moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion
I think Samuel’s idea is flexible enough to explore as to practicality.toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Instead of focusing on the 100 person “limit”, how a 100 “active participant” limit instead. Most email-based groups have the great majority of their “subscribers” as functional “lurkers”. If a subscriber posted less than 3-5 times annually, that, to me, is an “inactive participant. Yes, these get all the “redistributed” emails from “active participants, but their presence does not substantially increase that traffic.
It is common for software companies to offer a “free trial” period. On Groups.io, I suggest one appropriate for persons who want to set up a group. As for their subscribers, they would have a choice of “inactive participant” (who “settles for the give and take of others") or "active participant”, free to participate without limitation (for a fee)?
These parameters may be “tricky” to sound out and properly define so as to be practical, but that’s a “one-time deal”…not an ongoing administrative burden (once defined and agreed). I think the concept has infinite potential in the context in which it has arisen.
In particular, I wish to thank Mark for his open mind on this pivotal subject; all too many in his position have a terminal “not invented here” ego problem. No complex proposal is “reasonably workable” until properly investigated and fully defined.
On Jan 7, 2021, at 5:02 PM, J_Catlady <email@example.com> wrote: