Date   

moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Joanie
 

We run a non-profit organization which provides socialization opportunities for people with a secret alternative lifestyle. You could think of this as a secret society for those who are not "out" yet to the world. Our members consist of both people who are totally "out", partially "out" and totally in the closet. We raise money through donations and memberships to fund the organization. Most of our members are in the totally "out" or partially "out" category. Some of our members cannot use credit card transactions for fear of being outed. For us, the paid levels of service for the entire group is almost a requirement so that people who need total privacy can join the group with only a secondary email address to protect their real identity. A number of our members start out totally in the closet and then over time progress towards being totally out. Some always stay where they started in the privacy ladder.  I understand that existing groups might be "grandfathered in", which is great, but that also provides a slippery slope for future changes as we loose people who were part of the decision making and made promises to user groups.

I'm not sure how we would manage the free vs. paid members of our group so that we had sufficient free memberships for those that need it. We would need to be able to convert the free users, who progress to lower levels of privacy management, to paid users to maintain a sufficient pool of free user slots. I think we can overcome this from an admin side but we would need some tools to monitor the number of remaining free slots and we would need to send messages to free users so that we can encourage some to be converted to paid members when the pool gets low. Having our totally "out" members pay their existing organization membership fee and then a groups.io fee would "double tap" these people for money. I know it's a very little amount but it does create two things to occur. Maybe our organization would have a way to pay the groups.io fee for our paid members using the membership money we collect.

Right now, our paid memberships and fundraisers generate enough revenue to cover the costs of the Premium membership level. I know that every group is different and accommodating all these various use cases is difficult. I'm just trying to provide some insight to this particular use case.

Regards,

Joanie


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 03:25 PM, Duane wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 05:10 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
in fact is already doing that by allowing for donations
But not on Basic groups. 
As I said, maybe it could be enhanced.
 
--
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: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

And I am fine with Mark’s original plan, which I said as the first responder in his thread and have reaffirmed ever since. I have been responding in THIS thread to Mark’s *explicit request* for any problems anyone sees with Samuel’s proposal. 


On Jan 11, 2021, at 3:25 PM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 05:10 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
in fact is already doing that by allowing for donations
But not on Basic groups.  The method being discussed allows anyone to 'buy-in' to support GIO, owner or not, but IS NOT required.

I maybe wrong, and Mark should correct me if I am, but the new pricing plan goes into effect on the 18th - period.  Any additions/changes, such as this proposal, would come into being at a later date if/when the comments are 'digested' and the programming is done.

Duane

--
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: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Duane
 

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 05:10 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
in fact is already doing that by allowing for donations
But not on Basic groups.  The method being discussed allows anyone to 'buy-in' to support GIO, owner or not, but IS NOT required.

I maybe wrong, and Mark should correct me if I am, but the new pricing plan goes into effect on the 18th - period.  Any additions/changes, such as this proposal, would come into being at a later date if/when the comments are 'digested' and the programming is done.

Duane


moderated Re: Calendar Add/Edit Reminder issues #suggestion #bug

 

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 2:32 PM Christos G. Psarras <christos@...> wrote:
Hi Mark,

Thanks for the quick response!

One question, just to clarify;

>>> This has been fixed. Setting a negative time results in the reminder being ignored. 

So a 0-minutes before reminder still is allowed and happens, right?

No. Anything less than 1 minute before the event is ignored.


Mark 


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 01:18 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
context of this topic I think what you're saying is that you as a group member wouldn't use Samual's Paid User Proposal. That's ok, Samuel's proposal doesn't require it of you. Going back to Mark's original post in this topic, maybe some kind-hearted group owner will allocate you a subscription from the "free member slots" they've purchased (plan base fee plus add-on per-member fee).
Since people are contacting me offlist now, I've been forced out from under my rock again and am going to answer: I don't see Samuel's proposal in any way equivalent to the Meetup situation or any other situation where only group owners are charged by the system. Even in Meetup (not that I'm putting Meetup out there as anything to emulate, but just as something that allowed me to feel what it would have hypothetically been like to have been charged by the platform, which would have been unacceptable) - even in Meetup, group members are not charged *by the system*. The system merely facilitates the group owner asking them for payment or donation. In Samuel's proposal members are charged by the system unless they manage to be comp'd in by the owner.

My sole objection is to group members being charged by the platform itself. I feel strongly that groups.io should only charge owners. It would be fine for groups.io to make things easier for group owners who want to pass that cost along to willing members, and it in fact is already doing that by allowing for donations. Perhaps that could be enhanced somehow. But that is a far cry from groups.io directly charging non-owner 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


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Jeremy H
 

If you have a 'number of members' based charging scheme, then members become a cost, that someone has to pay.

In Mark's original scheme, this would fall solely on group owners. Some will be happy with this, some will not.

The advantage of Samuel's proposal is that it permits group owners who are happy to pay to do so; and provides a means for those who are not to have groups in which the members pick up the cost.

As such - giving group owners the choice - it's the better option.

Jeremy


moderated Re: Calendar Add/Edit Reminder issues #suggestion #bug

Andy Wedge
 

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:32 PM, Christos G. Psarras wrote:
So a 0-minutes before reminder still is allowed and happens, right?
Surely a '0 minutes before' #cal-reminder is actually a #cal-notice! :-)

Andy


moderated Re: Calendar Add/Edit Reminder issues #suggestion #bug

 

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the quick response!

One question, just to clarify;

>>> This has been fixed. Setting a negative time results in the reminder being ignored. 

So a 0-minutes before reminder still is allowed and happens, right?

Cheers,
Christos


moderated Re: Calendar Add/Edit Reminder issues #suggestion #bug

 

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 5:56 PM Christos G. Psarras <christos@...> wrote:

This is a combination of two separate but related issues in the Reminders section of the Event Add/Edit screen.

Please refer to this topic: https://groups.io/g/Group_Help/topic/events_calendar_reminders/79560226

The bug part; the "minutes before" duration textbox and/or underlying code allows the user to add/edit and save a Reminder with zero or negative values as the "minutes before" duration, no check or validation is done.  Duane tested the actual notice-generation event part, and it results in notices sent out after the event has transpired; a 0-min reminder's notice came 5 minutes after the event (the 5 must be significant because that's the default textbox display value when one adds a new reminder).  These are non-desired results.

This has been fixed. Setting a negative time results in the reminder being ignored. 

The suggestion part; as you'll note in the above linked topic, the current Reminder frame's element layout can foster some ambiguity/fuzziness on adding/editing Reminders for Calendar-inexperienced folk (myself included at first look at it), coupled with thin/insufficient/unclear user-manual Calendar how-to info.  From a screen POV, my suggestion would be to rearrange the elements a bit or add some visible separator/delimiter, something to make absolutely clear the checkbox is not related whatsoever to the button above it or the AddReminder process, maybe something like in the attached.  Or alternatively maybe leave as is but change the checkbox to say "Send Reminder" instead of "Send Notice"?  Not sure which tweak(s) would work the best, but some tweak would help to make things crystal-clear. 

I've made the changes. Thanks for the clear, illustrated suggestion!

Mark 


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

I'm going to unfollow again now.
--
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: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 01:18 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
exactly like the situation under Mark's original proposal,
Yes. As I've said (frequently;), Mark's original proposal was fine with me even if it needs some tweaking as to amounts and/or limits.

you as a group member wouldn't use Samual's Paid User Proposal.
Yes because that's what THIS thread is about.

Going back to Mark's original post in this topic, maybe some kind-hearted group owner will allocate you a subscription from the "free member slots" they've purchased (plan base fee plus add-on per-member fee).
I see the two proposals as separate and I see Samuel's proposal as ruining the original one.
 
--
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: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

I see from this that Autofollow Replies takes precedence over Mute This Topic lol.


On Jan 11, 2021, at 1:18 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:


J,


A couple of years ago Meetup, which was formerly free, started to charge group owners a yearly fee. It provided group owners with a means of charging their members, but members were free to pay or not pay.

That sounds exactly like the situation under Mark's original proposal, plus a mechanism for voluntary payments by members (which I and others suggested).

There is no way I would have stayed in Meetup  if I, as a member, had had to pay a yearly fee simply to belong to the platform.

In the context of this topic I think what you're saying is that you as a group member wouldn't use Samual's Paid User Proposal. That's ok, Samuel's proposal doesn't require it of you. Going back to Mark's original post in this topic, maybe some kind-hearted group owner will allocate you a subscription from the "free member slots" they've purchased (plan base fee plus add-on per-member fee).

Shal


--
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: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

J,


A couple of years ago Meetup, which was formerly free, started to charge group owners a yearly fee. It provided group owners with a means of charging their members, but members were free to pay or not pay.

That sounds exactly like the situation under Mark's original proposal, plus a mechanism for voluntary payments by members (which I and others suggested).

There is no way I would have stayed in Meetup  if I, as a member, had had to pay a yearly fee simply to belong to the platform.

In the context of this topic I think what you're saying is that you as a group member wouldn't use Samual's Paid User Proposal. That's ok, Samuel's proposal doesn't require it of you. Going back to Mark's original post in this topic, maybe some kind-hearted group owner will allocate you a subscription from the "free member slots" they've purchased (plan base fee plus add-on per-member fee).

Shal


moderated Re: Pricing/Availability for mobile app #misc

Joanie
 

Duane, thanks for the pointer to the app release info.

Sandi,

I would like to keep in touch and see what you find out. You can send me private email at joanie.m.nightingale if you like. I've got a requirements document that I could share with you.

thanks so much for the response and I'm glad to see that other people are frustrated with finding a platform to support generic private club type volunteer groups.

Our group is a registered non-profit. Groups.io has worked for us but it really lacks a membership model, event ticket purchase, text chat, video chat and the mobile app. We've been plugging these holes with other apps and spreadsheets. We have a website that we use as our main presence on the web and interested parties are made members of the groups.io main group which we call our community. Our community group is broken down into various subgroups (board, volunteers, members, event specific planning, special interest groups(SIGs)). Each has need to calendar meetings and or events. Some events require purchasing tickets and some do not. members are those community members that have a paid membership and receive discounts on events. we have two levels of membership, single and couples. Volunteers are members from our community that help to plan and work at events. event specific planning are temporary groups that are set up for the duration of the event from conception to a final what we learned meeting and membership consists of all volunteers involved in that specific event. Then event planning files are archived for next year's team to look at. SIGs are groups that our members can self subscribe to for different activities like meetup groups (foodie, clubbing, skiing, golfing, ....). Each SIG has an community member that "owns" the group and does the admin. The board is our board of directors.

Our members have strong privacy requirements so that's why we can't use tools like facebook for our platform. We really like the groups.io model where each member can choose to either hide, or make visible, their profile. Currently we have 500 in our community but we think there is bloat there from inactive people. We have about 120 paid memberships and host 4 paid events per year.

Our younger members are really looking for a mobile device app because email is so antiquated for them. We would also really like to create an more automatic Facebook and Twitter presence. Right now those are manually and not really that interesting.

Hugs,

Joanie
River City Gems

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 6:09 AM Sandi D <sandi.asgtechie@...> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 10:47 PM, Joanie wrote:
We are trying to find another tool to replace groups.io but then I stumbled on this group discussing a mobile app version of groups.io.
How interesting!

I have spent the last week researching existing apps to meet a "generic" club's needs and if it was feasible to design an app for specific groups. There are a number of apps used by clubs and sport teams that might more efficiently replace GIO for some. I have found apps that integrate messages, calendars, membership lists, surveys, etc for 200-500 members. This would effectively replace the "mailing list" use of a basic group with over 100 members but at a lessor cost ranging from $30-80 a year.  I sent some feelers out yesterday to the more promising apps. 

 
--
Sandi Dickenson


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

Another day, another thought. The closest situation to groups.io that I can think of is Meetup. A couple of years ago Meetup, which was formerly free, started to charge group owners a yearly fee. It provided group owners with a means of charging their members, but members were free to pay or not pay. I never owned a group on Meetup but I was formerly a member of a couple of them. And I remember that the member payment was optional per group. There is no way I would have stayed in Meetup  if I, as a member, had had to pay a yearly fee simply to belong to the platform. And I think what it comes down is that's because I, as a mere group member rather than owner, did not have an investment in the groups I belonged to. I could participate as much or as little as I wanted to, I could disappear for long periods of time and come back (and having had to pay for all that time in between would have been a dealbreaker). So in thinking about the general philosophy, equities, and psychology of whether to charge just owners (who then could, if they so desired, request optional reimbursements from members) or charge members directly, I think it comes down to just that: who has the real investment in a group. And that's the owner.

To the person who scolded me a few days ago for posting what I didn't like about Samuel's plan without suggesting remedies ("criticizing without providing solutions," I think he called it), I refer to Mark's original post in this thread. He specifically asked for problems and why it should not be implemented. He did not ask for solutions.

And now I'll go hide under a rock again for the next few days, until something else occurs to me. :-)
--
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: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Duane
 

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 11:59 AM, Paul Kanevsky wrote:
A simple tiered structure could work
That's already covered in the new pricing structure that goes into effect on the 18th, https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/27191

This topic is about the possibility of individual members sharing the costs of running the site so that the entire burden isn't laid on group owners.

Duane


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Paul Kanevsky
 

I own a number of groups, the larger one is just about 5000 users. All hobby-related, some have been in existence for nearly 20 years. I can't see the group membership not falling drastically if members are required to pay individual annual fees. [Mod Note: Again, current groups are considered legacy and their pricing will not change.]

For my groups, I'd rather occasionally beg for donations than have each member deal with this individually. A simple tiered structure could work based on the number of members, something like this:

0-500 members = free (or free with ads)
1000 = $
2500 = $$
5000+ = $$$

It would be good to get a discount for pre-paying for a number of years. I'd rather fund-raise once every few years than every year. As the group exceeds a tier threshold, an additional payment may become required. This seems simple enough for anyone to understand, and the pricing and tiers can be adjusted over time. 

Regards,

   -Paul


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Sandi D <sandi.asgtechie@...>
 

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 09:25 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
I'd like to have a different word than "paid" for these subscriptions, to avoid confusion with subscription slots purchased by the group
Perhaps mirror the same terms as the proposed group tiers. A Basic Member and a Premium Member. 

On another note, I think many are making this overly complicated. Right now if a new group owner were to create a basic group after Jan 18 and the 101st member applied to join a Basic group they can't join. Period. 

The same questions apply. Will they go on a waiting list for a vacancy? Will a non participating member be removed so the new one can join? Will the group owner elect to upgrade to Premium? If so, will all members now be forced to contribute to that cost? Who pays the $0.55 per member cost that is being proposed over the Premium capped member limit. 

Under the proposed plan of GIO paid account holders the GIO account holder would have the option to apply and be approved to join a Basic group as member 101. Nothing would change for any of the other existing group members nor for the owner of that Basic group if the group accepted their 101st member in this way.

Ditto for Premium groups for potential member 401. 

What this proposal does is to allow GIO account holders to join newly created groups that they otherwise could not join due to member caps. 

If right now, today, Mark had grandfathered legacy group owners in and said the legacy group could not increase membership, would you see things differently?

Please try to put yourself in the proposed new group owner's shoes. They want member 101 or member 401. Member 101 and Member 401 want to join. Members 101, 401 and upwards are willing to pay $3, $5, $10, etc a year to be able to join the myriad of GIO groups that will be created with membership caps after Jan 18th. 

After Jan 18, new group owners have tough choices. Who gets removed so as not to exceed 100 or 400? Who gets admitted if more than one person applies for their remaining slot?

After Jan 18 GIO account holders have a rough time of it. Applying for groups and being denied because it would send the group over their member limit. Keep searching in the hopes that a group under their member limits will be found. Or deciding to not use and not to recommend GIO because the groups they found and want to join are capped. 

I don't recall any other group/forum service that allowed individuals to create a personal account and then allows them to search for groups they are interested in and then, after applying, are told, "Sorry our group is full, you can't join until we have a vacant slot".

I think some group owners may not realize that people come to GIO, create their account and then search for groups to join. I did that. I searched, found and join existing groups long before I ever created a group.

I have read many a discussion from group owners about the GIO search process and how they aren't found as easily as they used to be. It's people with individual accounts that are joining groups. GIO needs individual account holders to remain viable under "a search to join group model. It seems to me that a good number of group owners opposing Samuels proposal envision GIO soley as a Hosting Platform for group owners.

Discussing Samuels proposal is about finding a way that would allow GIO account holders the opportunity to join capped membership groups. It's about offering ways for capped membership groups to grow in membership without forcing either the owner(s) to pay or forcing the owner(s) to collect money from their existing members so they can upgrade and accept member 101 or cover the per member expenses beyond member 400.
 
--
Sandi Dickenson


moderated Re: Pricing/Availability for mobile app #misc

Sandi D <sandi.asgtechie@...>
 

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 10:47 PM, Joanie wrote:
We are trying to find another tool to replace groups.io but then I stumbled on this group discussing a mobile app version of groups.io.
How interesting!

I have spent the last week researching existing apps to meet a "generic" club's needs and if it was feasible to design an app for specific groups. There are a number of apps used by clubs and sport teams that might more efficiently replace GIO for some. I have found apps that integrate messages, calendars, membership lists, surveys, etc for 200-500 members. This would effectively replace the "mailing list" use of a basic group with over 100 members but at a lessor cost ranging from $30-80 a year.  I sent some feelers out yesterday to the more promising apps. 

 
--
Sandi Dickenson

1641 - 1660 of 29180