Date   

locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

toki
 

On 18/12/2020 15:29, J_Catlady wrote:
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 07:18 AM, Drew wrote:
as group owners we are like Chichikov in Gogol's "Dead Souls"-- continuing
to pay a tax on the inhabitants of our estates even though they may have
"moved on" since the last census was taken years ago.
That makes me wonder (going off-topic here) if there could or should be a feature wherein we can ask members to actively confirm that they want to stay in the group.
Back in the late 90s, the recommendation for migrating from one list platform to another, was to send an email with the new subscription address for the list, to list-members, advising them that they had to go through the subscription process, and list management would not help them subscribe. A 30% loss of subscribers was about par.

Based on that advice, some list-owners sent a notice to the list every 6 to 9 months, announcing that everybody would be removed from the list, and would have to resubscribe, if they wished to continue receiving messages. More than once I subscribed to such a list, only to removed the following week, and having to resubscribe to it. Typically, such purges resulted in a loss of between 20% and 50% of the subscriber base.

In the early noughts, more than one book on mailing list management suggested a rule of unsubscribing an individual, if they had not made a post within the last 91 days. List-owners that implemented that rule discovered subscriber numbers took a nosedive, and stayed down.

List-owners for free groups may have to resort to tactics similar to those described, to stay under the maximum member mark.

On the upside, Mark did give a month's notice, for list-owners to skate in under a grandfather clause.

jonathon


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Peter Cook
 

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 02:03 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Right. And some of us have been around long enough to know that Mark keeps his word.
Agreed.


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 10:55 AM, Peter Cook wrote:
I believe this covers you. Per Mark's original post:

  • These changes only apply to groups upgraded after January 18th, 2021 at 9am Pacific Time; existing premium and enterprise groups will keep their legacy pricing. If a premium group opts to downgrade and then upgrades at some point in the future, they will be subject to the new pricing changes.
Right. And some of us have been around long enough to know that Mark keeps his word.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Peter Cook
 

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 01:52 PM, John Wirtz SF wrote:

So, Id like to know exactly what my terms will be from next year.  Currently pay a fixed monthly fee.  Is that going to rise, my group is about twelve months old now.

 

I believe this covers you. Per Mark's original post:

  • These changes only apply to groups upgraded after January 18th, 2021 at 9am Pacific Time; existing premium and enterprise groups will keep their legacy pricing. If a premium group opts to downgrade and then upgrades at some point in the future, they will be subject to the new pricing changes.


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

John Wirtz SF
 

My group goes back to “E-groups” in the early noughties and I stayed with Yahoo until they messed things up.  In fact I styed rather longer as I couldn’t find an alternative.

I got ripped off by another group and lost £200.00 and finally found Groups.io.

 

I created the group from scratch, i.e. didn’t attempt a migration from Yahoo. And opted for the premium as I believe that a service should be paid for.

Re cost: £200.00 a year isn’t necessarily cheap and my group doesn’t use hardly any of the bells and whistles, we just need an integrated email system which is provided.

 

I currently have around 800 members.  I didn’t migrate all the subscriber from Yahoo as they were asked if they still wishes to be members but that group had reached about 3000 members in eighteen years. As we are small business, we cannot ask our members to pay for what is a marketing tool for the business.

 

So, Id like to know exactly what my terms will be from next year.  Currently pay a fixed monthly fee.  Is that going to rise, my group is about twelve months old now.

 

It might be harsh, but I would discontinue fee groups.  If they are voluntary, then members should be happy to pay 55 cents a year, that is cheap.  But not all groups will be able to do that.

 

Anyway, can you outline the costs for every type of package please, fee, premium and enterprise.

 

Regards

 

John Wirtz

 

 

 

From: main@beta.groups.io <main@beta.groups.io> On Behalf Of txercoupemuseum.org
Sent: 18 December 2020 17:34
To: main@beta.groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Pricing Changes #update

 

 

Your first two sentences were also true back when Groups.io offered fully featured “free groups”.  

 

I fail to see how the substantially expanded size of Groups.io since the demise of Yahoo Groups is LESS able to offer same, particularly following doubling of the “Premium” membership and related charges instituted as a precondition to moving groups from Yahoo.  A life changing amount of money flowed into Groups.io following the demise of Yahoo Groups. 

 

It would appear that something we can’t see “under the hood” has changed, something one might call a “mission statement”.    Back in the beginning Google’s motto was something inspirational like “don’t be bad”.  Now look at them.  Apple Computer once bragged “It just Works”.  Now they would have to add:  "until we quit supporting it with security updates and make you buy another one”.  

 

We have been put “on notice” that Groups.io will no longer offer those services substantially essential for the formation and maintenance of a functionally useful “free group”.  It may be that it was Mark’s intention to follow this path from the beginning…that was/is certainly his call.  

 

But just because an owner CAN do certain things does NOT mean he/she SHOULD do them.  With absolute authority comes absolute accountability (sorry, theologians).  

 

The level of involvement and effort Mark puts in is considerable, more than a “full time” job.  But most of the “latest and greatest services” like the use of hashtags, etc. my group don’t use.  I suspect the number of groups that do is in the distinct minority.  

 

Most groups don’t need him to do much beyond keeping the lights on, the number of servers adequate and responsive, and the emails flowing.  For all the sound and fury over email server problems in the last month, not ONE of my members complained.   And following up on such problems after someone more clerical pulls the details together is hardly a good use of Mark’s “executive level” time.  That worked well for our “User Manual”.  

 

ALL of these things are Groups.io “overhead” that must, I agree, in some manner be paid for.  But I wonder why  “basic users" that don’t ask for or use many of Mark’s “bells and whistles” be “assessed” to pay for them.  Perhaps fees differentiated by category between “simple services” groups and those who require (and can support) complex services would be more equitable and worthy of consideration.  

 

My groups are “grandfathered” as “free” with most earlier privileges, but we paid a substantial amount to get transferred over.  That said, I wouldn’t object to paying a reasonable amount per month or year if more storage came with it.  Storage is a service relatively easy and cheap to provide.  

 

Since my groups are on this “train”, for better or worse, I am increasingly concerned with where it is going.  The cynical in politics say:  “Watch not what I say, but what I do” when these things fundamentally differ.  At some point anyone's “reasonable profit” (and on what?) can become indistinguishable from greed.  

 

Best!

 

WRB

 

— 

 



On Dec 18, 2020, at 9:45 AM, Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...> wrote:

 

This service costs money, and someone has to pay for it. There is no getting around it. Basic groups are riding on the backs of those who pay, and their very existence cuts into groups.io's profit margin. By that measure, Mark is within his rights to place any restrictions on them that he deems necessary. 

<snip>

Regards,
Bruce

_._,_


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

SP4149
 

Back in 2017 I moved several lists from YG to groups.io.  As a result I became Owner or Co-Owner of several of them.  All of them were Basic(free) lists. One has upgraded to Premium because of

the perceived need for greater image storage.

My biggest list is nearing 2000 members, image storage is about  70%  

It will be another 3-4 years before we reach the 1GB limit, so there is No Immediate Need to Upgrade.

However there is an Immediate Threat to Upgrade to Premium.  After Jan 18th an upgrade to Premium will cost

$1100 a year, a massive jump from Free.

The proposed pricing structure indicates that the preference is for lists over 1000 members to Upgrade to Enterprise

which for my 2000 member list would cost $4400 annually if upgraded after Jan 18th.


Most of the image storage is in the files section, only a small percentage is attachments to messages.  In ten years image storage may reach 2Gb if not managed.

Most members search the archives, only a small percentage post new information.  Searchable archives are the main reason we moved to groups.io


My dilemma is future per member pricing for currently grandfathered lists. I don't expect grandfathered lists like mine to avoid per member pricing forever, perhaps only in the near future.

Mark is leaving a lot of money on the table each year existing lists are exempt from per member pricing.  If this is a first step and in the future, for example, existing Basic (Free) lists over 200 members would be charged

$0.50 per year per member; a decision to upgrade now would be easier to justify.

ken clark

www.shastasprings.com



moderated Re: Infinite scroll in display preferences not working as expected in photo albums #bug

 

Hello,

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 9:36 AM Chris Jordan <chris@...> wrote:

When I select infinite scroll in display preferences and look at the Photo Album page, it only displays the top 20 albums with no scrolling available. 
The navigation buttons are no longer available (as expected if you could scroll) so you can only see these albums with no indication that others are available. The same thing happens inside an album, you can only see the first 20 photos.


This should be fixed now.

Thanks,
Mark 


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

txercoupemuseum.org
 


Your first two sentences were also true back when Groups.io offered fully featured “free groups”.  

I fail to see how the substantially expanded size of Groups.io since the demise of Yahoo Groups is LESS able to offer same, particularly following doubling of the “Premium” membership and related charges instituted as a precondition to moving groups from Yahoo.  A life changing amount of money flowed into Groups.io following the demise of Yahoo Groups. 

It would appear that something we can’t see “under the hood” has changed, something one might call a “mission statement”.    Back in the beginning Google’s motto was something inspirational like “don’t be bad”.  Now look at them.  Apple Computer once bragged “It just Works”.  Now they would have to add:  "until we quit supporting it with security updates and make you buy another one”.  

We have been put “on notice” that Groups.io will no longer offer those services substantially essential for the formation and maintenance of a functionally useful “free group”.  It may be that it was Mark’s intention to follow this path from the beginning…that was/is certainly his call.  

But just because an owner CAN do certain things does NOT mean he/she SHOULD do them.  With absolute authority comes absolute accountability (sorry, theologians).  

The level of involvement and effort Mark puts in is considerable, more than a “full time” job.  But most of the “latest and greatest services” like the use of hashtags, etc. my group don’t use.  I suspect the number of groups that do is in the distinct minority.  

Most groups don’t need him to do much beyond keeping the lights on, the number of servers adequate and responsive, and the emails flowing.  For all the sound and fury over email server problems in the last month, not ONE of my members complained.   And following up on such problems after someone more clerical pulls the details together is hardly a good use of Mark’s “executive level” time.  That worked well for our “User Manual”.  

ALL of these things are Groups.io “overhead” that must, I agree, in some manner be paid for.  But I wonder why  “basic users" that don’t ask for or use many of Mark’s “bells and whistles” be “assessed” to pay for them.  Perhaps fees differentiated by category between “simple services” groups and those who require (and can support) complex services would be more equitable and worthy of consideration.  

My groups are “grandfathered” as “free” with most earlier privileges, but we paid a substantial amount to get transferred over.  That said, I wouldn’t object to paying a reasonable amount per month or year if more storage came with it.  Storage is a service relatively easy and cheap to provide.  

Since my groups are on this “train”, for better or worse, I am increasingly concerned with where it is going.  The cynical in politics say:  “Watch not what I say, but what I do” when these things fundamentally differ.  At some point anyone's “reasonable profit” (and on what?) can become indistinguishable from greed.  

Best!

WRB

— 


On Dec 18, 2020, at 9:45 AM, Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...> wrote:

This service costs money, and someone has to pay for it. There is no getting around it. Basic groups are riding on the backs of those who pay, and their very existence cuts into groups.io's profit margin. By that measure, Mark is within his rights to place any restrictions on them that he deems necessary. 

<snip>

Regards,
Bruce
_._,_


moderated Bulk Loading Banning Domains #suggestion

Kenny Paul
 

Having the ability to upload banned domains from a csv file would be a beneficial feature for those of us managing multiple parent groups. This would be especially valuable during the creation of a new parent group, which we do a lot of at the LF. 

If the capability does already happen to exist, if the https://groups.io/helpcenter/ownersmanual/1/banning-domains-from-the-group page could be updated with the how-to, that would be spiffy. :-)  

As always, thanks for the consideration.
--
Kenny Paul, Technical Program Manager for ONAP and LFN
The Linux Foundation
Pacific Time Zone


moderated Reminder for 14 day pending membership expiration #bug

Cal
 

Hi Mark,

I consider this a bug, but someone else on GMF didn't.  Regardless, it's inconsistent:

- If there's a pending message, as owner, I get an email reminder near the end of the 14-day period that the request is is about to expire.
- If there's a pending membership, however, I don't get such a reminder, and the request expires without warning.
To me, a pending membership is more serious than a pending message.

Can we get reminders for pending membership requests as well?  This was something that Yahoo had.

Thanks,
Cal


moderated Infinite scroll in display preferences not working as expected in photo albums #bug

Chris Jordan
 

When I select infinite scroll in display preferences and look at the Photo Album page, it only displays the top 20 albums with no scrolling available. 
The navigation buttons are no longer available (as expected if you could scroll) so you can only see these albums with no indication that others are available. The same thing happens inside an album, you can only see the first 20 photos.

I've found this on a win10 PC (edge), and android tablet (Chrome), and it was reported by one of our members using safari on an ipad, 

It seems to work as expected for messages, and members.

Chris


moderated Re: Automatically mark "idle" members in Admin Members list #suggestion

 

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 08:30 AM, Larry Finch wrote:
If the email bounces or they don’t respond they are removed from the list.
I agree with the email asking them to reaffirm interest (and have ust suggested that in the prior thread, before this one started) but not the removal criterion for bouncing. Most often they're bouncing not of their own choice and there are already ways to deal with bouncing. (Sometimes. ;)
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Automatically mark "idle" members in Admin Members list #suggestion

 

I sort of see some utility to this but totally disagree with how "idle" would be defined. We have many members who just lurk and then suddenly, sometimes even years later, pop up to say how they've been following and totally appreciate xyz message or whatever.  Second, the bouncing criterion seems off. There is already a mechanism to set members to "bounced" (red B) as distinct from "bouncing" (blue B). "Hard bouncing for 30 days" already has a parallel (and more precise in terms of group activity) definition in bounce handling to set someone to "bounced" (red B) and a group moderator can easily see those by looking in the "bouncing" members page. I also strongly disagree with your third criterion. "Activity" doesn't include "reading  messages," which people may be doing even if they don't do anything else, and 30 days is much too short. And finally, it's the"Special Notices" members who most often, at least in my group, are really the "idle" ones.

I think it should be up to the members themselves to say whether or not they actively want to stay in a group, regardless of how introverted or extroverted they've behaved in it.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Peter Cook
 

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 11:41 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
I was thinking about reducing the costs of free group
Ah, I get it. That totally makes sense as part of the limits of a free offering.


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Chris Jones
 

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 04:29 PM, Peter Cook wrote:
Personally I'd prefer that any deletion in a premium group
Very fair point; I should have made it clear that I was thinking about reducing the costs of free groups; paid - for groups are not only covering their own costs but those of the free groups as well.

Disclosure: all my subscriptions are to free groups, although my "jurisdiction" only covers one of them. And I would exempt the GMF as well!

Chris


moderated Re: Automatically mark "idle" members in Admin Members list #suggestion

Larry Finch
 

I am site manager for a Listserv (L-Soft) mailing list server. One of its features is Probe, which periodically sends a message to each registered address asking them to respond positively if they wish to remain on the list. If the email bounces or they don’t respond they are removed from the list. This catches addresses that do not receive list email as well as those no longer interested. 

Larry

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 11:24 AM Peter Cook <peterscottcook@...> wrote:
I would also find it useful to know who is active and who isn't. Another way to go about it would be to have a sortable "Last Post Date" column in the member list. Then the owner could decide what threshold to use.

--
Larry Finch

N 40° 53' 50"
W 74° 02' 55"


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Peter Cook
 

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 11:19 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
I greatly doubt if anyone does a search on it for anything specific going back that far.
Good thought; however, my $.02:

One of my groups has an archive going back to 2001, and some of our members do use it. (It contains valuable neighborhood history.) Personally I'd prefer that any deletion in a premium group be at the discretion of the owner, not GIO.

{Pete


moderated Re: Automatically mark "idle" members in Admin Members list #suggestion

Peter Cook
 

I would also find it useful to know who is active and who isn't. Another way to go about it would be to have a sortable "Last Post Date" column in the member list. Then the owner could decide what threshold to use.


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Chris Jones
 

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 03:53 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Ads are not an option.
And thus there need to be alternative strategies for "balancing the books";

Mark: One thought (and I mean thought; this is not a suggestion!) is that over time the biggest cost associated with any group is the amount of storage it uses up, or at least I assume it is; please tell me if I am mistaken. 

New "free" groups no longer have a storage allowance for Files and Photos (other than attachments) but as time passes more and more space is required for a message archive. Is there a case for limiting how long messages are stored? Would it free up sufficient storage if individual groups released the older part of their message archives?

The group I co - own has an archive going back to 2002, and I greatly doubt if anyone does a search on it for anything specific going back that far. With most members seeming to rely on email communications rather than the web UI it seems (on the face of it) that an archive going back to the beginning of tiime may not be all that useful.

Any such approach might require an owner or moderator to have the ability to tag any given topic as "important; not for deletion" so that it does remain to be found in some future search.

Would this thought go any way in containing your costs?

Chris


moderated Automatically mark "idle" members in Admin Members list #suggestion

 

Suggestion: Automatically detect and add a label in the Admin Members list for members who are "idle". What that means is:

1. The group has at least one message per month. Otherwise, the group is idle, and there's no need to mark all members.

2. A member is set to No Email, or has been hard bouncing for more than 30 days.

3. If the member is No Email, the member also has no Groups.io web activity in the last 30 days.

This will enable proactive administrators to more easily remove members who "aren't really there" from groups that have membership limits.

There is otherwise no penalty for being "idle", just a label to help owners and moderators keep their membership lists clean if they so choose. If an idle member posts or has web activity, the label is removed.

"Special Notices" members wouldn't get marked idle, even if the group never sends special notices. If an administrator wishes to remove members who are Special Notices only, that can already be easily done.

Thanks,
JohnF

2141 - 2160 of 29169