Date   

moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

Leeni, I think that’s a slightly diffrent issue. People would be unable to join any group after it has reached its limit even under Mark’s proposal.it’s not a matter of paying to join the group or whether or not it’s free. It’s a subtle difference.


On Jan 12, 2021, at 3:43 PM, Leeni <leeniluvsgroups2@...> wrote:


To add to that..........
"I am going to do a search for kitty groups and maybe I can join one for free. Why should I have to pay for XYZ Kitty group when there are others with probably many of the same members that I can join without paying anything." 
 
 
 
 
-------Original Message-------
 
From: J_Catlady
Date: 1/12/2021 5:20:29 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Samuel's Paid User Proposal
 
Glenn gets it right here. And imagine the confusion, if not anger. “I just joined the xyz kitties group, it’s great, highly recommended.” They post this within another group, and members of that group start applying for membership in the fabulous xyz kitties group. But wait! “Hey, I just applied there and had to pay for some general groups.io membership!” “What are you talking about? That didn’t happen to me.” “ Maybe they are rejecting you?” Etc etc etc Multi-person conversation. 


On Jan 12, 2021, at 2:51 PM, Glenn Glazer <glenn.glazer@...> wrote:


On 01/12/2021 14:40, J_Catlady wrote:
p.s. You think people don't talk to each other? At least in the cats groups world, and no doubt in other universes as well, people are always yabbing to each other about which group they just joined, which group they recommend, etc.
--
J

Relying on people to not conspire with each other is not a safe approach.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est

--
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

 

--
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

Leeni
 

To add to that..........
"I am going to do a search for kitty groups and maybe I can join one for free. Why should I have to pay for XYZ Kitty group when there are others with probably many of the same members that I can join without paying anything." 
 
 
 
 

-------Original Message-------
 
From: J_Catlady
Date: 1/12/2021 5:20:29 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Samuel's Paid User Proposal
 
Glenn gets it right here. And imagine the confusion, if not anger. “I just joined the xyz kitties group, it’s great, highly recommended.” They post this within another group, and members of that group start applying for membership in the fabulous xyz kitties group. But wait! “Hey, I just applied there and had to pay for some general groups.io membership!” “What are you talking about? That didn’t happen to me.” “ Maybe they are rejecting you?” Etc etc etc Multi-person conversation. 


On Jan 12, 2021, at 2:51 PM, Glenn Glazer <glenn.glazer@...> wrote:


On 01/12/2021 14:40, J_Catlady wrote:
p.s. You think people don't talk to each other? At least in the cats groups world, and no doubt in other universes as well, people are always yabbing to each other about which group they just joined, which group they recommend, etc.
--
J

Relying on people to not conspire with each other is not a safe approach.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est

--
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 03:20 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
They post this within another group, and members of that group start applying for membership in the fabulous xyz kitties group
And BTW, this happens all the time. It's one main way people find out about a lot of the cats groups.
 
--
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

 

Glenn gets it right here. And imagine the confusion, if not anger. “I just joined the xyz kitties group, it’s great, highly recommended.” They post this within another group, and members of that group start applying for membership in the fabulous xyz kitties group. But wait! “Hey, I just applied there and had to pay for some general groups.io membership!” “What are you talking about? That didn’t happen to me.” “ Maybe they are rejecting you?” Etc etc etc Multi-person conversation. 


On Jan 12, 2021, at 2:51 PM, Glenn Glazer <glenn.glazer@...> wrote:


On 01/12/2021 14:40, J_Catlady wrote:
p.s. You think people don't talk to each other? At least in the cats groups world, and no doubt in other universes as well, people are always yabbing to each other about which group they just joined, which group they recommend, etc.
--
J

Relying on people to not conspire with each other is not a safe approach.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est

--
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

 

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

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. 


This should be fixed now.

Thanks,
Mark 


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Glenn Glazer
 

On 01/12/2021 14:40, J_Catlady wrote:
p.s. You think people don't talk to each other? At least in the cats groups world, and no doubt in other universes as well, people are always yabbing to each other about which group they just joined, which group they recommend, etc.
--
J

Relying on people to not conspire with each other is not a safe approach.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est


moderated Re: Mobile/desktop menu flip #bug

Bruce Bowman
 

Thanks for the explanation, Mark. Sparked a few questions in GMF.  

The system still needs a little tweaking. See attached screenshot on what I get when the viewport is exactly 1239.

Bruce


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

p.s. You think people don't talk to each other? At least in the cats groups world, and no doubt in other universes as well, people are always yabbing to each other about which group they just joined, which group they recommend, etc.
--
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

 

Wording does not solve this problem IMHO. It is what it is and everyone is going to find out what's really going on.
--
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: Mobile/desktop menu flip #bug

 

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 12:58 PM Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...> wrote:
I've noticed today that my display flips to the mobile "hamburger" menus at a screen width below around 1237 pixels (100% zoom). Could have sworn that number was considerably lower not too long ago.

Is this a recent change...and if so, was it intentional?


It was an intentional change that went in yesterday, as part of my app work. Viewing the site on an iPad in portrait mode was not great, with the group sidebar taking up a sizeable chunk of display space. That's why I changed it. I also improved the behavior of the hamburger menus; they're now drawers that slide in from the side.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

J,


This creates a direct connection between a specific group, on the one hand, and a member having, or wanting, to get a paid membership, on the other.  And this is what I mean by the space warping around groups.

Perhaps the gravity of the situation could be mitigated by the wording of the notice. It could say that unfortunately that group has no free slots available, but you can purchase a pass to join any group, including that one, ...
I think that's better than simply telling them "you cannot join because the group is full" and then letting them figure out how to contact someone, or if they should even bother. That's not just a warp, that's a brick wall*. Any response that suggests that they contact the group's owner would create a lot of extra work for the owner, which I I would rather avoid.


And on top of that, their neighbor in the next seat might have gotten in free. 

So?

Neither member would be aware of how the other got into the group, unless they got into gossiping. Yes, I understand the problem that some members might think that they've got stars upon thars, but the moral of that particular story is that there really isn't a difference.

Nor is it a problem really if everyone decides to buy themselves a star - more money for the guy with the star machine (whether that be the group owner, or Mark, depending on what someone thinks is a star).

Shal
*A conceptual relative to a black hole, except it keeps you out instead of keeping you in.


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

 

I just confirmed this bug by going into a group where I'm a mod but not an owner.
--
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 banned spamming email address attempted message logged as coming from "unconfirmed member" #bug

 

A couple of days ago, my group logged an obviously spam attempted message from nonmember email address X. I immediately banned the address.

This morning there was another log entry from the same address, this time logged as from "unconfirmed member x." The email address has an NC in the banned member list but this is not an "unconfirmed member," it's a banned email address.

The term "unconfirmed member" really threw me at first and I started looking through the pending member list. So hopefully this can be changed to log as "message from banned email address" or something like that.
--
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 Mobile/desktop menu flip #bug

Bruce Bowman
 

I've noticed today that my display flips to the mobile "hamburger" menus at a screen width below around 1237 pixels (100% zoom). Could have sworn that number was considerably lower not too long ago.

Is this a recent change...and if so, was it intentional?

Thanks,
Bruce


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

And on top of that, their neighbor in the next seat might have gotten in free. 


On Jan 12, 2021, at 12:38 PM, J_Catlady via groups.io <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

Shal,
Here is the connection between member payment and specific group - from Mark's original message in this thread:
"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."

This creates a direct connection between a specific group, on the one hand, and a member having, or wanting, to get a paid membership, on the other.  And this is what I mean by the space warping around groups. People would not be just signing up for a yearly paid membership in groups.io, no matter what groups they want to join, and no matter whether or not those groups are "full." People would try to join a group, discover that it's at its limit, and THEN have to pay groups.io in order to join it. In all respects except technically, that's the same as someone paying to join a specific group.  

--
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


--
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

 

Shal,
Here is the connection between member payment and specific group - from Mark's original message in this thread:
"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."

This creates a direct connection between a specific group, on the one hand, and a member having, or wanting, to get a paid membership, on the other.  And this is what I mean by the space warping around groups. People would not be just signing up for a yearly paid membership in groups.io, no matter what groups they want to join, and no matter whether or not those groups are "full." People would try to join a group, discover that it's at its limit, and THEN have to pay groups.io in order to join it. In all respects except technically, that's the same as someone paying to join a specific group.  

--
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

Scott Chase
 

What I am strongly opposed to is a new member payment NOT tied to a specific group, that would be required to even access any groups that are grandfathered, free Basic and/or already sponsored and paid for by owners. Not tying a member payment to a specific group implies that the requirement for a new Groups.io user access fee is system wide.
 
I have a tiny grandfathered Basic Group that I personally paid $220 to migrate. If any of my current or even future members are forced to pay a user fee in order to just gain access to Groups.io, my free content is then behind a new paywall and my group will die.

None of my members will pay Groups.io a fee to access my group content. Not one of them. I'm OK with encouraging voluntary donations to Mark or donations to owners of premium groups, but I am not OK with any kind of Groups.io paywall that puts all groups behind a ubiquitous system-wide user-access fee.
 
Scott


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

J,


Shal is diametrically opposed to Mark’s original idea, in which only owners pay, in that case. 

Yes.

I recognize that Mark will almost certainly follow through with his original Pricing Changes, but I'm opposed to it alone (without adding Samuel's proposal or other mitigations).


Also please don’t put words in my mouth. ... What I am strongly opposed to is member payment being tied to a specific group or groups.

I didn't think I had.

So, what do you mean by "member payment tied to a specific group or groups"? I'm not aware that such a thing is under consideration.

As I understand it the only payments tied to specific groups are in Mark's original Pricing Changes: the base fee for Premium and Enterprise groups, plust the per-member fees charged to those groups above the base number of members. But those are payments made by the group, not the member.

Samuel's proposal (this Topic) is that fees paid directly to Groups.io by the member will be for membership "at large" - the user with a paid account can join any number of groups irrespective of that group's available "free slots".

Shal


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Joanie
 

I know I'm a little late to this proposal but I'm wondering what problems are being solved by changing the payment strategy. If the problem is disk space cost then charge more for space. If basic operating costs like server hosting and advanced feature development is a problem then charge more for the base cost if groups have a larger resource footprint. We are charitable organization and we do raise money to help pay for our costs and we have memberships to provide extra benefits to our members like discounts to event tickets. We really like groups.io but I think what it is lacking is a membership model and donation capability. If there was a membership model so that groups could charge some of their users a fee for more benefits like adding them to certain forums then groups could raise the necessary funds to pay groups.io for the services. Donation capability would also help.

Another interesting idea is to structure a storage space allocation by user and charge the user based on their specific storage usage. Free users get a fixed amount (50MB) and members of each group have an adder placed on their membership for the amount of storage space they request. This way the group gets their membership fee and groups.io gets their storage cost fee.

This type of model requires very little administration and allows small footprint groups to exist for free or for a very small fee. This allows small groups to flourish and hopefully some of then will flourish into larger groups and thus more revenue for groups.io. It provides those groups who need more capability to collect revenue from their users in terms of memberships and provides a way for groups.io to collect revenue from these memberships. groups.io could charge a membership fee of 5% and then a surcharge for member space usage. All the administrator would need to do is set up the membership levels and turn on the donation module to get it working. Then send out announcements to their community and post the information on their websites or social media. Members would be self managed with reminders for membership renewal and possibly an autopay feature which is a great tool to retain members.

I think this type of model would provide a foundation to reduce barriers to entry, encourage growth and also increase revenue. I would definitely support this type of model from the administration side, user side and hopefully it makes sense to groups.io and keeps it financially viable.

Just my 2 cents.

Hugs,

Joanie


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

Shal is diametrically opposed to Mark’s original idea, in which only owners pay, in that case. 

Also please don’t put words in my mouth. I never said things “must” be one way or the other. My feeling is that that would be the best and the simplest. I said that I would not be opposed to a hybrid. What I am strongly opposed to is member payment being tied to a specific group or groups.


On Jan 12, 2021, at 9:34 AM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:


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


--
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

3061 - 3080 of 30664