moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion


Hi Sara,

Shal, I cannot believe you are advocating for this. If anyone is going to feel the pain of navigating this cuckoo idea, it would be you and the mods at GMF.

Actually, I think Mark's original Pricing Changes posting, without the addition of this topic's Proposal, would be far more onerous on GMF, or rather, on its members, in the hypothetical case that GMF (or a group of its size) was being started under the new pricing model.

So while the Pricing Changes are of concern, I think this proposal would ease the pain for my groups (in the hypothetical case that they were started with the new pricing in effect).

Owners don't even know how to help their members log into their accounts, let alone advise them how to pick from a menu of tiered prices for the privilege of joining a group, and then what?

As I understand it, in this proposal there's only one price available to a member: $2.50/yr for all the subscriptions they want (maybe there would have to be some cap, but I think it ought to be 10 subscriptions or higher).

Some people have proposed tiers for paid accounts, maybe even Samuel in other posts (I don't recall), but I don't think that's part of what Mark is asking about in this topic.

And mind you, I don't think, or maybe I'm wrong, that you and your moderators will enjoy a financial benefit from members premium costs while being bombarded with an avalanche of "How-to" requests.


I think at most Group_Help and GMF would enjoy continued status as legacy-enabled Basic groups.

Then again, if the member fee goes to owners and moderators -- maybe it makes sense.

That already exists in Premium groups, in the form of a Donation mechanism which group owners can use to collect donations or fees from their members. I made a separate #suggestion for a simplified version of that mechanism, but didn't get much enthusiasm for the idea (specifically, didn't get a comment from Mark on it).

But if the point is to create a revenue stream for Mark, to offset the losses from the prolific number of basic groups (which I bet have exploded since the future pricing was announced), then my opinion is no thanks.

I think the point (what Mark has said) is to put on a sustainable path going forward. It seems that he is content with (or at least willing to maintain) the grandfathered groups as they are, and let natural attrition and overall growth reduce the bottom-line impact of the grandfathered groups.


Quite so. And that's why these topics are under discussion.


Join to automatically receive all group messages.