "by" column shows the user that has last modified the node, which would be the Scheduler 'user', while the Author info shows the initial creator of the content...."

Makes sense, may just need a few words explaining this, if they dont already exist. ....and if their were more space both Author and Last modified user so we can instantly see who is moderating who :)

Forgot to say

"...Great suggestion... I'll put it on the list and hope I or someone else can find some time......."

If i was any good at coding, I would have loved to help, unfortunately i have only picked up bits in the last couple of years. Now if it were 30 years ago and Basic or Assembly, i would have had a better chance... :)

Hi Rik

Will break down my reply to two seperate responses

Fisrt to visible nodes

When i go to Admin >Content I get 50 nodes visible with a pager of 172 pages, its been like that for as long as I can remember
Here is a complete module list, incase you recognise one that affects access, though I don't think there is.

Content 6.x-2.2
Content Copy 6.x-2.2
Content Taxonomy 6.x-1.0-beta5
Content Taxonomy Options 6.x-1.0-beta5
Content Templates 6.x-1.0
Option Widgets 6.x-2.2
Text 6.x-2.2 Defines

Color 6.12
Database logging 6.12
Help 6.12
Menu 6.12
Path 6.12
PHP filter 6.12
Search 6.12
Taxonomy 6.12

Date 6.x-2.0-rc6
Date API 6.x-2.0-rc6
Date Timezone 6.x-2.0-rc6

Devel 6.x-1.x-dev

Advanced help 6.x-1.2
Alinks 6.x-1.0-rc1
Clone module 6.x-1.0
Frequently Asked Questions 6.x-1.x-dev
Global Redirect 6.x-1.2
IMCE 6.x-1.2
Keyword Autocomplete 6.x-1.0-beta1
Lightbox2 6.x-1.x-dev
Module Grants 6.x-2.4
Node breadcrumb 6.x-1.0-beta2
Nodetype 6.x-1.0
Path redirect 6.x-1.x-dev
Pathauto 6.x-1.1
Poormanscron 6.x-1.x-dev
ReIndex 6.x-1.x-dev
Revisioning 6.x-2.3
Scheduler 6.x-1.3
Search 404 6.x-1.4
Search Restrict 5.x-1.x-dev
Site Documentation 6.x-1.2
Sitenotes 6.x-1.2
Synonyms 6.x-1.0
Token 6.x-1.11

Multichoice 6.x-2.1
Quiz 6.x-2.1

IMCE Wysiwyg API bridge 6.x-1.x-dev
Wysiwyg 6.x-2.x-dev

Insert view 6.x-1.0
Views 6.x-2.2
Views exporter 6.x-2.2
Views UI 6.x-2.2

XML Sitemap 6.x-1.x-dev
XML Sitemap: Engines 6.x-1.x-dev
XML Sitemap: Helper 6.x-1.x-dev
XML Sitemap: Node 6.x-1.x-dev

HI Rik

"That is Content I get 50 nodes visible with a pager of 172 pages"

Just to clarify
50 nodes a page, with the pager giving 172 pages, so 50*172 = 8600 nodes :)

John

Hi Rik,

Now for the Big reply, so get a Bottle of wine, and a glass , you will need it :)

First some comments on what you have written

Instead of My Content , Accessable Content would work, but its quite long, though it may provoke ideas. ( OK Just read further down the page :) )

You mention the actions a user may take View Edit, Delete The first two fall under Administer, and although Delete can be an Administrative function, once its deleted, it can't be Administered, so the phrase Administer and Delete may be appropriate.

We could have two menu Items My Content and My Moderation. This would clearly define Which section does what. Moderation menu only being visible under certain permissions. This could alternatively be approached as a menu item "Content Administration" and have both My Content and My Moderation as tabs where permitted

Now to see if i can explain how I see it working using the the terms i mentioned above. We can fix the naming later, but first to see if we can identify how we get the content using what you have already made available, though if this can be coded is another matter :) But if I can think it, it can usually be coded :) Some of the criteria may be redundant, but are there to make sure they have been considered

It is also likely that a specific , or specific roles will be defined as "Moderators", though i am ignoring Workflow and Tac Lite as I have no knowledge of them.

My Content:- Pending : My nodes that are Pending
Nodes where the User is the Author
Published = FALSE
This option would excluder scheduled content ie Approved for Publishing on the appropriate date (not sure how)

My Content:- Editable : My nodes that are Editable
Nodes where the User is the Author
Nodes where the User has edit own content TRUE or edit any Content
Published = TRUE or FALSE

My Content:- Not Published: My nodes that are Not Published (Not Viewable)
Nodes where the User is the Author
Published = FALSE
This option would cover scheduled content ie Approved for Publishing on the appropriate date (not sure how)

My Content:- Published: My nodes that Published (Viewable)
Nodes where the User is the Author
Published = TRUE

My Moderation:- Pending : All nodes that I can moderate that are Pending
Nodes where Content Type has New revisions in moderation TRUE
Nodes where the Anyone is the Author
Nodes where the User has Publish Revisions
Published = FALSE

My Moderation:- Editable : All nodes that I can moderate that are Editable
Nodes where Content Type has New revisions in moderation TRUE
Nodes where the Anyone is the Author
Nodes where the User has Publish Revisions
Published = TRUE or FALSE

My Moderation:- Not Published: All nodes that I can moderate that are Not Published (Not Viewable)
Nodes where Content Type has New revisions in moderation TRUE
Nodes where the Anyone is the Author
Nodes where the User has Publish Revisions
Published = FALSE or Authored date > Now (Poormans Scheduler) or Scheduled Date > Now

My Moderation:- Published: All nodes that I can moderate that are Published (Viewable)
Nodes where Content Type has New revisions in moderation TRUE
Nodes where the Anyone is the Author
Nodes where the User has Publish Revisions
Published = TRUE

One thought has come from this, and that relates to the poormans scheduling. ie setting a publication date in the future, where would that fit. Its visible if you know its URL

Another relates to My Content - User is Author, what do we do when the User has Revised a node That they didnt create, it may not be a node they moderated either, do we need "My Contributions" this would probably fit Wiki type content so assuming we do need My Contributions I have added a set of criteria below, which at least will help brainstorm the issue I have excluded User Authored Content to ensure clarity, though it may be this is merged with My Content at a later stage

My Contributions:- Pending : Nodes I have contributed to but not Authored(originated) that are Pending
Nodes where the User is the Not the Author
Nodes where the User has created a Revision(not just published)
Published = FALSE

My Contribution:- Editable : Nodes I have contributed to but not Authored(originated) that are Editable
Nodes where the User is the Not the Author
Nodes where the User has created a Revision(not just published)
Nodes where the User has edit any Content
Published = TRUE or FALSE

My Contributions:- Not Published :- Nodes I have contributed to but not Authored(originated) that are Not Published (Not Viewable)
Nodes where the User is the Not the Author
Nodes where the User has created a Revision(not just published)
Published = FALSE
This option would cover scheduled content ie Approved for Publishing on the appropriate date (not sure how)

My Contributions:- Published: Nodes I have contributed to but not Authored(originated) that are Published (Viewable)
Nodes where the User is the Not the Author
Nodes where the User has created a Revision(not just published)
Published = TRUE

If your still awake, hopefully this will provoke thought :)

Hi Rik,

Not so much thinking, more like reviving dead grey matter :) 25 years of writing QA procedures does help :)

"....As a maintainer of the Module Grants and Revisioning ...."

I totally appreciate the problems you have with keeping these working, part of the reason I have tended to point all issues here, as I am not sure which of the two provide specific function, and their are probably implications to both.

As to the example of workflow, i must say I can see the advantage of restricting editing of created content whilst in moderation, but it can also have a major time impact if the originator has subsequently identified a mistake which needs correcting, as the moderato can be happily spending hours reviewing what is in essence junk. It woul dbe nice if they could send a subsequent "Change Notice" so that things get fixed

"....I'm not at all saying that your proposal isn't worth implementing in some form...."

The proposal is more to cover the scenarios of what could be needed, from this further analysis, and hopefully oinput by other users, would help tailor it towards a possible future interface

"....I do have a caveat though when it comes to what we mean by "pending" and "unpublished"....."

I dont thing Pending / Unpublished is a major issue, and that in the existing scenario we have under pending Nodes in moderation for content types the user can create/edit content.

The Not Published / UnPublished scenario is a bit misleading in that if a Node is published, and the content is now out of date ie expired, should that content go back to pending, probably not, it needs to go to unpublished, as it may be needed for audit trail or just plain reference in the future, say next year when the same event occurs.

This leads me not to wonder if Not Published and UnPublished should be seperate

Not Published - or Scheduled
Would be used just for nodes Scheduled for future publication so calling the section Scheduled would be valid,
These nodes should also only appear in this section when they have been moderated and Published in the sense that the Schedule now takes over, though not sure how Scheduling controls this. If a node in this section is edited, it should fall back to pending

UnPublished
Would show nodes that have been Expired or just Unpublished as not needed, or other reason, say SPAM needing review. They should not appear in Pending, unless they are edited, and hence re-submitted for Moderation at which point they do fall back to pending. How we identify nodes unpublished i do not know, I suspect the existing system does not cope

Again these are just thoughts, but like most things until we see the complete picture, we never know whats lurking around teh corner.

It would be nice to see som other input on these thoughts though

regards
John

Hi Rik

"...It is going to be very hard to distinguish between "pre-publish" (i.e. never published before) and "unpublished"..."

Ok going to try and get my head around this one tonight :)

I can see where your coming from. without adding extra fields to the table it may be a task.. There may be an alternative option, though I am not sure how the data inter-relates.

For every node we have a Revisions of, we are also offered the option to create a "Log Message"
Is there a way that we could Append at the begining of this field something along the lines of "Unpublished - Date" when a node is unpublished, though if a node was never revised we dont have the field, so would it be wrong to create a revision on Unpublishing of nodes that are not a revision, so that we can add this infomation ? This could then be used as part of a filter of the content ?

Scheduling as you say may be more complex. so will leave that from the equation at present, as if we cant resolve other issues to form a plan, this one will be irrelevant :)

"...I have been trying to make some of the "roles" you talk about less fuzzy by expressing them in terms of drupal concepts...."

Part of the thought about "mine" is that a user might create some content, and later it may be completely changed my another user or moderator, though at some point the user may then want to use some of their original content in another case, they know they created it so, its probably the best place to start, as a site search will not find it due to subsequent extensive changes. Also what they create will hopefully be a small subset of the complete site content they can view, or slightly lesser moderate.

"...As far as the "Pending" tab goes.."

The way I am thinking is the more you add to a tab the bigger the content will be. Pending is probably a small subset and could easily be lost if included with another category, and use just a tag to identify it. If say yestrday I created 10 nodes which went for moderation, when i start work today I would first look at my pending nodes. If there are 10, no change, if there are less, then some may have been published or I asume still in pending but with what to tell us work is needed... maybe it needs a note -returned or highlited another colour say red, with all pending normally green, ( something I need to think through as something is nagging and I have yet to put my finger on it)

Jumping ahead to

">>>Maybe the only people that should see entries under "Pending" are the user that last modified the node (i.e created the pending revision) and the moderators that have edit access to it...."

This is sort of what I was trying to cover with the following, Moderator in the first case (as this only applies to moderators), and Revisior in the second

My Moderation:- Pending : All nodes that I can moderate that are Pending
Nodes where Content Type has New revisions in moderation TRUE
Nodes where the Anyone is the Author
Nodes where the User has Publish Revisions
Published = FALSE

My Contributions:- Pending : Nodes I have contributed to but not Authored(originated) that are Pending
Nodes where the User is the Not the Author
Nodes where the User has created a Revision(not just published)
Published = FALSE

"...Which brings me to the following. What is the definition of a moderator?..."

I have taken Moderator to mean a user who has publish or unpublish or revert revisions, which to me make sense, so it looks like we are thinking the same way there, as with the rest of the paragraph.

"..'My contributions'/contributor'... ..."

Pending would only be visible when the user has a revision they created pending
The only sections where they would see longterm content would be the Editable and Published, as the others are in theory transient, other than unpublished
For most users this tab may be superflous, but was included for completeness

Possibly one qestion comes from this and that is If i moderate a node and Publish, it should stay with the revision creators username. If i edit it, then it should be my username for the revision? But this may be dependent on an organisations structure?

I think that has responded to all points though I bet i have missed one

John

HI Rik

"...I think the idea of the system writing a note in the "Log message"..."

I didnt actually realise teh system did add a message to teh log message on Reverting :) I assume teh reason it makes a copy is to ensur erevisions stay in sequence, or it was an easy way at one point.

"...As far basing programming logic on a user-editable text ..."

This may not be the best way, but if we lack an alternative... Just search for the word Unpublished would be adequate, though teh date would be better for a workflow . I agree it is a potentil issu eif users don't behave, but i would qualify this in How many users actually look at the Log Message section, or even know its there, see my comment above. Its often just skipped over to get to the save function. It may be used more in a Wiki or other Colaboration enviroment

"...Maybe we should start with two menu options Accessible to me and Created by me (or My content), each with 4 tabs:..."

We will have to start somewhere :)

Pending, Editable, Published, Not Published appear to be defined OK as are the following which seem to be in teh right direction, and as you say their are some options in how things are displayed. I would tend to keep away from using a filter though, especially if at a later date filtering is to be provided on other aspects, it may be a little too complex, Tabs can be a very effective and simple filter.

"/...I have my doubts about the usefulness of the third menu option you propose,..."

I think part of my initial reasoning on this was simplification and consistency ie each tab, when available has the same basic options presented.
Having a Moderation Tab, sort of implies a specific purpose
I was also thinking their may be a case where we have moderators of different content types i.e. I moderate type A but i also create Type B moderated by someone else. I dont think this scenario is available at present but... I was thinking future. I would want to see in My content opending Moderation seperate from Content I have to Moderate. Though my logic may be clouded on this.

"New revisions in moderation" Was basically to identify whats expected to be seen, ie the content would meet these requirements. as in some cases it wouldnt apply Say viewing My Content we may/will have visible contemnt types that are not revioned, or moderated, but they are my content so I can see them. However for a Moderator, in their own Visibkle tab they get everything, but in the moderation tab they only need to see those where Revisions are put through the Moderation, that is This is content that is Moderated. It also adds visibility to help identify that content with problems, and not appearing in that list, may need to be moderated.

I definitely think we are closing in on the target. I would suggest if its not too much of a nightware in coding, that if we can, we provide all the tab variants to start, which would allow refinement, and then if we find there is duplicates/crossover , knock them out one at a time, moving functionality as needed.
(I Remeber designing a data analysis system back in the early 80's on a "Make it happen brief" We started with over 120 reports, but after 6 months, it was halved, as each report found its user :), and the fact that the data being analysed, showed us the products were far better than expected, basically their was nothing to report on the other reports, so when something popped up, we took notice :)

Regards
John

Just Stumbled on this link http://drupal.org/node/216961 may have bearing on the future

Hi Rik

I will take a look when its available, ensuring i get Module Grants too

No need for the Masquerade module, I canget access to Admin Creator and Moderator at the same time :)

John

Rik

My wife just made a comment on the advantage of having a Moderator section

Content under Pending of My Content, if stuff i have awaiting approval elsewhere

Content under Pending of My Moderation is stuff I have to approve

John

Hi Rik,

Logged in as Admin
Initial reactions, some we have covered previously

Layout

We only need one Menu item, and that could be "Content Administration" or "Administer Content", positioned under "Create Content" is perfect, though their may be a programatic reason for doing this over the following

I invisage two levels of Tabbing
Top row
"Content I Created" Content I can View" "Content I can Moderate" etc, though titles definitely may need work

By making the page title Administer Content a row of tabs as below could work
"I Created" "I Can View" "I can Moderate", or just down to "Created" "View" "Moderate" if we include a descriptive below the second row of tabs above the table, which is probably a good idea anyway

Second Row
"Draft" "Pending" "Editable" "Not Published" "Published"

I rearanged the sequence and added Draft, in case it an be created using info from Workflow
The sequence now is as close as you could get from conception left to delivery right.

If an option is not available to the user, should the tabs just be omitted or should tabs move left. My inital thought is just omited, that way a user with different roles under different usernames would tend to look in the same place.

Will cover content is later reply

Hi Rik,

Logged in as basic user with create but no moderate rights
Initial reactions, some we have covered previously

Layout
Basically as previous

Content>Content I can View

Pending
Appears to have the same results as Editable

Published
Is basically site content

Not Published, should be restricted to same content types as Editable

Content>Content I Created
Pending does not show Content I Created but not approved, but it does appear in Editable and Not Published

Hi Rik,

Logged in as moderator
Initial reactions, some we have covered previously

Layout
Basically as previous

Block
As their wa sonly 1 test item, I noticed a small issue "1 revisions pending", maybe chaging to "Revisions Pending - 1" would be a simple solution to inference of more than one "Revisions", rather than lots of code to change it to "Revision"

Content>Content I Created

Pending
Shows entries as pending, when it should be none, also therer was one entry where the "by" has Anonymous, not sure where this has come from as their are no rights to Anonymous nor any auto publish options

Content>Content I can view
Pending
Shows entries as pending, when it should be none but does not appear to show teh one nod ethat should be there

Editable
Appears OK Though looking at the existing titles Content I Can View and Editable is misleading as it is Content I can view and that I can edit ( This may need a wording re-think later)

Not Published should be restricted to same content types as Editable

Hi Rik

A general summary

Apart from a few minor coding glitches we seem to be homing in on the target

I am still inclined to think My Content, My Contributions and My Moderation, may be more appropriate, but again that is for later, at the moment its getting a better feel for what we have, obiously a little easier once the bugs move out ;)

If we do opt for a descriptive text (mentioned in another thread) that goes under the tabs above the table to explain whats on display and what can be done, that would also help new users. But should this be a default message, (Probably) and possibly over-ridden by Admin (Possibly) This would allow an organization to tailor it to their needs, including potential translations if they have a multi language userbase.

John

Hi Rik,

just a quick reply for the moment, will check out the changes later.

I was looking at the Views module earlier, and noticed it can create many of the queries needed for the content
I was wondering if you had ever looked at utilsing som eof those facilities? Though as it stands Revisioning and Module Grants are quite self contained.

HI Rik, just stared to look at the improved interface... I am liking, further analysis to follow.

One of the advantages Views can offer is a lot of the query building can be done for you :)

It can handle Scheduled revisions by filtering by less than now on nodes

It can handle not published content

Maybe its a case of using views to create the page of nodes, as your coding drops more into the node itself

John

HI Rik,

Ok on to the analysis

As admin
I Created

Pending is showing nodes that do not require moderation, and are not published
(Would it be fair to say that an item that does not require moderation and is not published, is not pending just Not Published - Think Pending Moderation)

Not Published is showing the same nodes as Pending and a few more including scheduled some of which are not scheduled ( looks like some issue with the code in either Pending and or not published

I Can Access

Pending is showing exactly the same set of node as Pending above, except it has an additional entry of 1 item that Should be there as its a moderated content type. Applying above fix would resolve

Not Published As Not Published above + 1 extra node mentioned that should also be there

everything else looks to have correct results returned

more to follow

Interlude

Workflows (so i can remember)

Draft > Published (User)
Draft > Not Published > Published (User)
Draft > Pending > Published (Mod)
Draft > Pending > Not Published > Published (Mod)

Pending > Published (Mod)
Pending > Not Published > Published (Mod)

Nothing much as User or moderator both roles appears Ok

Menu, entry for Administer Content does not come after Create Content for Admin, but after Administer

One thing that keeps jumping into mind is that in "Published" we see all site content not those that the user has create edit delete rights. Do they really need to see all other content types that they cant manipulate? If they want to see it they should look through the site search or menus and see it in the format intended for them. If say we have 1000 Nodes in Published and the user can manipulate none of them, it makes the option redundant, If however we restrict it to content types that they can manipulate, we then provide a useful tool for easier access to content they do need access to.

This may also be applicable where users are restricted to areas of the site by some other means.

By the way Wife went wow when she saw the new layout :)

regards
John

#34 first

"...What do you mean by manipulate? 'Edit? Publish?..."

Exacly Edit Publish and Delete

This restricts the users then to only content types they can do something with. View basically give total access to anything they can se that is on the site anyway

Part of the problem I think stems from how the permissions are set

We have

Access content (view) which is global, but can be restricted using other means to prevent display, under certain cases, which is what we ideally need too, so we dont bypass the restrictions (Admitedly from what you have said before, all nodes are visible if you know the URL , but if you dont its hard to find, also there may be code in the template to restrict visibility of the node content to certain users. I use this technique for certain administration notices, that are for admin only)

Each content type has
Create
Delete
Edit_any
Edit_own

We also have

View Revisions
Revert Revisions

The two roles other than admin i have, are configure as below

encyclopedia_clerk
Access content by default
Create Encyclopedia Content
Edit own Encyclopedia Content
Edit any Encyclopedia Content (recently added as role may change)
View Revisions
Edit Revisions

encyclopedia_editor
Access content by default
Create Encyclopedia Content
Edit own Encyclopedia Content
Edit any Encyclopedia Content
View Revisions
Revert Revisions
Edit Revisions
Publish Revisions
Unpublish Current Revision

Neither of these users has need to see other site content, other than when its displayed on the website

In total I have 32 content types

Case I have a couple of content types where basically I put information into them that for most viewers would be meaningless until processed with a bit of php, so i dont advertise the URLs, the nodes are only seen through a view which processes and formats as i wantthe information displayed

You mention

"...Or if your site mainly uses one content type and the user has 'view' permission to that content type, then yes, they'll see the whole or almost the whole site. ..."

I may be missing something here but

Access content (view) is not content type restricted?

Re "...It may not be the most useful option..."

I can see where your coming from here with the use of Taxonomy to create departments, in my case I Took a different approach. I created different content types for each so called "department" as they were so wildly different in their content,

So part of the problem may be we are perceiving the issue from slightly different directions.

Re #33

I need to take a further look at this as part of the issue may be related to the new content type workflow setting, I had not seen before:)

As a quick response though

The nodes that appears under Pending that you feel "don't require moderation" probably have only 1 revision, am I right? appears true

"...First, a caveat: if "pending" is to mean "pending moderation", then content that requires publication (with or without further edits) won't show up under "Pending" or in the "revisions pending" block, so it isn't brought to the attention of the user(s) who can publish it...."

This makes sense and is what I was expecting. Basically if it doesnt need moderation it is effectively just Not Published, and anyone with access to that content can then publish as they see fit, I would expect it to appear in the Not Published section but not in Pending using the Content Types Requires moderation as the filter, however that brings us back to #472718:

There are obviously a few points we still need to resolve :) I will have a more thorough look later todaty and provide a fuller response

John

Hi Rik

re #36

if we first consider - I Created

Published - only shows those content types I can "create"(i may no longer have access to edit) or "edit" which are published
Not Published - only shows those content types I can "create"(i may no longer have access to edit) or "edit" and which is not published
Editable - only shows those content types i can edit (Published or not is irrelevant)

Now for - I Can Access
(still think I can Moderate would be more descriptive) :)

Currently
Published - shows all content types I can "access" which are published
Not Published - only shows those content types I can "create"(i may not have access to edit) or "edit"(I may not have acces to create) and which is not published
Editable - only shows those content types i can edit (Published or not is irrelevant)

Probably should be
Published - only shows those content types I can "edit" which are published
Not Published - only shows those content types I can "edit" and which is not published
Editable - only shows those content types i can edit (Published or not is irrelevant)

If we now look at - I can access but from a different point of view and call it "I Can View"
( and an option disabled by default - Would fit Ron's view all access - assuming its not an existing configuration issue)

Pending - Everything on the site Pending
Editable - Everything on the site Editable though this is in theory covered by the other options in this section so could be omitted
Not Published - Everything on the site that is not published
Published - Everything on the site that is published

if we were to merge Published and Editable we loose some functionalit in that Not Published is also potentially editable

At present I think we have the secondary tabs correctly labeled, and its a case of finalising what primary tabs, we need and their labels. Once that is resolved, it will have an impact on the final filtering of content of the scondary tabs.

Re #33 #37

I Had just taken an hour+ to reply and then lost the screen....Aaaaargh !

Will try again later, though probably not as detailed

Will answer bits i can remember first

"...I think what I'm saying is that content of a type that..."

This is my configuration though in my case an author gets to Publish if he has publish permission

"...In determining whether content is "pending" ..."
How is a new node handled that gets moderated as when its created its the first revision ? ( And i wont even mention the Revision Deletion module that delets old outdated revisions to save space)

"...I could change the code to and define...."

"pending moderation" = "pending publication" + "New revisions in moderation ticked",

This is what I would expect to see under Pending Publication

"pending publication" + "New revisions in moderation NOT ticked"

is a contradiction in term,

It may seem a contradition at first, but when you look at it another way, they way I have, I get :-

NOT Published = "pending publication" + "New revisions in moderation NOT ticked"

More responses to the earlier bits to follow

HI Rik

re #41

The problems with deciding the boundaries is trying to accomodate all situations. I used my own case as teh basis of what I have suggested, adding in where i could see others may have differing needs. but even then as you say its not easy.

Accessible Content sounds good to me, Not sure if their is a way to permit admin overide, to change the title if their userbase interprets different?

I like the new top row, it sounds ok. The "I last modified" is a good addition. Needn to sequence logically I Created, I last Modified, I can Edit, I can View might be appropriate

Getting my head around teh moving of Editable to the upper menu may take a bit of getting used to :)

I agree on using default setting, and would definitely agree on moderators being offered I can Edit + Pending Publiation especially if its not one they last modified (assuming auto publish is not on) we would want them to clear others work before starting their own. ( This may be part of why i have suggested modeartion to get their own content seperate from user content)

I can view is as you say a more of a debug tool, though this is one that should have an admin settin gto permit, mentioned elsewhere

I can delete does have limited use, which might be accomodated with another column in the returned tables? along teh lines of deletable, but then that another column :)

will respond to #42 shortly

re #42

Starting at the bottom

Any message is good :) Again these could be enabled for roles or across the board, mayb even in the same area a total of nodes under that tab, but these are just thoughts

The rest seems to make sense, probably be easier to grasp when its visual. :)

I think one of the things in the back of my mind is viisibility of content that is moderated, ie its own pending its own edit its own view which are restricted to just those content types that are moderated. In my case as admin i see all, so having them burried in 8000 nides is not a good thing. By seperating them i can see whats being approved by other moderators over recent days, sort of an audit of whats going on, incase some standard has drifted

One really wild idea. is Publish permissions for each content type/role, this would in theory allow for moderators own work to be moderated by another moderator, though i suspect this is outside the scope of the module and more what should be in core

Re 49 part #43#44

Re 46 part #44

I think its more a case of not what the user role can view so let hem have it, but more of what the admin "Wants" them to be able to view at a specific time, using this specific interface. Remember what is seen on the site may be formatted differently. as Mentioned before I have content types of that nature.
One site i designed has a user who falls under the category of autistic, If i were to present to them all the informattion in I Can View would be just too much, its a facility that for them, and the other site users, that I would be prefered turned off

In my own case, I already have a block that is redundant as it displays several nodes that are not published, none of which I care about as i can find them in in the normal content interface if i need.

The same applies to "I can moderate", its not a case of whether a role can view but if the admin wants them to
at that time with this interface filtering tp remove those where "New revision in moderation" isn't ticked. makes the block again useful

I think what it comes down to is different ways sites are coping with the options available, and the type of user that is using them. Were manipulating whats available to get the best from the tools available

Re 46 part #45 more likely D2012 :) It seems some simple fundamentals have been overlooked, i added a feature request for D7 Block visability, http://drupal.org/node/393386 cant see it ever getting in, as its not been responded to, but its another case of from an oustiders point of view, a simple but obvious facility.

"...Do you not care about the "not published" nodes because in your view they are previously published (or never published) nodes, but because they have only 1 revision the block thinks the nodes are pending publication?
..."

I do care about them in that I may need them at some point, but i can get to them through Admin> Content when i need them
These nodes are ones that have been unpublished, for the moment as at present they have no need to be displayed, but they are to be republished at a later date without change. Others are nodes with ideas/experiments etc., so really drafts, but ones that need visibility on an as and when basis to a select few.

I tried your suggested method, unfortunately I realised after 20 minutes of re-saving , that it didnt eactly work, because the content types of some of the nodes do NOT create revisions :)
Another issue could be a site with 1000s of nodes in this "Not Published" state, having to update them to get them out of the block

From this I think we have hit on a posible future snag. If you can run through this scenario.

Node created an published. Later modified, still published, modified again and still published, goes on for months. 1000's of revisions.
Node created, never published but revised several times.

Revision Deletion module comes along doing its regular clean up, deletes all old revisions !

Where does that leave us with the current logic?

"...we need sorting, grouping and additional filtering..."
These I look forward to as they will definitely improve the situation.

"...Ok, I guess what I'm saying is that "what the admin wants them to be able to view" ..."

The problem we have is there is no permissions that cover this scenario.

If we look at it from a "Views" module point of view, we can take several nodes and present them as a view. None of the original nodes are visible to the user, in their unformated state, unless the user can guess the URL for the node. almost 50% of my site has content of this nature, using a view to access the content, so as to provide format and theming to ensure teh content is opresented in the correct context.

I also use the Quiz module. which uses 2 content types. Quiz and Multichoice.

The Quiz is the basic desription. But the Multichoice are the specific questions. The nodes of the multi choice are not exposed in the URL whilst taking a quiz, so as to prevent them being viewed outside a quiz. I have a Filter on the site search to prevent them being returned in the search results to normal users and roles i do not want to see them (using Search Restrict). But Revisioning without a means to restrict what a user can view, exposes all question to all Roles acting as moderators.

Re #50

"...See the "aside".."

OK they got it (moderate column), They dont use it? Will they be using it? Do they want it? Can we have it ?
Which gives us a facility we need, but also alows us to create something that one day could be modified and adopted to core (then we might get a bot more:) )

Option 1 in not an option otherwise we wouldnt be here :)
Option 2, if we knew there was no conflit great, thougfh as there is a risk. limiting the coding is prudent
Option 3 Looks to be the way to go
Option 4 With the way things seem to be put off till later or discussed to death whilst achieving nothing. The option could be obsolete as I may have died of old age long before something happens.

I think were not really exposing security holes , but more identifying others suffering the same fate as us, due to lack of revisioning and other access permissions

John