Date   

locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Jeremy H
 

Having had a chance to think through this...

First, Mark has said that for existing, not upgrading, groups, existing, legacy, price and features will be maintained, so they are unaffected - good for those existing groups, thank you Mark.

For (prospective) new groups, if they are going to be 'Premium' or 'Enterprise', the change boils down to an increase in price, if number of members gets above a certain level. And this increase will (unless member numbers are well managed) be unpredictable -  I wonder many groups do manage their member number well, as distinct from just watching members join and leave. But I think any group - or rather those running it (or proposing to) - that has the financial situation to be able to pay under the previous charge structure, will be able to under the new. So not actually a great change in this area.

The big change is for Basic, free, groups, which will, for new groups, be severely restricted in numbers, to 100 members. Many are run by by individuals for, or as, informal organisations, that do not have the financial setup to be able (regardless of willingness) to make ANY payment. I would suggest that a very high proportion of existing such groups were only set up, and continue to exist, because they are free (or should I say zero charge?). 
Some future groups will be small, and 'closed', so their numbers  will not grrow: so they know that, now and in the future, they will be below 100: they are essentially unaffected, able to be free as before. 

The real problem is for new 'open' groups, that may start small, but hope (however realistic this might be), or are willing, to grow, into the hundreds or thousands. And for them, groups.io is no longer making an offer....it will be saying 'we will not cater for you'.

Which will be pity: something that should not be happening. To which I would suggest (as before) that the answer is for Mark to solicit donations, from group owners and mebers, to support free groups (existing and future); as many others (e.g. Wikipedia) are.

A further thought: there is a current thread on GMF 'Determining active members (and removing the inactive)' - to which, response might be summarised as 'not easily' - with memberships being chargeable in future, inactive members will be a cost, and there will be a drive for an easy solution to this problem. (First question - define an incative member)

Jeremy


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Samuel Murrayy
 

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 10:15 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Propagating an incorrect pricing structure, even if done as a joke, is not helpful.
My apologies, I did not intend to "propagate".

Samuel


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Peter Cook
 

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 05:38 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I was referring to Samuel's table.
 
I thought so, Mark, but in light of how this conversation has been going I wanted to make sure others understood.

Pete


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 2:05 PM Peter Cook <peterscottcook@...> wrote:
Just to be clear, the table I posted was not intended as a joke, but as a illustration. I believe it to be correct (but I hope anyone who finds an error will check me on it).

I was referring to Samuel's table.

Mark 


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Peter Cook
 

Just to be clear, the table I posted was not intended as a joke, but as a illustration. I believe it to be correct (but I hope anyone who finds an error will check me on it).

Pete


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

txercoupemuseum.org
 

I’m sure each person contributing is doing their good faith best to understand the upcoming changes.  

The two recent “alternate presentations” of the new pricing structure are more logical and clear, at least to me.  Perhaps you could do a correct one in this form, which would resolve all 'issues’?

Best,

WRB

— 

On Dec 22, 2020, at 3:14 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 12:08 PM Samuel Murrayy <samuelmurray@...> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 12:46 AM, Peter Cook wrote:
Meantime, I'll just leave this here.
That's one of way of looking at it, Peter.  Here's another way to display the numbers. :-)

Propagating an incorrect pricing structure, even if done as a joke, is not helpful.

Mark
_._,_._,_


moderated Re: RSVP Waitlist Promotion Issues #bug

 

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 12:03 PM Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 01:29 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I have fixed this behavior. Someone earlier in the waitlist with a +1 will prevent someone later on the waitlist from being added, even if that later person doesn't have a +1.
Mark -- We have someone in GMF reporting that a meeting he set up with unlimited attendance is now putting everyone on the waitlist. It previously worked okay but now it doesn't.

Ref: https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/message/35831 


Oof. Fixed. Sorry about that. Vacation brain.

Thanks,
Mark


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 12:08 PM Samuel Murrayy <samuelmurray@...> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 12:46 AM, Peter Cook wrote:
Meantime, I'll just leave this here.
That's one of way of looking at it, Peter.  Here's another way to display the numbers. :-)

Propagating an incorrect pricing structure, even if done as a joke, is not helpful.

Mark


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Samuel Murrayy
 

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 12:46 AM, Peter Cook wrote:
Meantime, I'll just leave this here.
That's one of way of looking at it, Peter.  Here's another way to display the numbers. :-)

Samuel


moderated Re: RSVP Waitlist Promotion Issues #bug

Bruce Bowman
 

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 01:29 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I have fixed this behavior. Someone earlier in the waitlist with a +1 will prevent someone later on the waitlist from being added, even if that later person doesn't have a +1.
Mark -- We have someone in GMF reporting that a meeting he set up with unlimited attendance is now putting everyone on the waitlist. It previously worked okay but now it doesn't.

Ref: https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/message/35831 

Please investigate whether fixing this one problem may have introduced another. I don't use the RSVP feature so cannot confirm this. 

Regards,
Bruce


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

Haha, it would be a new feature: Cheshire groups!


On Dec 22, 2020, at 11:49 AM, Charles Roberts <croberts@...> wrote:


Yes, me too.  Would be nice if that test group could appear on demand for day or two so a new test could be run as needed then "disappear" and not take up space as a real group would.

Chuck, CABGx3

On Dec 22, 2020 11:40 AM, Drew <pubx1@...> wrote:

I have a "test" group that I subscribe myself to with several different
email addresses. I use it to try out various settings and see what
effect they have on non-moderator accounts. This is better than
experimenting on the "live" group. I'm sure many group owners maintain
such groups.

Drew



On 12/22/20 11:02, J_Catlady wrote:
> I think they're trying to say that there might be a bunch of non-active,
> or even abandoned, go-nowhere basic groups with almost zero members. It
> would be interesting to see if the median would be higher than the
> average. Haven't thought through how that would work in that case, but I
> myself am in, or even own, more of those basic <5-member groups than the
> other kind. The other kind seem to have around 200-400 members.
> --
> 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
> //
> /
>
>








--
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

Charles Roberts
 

Yes, me too.  Would be nice if that test group could appear on demand for day or two so a new test could be run as needed then "disappear" and not take up space as a real group would.

Chuck, CABGx3

On Dec 22, 2020 11:40 AM, Drew <pubx1@...> wrote:

I have a "test" group that I subscribe myself to with several different
email addresses. I use it to try out various settings and see what
effect they have on non-moderator accounts. This is better than
experimenting on the "live" group. I'm sure many group owners maintain
such groups.

Drew



On 12/22/20 11:02, J_Catlady wrote:
> I think they're trying to say that there might be a bunch of non-active,
> or even abandoned, go-nowhere basic groups with almost zero members. It
> would be interesting to see if the median would be higher than the
> average. Haven't thought through how that would work in that case, but I
> myself am in, or even own, more of those basic <5-member groups than the
> other kind. The other kind seem to have around 200-400 members.
> --
> 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

 

I’m with you on aversion to social media. Those small GIO groups do seem to be a good option and serve a valuable purpose.


On Dec 22, 2020, at 8:34 AM, Sandi D <sandi.asgtechie@...> wrote:

I too am a member or an owner of about 7 groups with less than 15 members, 3 of them with less than 6 members. 
I have an aversion to social media and GIO provided a safe option for family and friends to keep in touch as a group. 
The other 5 groups I participate in range between 120-370 members. 
--
Sandi Dickenson
ASG Volunteers Group.

--
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

Drew
 

I have a "test" group that I subscribe myself to with several different email addresses. I use it to try out various settings and see what effect they have on non-moderator accounts. This is better than experimenting on the "live" group. I'm sure many group owners maintain such groups.

Drew

On 12/22/20 11:02, J_Catlady wrote:
I think they're trying to say that there might be a bunch of non-active, or even abandoned, go-nowhere basic groups with almost zero members. It would be interesting to see if the median would be higher than the average. Haven't thought through how that would work in that case, but I myself am in, or even own, more of those basic <5-member groups than the other kind. The other kind seem to have around 200-400 members.
--
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

Sandi D <sandi.asgtechie@...>
 

I too am a member or an owner of about 7 groups with less than 15 members, 3 of them with less than 6 members. 
I have an aversion to social media and GIO provided a safe option for family and friends to keep in touch as a group. 
The other 5 groups I participate in range between 120-370 members. 
--
Sandi Dickenson
ASG Volunteers Group.


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

Obviously having nothing better to do, I just scrolled through the entire list of publicly listed groups by "most popular" and saw pages and pages of groups in the 60-80 member range that are active. That said, when the membership gets down below around 50, although you do see active groups, you also see more and more groups with no activity for many months or years. But I'm sure Mark has already taken all of this into account. It's an interesting little exploration FWIW.
--
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

 

I think they're trying to say that there might be a bunch of non-active, or even abandoned, go-nowhere basic groups with almost zero members. It would be interesting to see if the median would be higher than the average. Haven't thought through how that would work in that case, but I myself am in, or even own, more of those basic <5-member groups than the other kind. The other kind seem to have around 200-400 members.
--
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 Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 01:53 AM, Dave Sergeant wrote:
Mark seems to think the average size of these is 60 or so
Mark wrote "The average number of subscribers to each free group on Groups.io is 85." I took that as fact, not as supposition.

Pete


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Sandi D <sandi.asgtechie@...>
 

Maybe something like a per member pricing structure for free groups over 100 members? Or as was mentioned by Duane, a message pricing structure if messages exceed a certain amount in a specific time period?

Either of those would certainly help those who can't afford $20 a month and who don't need Premium level services but have over 100 members. 

--
Sandi Dickenson


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Dave Sergeant
 

It really comes down to the limit of 100 for free groups is too low.
Mark seems to think the average size of these is 60 or so but even in
the groups I am member of (all free and non profit as far as I know)
600-2000 is more the norm. There may well be loads of micro groups
around or those set up and abandoned but there is no shortage of ones
substantially bigger who have no sensible means to pay the relatively
high cost of Premium.

Dave

On 21 Dec 2020 at 15:12, Andy Wedge wrote:

The only point at which it would seem you need to upgrade to the next
level based upon the number of members is if you have a Basic (free)
group as there is no per member pricing listed above 100 members.

http://davesergeant.com

2021 - 2040 of 29171