Date   

moderated Database buttons #suggestion

Chris Smith
 

It would be very handy if there was an option to have the database buttons at the top so you don't have to scroll all the way down to get to them:


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Mike Hanauer
 

Many, perhaps most, business owners are out to please, business schools often say delight, their stake holders. For GIO, this is users and moderators. I only learned of the price and feature changes 2 weeks ago. I am concerned.

GIO has a survey function!! Has it been used to survey stakeholders?

Most businesses need to make some profit. And, most businesses have a mission statement that deals with broader issues. Does GIO have a mission statement? Perhaps even a Board of Directors or Steering Committee to provided diverse opinions to such matters? Yes, this forum may be it, but it is limited, not generally known, and perhaps not really representative of the big picture and future considerations. 

AllTheBest.

Consider Better, not Bigger. So many advantages. Just ask. USA adds a Chicago to our overpop each year.
"Still more population growth is not our way to a healthy community, a healthy planet, OR enjoyable cycling."

    ~Mike


On Sunday, January 3, 2021, 03:25:50 PM EST, ro-esp <ro-esp@...> wrote:


On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 01:37 PM, Tom Madden wrote:

> > 4. Mark’s expenses, what he needs to charge, and what he feels is a fair
> > return for his efforts, are none of our business.

Mark thinks it is, that's why this thread exists. Of course he can charge whatever he likes, but if he doesn't manage to find enough people willing to invest thousands of dollars in his one-man (!)  operation, and will have to either shut down the service or demand payment from all owners/group-members, it will be our business.

It would be nice (and useful for advertising purposes) to know how big groups.io is, like number of groups, number of moderators, number of users, number of messages, number of cancelled groups...

It would also be nice if we could invest a modest amount of money to get things going and finance some continuity.

                                                groetjes/ĝis, Ronaldo





locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

ro-esp
 

On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 01:37 PM, Tom Madden wrote:

4. Mark’s expenses, what he needs to charge, and what he feels is a fair
return for his efforts, are none of our business.
Mark thinks it is, that's why this thread exists. Of course he can charge whatever he likes, but if he doesn't manage to find enough people willing to invest thousands of dollars in his one-man (!) operation, and will have to either shut down the service or demand payment from all owners/group-members, it will be our business.

It would be nice (and useful for advertising purposes) to know how big groups.io is, like number of groups, number of moderators, number of users, number of messages, number of cancelled groups...

It would also be nice if we could invest a modest amount of money to get things going and finance some continuity.

groetjes/ĝis, Ronaldo


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

billsf9c
 

>> Mark’s expenses, what he needs to charge, and what he feels is a fair return for his efforts, are none of our business.
> Hear, hear.

True ! But Not the point...
If he said we have x many this groups and x many that groups and I need/want y$ for this and z$ for that...

We might be able to better suggest HOW we'd like to be billed. Maybe X$ charged to an owner/group or Y$/member. If we've no idea what is required of us, it's harder go suggest how it might be best collected.

However, we now know the billing structure, so, maybe a moot point. Now we know more. Maybe going forward we can make better suggestions.

I still see a huge need/desire to be able to enhance a basic/free list without the gargantuan leap to 200/year when we may have to do that for 4 or 5 lists and only want a tiny bit more enhancement.

Maybe it's just not cost effective to offer us 10 or 50 Megs of Photos and some limited Files for 20-50$/yr versus a GargantuanGig. "Might not make him rich," but it might help with "bread and butter," and be less of a drain. 

Ihave both grandfathered lists and newer basic lists that have Nothing... but need only a BIT of enhancement to help them be attractive and grow into bigger lists... Not a GigaBit/byte. 😉 This is the crux some of us face, when we are not only in/own ONE list.

HNY!
BillSF9c


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Chris Jones
 

On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 05:53 PM, Ginger Iorizzo wrote:
so maybe advertising, only on Basic groups,
Excuse me if I don't agree. Loudly.

Chris


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Charles Roberts
 

Hear hear Ginger.....my feelings exactly.   Now standby while we get jumped on.


On Jan 3, 2021 12:53 PM, Ginger Iorizzo <gingeriorizzo@...> wrote:
I've been following all the messages about pricing changes for quite a while now and I'd like to add my .02, for whatever it's worth.
I own two very small Basic groups, that are grandfathered in for subgroups, photos, files, etc.  If the pricing structure ever changed, we would probably have to look for a different forum.  I don't believe we could pay for our groups.  However, although I know Mark doesn't want to consider advertising, I would not object to having ads on my Basic groups to help offset the costs.  I understand that free groups can't remain free forever, and it's not fair to have the features of paying groups when we're not paying, so maybe advertising, only on Basic groups, would be a way to keep them from jumping ship to a different forum.
As I said, just my .02.
Ginger


moderated Re: Gray out option for mods to receive notifications without the corresponding permissions #suggestion

 

You’re right that there’s no exact matchup but there is for some of them. However, I don’t think having Set Moderator Privileges unset should deprive a mod of the ability to select which notifications they receive. It seems unconnected. Plus, I could swear that Mark said he’d implemented my suggestion. I need to hunt for the thread. It’s really hard because the whole notifications update thread got ridiculously long and twisted...


On Jan 3, 2021, at 10:20 AM, Andy Wedge <andy_wedge@...> wrote:

On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 02:28 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
The mod needs access, at least in part, to their OWN notification options.
Part of the issue here is that there does not appear to be a direct correlation between the Mod Privileges and the Notifications.  Part of the logic I think you are requesting is in place as if the Approve Pending Message permission is set then the Pending Messages option appears in the Mod Notifications panel (and is removed if the permission is unchecked).  Which notifications would apply though for permission Manage Subgroups (for example) or even Modify Group Settings?

While I can understand the approach you are suggesting, until there is a clear option for an owner to give a Mod the ability to receive certain notifications I think it would be best if they had nothing unless they have 'Set Moderator Privileges'.

Regards
Andy

--
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: Gray out option for mods to receive notifications without the corresponding permissions #suggestion

Andy Wedge
 

On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 02:28 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
The mod needs access, at least in part, to their OWN notification options.
Part of the issue here is that there does not appear to be a direct correlation between the Mod Privileges and the Notifications.  Part of the logic I think you are requesting is in place as if the Approve Pending Message permission is set then the Pending Messages option appears in the Mod Notifications panel (and is removed if the permission is unchecked).  Which notifications would apply though for permission Manage Subgroups (for example) or even Modify Group Settings?

While I can understand the approach you are suggesting, until there is a clear option for an owner to give a Mod the ability to receive certain notifications I think it would be best if they had nothing unless they have 'Set Moderator Privileges'.

Regards
Andy


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Ginger Iorizzo
 

I've been following all the messages about pricing changes for quite a while now and I'd like to add my .02, for whatever it's worth.
I own two very small Basic groups, that are grandfathered in for subgroups, photos, files, etc.  If the pricing structure ever changed, we would probably have to look for a different forum.  I don't believe we could pay for our groups.  However, although I know Mark doesn't want to consider advertising, I would not object to having ads on my Basic groups to help offset the costs.  I understand that free groups can't remain free forever, and it's not fair to have the features of paying groups when we're not paying, so maybe advertising, only on Basic groups, would be a way to keep them from jumping ship to a different forum.
As I said, just my .02.
Ginger


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Tom Madden
 

On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 01:15 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
Tom,

> Here are a few thoughts that clarified things for me…..

All good, except:

> 2. This group was set up to avoid swamping the GMF. Given the number
> of posts, that was a wise move.

That one is almost exactly backwards.
Thanks, Shal. Another member pointed that out to me privately as well. I transferred my 20 year old, 2100 member group a couple of years ago, upgraded to Premium last January, and must admit that was my first post to a management forum, either here or on Yahoo. In retrospect, not only did I not understand the structure, that bullet point added nothing to what I was trying to say. Should have let the post marinate for an hour or so instead of posting it immediately!

Tom Madden


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Chris Jones
 

On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 03:33 PM, Jeremy H wrote:
The absence of 'free to owner', basic, groups will make groups.io poorer.
Particularly so if a group's membership looks like exceeding the 100 member limit, and it is worth remembering that it is a hard limit; the only way to enable an increase is to convert to Premium which is likely to represent a major barrier. There is no proposed incremental pricing mechanism available to free groups.

I may be wrong (in fact I hope I am) but IMHO there is a significant risk that the Law of Unintended Consequences will come into play at some point in the future; it is unlikely to be immediate unless there is a speculative rush to create new free groups before the new regime starts on the off - chance of possible later repurposing.

Chris


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Jeremy H
 

I've thought fairly long and hard before making this  post, but...
(Note; in this post, by "groups.io" I mean the whole groups.io ecosystem)

On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 09:37 PM, Tom Madden wrote:

As I read this thread I get the feeling we’re overthinking the situation. Especially when we drill down into the minutiae of incremental costs, social “worthiness” of groups, and financial resources of individuals. Here are a few thoughts that clarified things for me…..

Most of which I would not disagree with. Except

5. This is “groups.io”, not “subscribers.io”. We transferred from Yahoo as groups, not as individuals. Individuals do not join groups.io; groups do.

But individuals do join, and become part of,  groups.io - and have individual relationships with Groups.io, Inc as well as the groups they are members of.

The value of groups.io is down to - and enjoyed by - the triad of Groups.io, Inc; group owners; and group members. All three are needed - and benefit. And for a better groups.io, all need - in their various ways - to grow. The problem with the proposed new pricing structure is that, for new and upgraded groups, (increased) members impose (increased) cost on group owners, which has not been the case so far.    

Discussing ways Mark can administer individual subscriptions is pointless. That’s the group owner’s job. Mark doesn’t approve subscriptions, monitor topics, moderate “loose cannon” subscribers. Determining how (or if) to pay to maintain or upgrade to Premium from Basic is one more responsibility of a group owner. For existing Basic groups, that can be as simple as limiting uploads or attachments to keep memory usage below the 1GB limit.

While some groups have funds from, or for, their members with which they can pay Groups.io, Inc , others do not (and, I would suggest, that includes some of the largest publicly listed groups, which have 5 figure mamberships), and so are reliant on being free Basic groups; which hitherto have been available. But that in the future are unaffordable.

While their owners may be prepared accept the responsibilty of running them, putting in the time and effort required, payment is - for many if not most - not a responsibility that they can or will be prepared take on.

And so suggestions have been made as to how individual members - as beneficiaries of the service - can make payments to Group.io, Inc , for that service.

The absence of 'free to owner', basic, groups will make groups.io poorer.

Jeremy H


moderated Re: Gray out option for mods to receive notifications without the corresponding permissions #suggestion

 

On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 06:28 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
And you/Chris
should read "and you (Andy) and 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


moderated Re: Gray out option for mods to receive notifications without the corresponding permissions #suggestion

 

YES! (And no;). Yes, I have been talking about the mod's own SUBSCRIPTION page! And you/Chris had been looking at the mod's page in the MEMBERS list. That's brilliant detective work. Yes, it's a bug. But the fix you describe would IMO make things much worse. The mod needs access, at least in part, to their OWN notification options. The problem is that they currently have 100%, no matter what their settings. The fix you describe would give them either 100% or 0%. That's wrong, too.

I draw a distinction between setting one's own notification on the one hand, which is the thing I've noticed is off-base,  and setting other people's notifications, on the other. The mod should have access to notification X if and only if THEY themself have the corresponding permission X - e.g., they should be able to select getting pending message notifications if and only if they have message approval permission. They should be able to set OTHER MEMBERS' notifications only if they have "set moderator privileges" permission. The "set moderator privileges" permission should have nothing to do with their OWN notification options. That's too draconian if turned off based on that variable, and too lax if turned on based on it.

So the member page is behaving correctly. But the mod's own subscription page is not behaving correctly, but not in the way you describe. The request/suggestion (or bug, since as I said, I thought Mark had implemented this already) is that the Subscription page should allow access to the specific subset of notifications for which the mod has corresponding permissions. Currently, all notification options are available to them no matter what, I agree with you there. But the fix is not to turn the whole panel on or off, zero-one, depending on "set moderator privileges" being on or off, as in the Members page. That shold apply to OTHER members, not the mod themselves. The fix is to make the available notifications correspond to the mod's own permissions.
--
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 Increase font size for group email address on invite page #suggestion

Andy Wedge
 

Hi Mark,

when accepting an invite to join a group by clicking on the link in the invitation email you are taken to a page where subscription options can be set. The group email address in the title bar of the top panel is in a much smaller font than the rest of the text for some reason. Can we make that the same size or if the intention is to distinguish between the group name (to the left) and address, perhaps put the email address in parentheses (if it needs to be there at all).

Cheers
Andy


moderated Re: Gray out option for mods to receive notifications without the corresponding permissions #suggestion

Andy Wedge
 

On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 05:22 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I just went through the whole sequence again, with the same results.
OK - I can reproduce what you are seeing and I think this is a #bug.  Any permission that gives a Mod access to view the member list can be used to demonstrate this as it gives a Mod two places to look at their details. If a Mod views their own details via the Subscription page then the Moderator Notifications panel is always visible.  If they view their own details via Admin > Members then the Moderator Notifications panel is only displayed if  'Set Moderator Privileges' is checked (along with the Moderator Permissions panel as could be expected).

So, I think the bug is that the Moderator Notifications panel is displayed in the Subscription settings for a Mod when it should only be displayed via Admin > Members if they have been granted
'Set Moderator Privileges'.

Cheers
Andy


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

Tom,

Here are a few thoughts that clarified things for me…..
All good, except:

2. This group was set up to avoid swamping the GMF. Given the number
of posts, that was a wise move.
That one is almost exactly backwards.

It is Group_Help and GMF that serve in part to avoid swamping beta, beginning when beta got too busy for Mark to keep up with.
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/2268338

That appeal was only temporarily successful, and Mark had to reiterate it a time or two. Ultimately (so far) the Guidelines were introduced to clarify and structure topics in beta:
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/guidelines

The intent is that beta should be reserved for topics that only Groups.io (Mark) can act on (#bugs & #suggestions, primarily). The pricing structure, of course, falls squarely in the "only Groups.io can act on" category.

Group_Help and GMF act as user-to-user support for questions that a hive mind of knowledgeable users can answer. You know, until a sufficiently strong general AI comes along. I agree with what Mark Murphy and others have said: advice and opinion on coping with the pricing structure, as a group owner or a group member, falls into this category.

Shal


moderated Re: Email Address change #suggestion

 

Hi folks,

I had to resurrect this, I think I may have come up with a fast and simple code-wise solution (he says, hopefully) for this that will cover and self-correct the resulting problems.  In short, change the current process into a timed self-expiring process which, if it doesn't get the expected confirmation link click within the time limit, it reverts back to the previous email address value.
 
In long, a research & testing by-product of this GMF thread of mine, namely whether on premium+ groups an admin can help a user recover from a typo-ed address change, (yes it can because of (a) below), helped me understand the current process flow.  There are two underlying problems which cause this issue, (a) the timing of the new address database write, and (b), no undo/Plan B when things go wrong.
 

(a)
Right now, the new address database write (and in effect site-wide change) takes place right away pretty-much after OK is clicked, before the member has a chance to click on the emailed confirmation link sent to the new address.  The write probably takes place when the confirmation email goes out or thereabouts.  Then, I guess the account goes to NotConfirmed by default and ...

- if the new address is legit and the member clicks on the emailed confirmation link (or if a premium+ admin confirms them) it removes the NC status and all is fine.
(b)
- if it was a typo/non-existent new address, when the Dave's-not-here reply to the confirmation email comes back, the account then changes to blue Bouncing and it will stay there since nobody will ever click anything on the other end.
- if a false positive, and more than likely the wrong recipient probably knows it is a mistake and will never click on the link, the account again "stays in limbo".  (if they do click on the confirmation link, then at least a group admin can sort it out with the member)
 
OK, IMO the (a) database write should be moved and take place when the user clicks on the emailed confirmation link as that process should really determine (confirm) if the new account is legit, hence the change should commensurately happen at that point; until then, we continue operating with the old credentials until we prove who we claim to be, or we continue using the existing credit card until we get the new one in our hands. But this fix would still not cover the other cases in (b).  That's where adding Plan-B comes in handy, as it can take care of both (a) and (b) cases, meaning no code change (et al) is needed to move the db write part as Plan-B will compensate for it regardless.
 
Here's the thing, when one changes their email address anywhere, it is more or less expected that they are already in front of a internet-connected device and that at the very least they have access to the new email account.  So I personally think that it's a reasonable expectation that the user will complete this changeover (including clicking on the emailed confirmation link) within a reasonable amount of time; 15 min? 30 min? 45?  So with this -do it in a reasonable timeframe- presumption then, for Plan-B, when someone initiates an address change, a user-specific "ChangedEmail" timer/timed process/thread/whatever is started which remembers the previous email address value and will revert back to it by default if not stopped in time.

-If the user clicks on the emailed confirmation link in the meantime before the timer expires, that click kills the timer and does everything else normally as it does now, and all if fine.
-If it was a typo/bad address/false positive but they won't click/whatnot, or no confirmation link click takes place, the timer will expire, at which point it will write back the previous (good) address, and all is again fine.

This will cover pretty-much everything that can go wrong, because the only thing that will stop the rollback from automatically taking place, is the user clicking on the emailed confirmation link.  (OK, also a false-positive and the (wrong) recipient clicked on the confirmation link would also prevent the rollback, but that would happen/happens now regardless, a group admin and the user have to sort it out)

So when a bad-address happens, the account will stay in limbo for only the timer duration then revert back, so all an affected member has to do is nothing but wait a bit and things go back to the way they were.  But even if it's a good address but part of a (forgotten) test, a false-positive address which the recipient is ignoring, a (premium+) admin member email address change gone wrong, etc, unless if the new email address recipient clicks on the confirmation link, things self-correct back to what they were.

Cheers,
Christos


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 01:37 PM, Tom Madden wrote:

 

4. Mark’s expenses, what he needs to charge, and what he feels is a fair return for his efforts, are none of our business.

Hear, hear.
 
--
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

KWKloeber
 

On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 10:23 AM, Mark Murphy wrote:
Happy New Year!

Thank you, Mark M. Ditto. 

maybe you can enlighten me.  Why do some forum members choose to try to silence others, when it’s so much easier to simply control what they receive?


I haven’t been able to see an obvious answer to that conundrum. 


 

 

2741 - 2760 of 30101