Date   

moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

We are going even beyond speculation to even discuss but i would assume that included your future members as well.


On Jan 12, 2021, at 10:19 PM, Scott Chase <Scott.A.Chase@...> wrote:

If only my current members are grandfathered, a $2.50 user paywall would stop any new members from joining my group. It would die. This is why any group member charge (vs system user paywall subscription) needs to be tied to a specific group, as a possible option to help an owner pay for the additional cost of a premium tier.

I sincerely don't want our "grandfathered" group to be a freeloader and would encourage members of our "grandfathered" group to use something like a "Donate to Mark" button.

Scott

--
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

 

Pete,

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
I cited my reason for thinking so at the time: Mark's request that we keep the feedback coming.

A week later and Mark created this topic. That confirms that he's listening and considering. However, it is likely noteworthy that this Proposal incorporates the Pricing Changes as the base, with additional features layered on.

I think that as the implementation date for the Pricing Changes approaches it becomes increasingly reasonable to assume that there won't be any fundamental changes in direction.

Shal


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

Scott,

If only my current members are grandfathered, a $2.50 user paywall
would stop any new members from joining my group. It would die.
Because your group is grandfathered it has an unlimited number of "free slots". Meaning that no one joining it would face a paywall were the OP of this topic implemented.

I don't think Mark would implement something like Drew's proposal (full stop). And certainly not without excluding existing groups from the requirement that new members face a paywall.

Shal


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Scott Chase
 

If only my current members are grandfathered, a $2.50 user paywall would stop any new members from joining my group. It would die. This is why any group member charge (vs system user paywall subscription) needs to be tied to a specific group, as a possible option to help an owner pay for the additional cost of a premium tier.

I sincerely don't want our "grandfathered" group to be a freeloader and would encourage members of our "grandfathered" group to use something like a "Donate to Mark" button.

Scott


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

It’s not clear that the idea is even under consideration by Mark. It’s just something that someone threw out there in this thread. But my assumption would be that whatever the new plan turns out to be, whether Mark’s original plan or Mark’s plan plus Samuel’s or some variation or modification proposed in this thread, all current groups are grandfathered, and that would include their members. 


On Jan 12, 2021, at 9:41 PM, Scott Chase <Scott.A.Chase@...> wrote:

RE: "Second, you're already grandfathered in, as I understand it."
Again, being "already grandfathered" would be inconsequential, if a $2.50 paywall was added in front of us.

--
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
 

RE: "Second, you're already grandfathered in, as I understand it."
Again, being "already grandfathered" would be inconsequential, if a $2.50 paywall was added in front of us.


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 09:00 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
I was going to suggest that perhaps there should be a plan that includes no free slots, for group owners of your persuasion.
I thought of that and immediately blew it off. This whole idea pits groups against each other. "This one is free," "that one charges," 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

 

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 08:51 PM, Scott Chase wrote:
Do any of you who have well-established, huge groups here care at all how this might impact all the many new tiny groups who just recently paid $220 to transfer all our groups over here from free Yahoo?
First of all, I'm not in favor of Drew's "everyone pays $2.50" proposal. I just think it's heaps better than Samuel's proposal where you have to pay to get into a group if you've over the group limit. I think Mark's original, unblemished plan (or proposal, depending on whether you believe it's cast in stone or not - there has been some question about that) is best.

Second, you're already grandfathered in, as I understand it.

And for the record, although it's not relevant, my group is far from huge. And I'm grandfathered in, too. I am just concerned about how Samuel's proposal would affect the forces swirling around groups.io as a whole if people can, or have to, pay to get into groups that are past their limits.
 
--
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,


Right. IMO too complicated, both logistically and politically/psychologically. Better for everyone to pay the yearly $2.50 completely unrelated to any specific group. Drew's suggestion.
 
I was going to suggest that perhaps there should be a plan that includes no free slots, for group owners of your persuasion.

But there's a numeric question that comes into play: In Mark's original Pricing Changes number of included members x the per-member cost equals exactly the base cost of the group (for both Premium and Enterprise, monthly or yearly). Subtracting off the included members would leave a plan cost of zero.

If we exclude Basic and Enterprise groups from this option it may be ok for a type of Premium group to have a zero base cost, or a very nominal one, so long as every member (including the owner) has a paid Groups.io account.

Shal


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Scott Chase
 

"Everyone" paying $2.50 is not better for "everyone". Please, each group has different circumstances. I don't want a $2.50 user paywall added to access my group. It will die. And I suspect that many of the other tiny group owners who don't follow [beta] would probably agree. Do any of you who have well-established, huge groups here care at all how this might impact all the many new tiny groups who just recently paid $220 to transfer all our groups over here from free Yahoo?

Scott


moderated Re: Subscribers leaving before pricing change #misc

SP4149
 

If the new price changes reflect the cost of doing business. large, free lists like mine will not be grandfathered forever, I plan on in two or three years having to become a paid list or quit.
Obviously if upgrading to a paid list will be required not now but in a couple of years, over the next five years it makes sense to upgrade before the price increases.  Most organizations are lucky to keep their promises,
not to change  anything for current members for two years, after three years all bets are off.  I only saw Mark make a promise not to force large free lists to upgrade on Jan 18th.  After that I saw no guarantee that it wouldn't happen in 2022.
Have we seen price changes in recent years? Sure.  Do I expect to see pricing changes in the future after implementation of a new price structure? Yes.  I should also plan accordingly.

ken

RCardona posted:
6:14am   

If a change doesn't affect your group, why would you bother your group with this information until such time that it would?   You're creating anxiety and panic for yourself and your group members without benefit.   I don't get why you did this and then are putting this back on Mark when it doesn't affect your group.

Robert


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

Right. IMO too complicated, both logistically and politically/psychologically. Better for everyone to pay the yearly $2.50 completely unrelated to any specific group. Drew's suggestion.
--
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,


What happens when a group’s member count is at its free limit, a member pays for a year’s worth of groups.io specifically to get into that group, and  a week, a day, or an hour later the group loses two members, bringimg its count down below the free limit?

In my opinion: no refunds. The site would say that before you pay (we're talking about $2.50 here).

Others have suggested that Groups.io have a generous no-questions-asked refund policy. I'm fine with that too.

Either way, if the member can't have (or doesn't request) a refund then in addition to membership in his/her desired group, the member gets the reassurance that the group owner has no motivation to kick him/her out to make a slot for someone else.

There might be some issue with how people find out that there is now a free slot, there could be a bit of a gold-rush to grab the free slot. Same problem as if there are no paid accounts: people hanging around trying to grab the next available slot.

Maybe there's a waiting list for them, as has been suggested before. If so hopefully such a list could be automated somehow so that the group owner doesn't need to manage it. Maybe it is optionally controlled by owners that want to manage it (select who gets the next slot), otherwise the slots could be filled in the order that people entered the list.

Shal


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

What happens when a group’s member count is at its free limit, a member pays for a year’s worth of groups.io specifically to get into that group, and  a week, a day, or an hour later the group loses two members, bringimg its count down below the free limit? If this happened in a retail situation the store woukd honor the discounted price (I’m this case, zero). 

So it’s another potentially fraught refund situation. People are going to know that there is a charge precisely when a group reaches its free limit. The group’s member count is always displayed on the home page (and if the “free limit” is not also displayed, it will be a simple matter for midt to soon figure it out). So they are going to be aware that they paid to get in, the group has once again become “free,” and they are going to feel that they deserve a refund.


On Jan 12, 2021, at 4:14 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:


Leeni,


"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." 

To me, the alternative (Mark's Pricing Changes alone) does not seem preferable:

"I am going to do a search for kitty groups and maybe I can join one. Why should I have to wait around to see if  XYZ Kitty group ever has an opening when there are others with probably many of the same members that I can join that aren't full." 
At least with this Proposal the would-be member has the option.

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

Leeni
 

My mistake but in another situation with another group, something like that might happen if some groups had free slots left while other groups of the same nature didn't. Most people would look for the groups with free slots rather then pay to join a group.  
 
 
 
 

-------Original Message-------
 
From: J_Catlady
Date: 01/12/21 18:10:02
Subject: Re: [beta] Samuel's Paid User Proposal
 
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

 

I think the ability to pay your way through is worse. 


On Jan 12, 2021, at 4:14 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:


Leeni,


"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." 

To me, the alternative (Mark's Pricing Changes alone) does not seem preferable:

"I am going to do a search for kitty groups and maybe I can join one. Why should I have to wait around to see if  XYZ Kitty group ever has an opening when there are others with probably many of the same members that I can join that aren't full." 
At least with this Proposal the would-be member has the option.

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

 

Leeni,


"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." 

To me, the alternative (Mark's Pricing Changes alone) does not seem preferable:

"I am going to do a search for kitty groups and maybe I can join one. Why should I have to wait around to see if  XYZ Kitty group ever has an opening when there are others with probably many of the same members that I can join that aren't full." 
At least with this Proposal the would-be member has the option.

Shal


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

2481 - 2500 of 30101