Date   

moderated "Are you sure you want to discard these 0 drafts?" #bug

 

Very minor bug. When 0 drafts (or anything) selected for discard (or whatever), confirmation message should read "No [xyz]s selected" instead of "are you sure."
--
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: Allow members to mute other members #suggestion

Chris Jones
 

On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 04:28 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
Alice and Bob don't like each other and mute each other.
I must say I have found this thread a bit depressing. As we go through life we encounter all sorts of people we don't want as "bosom buddies" but we have to get along with them on some level and thus have to accept that we cannot avoid them, or they us. Perhaps the most likely scenario is the work environment where we have little or no choice about the people we have to work alongside or deal with in other organisations.

IMHO it says nothing favourable about the characters of the people involved if they are incapable of "live and let live", particularly (as seems to be the case) where neither is actually saying anything that breaks any rules of proper group conduct. 

As group members (and moderators) we probably all groan from time to time at so and so's latest post without feeling any uncontrollable urge to not read the post or perhaps reject it unless there is a genuine substantive reason for that rejection.

I suppose I am trying to say that the people involved should "grow up"...

Chris


moderated Re: Strip digital signatures (smime.p7s) #suggestion

 

Bruce, Mark,

It might be beneficial if groups.io simply stripped these signatures
instead of applying the group's attachment policy to them.
Or better still, check the signature and apply a badge of some kind to the message indicating that there was a signature and whether it was valid or invalid.

Right now, if the group allows attachments, the signature passes through to the receiving members. I haven't investigated whether it is still valid having passed through Groups.io, but if not perhaps it should be stripped before being sent out.

Shal


moderated Re: Allow members to mute other members #suggestion

Glenn Glazer
 

On 12/19/2020 12:41, Shal Farley wrote:
IMO Alice and Bob would simply have to accept that limitation as part of their use of the group. Or unsubscribe.

Shal

Agree, that's the point I was making.

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est


moderated Re: Allow members to mute other members #suggestion

 

Glenn,

Alice and Bob don't like each other and mute each other. Both are on
digest, so the system has to figure out, on a member by member basis,
which subset of messages go in each digest. This is horribly
complicated to implement and almost certainly not performant.
This already happens for each member's mute or follow choices. So not much new about that part.

Now, we have Charlie, another digest user who is agnostic to Alice's
and Bob's little spat. He's also an email user, not a web UI user.

Is the system supposed to detect this for each mute and
filter it out of replies as well?
It doesn't matter whether Charlie uses individual vs digest, nor email vs web. All that matters is that Charlie quoted either or both of them.

And no, I don't expect the system to do anything novel about such quotes. It already does its best to remove trailing quotes from digest, and to hide trailing quotes on the web. I don't expect any extra effort to detect quotes of muted members.

IMO Alice and Bob would simply have to accept that limitation as part of their use of the group. Or unsubscribe.

Shal


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Peter Cook
 

On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 12:56 PM, Linda Hamilton wrote:
but I gather that my 20-year-old group of 950 members that was migrated to groups.io in late 2019 and is now a basic rather than a premium group would not immediately be affected.
That's correct. Based on past history, in all likelihood it would never be affected as long as you don't upgrade.


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Peter Cook
 

On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 12:56 PM, Linda Hamilton wrote:
a charge of $2,000 USD annually. 
For 950 members I believe it would be $522.50 per year, not $2,000. The per-member fee is for all members above 400, so $220 base + 550 x $0.55. 

Per Mark:

Premium

Starting at $20/month or $220/year
Up to 400 members, then $0.05/member/month or $0.55/member/year for each member above that

Pete.


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Linda Hamilton
 

I may be misunderstanding, but I gather that my 20-year-old group of 950 members that was migrated to groups.io in late 2019 and is now a basic rather than a premium group would not immediately be affected. I know though that it would need to be removed if there was a charge of $2,000 USD annually. 


moderated Re: #bug #bug

Juulz
 

It also blocks the next page arrow:


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Herb Gellis
 

BTW, the idea of charging extra for "premium" features over an otherwise free use-of-product goes by the name "freemium", according to Wikipedia, been around since the 1980's. I see this as being most attractive to the groups that have no sponsor or organization behind it, no dues, no monetization of any kind - just a group of folks chatting.

Vis-a-vis the idea of moving towards industry practice, there are website hosters that nickel and dime you for every little addition. Of course others, more like GIO now, have well defined plans at fixed costs, but often allow a few items to be added at cost, such as more storage. The GIO analogy would be more likely more members, though sometimes more storage might be needed if the group is more than just chat.


moderated Re: Allow members to mute other members #suggestion

Glenn Glazer
 

On 12/18/2020 15:54, Glenn Glazer wrote:
On 12/18/2020 15:47, Patrick Dell'Era wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 08:02 AM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
Couldn't they just use whatever MUA they are using to filter out mail from the other person?
Of course that technique fails for members using digest subscriptions.

That's a fair point. I hate digests personally, but I recognize that others find value in them.

Best,

Glenn

But on further reflection, I think this leads to madness.

Alice and Bob don't like each other and mute each other. Both are on digest, so the system has to figure out, on a member by member basis, which subset of messages go in each digest. This is horribly complicated to implement and almost certainly not performant.

But let's say Mark gets it working.

Now, we have Charlie, another digest user who is agnostic to Alice's and Bob's little spat. He's also an email user, not a web UI user. He does the thing that digest users do that bothers me a lot: he responds to one message in the entire digest by including the digest in the body of the reply. But look! The digest contains messages from Alice and/or Bob for all to see. Is the system supposed to detect this for each mute and filter it out of replies as well?

More subtly, Charlie could easily punk them by just quoting them in his email and the system wouldn't have any To: fields to go by, for the same reasons that a MUA filter wouldn't either.

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Duane
 

On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 03:54 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I do appreciate all the feedback, please keep it coming.
My biggest concern is the "low" limit on the number of members for each level of groups.  I currently have 5 groups, one a test group.  All except the test group were started almost 6 years ago.  The other 4 have memberships of 29, 173, 1445, and 2118.  The 29 member group is for a club and likely won't get much larger.  The others are related, were all started with me as the only member, and have grown by referrals.  Most of the members have never met each other since they're scattered all over the world.  If I were starting out on GIO now (actually after the change), I'm not sure I'd even consider it as a platform for us.  I might consider paying for one group and using subgroups, but even that would run around $1700/yr (possibly more) for Premium.  I know I would get contributions from some members, but I doubt that it would cover the total cost.

As grandfathered Basic groups, we do our best to minimize storage usage with no attachments allowed.  Right now, the total for all groups is less than 200 MB.   About 25% of the members read online, thus no email usage.  The total number of messages for all groups is about 43,000.

I realize my groups may not be the norm, so this is for informational purposes as a comparison.  Not knowing the costs to provide the service, I don't have a suggestion for what I would consider to be a more reasonable member limit.  It may be that what has been proposed is the only option.

On a more devious level, I've come up with a plan that would minimize payments and possibly keep the membership more current.  I'd remove all members just before a payment is due, pay the minimum amount, then add them all back using Direct Add.  No, I'd never actually do that, but it's a distinct possibility with the way things are defined now.

Duane


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Herb Gellis
 

On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 09:48 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
Without getting too crazy one could also make it $25 per extra feature, flat price per year.
That idea occurred to me early in this conversation but it frankly seems like it would be even more maintenance headache/overhead.
 
Ah... I did scan much of the messages but there were so many ;-) Well, not for me to say what would be a maintenance headache. There would have to be some programming added to the group sign-up re maintaining what a group was defined as, and similar code in the display functions of a groups web pages to determine what to show as available. Up to Mark. In any case, I did notice people opining that they wish they just had a bit more storage, etc., so having the ability to have one enhancement (or two...) might be attractive for the low additional cost over free.


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 07:35 AM, Herb Gellis wrote:
Without getting too crazy one could also make it $25 per extra feature, flat price per year.
That idea occurred to me early in this conversation but it frankly seems like it would be even more maintenance headache/overhead.
 
--
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

Herb Gellis
 

Here's another way to slightly monetize a group that would be low pain, to help cover costs of running everything: Have two basic levels, one free as defined now, and one for $25 flat fee per year that adds a group-useful feature that perhaps is not cost-prohibitive to supply (e.g., polls or a bit more storage), or even allow the group to choose one of several (enumerated) "premium" features instead of just making it only a particular one. Without getting too crazy one could also make it $25 per extra feature, flat price per year.

There are probably a lot of free groups now that might be willing to pay the flat $25 fee to upgrade to "free+", paid for by the owner(s) of the group. Not a large barrier, but with a lot of groups participating would help the GIO bottom line. If I were to create a group that was small, it wouldn't tweak my brain much to pay $25 out of my own pocket to pick an extra feature and help GIO's bottom line.


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 06:56 AM, Peter Cook wrote:
To me, GIO is the Mercedes of online groups
That explains everything! I knew there was a reason I liked 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
 

This is specifically in response to comments about not needing all of the features that GIO offers. I made this point during the "free to premium expanse" discussion a couple of months ago. I'm not trying to argue with anyone's opinions about pricing, just speaking as a former marketing and business development executive and stating what I see as the reality here.
 
GIO is specifically targeted to people who want a feature-rich, ad-free platform and are able and willing to pay for it. Period.
 
To me, GIO is the Mercedes of online groups - you can buy an entry-level CLA coupe or an S-Class or something in between. (Or you can pedal around in an old 2000 CLK430 convertible like I do.) The fact that there is a very limited free tier just means you have some place to go when your needs grow. And if you don't need what GIO offers, or can't afford it, there are plenty of excellent Toyotas around. You can always trade up later.
 
Straight-up listservs, Google groups, ad-supported platforms, etc. are simply not serious competitors to premium GIO. Either you're going to pay for the features or you're not.
 
Pete
 
PS. Yes, I know the analogy isn't perfect, and many here who know more about cars than I do will probably want to argue with my choices.


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Dave Sergeant
 

Obviously some very different views on this issue.

Of the three groups I am owner of:

A national amateur radio group (with plenty of international members)
which has annual subs. 900 members of which around 600 subscribe to
gio. Clearly possible if necessary for the committee to pay an annual
charge to gio. They also use Wild Apricot for their membership
database, website and other things, costs a lot more than premium...
That also has a forum but we use gio because it is far better.

A group of TV engineers based in the UK, around 300 members. This is a
totally informal group and although many are employed in the trade they
operate individually and most would resent having to pay.

My local amateur radio club with 65 on gio (although the club
membership and annual subs is only 30 or so). Yes, could pay if need
be, but a year premium would be a significant part of our annual
turnover. No need for any of the premium bits.

Three groups, all very different, and all really hobbyists rather than
commercial organisations.

Dave

http://davesergeant.com


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 05:27 AM, Andy Wedge wrote:
I wouldn't want anything coming in to our members direct from Groups.io asking for subscriptions to be confirmed.
Of course not. I would want it for my cats group but not my neighborhood block group, for example. This suggestion, at least the initial one I made, for this feature is that it would be optional, both on whether or not it's done at all and the timing of it. Mods could send the confirmation request at any point in time, or never. They would just click on a button.
 
--
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

Jeremy H
 

The problem that Mark has, and is endeavouring to solve, is one that is - essentially - common to all (or at least most) internet based operations: how do you charge for - monetise if you will - a service whose unit of supply (for Groups.io that is principally membership or post) costs very little individually (cents or fractions thereof), but in the bulk provided, a lot (kilo or megabucks): and is only practicable or valuable because it is in bulk. And which, often and traditionally, are free.

Groups,io service is primarily about members and posts - they are what I have set up groups for. Everything else (however worthwhile) is an extra (which isn't to say they're not valuable).

And, as a group owner (and I would think this the case for most), they (the number of them) are not really under my control - I can hope for many (in most cases - and this what has been encouraged) or few (occaisionally), but how many is actually down to people deciding to join, or post.

And so - because I would hope (or want to cater for) for 'many' (> 100) members - even if this is unlikely (but I don't want to be saying 'no' to applicants) - a free group is not something I am going to want in future. Ok, maybe excptionally, but not normally, for the long term. And as I am not geared up (or willing to become so) to collect (and account) for large numbers of small payments (even if I thought my (prospective) members would pay them) then possible future change to a 'premium' group is not an option.

A Premium group, for an organisation which already charges (or otherwise has funds), and could budget for the cost (including any increase through growth), certainly possible (but without a sensible free goups option, maybe off the radar), but not otherwise, (and similarly for an Enterprise group, if I'm ever in that league).

Thinking more positively - as to how to solve Mark's problem - possibly some sort of 'Donation' feature could be set up, for members of free groups to donate (direct to groups.io) - preferably not tied to any particular group. With a message every so often, saying something like 'You are a member of so many groups, have made so many posts, and have receieved so many messages since ... which we trust you found useful - while free, and ad-free, and continuing to be so, there is a cost to providing the service, so please make a donation...'  . Perhaps frequency dependent on donations. And donation buttons liberally, on group pages, message footers, etc.

Jeremy
     

3581 - 3600 of 30647