Date   

moderated Re: Make Basic level accounts paid

 

I do totally support the idea of making it really easy to make a
"suggested" donation though. I would definitely do that every once in a
while.
If you want to donate then you can use
Admin - Upgrade - View/Change Plan - Premiun For One Month
as many times as you want.


moderated Re: Make Basic level accounts paid

Barbara Byers
 

I totally disagree on charging for every level.  You've gotten all these groups to come over with the promise of free service, and then you're going to take it back?  I just don't think that is a great idea.  The hurdle of paying anything is kind of a big one for many groups who are just social or volunteer.s 

I do totally support the idea of making it really easy to make a "suggested" donation though.  I would definitely do that every once in a while.

Barb B

 


On 2018-04-24 10:41 AM, Frances wrote:

Agree with a cheaper way to pay for what we have.
i too feel i’d like to pay but I am not an enterprise.  

Or a way to make a donation through PayPal?

Frances


moderated Re: Make Basic level accounts paid

 

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 07:54 am, Elshara Silverheart wrote:
Free is just a model many tend to abuse.
Maybe so, but it's also way to get customers through the door, a way to get them to see how good the service is, and to develop trust. After they become familiar with the service, and trust it, they can be tempted to pay for an upgrade. I think nearly all services, of various kinds, have a free "entry level" version. Sort of a first date. :-)
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Make Basic level accounts paid

 

I'd pay for enterprise if:
The service was $15.00 or less per month. All features included. Even
if it was the only plan available.
The more people who started a group, the more money you would make.
Free is just a model many tend to abuse. I think the more emails
someone sends out, the more people should have to pay for that. You
pay an additional $0.05 per email. therefore you're getting your
money's worth. On top of the premium basic network fee.
I also think paying for features should be a thing. Each additional
integration, each additional setting change, charge for it. That way
you learn to truly appreciate and use what you pay for. Make each
additional post something members can pay to access. That way you as
the creator are also earning revenue.
Quit the free service. You'll thank your lucky stars when you get paid
more when you do it.

On 4/24/18, Paul W. Rankin <paul@bydasein.com> wrote:
HI Mark,

I'm a big believer in paying for the web services I use. I tend to agree
with this (archived) post from the Pinboard blog:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120921032442/https://blog.pinboard.in/2011/12/don_t_be_a_free_user/
and related Hacker News: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13449875. And
there's evidence that paying users appreciate the product they pay for more
than free users.

Looking at the plans, the Basic level offers so much that I'm really
surprised it's offered for free, but then looking at the Premium feature
set, there's nothing there that I really want. I'd like to use my own
domain, but mostly out of vanity, which is not enough to prompt me to go
Enterprise (which is actually far too expensive for me). I'd like to pay for
Groups.io but at the current pricing levels I don't have much motivation to
do so.

I saw your note regarding increasing revenue:
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/16791. IMHO the most obvious and
easiest way to do this is to charge for Basic level accounts. If the Basic
level cost something like $3/month or $30/year this would be an easy
decision, and I'd be very skeptical of anyone who says they
couldn't/wouldn't pay that to maintain their group.

(This said, I also understand that people do run open source projects or
volunteer groups where any expenditure becomes a sticking point, so I'd
suggest there's still a space for a public-only free accounts that lack
some/most of the features in Basic.)

Paul




moderated Re: Make Basic level accounts paid

 

I have a premium group, but for the sake of generally being my general argumentative self with strong opinions, I will say that I think there does need to be a free level of service to compete with other services. Until people realize the difference in quality and features between groups.io and, say, Facebook groups, they will be more inclined to go with the latter. Also, people will be quick to pay a small monthly amount for really well-known entities (like, say, the NYT) but would be justified, in most cases, in being skeptical of signing up and giving their payment info to a still-unknown quantity like groups.io. So I think that even a $3/month fee for basic service would be a very bad idea, at least at this point in time. On top of that, and generally speaking, as has been said, with volunteer groups you run into the politics of "which one of us will pay for this," even if it's a trivial amount. 

If more revenue is required, I would sooner add three bucks to the premium fee. I would be willing to pay $13 instead of $10, for example.

In terms of the advantages of premium, to me the Direct Add feature, and being able to see histories of past members, not to mention the near-real-time support from Mark, are priceless.
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Make Basic level accounts paid

Frances
 

Agree with a cheaper way to pay for what we have.
i too feel i’d like to pay but I am not an enterprise.  

Or a way to make a donation through PayPal?

Frances


moderated Make Basic level accounts paid

Paul W. Rankin <paul@...>
 

HI Mark,

I'm a big believer in paying for the web services I use. I tend to agree with this (archived) post from the Pinboard blog: https://web.archive.org/web/20120921032442/https://blog.pinboard.in/2011/12/don_t_be_a_free_user/ and related Hacker News: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13449875. And there's evidence that paying users appreciate the product they pay for more than free users.

Looking at the plans, the Basic level offers so much that I'm really surprised it's offered for free, but then looking at the Premium feature set, there's nothing there that I really want. I'd like to use my own domain, but mostly out of vanity, which is not enough to prompt me to go Enterprise (which is actually far too expensive for me). I'd like to pay for Groups.io but at the current pricing levels I don't have much motivation to do so.

I saw your note regarding increasing revenue: https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/16791. IMHO the most obvious and easiest way to do this is to charge for Basic level accounts. If the Basic level cost something like $3/month or $30/year this would be an easy decision, and I'd be very skeptical of anyone who says they couldn't/wouldn't pay that to maintain their group.

(This said, I also understand that people do run open source projects or volunteer groups where any expenditure becomes a sticking point, so I'd suggest there's still a space for a public-only free accounts that lack some/most of the features in Basic.)

Paul


moderated Re: automatic save to membership page when approve pending sub #suggestion

Tony Moody
 

Thanks for this J,

Yes, Please. I fully support it, as one of the most sensible, practical ideas to emerge here. Together with your extension to Notes.

Hopefully there will be a way to 'put this all in a database'. I haven't looked at DB's much, so I do not know the mechanism of loading a Groups.io database yet.
 
A problem which will loom is that any data like this will need to be GDPR ready. But this is subject for a seperate rage. :-) 

OK,
Tony



On 22 Apr 2018 at 16:16, J_Catlady wrote about :
Subject : [beta] automatic save to membership

We record the answers to a required questionnaire from a pending member in the member's page. These might include setting the display name and possibly the signature. But upon approving the membership, the changes are lost. We must instead save the changes, taking us completely out of the member page, and then go back in to approve the subscription. If we simply approve, all changes are lost.

My suggestion is to automatically save changes to the member page if made in the same session during which the member is approved.

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu

  


moderated Re: automatic save to membership page when approve pending sub #suggestion

 

p.s. Similarly with the Notes page. We record the complete questionnaire answers in the Notes. But upon saving the Notes, we are taken out of the member page and then must go back into the page to approve the sub. OTOH, approving the subscription without explicitly saving the Notes loses the Notes.
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated automatic save to membership page when approve pending sub #suggestion

 

We record the answers to a required questionnaire from a pending member in the member's page. These might include setting the display name and possibly the signature. But upon approving the membership, the changes are lost. We must instead save the changes, taking us completely out of the member page, and then go back in to approve the subscription. If we simply approve, all changes are lost.

My suggestion is to automatically save changes to the member page if made in the same session during which the member is approved.

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Icon upgrades

Toby Kraft
 

Confirmed, fixed on my system.


moderated Re: Icon upgrades

 

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 12:16 AM, Lena <Lena@...> wrote:

After a hard reload, today in Messages - Single - Reply in the HTML editor there is blank space instead of the first icon "Quote Whole Post". Browsers Firefox 59, Chromium 65, Palemoon 27.8.3 under FreeBSD. The icon does show in the plain text editor.


Hello,

This is fixed now. You may need to do a hard reload to see it.

Thanks,
Mark

 


moderated Re: Icon upgrades

Toby Kraft
 

Same here, win 10, Chrome stable and canary releases.
Thanks


moderated Re: Icon upgrades

 

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 10:21 am, Mark Fletcher wrote:


If you're having problems with icons not showing up, please do a hard
reload: hold down the shift key while clicking the reload button in your
browser.
After a hard reload, today in Messages - Single - Reply in the HTML editor there is blank space instead of the first icon "Quote Whole Post". Browsers Firefox 59, Chromium 65, Palemoon 27.8.3 under FreeBSD. The icon does show in the plain text editor.


moderated Re: BCC All Moderators does not work #bug

Bruce Bowman
 

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 03:13 pm, Mark Fletcher wrote:
It works, but... It was not sending the message to any moderator that didn't have the Pending Messages notification enabled.
It was my understanding the Pending Messages notification setting is for purpose of moderating incoming messages. Requiring the same setting for sending of Member Notices is not intuitive and is by far the more egregious bug.

Much obliged on this end for fixing that, Mark!

Bruce


moderated Site updates #changelog

 

Changes to the site this week:

  • CHANGE: When sending a message to a member and BCC All is checked, we previously would not send the message to a moderator that didn't have the pending message notification enabled. We now always send the message to all moderators.
  • CHANGE: Wording tweaks on event notification emails re: RSVPs.
  • SYSADMIN: Upgraded Elasticsearch software.
  • SYSADMIN: Reconfigured some machines to avoid future downtime.
  • BUGFIX: #cal-invite messages to all day events had the end date be one day earlier in the attached ICS file.
  • CHANGE: The message sent to members after a group is moved from Yahoo is now from the +owner address, instead of the group address, to prevent inadvertent group replies.

The next #changelog email will be on Friday, May 4th.

Have a good weekend everybody.

Mark


moderated Re: Invitation Message

Sharon Villines
 

[Name] and [Invite Email Address]

If they are in the boilerplate, can’t be deleted, and aren’t filled in when the invite is sent, why are they there if they don’t fill in? I copied into my initial query an invitation that was sent to one of my test email addresses.

The one difference between the invite email and the other member notices is that we have a link in there that is custom to each invite to accept the invite. Where would that go if I eliminated the boilerplate?
Could the link be the only thing that is entered when a custom invite is used?

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines, Historic Takoma Park
In Washington DC, Where all roads lead to Casablanca


moderated Re: Invitation Message

 

Hi Sharon,

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Sharon Villines <sharon@...> wrote:
Another loud voice for a completely customizable invitation letter. The current one is redundant and makes no sense to many people I invite. Most of them are people who have been unsubscribed for spam. They pay no attention to the  message because they know they haven’t unsubscribed. They consider the message to be spam!

This is what the letter that just went out with my letter in the middle instead of replacing the default. [Name] [Invitee Email Address] are also not filling in. I highlighted my invitation.

The [Name] and [Invite Email Address] were never meant to symbolize variables that someone could use; they're just placeholders for the boilerplate that gets sent.

The one difference between the invite email and the other member notices is that we have a link in there that is custom to each invite to accept the invite. Where would that go if I eliminated the boilerplate?


Mark 


moderated Re: BCC All Moderators does not work #bug

 

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...> wrote:
Mark -- One of the other subscribers to GMF reported that her Moderators were not being copied when she checked "BCC: All Moderators." I've been following up on that and it doesn't seem to work in my group, either.


It works, but... It was not sending the message to any moderator that didn't have the Pending Messages notification enabled. I've removed that check and it now sends the message to all mods, regardless of their notification setting.

Thanks,
Mark 


moderated Re: BCC All Moderators does not work #bug

Chris Jones
 

I tried Bcc Moderators when I rejected a posting that had no content earlier this evening (UK time)... and the others did receive it.

Having said that one occurrence isn't necessarily statistically significant. Time will tell if it's repeatable.

Chris

13441 - 13460 of 30101