Date   

moderated Re: banned spamming email address attempted message logged as coming from "unconfirmed member" #bug

 

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 12:58 PM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
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.

This has been fixed. Also, we should no longer display any badges next to banned members in the /members page.

Thanks,
Mark 


moderated Re: Special Notice/Special Message - consistent terminology #suggestion

 

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 3:10 AM Andy Wedge <andy_wedge@...> wrote:

Owners and Mods have an optional check-box to send a message as a Special Notice and Hashtags also have a Special check-box that uses the term 'special notice'.  Any use of these though shows up on the Activity Log as 'special message'. Could we get some consistency in the terminology please?

Done.

Thanks,
Mark 


moderated Re: Mobile/desktop menu flip #bug

Duane
 

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 12:04 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Question: The group hamburger menu duplicates the items that appear on the bottom menu (Messages, Post, Chats). Should I remove those items from the hamburger menu?
I, personally, don't have a problem with them being in both places, but some might.

Duane


moderated Re: Mobile/desktop menu flip #bug

 

Hi All,

I've made some adjustments. The hamburger menus now slide in from the left, echoing where the sidebars are on wider pages. The group hamburger menu now has all the same items as the full screen sidebar, in the same order, and with the Admin toggle. The user hamburger menu (/groups, etc) now has the missing Topics items.

Question: The group hamburger menu duplicates the items that appear on the bottom menu (Messages, Post, Chats). Should I remove those items from the hamburger menu? 

Please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: #bug event times in /feed are all 8 hours out #bug

Malcolm Austen
 

On 15/01/2021 16:10:18, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 05:11 AM, Malcolm Austen wrote:
I'm afraid it isn't fixed for the instance I'm looking at Mark.
In an effort to assist with troubleshooting, and to make sure it wasn't just me, I loaded up another browser - still wrong.  I went into my Preferences and changed it to PST, then everything was 2 hours earlier on the feed, so the logic is correct, but it's confused about my time zone.  Something very strange going on.
Malcolm Austen: 
Indeed Duane. I believe that in a previous test, several weeks ago, I found that the event showed in /feed in PST regardless of my own time zone. Now it shows as 8 hours earlier than it should irrespective of my time zone (well, OK, I only checked with my TZ set to UTC and PST, the 15:00 UTC event showed as 07:00 when my YZ was UTC and 23:00 when my TZ was set to PST.

So I'm afraid that Mark's change has changed the effect but not actually cured it ... 
My regular browser is FF 84, but the test was done with IE 11.  Both on Win7 Home Premium.  (I even pulled out my laptop with Linux and FF on it - still wrong.)
Malcolm Austen: 
Vivaldi (latest public release, it's Chromium based) on Win10 here. I can try Edge, FF, Opera and Chrome but they gave the same results a few weeks ago. 

Malcolm.


moderated Re: #bug event times in /feed are all 8 hours out #bug

Duane
 

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 05:11 AM, Malcolm Austen wrote:
I'm afraid it isn't fixed for the instance I'm looking at Mark.
In an effort to assist with troubleshooting, and to make sure it wasn't just me, I loaded up another browser - still wrong.  I went into my Preferences and changed it to PST, then everything was 2 hours earlier on the feed, so the logic is correct, but it's confused about my time zone.  Something very strange going on.

My regular browser is FF 84, but the test was done with IE 11.  Both on Win7 Home Premium.  (I even pulled out my laptop with Linux and FF on it - still wrong.)

Duane


moderated Re: Mobile/desktop menu flip #bug

Duane
 

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 05:32 AM, Andy Wedge wrote:
The options on the hamburger menu are a completely different order to those when viewed from the left-side menu.
And there are some options missing, depending on which page you're on.  For example, if I'm on the overview page, https://groups.io/groups, I see no way to get to the Topics overview, https://groups.io/topics (unless I've totally missed it.)

I also noticed that when I'm on the overview page, https://groups.io/groups, adjusting the window width can give 2 possible results as it gets more narrow.  The first is the somewhat expected one with the icons at the bottom.  Narrowing further gives me the mobile view using the group icons down the page (and not showing some of the normal columns) in addition to the icons at the bottom.

Duane


moderated Re: Mobile/desktop menu flip #bug

Sandi D <sandi.asgtechie@...>
 

It's taking some getting used to. Came at a day when I really didn't have time to hunt and peck around. I agree, it would have been far easier to figure out if it mirrored the left side menu I saw before. But as with everything else, I am adapting. 
Now I am wondering if a feature can be added sometime in the future so I can slide the listed items up and down into an order that I prefer. 
--
Sandi Dickenson


moderated Re: Group Sponsorships #update

Sandi D <sandi.asgtechie@...>
 

I activated the Sponsorship for my legacy groups. There is nothing for any of them to gain at this time by upgrading to a Premium group. However I do want to allow myself and the group members an opportunity to show their appreciation to GIO for hosting the legacy groups I have joined and those I have created. 
--
Sandi Dickenson


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

Of course you don't need to leave my group, Sara! I am fine with lurkers at the moment.

I'm just pointing out that if the burden falls on owners in the future, nobody could reasonably expect me to pay $4000 a year out of my own pocket to run just one of my groups (I have another group with almost 3000 members, which would also cost a fortune); but i also would not be guaranteed enough sponsorship to ensure that I don't have to pay a large percentage of that $4000. Plus all the additional admin with no benefit to me or my mods.

Therefore i think the simplest solution is that everybody using groups.io pays $5 a year. But YMMV

HTH

Helen


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Andy Wedge
 

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 12:25 PM, Chris Jones wrote:
With all due respect to Mark I think that the proposed charging scheme is messy and unduly complex
I don't think it's complex although I do think some intermediate group priced between Basic and Premium would soften the blow for those that was to grow their group beyond 100 members

not improved by the addition of the Donate function.
It is now called Sponsorship (if we're talking about the same thing?)

IMHO a large part of that messiness and complexity is down to the the intention of maintaining grandfather rights to all the Basic (free) groups created hitherto and I honestly believe that nice as though those rights are they are no longer sustainable, and will become even less so as time passes.
I tend to agree that so called grandfathered groups effectively represent a financial hit to Groups.io at the moment. It has been pointed out that over time, the number of grandfathered groups as a percentage of the total number of groups will diminish over time.  It will be important to attract new groups in order for this to happen and an attractive pricing structure must also be in place therefore.

In large part that is why I suggested the introduction of a charge per Account in the previous thread on the subject. As then mentioned the sort of charge I was suggesting was in the order of $5 per annum (or its equivalent in other currencies) which (if you think about it) is less than it costs to buy a newspaper every day for a week. Hardly unaffordable I would suggest; Dave mentioned hobby - based groups and $5 per annum is certain to be a great deal less than people spend on their hobbies.
My group is for a club which is a registered UK charity and has just over 1000 members.  We moved to Groups.io for a number of reasons (including no tracking and no advertising) from a number of disparate Y! groups that previous members had created over the years, and over which the club and Committee had no control.  Each club member pays a membership fee and the cost of our Premium group is taken from club funds. We are currently 'grandfathered in' and so pay $110 per year.  Under your proposal of charging account holders of $5 per year, that would mean our costs would jump from $110 to in excess of $5,000 (approx. £3,700) which is simply not sustainable for us.  We could turn around and say to our members that an additional $5 (£3.60) is required from each of them to cover the costs but given that probably two thirds of them are email only, there are probably quite a few that will baulk at that just to receive club based emails and participate in email based discussions when they view email as free.  The net result will be that instead of 98% of our club members being on Groups.io (the majority of email based users do not equate this with having a Groups.io account) that percentage will reduce substantially and defeat the main purpose of us moving here in the first place, that being a simple and effective communication platform that can reach all members (everyone has email).

Some have argued that "people will leave if charged"; well... let them. Why should Mark or anyone else have to subsidise a group of people who expect a service such as Groups.io to be free in perpetuity? What right have freeloaders (for want of a better term) to more or less demand that Premium or Enterprise Groups pay for them for ever?
I don't believe that Premium and Enterprise groups should subsidise free groups in perpetuity either and for that reason I would rather see a small charge for Basic groups from the outset. A small charge from a large number of Basic groups may mean that price increases for Premium and Enterprise groups are less substantial.  I think this, combined with an Intermediate group price point and perhaps even individual pricing for items in the Collaboration Suite would provide a more flexible approach and give group owners a smoother step up to the level they need to effectively run their group. The Sponsorship feature just introduced will provide some financial support for group owners but on its own, I don't think it's final solution.  Although Mark has, until now, managed to maintain grandfathered prices and features based upon group creation/upgrade date I don't think this will be sustainable in the long term. If prices need to rise to cover costs then it's probably better to start sooner and do it in smaller steps to avoid sudden shocks.

  I honestly believe that an "Account Charge" is the cleanest and best way forward, ensuring that Groups.io has sufficient income for the future;
For the reasons stated above, I disagree. Even an account charge of $1 would see a 10-fold increase in our current costs. Unsustainable for us and I suspect many others. 

Regards
Andy


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Dave Sergeant
 

eg $5 for up to 10 groups, $10 for up to 25, $20 for unlimited groups,
for everybody, forget about grandfathering. That would work. $5/year
for EACH of my current 21 groups would be a bit different and is
getting into the realms of unaffordable for many. When you reach the
limit of your current subscription you have the option of paying to the
next level or unsubscribing one of your less used groups.

Maybe also scrapping the current Basic/Premium/Enterprise and giving
most facilities to everybody with individual groups able to purchase
more storage and the like.

But having tiers based on number of members is far too complicated and
any attempts at trying to simplify it just makes it more complicated.

Mark may decide differently, but if I were Mark I 'wouldn't start
there'...

Dave

On 15 Jan 2021 at 5:25, Chris Jones via groups.io wrote:

Paying *to join groups.io* is different and acceptable.
And that is precisely what I am suggesting.

http://davesergeant.com


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

Yes, Chris, I agree. I proposed that same thing very early in this thread.


On Jan 15, 2021, at 5:25 AM, Chris Jones via groups.io <chrisjones12@...> wrote:

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 01:21 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Paying *to join groups.io* is different and acceptable.
And that is precisely what I am suggesting.

Chris

--
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

 

typo, (a) should read “owner pays”

On Jan 15, 2021, at 5:21 AM, J_Catlady via groups.io <j.olivia.catlady=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:

I’ve said this already but I’ll chime in to say that for me, the only realistic options are (a) owner o okays all plus enhanced donations and (b) everybody pays. To use the word “convoluted” to describe the Samuel plan, as Sara did, is understatement. The complexities are so bad that they’re laughable (I literally lol’d reading his and Sandi’s posts about the care and maintenance of the “free slots” - no offense to Samuel, it does sound great on the surface and at first glance). IMO that plan is so bad that it could actually have fatal consequences. I don’t even think all the downsides have been recognized or appreciated yet.

That all said, I don’t know how “everybody pays” woukd work for my block group. Most members are silent snd just receiving posts. It’s affordable here, but it woukd be difficult to round everyone up to pay. But we are grandfathered so I’m not worried in our particular case. Membership is critical for people on the block (information during emergencies, etc) so it’s important at this point that the group stay as is. The people in my cats group I don’t think would have a problem paying, and if they didn’t, it’s not as critical for them. But again, grandfathering is important to me because I want to avoid the perception that people are paying *to be in the grouo*, with all the inherent possible legal problems. (Paying *to join groups.io* is different and acceptable.)
On Jan 15, 2021, at 5:05 AM, Tanya's Feline CKD Website <helen@felineckd.com> wrote:

I agree. I am grandfathered at the moment and pay for the group out of my own pocket, which is OK by me. But I am a realist and I do not expect grandfathering to last forever, so what do I do then?

I could enable the donate button, but I can't see me ever reaching the $4000 I would need for my group as it currently stands (it will doubtless have even more members when grandfathering ends so the price will be even higher). So then I am in the awkward position of kicking people out, probably starting with the people whose cats died years ago and who just lurk; but who knows their true circumstances.

If everybody simply just got charged US$5 or equivalent (with a 30 day money back guarantee), there is no additional work for me and no awkward choosing who to keep and who to remove.

I don't really care about the free members either way, but if the option remained, I would choose the members who post regularly to help others.

Helen





--
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

Chris Jones
 

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 01:21 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Paying *to join groups.io* is different and acceptable.
And that is precisely what I am suggesting.

Chris


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

Sara,
It would be $5 for any number of groups. The fee is to join groups.io, not to join a group. I am totally against members paying to join an individual group, not because of the cost to them but for other reasons.


On Jan 15, 2021, at 5:21 AM, monamouroui <monamouroui@...> wrote:

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 08:05 AM, Tanya's Feline CKD Website wrote:
So then I am in the awkward position of kicking people out, probably starting with the people whose cats died years ago and who just lurk; but who knows their true circumstances.
Tanya, I'm one of those lurkers. My cat had PKD. I joined you on Yahoo when he went into acute kidney failure at 8 yrs old. Despite my vet issuing him a execution order, with the help of your group and my new vet, he lived another 3 years. Unlike his replacement who developed FIP and passed after 3 months, not years, I was able to do something for Sparky to prolong his life.

I continue to lurk out of respect for you and your group. So that when people join, they can see there are thousands of others who have either gone through or are going through what they are experiencing. And of course in case one of my 4 new cats gets sick. I never considered it a burden, so might leave now that I realize this could be a problem for Mark and you to support all these lurkers.

The biggest issue I have with the $5/group group fee is it will limit how many groups someone might want to join. So not to complicate matters too much, I wonder if there could be a multi-group fee for those of us who join 10, 20, 30 groups?

Sara

--
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’ve said this already but I’ll chime in to say that for me, the only realistic options are (a) owner o okays all plus enhanced donations and (b) everybody pays. To use the word “convoluted” to describe the Samuel plan, as Sara did, is understatement. The complexities are so bad that they’re laughable (I literally lol’d reading his and Sandi’s posts about the care and maintenance of the “free slots” - no offense to Samuel, it does sound great on the surface and at first glance). IMO that plan is so bad that it could actually have fatal consequences. I don’t even think all the downsides have been recognized or appreciated yet.

That all said, I don’t know how “everybody pays” woukd work for my block group. Most members are silent snd just receiving posts. It’s affordable here, but it woukd be difficult to round everyone up to pay. But we are grandfathered so I’m not worried in our particular case. Membership is critical for people on the block (information during emergencies, etc) so it’s important at this point that the group stay as is. The people in my cats group I don’t think would have a problem paying, and if they didn’t, it’s not as critical for them. But again, grandfathering is important to me because I want to avoid the perception that people are paying *to be in the grouo*, with all the inherent possible legal problems. (Paying *to join groups.io* is different and acceptable.)

On Jan 15, 2021, at 5:05 AM, Tanya's Feline CKD Website <helen@felineckd.com> wrote:

I agree. I am grandfathered at the moment and pay for the group out of my own pocket, which is OK by me. But I am a realist and I do not expect grandfathering to last forever, so what do I do then?

I could enable the donate button, but I can't see me ever reaching the $4000 I would need for my group as it currently stands (it will doubtless have even more members when grandfathering ends so the price will be even higher). So then I am in the awkward position of kicking people out, probably starting with the people whose cats died years ago and who just lurk; but who knows their true circumstances.

If everybody simply just got charged US$5 or equivalent (with a 30 day money back guarantee), there is no additional work for me and no awkward choosing who to keep and who to remove.

I don't really care about the free members either way, but if the option remained, I would choose the members who post regularly to help others.

Helen




--
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
 

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 08:05 AM, Tanya's Feline CKD Website wrote:
So then I am in the awkward position of kicking people out, probably starting with the people whose cats died years ago and who just lurk; but who knows their true circumstances.
Tanya, I'm one of those lurkers. My cat had PKD. I joined you on Yahoo when he went into acute kidney failure at 8 yrs old. Despite my vet issuing him a execution order, with the help of your group and my new vet, he lived another 3 years. Unlike his replacement who developed FIP and passed after 3 months, not years, I was able to do something for Sparky to prolong his life.

I continue to lurk out of respect for you and your group. So that when people join, they can see there are thousands of others who have either gone through or are going through what they are experiencing. And of course in case one of my 4 new cats gets sick. I never considered it a burden, so might leave now that I realize this could be a problem for Mark and you to support all these lurkers.

The biggest issue I have with the $5/group group fee is it will limit how many groups someone might want to join. So not to complicate matters too much, I wonder if there could be a multi-group fee for those of us who join 10, 20, 30 groups?

Sara


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

I agree. I am grandfathered at the moment and pay for the group out of my own pocket, which is OK by me. But I am a realist and I do not expect grandfathering to last forever, so what do I do then?

I could enable the donate button, but I can't see me ever reaching the $4000 I would need for my group as it currently stands (it will doubtless have even more members when grandfathering ends so the price will be even higher). So then I am in the awkward position of kicking people out, probably starting with the people whose cats died years ago and who just lurk; but who knows their true circumstances.

If everybody simply just got charged US$5 or equivalent (with a 30 day money back guarantee), there is no additional work for me and no awkward choosing who to keep and who to remove.

I don't really care about the free members either way, but if the option remained, I would choose the members who post regularly to help others.

Helen


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

monamouroui
 

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 07:25 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
In large part that is why I suggested the introduction of a charge per Account in the previous thread on the subject. As then mentioned the sort of charge I was suggesting was in the order of $5 per annum (or its equivalent in other currencies) which (if you think about it) is less than it costs to buy a newspaper every day for a week. Hardly unaffordable I would suggest; Dave mentioned hobby - based groups and $5 per annum is certain to be a great deal less than people spend on their hobbies.
That is fine, but then charge it to everyone. The issue with me is the convoluted idea of having free member slots and paid member slots. Of having badges of "honor" showing who isn't paying and who is will create discord between members. Not to mention the incredible amount of additional work on the owners part.

Either every member pays to participate on a group. Or only owners pay to create, mold and manage a group. I will agree with Dave though, and maybe that won't matter, but you will see the flow of groups slow down with all of the new pricing structures.

But by all means, keep it simple.

Sara

1121 - 1140 of 28831