For general Groups.io questions, please see the Group Managers Forum and Group_Help groups. Note: those groups are volunteer-led and are not officially run by Groups.io.
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
I understand Mark’s proposal and what is grandfathered. That is still my interpretation.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Jan 9, 2021, at 6:47 PM, Christos G. Psarras <christos@...> wrote:
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
>>>
My interpretation is that the grandfathering would immediately cease to be in effect because the new proposal affects all group members. Even if a group itself is grandfathered in, members may have to start paying to join other groups. Nobody who created a groups.io account thought that was going to happen. In case that wasn't clear, the grandfathering *would* be in effect if the original owners-pay proposal takes effect instead. <<< While we don't know if this is the last time anything gets grandfathered (due to some change) or not, grandfathering would not cease to be in effect for existing grandfathered groups regardless of solution; per Mark (4th topic message) they would stay legacy and would not be subject to the membership-cap+charge plans presented; they will stay as they are, no caps, and any Groups.io member can join them for free. But those groups' members would indeed be subject to the new rules when they attempt to join non-grandfathered groups, but then again we don't have anything like user grandfathering. Cheers,
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
txercoupemuseum.org
I fail to see the distinction you imply here. If “the rules” change for group OWNERS, obviously those changes apply to their subscribers. The platform hosting them can and will implement changes in the relationship over time (just like your bank); and, yes, those changes CAN affect subscribers. But, in most cases with grandfathered groups, subscribers, at least in mine, remain relatively ignorant of the intricacies of Groups.io.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I would go so far as to say NONE of my subscribers have ever investigated other groups within Groups,io with the idea of perhaps joining them. Just not an issue, from my experience. You, of course, have found a number of groups of similar interest that “cross-pollenate”. Fine, but, in my humbug’s;e opinion the ability to do so is certainly NOT an unlimited, “grandffathered member.user/subscriber right”. It is an incidental privilege subject to modification at any time in any manner by either Groups.io OR the group owner. Subscribers have NO rights other than as the group owner chooses to grant them, and those are obviously constrained by the realities of the platform hosting them. Best, WRB —
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 04:24 PM, txercoupemuseum.org wrote:
Group owners should know that their provider can and will implement changes as necessary for a platform to remain viable, or even make a profit. There are the “natural prerequisites" of ownership. Any and all expectations to the contrary are simply irrelevant.Exactly right. Owners. Not "users" or "members." -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
txercoupemuseum.org
We need to keep our eyes on "the ball” here. Groups.oi serves OWNERS. Group owners, serve their subscribers.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Group owners should know that their provider can and will implement changes as necessary for a platform to remain viable, or even make a profit. There are the “natural prerequisites" of ownership. Any and all expectations to the contrary are simply irrelevant. I, for one, have never contemplated my members joining other groups. Most of them see no difference whatsoever in being in Groups.io as opposed to being in Yahoo groups, and that’s fine with me. Best! WRB —
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
Bob Bellizzi
Yahoo , once it was the top internet company, cconsistently snatched defeat from the jaws of victory over the rest of its' history.
They even outdid Sperry Rand in that regard. If ever you want a company to bleed technology,money and good people, stuff your board of directors with ex Yahoo directors. They either broke or butchered every product they acquired. -- Bob Bellizzi
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
In case that wasn't clear, the grandfathering *would* be in effect if the original owners-pay proposal takes effect instead.
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
My interpretation is that the grandfathering would immediately cease to be in effect because the new proposal affects all group members. Even if a group itself is grandfathered in, members may have to start paying to join other groups. Nobody who created a groups.io account thought that was going to happen.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Jan 9, 2021, at 2:30 PM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 03:02 PM, billsf9c wrote:
Grandfathering, once in place, cannot end without the Grandad itself - IO proper, endingI was thinking more along the lines of a company acquiring GIO. There are many cases of major changes when a new company is in charge of a business. Just look at Yahoo, from the time Mark sold groups to them to where they ended up. Duane
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
txercoupemuseum.org
Hi Dwayne,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
You said (in part): "While I do appreciate the grandfathering that is in place, at some point I expect it to end. Maybe not while Mark is in charge (hopefully for a long time ;>), but someday.” Back many years ago when I lived in California there was an older “tax reformer” by the name of Howard Jarvis that managed to get passed (by the referendum process) an absolute limit on property tax increases for homeowners. It was called “Proposition 13”. After all the hue and cry from the bureaucrats, it took effect. The world didn’t end. They made it a “one-time thing”, so if you didn’t have a home when it [assed, you didn’t get the benefit. When you moved, you couldn’t take it with you. So, over time, it made less and less difference to government finances. In the same sense, over time, grandfathered groups will make up less and less of the demographics of Groups.io to the point their existence won’t make that much difference. There is no reason Mark can’s put “growth limits” on grandfathered groups, since there IS an operational in redistributing lots of emails to subscribers. He might even require, at some point, that “free groups” mandate digest delivery (less operational burden). In short, there is no intrinsic reason that grandfathering has to end. Like all things it can be managed, in terms of cost. Best! WRB —
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
billsf9c
> While I do appreciate the grandfathering that is in place, at some point I expect it to end.
Grandfathering, once in place, cannot end without the Grandad itself - IO proper, ending - dying - being scuttled in-totality... Furture Grandfathering can be removed for the future potential recipients - but never going backwards. Otherwise, it was never Grandfathering in the first place. That said, some sort of honorarium can be calculated for those that wish to pay or partially pay or ignore. At some point, Mark could entreaty "us" to pay that and be gifted some small perk. BillSF9c
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
Jeremy H
Some of the recent posts seem to be trying to avoid the fundamentals: Groups.io has to be paid (or it will go the way of Yahoo groups); that payment has to be, in some combination, by groups owners and members; payment of individual group memberships (55cents a time on Mark's proposal) cannot be economically made; and that, as Mark has decided (thanks!) that existing groups have their current charges 'grandfathered' without increase, new groups will have to pay more than might be regarded as their fair share (and I would also suggest that existing, long standing, groups cause more than their fair share of costs).
I struggle to think that there is a better (read: less bad) way forward than - essentially - Samuel's proposal:
(The eagle eyed might spot what I have (implicitly) added to Samuel's idea: the concept of larger basic groups, where owners pay for more members, but not more features. But this is an extra option,which would reduce simplicity, and might not be worth it) Jeremy
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
Scott Chase
ro-esp,
You over-snipped two different concerns that I had. I would prefer not ANY members be forced a charge, but rather enable members an easy way to contribute/donate directly. But, if Groups.io does ultimately FORCE a member charge, I don't want some members charged and others not charged.
Here's what I said...
RE: Once the free member slots are filled up, someone wishing to be a new member of the group would have to pay a yearly fee to Groups.io.
Scott
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
ro-esp
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 06:26 PM, Scott Chase wrote:
No one will join any group if Groups.io develops a reputation of[snip] If something must be done for Groups.io to survive, I'd prefer...sounds like a contradiction If payment is necessary, it needs to be per group and/or per group-administrator, so you don't chase people to googlegroups, groupworks, cubits.org or riseup.net, and you don't have to keep track of a million payments per year As it is now, only owners are able to give Mark money. I still think aDefinitely! Linked to a normal bankaccount for those who don't have a creditcard [sorry if what I say was already said/adressed] groetjes/ĝis, Ronaldo
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Fw: Re: [beta] Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
Leeni <leeniluvsgroups2@...>
-------Original Message-------
And the refund issue is orders of magnitude more complicated when members pay. There are synchronization issue between confirmation, pending questionnaires for restricted groups, multiple vs single groups, etc.
For me its a dealbreaker. It radically changed the entire model and what we’re all doing here. But that’s just me. On Jan 9, 2021, at 9:07 AM, Sandi D <sandi.asgtechie@...> wrote: On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 10:21 AM, J_Catlady wrote: I think it would be clearly unethical for a member to pay for a year's worth of a group, get kicked out, and not get their money back. What happens to groups who have paid and get closed down for not following the rules? If a member of a group has paid $3-5 a year for an individual GIO account, they can join a different group. Maybe they have learned their lesson after the banned behavior. I have paid many a $69 a year no refund fee for a service I was not satisfied with. I don't think a non refundable $5 a year for an individual account is going to break anyone. They aren't banned from GIO. They have all their GIO benefits including joining another group. The optional model of allowing individuals to become paid supporters of GIO is in addition to the optional model of allowing group owner to become paid supporters of GIO. If the groups I helped create are forced to pay at any point they will leave GIO. If the members in those groups are given the option to pay at any point, many will continue on as members and the created groups they are in will remain as groups and attract more paying and non paying members. Someone has to pay. Allowing both group owners and GIO account holders the option to pay seems like it should be reasonably to considered. -- Sandi Dickenson -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
Mark obviously has the actual figures, but of the 21 groups I am
subscribed to only 2 are below 100 members, 11 below the 500 Premium level and the biggest has 5000 members. Virtually all volunteer groups whose owners could not afford the cost of Premium and most members would just leave if they had to pay. Incidentally one of my groups now does most of its communication via Wattsapp (but not me, I don't have a smartphone). Dave On 9 Jan 2021 at 9:09, Duane wrote: Based on Mark's comments and some research on my part, large groups are http://davesergeant.com
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
Glenn Glazer
On 01/09/2021 04:27, David M wrote:
In reading this proposal and the comments, one thing that seems not to be addressed is the situation where groups.io is used as a mailing list handler only. The members of the group do not actually ever login to the system. They are just subscribed and send/receive e-mail. Absolutely. All of my groups are like this. None of them would see any value in membership except the occasional file retrieval. Best, Glenn --
PG&E Delenda Est
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
The various proposed models are now do varied that I have no idea any more which one we’re discussing at this point. Yes, yes, I know, Samuels idea, but which variation of it as mentioned in this thread? So I will not comment further. I’ll just have to wai and see what comes out of this in the end.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Jan 9, 2021, at 9:27 AM, Sandi D <sandi.asgtechie@...> wrote:
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
Glenn Glazer
On 01/09/2021 09:08, Samuel Murrayy
wrote:
But you make a good point: I believe there are certain types of groups where people typically join only for a month or two (or for 6 or 9 months), before leaving again, so this possibility needs to be taken into account. When we were in Canada once for a conference, word got out that a local cell phone shop was offering free phones and a large number of minutes for free with a no-questions money back guarantee. Since all of us were only going to be there for a week, you can imagine what happened. Best, Glenn --
PG&E Delenda Est
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
Sandi D <sandi.asgtechie@...>
It would seem to me this is very simple.
If a group owner wanted a premium group and wanted to pay the cost of additional members over the tier's limits that group owner could do so and no members would be paying. Ditto for basic groups. They could updgrade to Premium and no members would have to pay. If on the other hand a group owner chose not to pay for additional members over the allowed limit, then they could continue to attract members who have opted to have paid individual GIO accounts. A group owner would not have to leave GIO because they could not afford to pay for the group and did not want to collect money and manage a mechanism to pay GIO for their group. I also think a 30 day free individual membership should be considered. If the person did get banned or finds they don't like the groups they joined, no money is lost. After 30 days, if they choose to pay $5, they have had plenty of time to know what they are "signing up for" and had plenty of value for the past 30 days that were free. I can't think of any other service less than $3-5 a month. $3-5 a year is an extraordinary value and would bring in significant untapped revenue. I also would like to see a donation button for those wanting to give more than $5 a year so we don't have to create a group just to donate. -- Sandi Dickenson
|
|||
|
|