Date   

moderated Re: Member Page is Blank for Moderators? #bug

Sandra <sancole827@...>
 

As a mod I had permission yesterday, there is nothing in the activity log to indicate any changes, and the owner has not changed any settings. 


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

Jeremy,


The difference being that under Drew's proposals, ALL members would be required to take a paid subscription, to be able to join groups (beyond perhaps a few) whichever groups they are. As such it is the opposite of Mark's proposal - it charges members, instead of group owners.

Ah. I missed the implication that the ability of a group to pay for additional free slots, and even the base-level free slots, would be taken away under Drew's proposal.


And as such it has the same inferiority to Samuel's, which provides for a choice: either the group owner or the member can pay - if neither, then no membership of that group for that member.

Agreed.

I'm diametrically opposed to J's opinion that it must be 100% one or the other - groups are too varied in their purposes and needs for a one-size-fits-all solution to work.

Some group owners would be happy to sponsor (pay for) their entire membership (with or without donations from some members); but would anticipate near zero membership if the members were required to pay Groups.io directly (Drew's plan).

Other group owners cannot manage this and would ask their members to pay Groups.io for an account; but would be limited to their plan's base amount (100, 400, 1000) if there were no paid accounts (Mark's original Pricing Changes).
Shal


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 08:16 AM, Marina wrote:
I can't surely see myself breaking my head over slots and who can or cannot join my group based on his/her paid membership.
That is the biggest downside to Samuel's proposal IMO. If member fees are tied to specific groups it creates all kinds of problems, most of which probably even aren't predictable. But the predictable ones already mentioned in this thread are bad enough.

Member fees completely unrelated to specific groups (as in Drew's idea); or no member fees, just owner fees (possibly tweaked to make them more acceptable to people) seem unencumbered by endless complications.
 
--
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 Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 09:15 AM, monamouroui wrote:
I could see about 30 in the new groups search that are definitely from one person.
It really doesn't look suspicious to me. And i'm suspicious lol.
 
--
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

monamouroui
 

Ok, maybe go look at them. I could see about 30 in the new groups search that are definitely from one person. They might have more. Hopefully Mark has something in place that prevents people from selling groups.

Sara

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 11:46 AM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
I think most (in fact, all) brand-new groups start out with 1 member. 


On Jan 12, 2021, at 8:42 AM, monamouroui <monamouroui@...> wrote:


, go take a look at the "New" groups created over the past couple of weeks since Marks new pricing was announced. Any with 1 member only are place holders getting in on the grandfathered status. 

All those people have to do after Jan 18th is offer to sell their group at a discount to what GIO is charging. Mark gets zero, sneaky entrepreneur gets a small income.

Sara


On Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 10:23 AM Samuel Murrayy <samuelmurray@...> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 03:13 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
As I understand it, in this proposal there's only one price available to a member: $2.50/yr for all the subscriptions they want (maybe there would have to be some cap, but I think it ought to be 10 subscriptions or higher). ... Some people have proposed tiers for paid accounts, maybe even Samuel in other posts (I don't recall)...
Allow me to clarify the $2.50 (I have done so in the original mail, too).  From Mark's new pricing structure I deduced that he would like to earn $0.55 per member per year.  I assumed that most people belong to no more than 2-3 groups (while a relatively very small percentage of people belong to dozens of groups).  And I assumed that a payment portal (e.g. Stripe) is likely to shave off about 50c in transaction fees.  So with this back-of-the-envelope calculations, $2.50 sounded like it could work.

I do not propose nor favour tiers for paid accounts at all.  The $2.50 should be enough to cover all costs.


--
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: Member Page is Blank for Moderators? #bug

 

The mod has to have member-page permissions. Are you sure the mod you’re testing with has that?


On Jan 12, 2021, at 8:43 AM, Sandra <sancole827@...> wrote:

Hi, 

Sometime yesterday, when a moderator clicks on a members name in the membership listing, pending members or past members, they are directed to a blank page. 

There is no information on membership, activity history, email delivery history, notes or owner messages, just a blank page. 

I have checked as an owner and can see all of the member information, but am directed to a blank page as a moderator. No group settings have changed, and I still have access to the membership listing. 

Thanks, 

Sandra

--
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 think most (in fact, all) brand-new groups start out with 1 member. 


On Jan 12, 2021, at 8:42 AM, monamouroui <monamouroui@...> wrote:


Samuel, what's to stop group owners from creating dozens of basic groups before Jan 18 with the hope of having "X" number for free slots per group and duplicating their archives in each group? Particularly on the announcement only groups?

If you think that wouldn't happen, go take a look at the "New" groups created over the past couple of weeks since Marks new pricing was announced. Any with 1 member only are place holders getting in on the grandfathered status. 

All those people have to do after Jan 18th is offer to sell their group at a discount to what GIO is charging. Mark gets zero, sneaky entrepreneur gets a small income.

Sara


On Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 10:23 AM Samuel Murrayy <samuelmurray@...> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 03:13 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
As I understand it, in this proposal there's only one price available to a member: $2.50/yr for all the subscriptions they want (maybe there would have to be some cap, but I think it ought to be 10 subscriptions or higher). ... Some people have proposed tiers for paid accounts, maybe even Samuel in other posts (I don't recall)...
Allow me to clarify the $2.50 (I have done so in the original mail, too).  From Mark's new pricing structure I deduced that he would like to earn $0.55 per member per year.  I assumed that most people belong to no more than 2-3 groups (while a relatively very small percentage of people belong to dozens of groups).  And I assumed that a payment portal (e.g. Stripe) is likely to shave off about 50c in transaction fees.  So with this back-of-the-envelope calculations, $2.50 sounded like it could work.

I do not propose nor favour tiers for paid accounts at all.  The $2.50 should be enough to cover all costs.


--
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 Member Page is Blank for Moderators? #bug

Sandra <sancole827@...>
 

Hi, 

Sometime yesterday, when a moderator clicks on a members name in the membership listing, pending members or past members, they are directed to a blank page. 

There is no information on membership, activity history, email delivery history, notes or owner messages, just a blank page. 

I have checked as an owner and can see all of the member information, but am directed to a blank page as a moderator. No group settings have changed, and I still have access to the membership listing. 

Thanks, 

Sandra


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

monamouroui
 

Samuel, what's to stop group owners from creating dozens of basic groups before Jan 18 with the hope of having "X" number for free slots per group and duplicating their archives in each group? Particularly on the announcement only groups?

If you think that wouldn't happen, go take a look at the "New" groups created over the past couple of weeks since Marks new pricing was announced. Any with 1 member only are place holders getting in on the grandfathered status. 

All those people have to do after Jan 18th is offer to sell their group at a discount to what GIO is charging. Mark gets zero, sneaky entrepreneur gets a small income.

Sara


On Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 10:23 AM Samuel Murrayy <samuelmurray@...> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 03:13 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
As I understand it, in this proposal there's only one price available to a member: $2.50/yr for all the subscriptions they want (maybe there would have to be some cap, but I think it ought to be 10 subscriptions or higher). ... Some people have proposed tiers for paid accounts, maybe even Samuel in other posts (I don't recall)...
Allow me to clarify the $2.50 (I have done so in the original mail, too).  From Mark's new pricing structure I deduced that he would like to earn $0.55 per member per year.  I assumed that most people belong to no more than 2-3 groups (while a relatively very small percentage of people belong to dozens of groups).  And I assumed that a payment portal (e.g. Stripe) is likely to shave off about 50c in transaction fees.  So with this back-of-the-envelope calculations, $2.50 sounded like it could work.

I do not propose nor favour tiers for paid accounts at all.  The $2.50 should be enough to cover all costs.


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Marina
 

Marv Waschke:
I prefer a model where I as owner pay for the service and figure out myself how to pay for the service.

I agree as long as the members limit is lifted or a more affordable pricing introduced.
My group is in the range of 2100 members, at the moment using 29 MB total storage out of 1GB.
I am very thankful to Mark for all the brilliant work and for considering us legacy.

I can envisage raising (or paying myself) something around 200 USD yearly, but anything over that would simply and sadly mean leaving GIO.
I can't surely see myself breaking my head over slots and who can or cannot join my group based on his/her paid membership.
Last but not least, I agree with Catlady when she says:
"I don't think it's reasonable (and/or profitable?) to expect millions of group members to understand and deal with something complicated."
I respectfully wish to remind that GIO has an international membership. We may be a small minority, but not all my members have a good command of English, which makes complicated things even more complicated.


My 2 euro cents,
Marina


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Sandi D <sandi.asgtechie@...>
 

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 06:54 PM, Joanie wrote:
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.
I don't see anything in Samuel's proposal that would change your current way of doing things. You are grandfathered in as a legacy Premium Group. That fact would not change unless you decided to download to Basic or upgrade to Enterprise. Or if legacy groups were no longer grandfathered in at some future point. 

What might change under this proposal, is that some of your group members might favor the option to become paid GIO account holders so that they could join future groups with a capped membership. The choice to use an email address to pay for a GIO account should continue to be theirs alone.

The proposal gives people, including your existing members the option of a paid GIO account and that in turn gives them the ability to join other groups including those with capped membershios. Yes, incidentally if they choose this option, they may or may not show up in your member area as having a badge reflecting their paid GIO account status. I don't see how such a badge would translate into a changed membership role. It merely signifies their desire to pay GIO for a service they value and in return GIO may give them a badge (or perhaps some other benefit outside of the existing benefit of being a member in your group.)

This seems confusing to many current owners. They are of the opinion that they will see a badge or other indication in their member list showing one of their members has opted to obtain a paid GIO account. In their option, if they see such a badge, they feel it places a burden on them. That they need to look differently at members who opt to hold paid GIO accounts. Or perhaps treat them differently. I have yet to understand that rationale. Other than some owners are more protective of "their" members then other owners. Almost to the point of treating their members as property.

Some owners are opposed to the concept of optional paid GIO user accounts and have offered a variety of reasons. So far I have read that some owners feel that the paid GIO account holder will demand more service from the group owner, that others in the group will see the paid account holder as having elevated status in the group, that it will violate the terms the owners set it on place at the time their group was created and that it could violate statue and codes because the person does not hold a license and therefore cannot dispense the information if they are paying in some way. Or things along those lines. 

As a licensed health care professional in a variety of states and the federal systems, and as a former state level Executive Director aware of state codes and statues, my informed opinion is an unlicensed professional cannot dispense "information of a professional body that is defined by statue or code" for free or "for value". Doing so places them in violation. So having a paid account holder within their membership is a moot point.

As for the aurgument of an elevated status, if a badge were to be displayed, it would not be visible to other members of the group unless they were Owners (or Mods with that privilege). Members do not see the badges of other members. Some people dwell more over the issue of "stars" and "no stars". That's human behaviour. We will always have those who want to sow divisiveness. There are mechanisms available to control unwanted behavior. 

In regards to the argument that paid GIO account owners will be more demanding that may be true in the sense that some paid account holders will feel they have more of a voice in the GIO community as a whole. But again, do paid groups have more of a voice than basic groups? It all depends on the issue. Perhaps their GIO support inquires will be elevated above the inquires of free, basic account holders. Whether that comes to pass or not is outside this discussion.  

Then there is the issue that a group created under earlier terms may see those terms as being violated if they admit paid GIO account holders. Admitting members after GIO introduces new terms and policies is not something new. As time goes by and GIO policies change, it's quite possible both groups and account holders will have to comply and "being in compliance" may well change the terms the group operates under or the terms the account holder operates under. 

Some group owners seem to forget that individuals may join GIO with more than one email address. GIO does not inform group owners which of their members have more than one GIO account. As a group owner you may never know that one of your members is using a different email address that is attached to a paid account. It's very possible a discrete person may continue to be a member in your existing legacy group and you will never see evidence of his/her paid account. So all the discussions of having to treat paid GIO account holders is in some ways absurd since you are relying soley on an email address to identify them. 

People may decide to create a mixture of GIO accounts, some free and some paid. Some may use their paid GIO accounts in order to seek out capped membership groups. A person not "out" yet may want to use two different accounts to more freely express their different or conflicting personalities/perspectives in various groups. Some use different GIO accounts to keep family groups separate from professional groups and keep of those separate from transitory hobbies and interests.

I want to thank Mark for allowing individual account holders to weigh in on the proposal. Personally, I am one who will opt in on at least 3 of my GIO accounts, should this proposal be implemented. 

--
Sandi Dickenson


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

M K Ramadoss
 

Whatever Mark decides, the pricing should be simple to administer.
Today it is one billing per group. Increasing the number of billings will exponentially increase workload!
KISS

MKR


On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 9:29 AM Peter Cook <peterscottcook@...> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 10:23 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
Why would one do that unless the plan/proposal is merely a draft?
It's pointless to sit here and debate whose assumptions are correct. One of three things is true: Mark will implement his pricing changes on the 18th, or he won't, or he's still considering input. I'd sure like to know which of those is true.

Pete


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Peter Cook
 

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 10:23 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
Why would one do that unless the plan/proposal is merely a draft?
It's pointless to sit here and debate whose assumptions are correct. One of three things is true: Mark will implement his pricing changes on the 18th, or he won't, or he's still considering input. I'd sure like to know which of those is true.

Pete


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 07:16 AM, Peter Cook wrote:
there are some comments here that seem to imply otherwise.
That would include Mark's, on asking for our input. Why would one do that unless the plan/proposal is merely a draft?
 
--
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

Samuel Murrayy
 

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 03:13 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
As I understand it, in this proposal there's only one price available to a member: $2.50/yr for all the subscriptions they want (maybe there would have to be some cap, but I think it ought to be 10 subscriptions or higher). ... Some people have proposed tiers for paid accounts, maybe even Samuel in other posts (I don't recall)...
Allow me to clarify the $2.50 (I have done so in the original mail, too).  From Mark's new pricing structure I deduced that he would like to earn $0.55 per member per year.  I assumed that most people belong to no more than 2-3 groups (while a relatively very small percentage of people belong to dozens of groups).  And I assumed that a payment portal (e.g. Stripe) is likely to shave off about 50c in transaction fees.  So with this back-of-the-envelope calculations, $2.50 sounded like it could work.

I do not propose nor favour tiers for paid accounts at all.  The $2.50 should be enough to cover all costs.


moderated Re: Subscribers leaving before pricing change #misc

Leeni
 

I  wasn't going to say anything to my groups until this one person wrote to them giving out wrong information. You see not everyone understands what is being written and discussed. Many read what they want to read and it gets bad when they report untruth's back to the groups. The only reason I said anything to my groups was to set the record straight because of what that woman said. Otherwise, it wasn't affecting my groups so there wasn't a need to say a thing.  
 
 
 
 

-------Original Message-------
 
Date: 1/12/2021 9:07:12 AM
Subject: Re: [beta] Subscribers leaving before pricing change #misc
 
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 10:03 AM, Leeni wrote:
She told my members she was leaving because Groups IO was going to be charging owners who have more then 100 members in their group.
Now you've got me wondering whether I should issue a pre-emptive reassurance to my members. I'm going to take this over to GMF.

Pete
 


moderated Re: Subscribers leaving before pricing change #misc

Peter Cook
 


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Peter Cook
 

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 08:49 AM, Duane wrote:
My understanding of this is that the new fee schedule with limited members, will happen on the 18th and is NOT a proposal. 
I thought that was very clear as well. However, there are some comments here that seem to imply otherwise. Here's one: https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/27536 

Mark, it would be helpful to hear from you on this.

Pete


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Samuel Murrayy
 

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 04:07 PM, Samuel Murrayy wrote:
Free members get exactly the same access as paid members.
I must add that it has been suggestion by others (including Mark, I think) that there could be some future possibility of giving paid members extra benefits, but that is somewhere in the future, and nothing prevents Mark from applying such a scheme currently (i.e. give certain members extra privileges based on various characteristics).  This isn't part of my original suggestion.


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Samuel Murrayy
 

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 02:35 AM, monamouroui wrote:
Owners don't even know how to help their members log into their accounts, let alone advise them how to pick from a menu of tiered prices for the privilege of joining a group, and then what? You want to read archives? Pay this. You want to post, not just read what others post? Now pay this. You want access to the files? Pay more.
I have no idea how many additional tiers will be introduced by Mark in future, but my proposal does not introduce additional tiers into the groups themselves.

It is not part of my suggestion that members would be required to pay for access to various services in the group.  One payment gives you access (unless you're a free member) to all of the facilities the owner decides to give you.  Free members get exactly the same access as paid members.  The owner gets no money from Groups.io based on how many free or paid members he has, so there is no incentive or disincentive for him to deny or allow access to services that he would not otherwise have denied or allowed.  In my proposal, it would not be possible for an owner to e.g. give paid members access to e.g. Files but deny free members from accessing it. 

From the owner's day-to-day perspective there is no difference between paid and free members: the only time when it matters whether someone is a free or a paid member, is when a new member tries to join, and the group's free slots are close to filled, or when an existing paid member informs the owner that he is going to stop paying.

(Granted, my proposal does include an exception for paid members whose membership have lapsed, or for free members who want to wait for a free slot to open up, that those people can have reduced access (e.g. they can read messages, but not post), but that is not a core part of the suggestion.)

3101 - 3120 of 30684