Date   

locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

Hi WRB,

How is this burden less for members on “Daily Digest” than for those
on Individual messages?
The total size of data communicated may not be that much different.

But the total burden is likely less for Digest because there would be up to 12 messages represented in a single digest. So that's up to one twelfth the number of transactions between Groups.io's mail server and the member's. Each of those transactions include overhead in both processing and communication.

If we define these as “incoming”, wouldn’t the messages I send
("outgoing”?) also be a burden on FatCow?
We've got our terms reversed: I was speaking from Groups.io's point of view. That is, when you post a message that is "incoming" to the group, and when it is sent out to the members that is "outgoing" from the group. Nevermind that though (the point of view is arbitrary).

A message you send to the group does consume some resources, at FatCow and at Groups.io, but then Groups.io's resource consumption when the message is sent to the group members is multiplied by the number of members - several hundred times over in your example groups. That multiplication effect doesn't affect FatCow, except to the extent that your group has more than one member using FatCow (and then the multiplier is only the number of those members).

Shal


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

txercoupemuseum.org
 

Hi Shal,

Thanks for the response.

You said: "What matters is how many of your members are on Individual messages: one posted message becomes a burden of up to 875 outbound messages, or 777 in the other group. For most groups the outbound burden is a significant multiple of the number of posted messages.”

I believe I referred to this is the part of the process I referred to as a “re-transmission”? How is this burden less for members on “Daily Digest” than for those on Individual messages?

You said: "Only the messages sent to you are a burden on FatCow (well, plus the messages sent to any other group members that use that service).”

If we define these as “incoming”, wouldn’t the messages I send ("outgoing”?) also be a burden on FatCow?

Best!

WRB

On Dec 31, 2020, at 9:57 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@gmail.com> wrote:

WRB,

One has 875 members at present, the other 777.

In checking our _“email burden”_ under group activity I find my larger
group, by far the most active,_lists 196 messages_ so far during
December. Of These, 21 were via “Web” and 175 were via “email”, ...
It makes relatively little difference how the message was posted.

What matters is how many of your members are on Individual messages: one posted message becomes a burden of up to 875 outbound messages, or 777 in the other group. For most groups the outbound burden is a significant multiple of the number of posted messages.

To my way of thinking, my email “load” is on the FatCow server (POP
account) ...
Only the messages sent to you are a burden on FatCow (well, plus the messages sent to any other group members that use that service).

and I fail to see how that is in any manner a “burden” on Groups.io
unless this relates to the presumably separate functions of “send" and
“receive”.
Exactly as you described.

In every email transmission there's both a sender and a receiver, and each uses computational and communications resources to process the email transmission. In the case of each outbound message Groups.io is the transmitting part of all of those transactions, where the reception part is distributed among the members' various email services.

Additionally, I have no idea how those using POP accounts and those
using IMAP accounts affect Groups.io other than the “rebroadcast”
burden.
Once the message has been transmitted to the member's service it no longer matters to Groups.io. How the member accesses the message is purely between the member and his/her email service.

On the other hand, members that choose to read the message directly from the group's Messages section on Groups.io do incur some amount of processing and transmission cost, again on both Groups.io's web server and at the member's internet service. I don't know how the cost of this web transaction compares to an email transmission, but I imagine it is comparable, or possibly greater.

All those hard-working electrons (and photons).

Shal


moderated Re: HTML format for incoming emails #suggestion

Shahid
 

Bruce,

The "normalize html emails" box is unchecked. If it were checked then the font color would be removed, which it is not as you can see.

I do not include any constructs (eg iframes, javascript) in the emails. I strip the text to plain text before pasting it in Thunderbird and then the only formatting I do is changing the font to cambria/calibiri, font color, font size, and text alignment. Those are the only changes I make to the plain text. I used to do the same thing in yahoogroups and before that in egroups (what your groups is based off) and I never had any issues.

My browser (Firefox) and OS (win7) has the necessary things to render the email as I sent. I never had these issue in yahoogroups, googlegroups, or egroups.

It's important that the group displays the message the same way as it is in the email because I use the group's message as a website and share that link with others (especially on social media) and they come to the group to see the message  instead of me sending an email to so many people constantly. This is free publicity for your site and benefits you.... and I can't do that if the desired message formatting is lost. Hence the reason my suggestion to fix the issue.

Shahid


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

WRB,

One has 875 members at present, the other 777.

In checking our _“email burden”_ under group activity I find my larger
group, by far the most active,_lists 196 messages_ so far during
December. Of These, 21 were via “Web” and 175 were via “email”, ...
It makes relatively little difference how the message was posted.

What matters is how many of your members are on Individual messages: one posted message becomes a burden of up to 875 outbound messages, or 777 in the other group. For most groups the outbound burden is a significant multiple of the number of posted messages.

To my way of thinking, my email “load” is on the FatCow server (POP
account) ...
Only the messages sent to you are a burden on FatCow (well, plus the messages sent to any other group members that use that service).

and I fail to see how that is in any manner a “burden” on Groups.io
unless this relates to the presumably separate functions of “send" and
“receive”.
Exactly as you described.

In every email transmission there's both a sender and a receiver, and each uses computational and communications resources to process the email transmission. In the case of each outbound message Groups.io is the transmitting part of all of those transactions, where the reception part is distributed among the members' various email services.

Additionally, I have no idea how those using POP accounts and those
using IMAP accounts affect Groups.io other than the “rebroadcast”
burden.
Once the message has been transmitted to the member's service it no longer matters to Groups.io. How the member accesses the message is purely between the member and his/her email service.

On the other hand, members that choose to read the message directly from the group's Messages section on Groups.io do incur some amount of processing and transmission cost, again on both Groups.io's web server and at the member's internet service. I don't know how the cost of this web transaction compares to an email transmission, but I imagine it is comparable, or possibly greater.

All those hard-working electrons (and photons).

Shal


moderated Re: Member list format issues #bug

Judy F.
 

Mark it is still in my History column.  I also did a refresh and it still appears. 

Judy F., Moderator
Sew It's For Sale GIO
SW Florida, USA 



On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 03:41 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 7:43 AM Andy Wedge <andy_wedge@...> wrote:

After a brief discussion on GMF I'm raising this as a bug.  The format of the member list has changed so that it now takes two lines per member for those in my group due to the number of badges that are displayed after the delivery method. Others report different results depending on the OS platform.  Was this an attempt to fix a bug for something else?

I tightened up that column as part of some changes to improve the mobile site (and upcoming app). It should be fixed now.
 
Mark 


moderated Re: HTML format for incoming emails #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 04:23 PM, Shahid wrote:
The font size and text alignment is lost and changed to whatever the group sets as default. Please make changes so that the group posts the message as it was sent instead of changing it.
Shahid -- First, check your group settings. If you have the "Normalize HTML Emails" box checked, uncheck it.

Beyond that, the ability to render any page as sent depends on page width, aspect ratio, and the availability of these same fonts on the receiving end (browser, mail client and/or OS). If they're not available, a font from the same "family" will be substituted.

In addition, some constructs that folks may choose to include in an email (such as iframes and inline javascript) have to be stripped so they cannot be used as vectors for malware.

I'm not saying that it couldn't be better than it is -- in particular, the stripping of benign inline styles (like that one that centers your example footer link) does not seem to be justified. Within reason, though, it's appropriate to me that groups.io continue to do whatever is necessary to ensure not only the security of the system but also the deliverability of group messages to the widest possible audience.

My $0.02,
Bruce


moderated Re: HTML format for incoming emails #suggestion

billsf9c
 

The Thunderbird version, for me, was unreadable as text ran off the page to the right... and the latter image was fine...

But then I hit Reply to mention this, and the Thunderburd image has moved to the left and both are readable.

FYI-
Android native browser
BillSF9c


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

I’m just saying that because of the increase in value, a new price structure is (a) more justified and (b) more likely to be tolerated.


On Dec 31, 2020, at 3:17 PM, Chris Jones via groups.io <chrisjones12@...> wrote:

On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 10:49 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Yahoo's further demise also heightens groups.io's attractiveness and value by cementing its place as unique.
Doubtless so, but something of a mixed blessing if too many new groups are "free" rather than Premium or Enterprise, and I submit that the evidence that that has happened is staring us in the face. Were it not so then the pricing structure would not have been altered already and now subject to further change.

Chris

--
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

Chris Jones
 

On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 10:49 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Yahoo's further demise also heightens groups.io's attractiveness and value by cementing its place as unique.
Doubtless so, but something of a mixed blessing if too many new groups are "free" rather than Premium or Enterprise, and I submit that the evidence that that has happened is staring us in the face. Were it not so then the pricing structure would not have been altered already and now subject to further change.

Chris


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

KWKloeber
 

** How many users does gio currently have? 
** What average $$ donation return would it need to be profitable to the level Mark needs if, say, there was a 2% return on a quarterly or semi-annual "Wikipedia" donation request sent to all members?
Or, differently, what % return would he need at an average $2 per quarter (or per 6-month) of donations?

Additionally --
Features - how many do groups need?  
We use photos, files, wiki.  But not chat calendar database.
I would hope down the road that the features become a shopping list.  Spectrum won't let me watch Turner Classic Movies w/o giving them $30 for 68 others I don't even want to wade thru. 
So it gets zero dollars a month from me rather than two or three dollars a month.  Which makes more sense?


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 02:36 PM, Chris Jones wrote:
following Yahoo's 2 spasms of withdrawal from this market sector radically changed the ratio such that the financial balance was seriously impaired, hence the need for a revised payment structure.
Yahoo's further demise also heightens groups.io's attractiveness and value by cementing its place as unique.
 
--
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

 

Pete,

plan. What I'd /like/ to do instead - and this is for GMF rather than
beta - is to brainstorm about how to fund our groups within the new
pricing framework. It's clear some folks are going to need help with
that.
Agreed, with one caveat:

The definitive statement in the original post notwithstanding, I don't think "the new pricing framework" is yet cast in stone - Mark's continued involvement with this topic suggests that he'll at least consider modifications or alternatives.
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/27218

While that remains true I think it is appropriate to consider here what the various modifications and alternatives proposed in this topic imply for what group owners need to do to support their groups.

Shal


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Chris Jones
 

On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 09:27 PM, Drew wrote:
Up to 3 groups: FREE
4 to 10 groups: $5.00/yr
More than 10 groups: $10.00/yr
Superficially attractive, certainly. but it includes a major flaw.

I have 2 email addresses immediately available, and I could set up 4 or 5 more without it costing me anything. That would immediately give me access to 20 or so groups without it costing me a single, solitary, bean.

FWIW I have serious concerns about Mark's idea of charging owners when a group exceeds 100 members. Owners would either have to pay it themselves or pass the charge on to individual members. Now if a group has a physical existence (e.g. a neighbourhood group) collecting "subs" would be easy, very possibly by rolling Groups.io charges into a wider membership fee. But what about a group with wide geographical dispersal and no physical entity? Collecting what are actually trivial amounts per member would be almost impossible, so the owners would be incentivised to keep group sizes to not more than 100, meaning that there would be no income to Groups.io.

I am reluctant to say it but IMHO Groups.io's financial model looks a bit fragile; it probably worked perfectly well with the ratio of Enterprise & Premium to Basic groups that existed (say) 30 months ago but the influx of groups - almost certainly mainly "free" - following Yahoo's 2 spasms of withdrawal from this market sector radically changed the ratio such that the financial balance was seriously impaired, hence the need for a revised payment structure.

Chris


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Peter Cook
 

Just one last point. My comment is really a response to some posts on this thread that seem to imply that Mark is entitled to cover his costs, or maybe make a little money for his efforts. That's fine by me. It's also fine by me that he make something hugely valuable, sell it for a boatload, and move on. Or something somewhere in between.

I learned the futility long ago of arguing with someone else's business plan. What I'd like to do instead - and this is for GMF rather than beta - is to brainstorm about how to fund our groups within the new pricing framework. It's clear some folks are going to need help with that.

Pete


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Peter Cook
 

On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 04:37 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
it can fairly be inferred that in Mark's view making money is necessary in support of developing and supplying the service, not the other way around.
Shal, I was being glib, of course, and I'm not inferring any particular purpose or set of values on Mark's part based on this thread. What I should have said is simply that it's been obvious for quite some time that groups.io is moving in the direction of being a profitable enterprise. And - speaking as a businessman, an investor, and a capitalist - Mark deserves to have it be profitable. It's an extraordinary service, the only one of its kind, really, and the result of a great deal of ongoing investment.

Pete


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

Peter,

I sincerely hope this* wasn't an epiphany for anyone here.
I think in reading the Groups.io announcement it can fairly be inferred that in Mark's view making money is necessary in support of developing and supplying the service, not the other way around.
https://wingedpig.com/2014/09/23/introducing-groups-io/

Which is a distinction Jeremy had pointed out:
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/27493

Faced with that, I think what Mark is most interested in is finding a pricing scheme that is effective, acceptable to the payers, and consistent with his view of what groups are for.

This is largely a practical question, and Mark's view has evolved over time. From the first Mark expressed a preference to avoid reliance on advertising, but in the very early discussions in beta it was proposed that Basic groups would be ad-supported and Premium groups remove the ads, increase capacity, and add features.
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/2
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/14

It wasn't much later that investigation and introspection convinced Mark that using advertising was an unappealing prospect, for several reasons, and so it was taken off the table without ever having been implemented.

Shal
*Referring to Samuel's comment:
I think we can be clear that the purpose of Groups.io is to make money


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Drew
 

I might have made the original suggestion to charge subscribers a fee. Since that was a while back, and my scheme for doing so was split among two message posts, and since we are repeating earlier ideas, here it is in complete summary:


- Charge subscribers on a tiered basis for the number of free/basic groups they want to subscribe to. For example:

Up to 3 groups: FREE
4 to 10 groups: $5.00/yr
More than 10 groups: $10.00/yr

- Owners retain the option to pay for their group as in the current pricing structure;

- Any subscriber can join an unlimited number of Paid groups (assuming they are invited or accepted by group owners);

- Subscribers can join or leave groups at any time, subject to the maximum number of groups in the tier they have paid for. (Example: If a subscriber in the FREE tier wants to add a 4th group they must either pay for a higher tier or unsubscribe from one of their existing groups in order to join the new one.)


So, the subscriber fees would be an additional revenue stream along with the current owner fees.

There is little or no additional help desk activity since group owners continue to do the management and subscriber hand holding for their own groups.


Drew

On 12/31/20 14:58, J_Catlady wrote:
On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 09:40 PM, Jim Betz wrote:
  How about a payment - per member, directly to groups.io, using
PayPal or a
credit ... that is a single payment for unlimited number of groups
joined.
That has already been suggested in this thread (what? you haven't read al 250 messages?;) and it still means asking people to pay to take part in a bunch of unknown mailing lists. I really doubt it would fly. Put yourself in the shoes of a potential, not current, customer. Would you really be willing to pay money for the privilege of being able to sign up for mailing lists before even knowing WTH they are or what groups.io is all about?  It's a huge disincentive and might destroy the business altogether.
--
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 HTML format for incoming emails #suggestion

Shahid
 

The group changes the HTML formatted email it recieves instead of accepting what was sent. Here is an example of a message I composed in Thunderbird and how it appears in Thunderbird and how it appears on the group.

This is what it looks like in Thunderbird (and suppose to look like on groups too):


And this is what it looks like when it is posted on the group:

The font size and text alignment is lost and changed to whatever the group sets as default. Please make changes so that the group posts the message as it was sent instead of changing it.


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Duane
 

On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 02:14 PM, Chris Jones wrote:
with the number of individual "Poster IDs" that are on record a $5 annual charge would bring in in excess of $20,000,000
Based on one of my recent members, I'd say closer to $25M. ;>)  That does sound like an idea worth looking into (with a 6-12 month grace period.)  I don't think I know anyone that doesn't 'waste' more than $5 in a week (sometimes a day), including me, so $5/yr is a bargain.  Even my 3 accounts would only be $15 per year, so I might do without a few snacks that I don't really need anyway!

On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 02:34 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I think you’d be left with a small fraction of that figure.
Even if 90% leave (or have left), that leaves $2-2.5 million annual income.  I realize that's a drop in the bucket for a large company, but might cover many things that may be on the back burner for now.

Duane


moderated Re: #bug Reply area blank #bug

Bruce Bowman
 

On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 03:34 PM, Hank Seamon wrote:
I just removed the image from my signature as that was the latest change that I could think of doing.

This seems to have fixed my problem.
Hank -- That's interesting. I didn't know you even could insert an image in your subscription's sig line.

I will report this to the other guy who's having the problem and see if it fixes his issue, too.

Thanks,
Bruce

2701 - 2720 of 30000