Date   

locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

Happy New Year to you and everyone too! 😊🐱


On Jan 1, 2021, at 10:10 AM, txercoupemuseum.org <ercoguru@...> wrote:

Progress is inherently a process of vulnerabilities to perceive and manage.  If it does not move at a speed that precludes perfection, it may not advance at all.  I am reminded of the saying that a ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for.

I seem to remember an earlier comment from you to the effect that we must not let the pursuit of “perfection" blind us to the “good enough” that is possible and achievable sooner within available resources.  

Current progress in medical understanding is such that it has been speculated that the first person to live to 1,000 may have already been born!  Every day you and I do countless things that, to our grandparents, were absolutely impossible!

Best in 2021,

WRB

— 

On Jan 1, 2021, at 10:03 AM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 07:58 AM, txercoupemuseum.org wrote:
how much our technical capabilities have advanced over that period
Ha. Not so sure about that. Heard about the giant Microsoft hack? Even Microsoft can't say whether the Russian hackers changed their code or their updates or their cloud storage or anything else. We may be in deep "yogurt" (as you put it) right 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



--
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


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

txercoupemuseum.org
 

Progress is inherently a process of vulnerabilities to perceive and manage.  If it does not move at a speed that precludes perfection, it may not advance at all.  I am reminded of the saying that a ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for.

I seem to remember an earlier comment from you to the effect that we must not let the pursuit of “perfection" blind us to the “good enough” that is possible and achievable sooner within available resources.  

Current progress in medical understanding is such that it has been speculated that the first person to live to 1,000 may have already been born!  Every day you and I do countless things that, to our grandparents, were absolutely impossible!

Best in 2021,

WRB

— 

On Jan 1, 2021, at 10:03 AM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 07:58 AM, txercoupemuseum.org wrote:
how much our technical capabilities have advanced over that period
Ha. Not so sure about that. Heard about the giant Microsoft hack? Even Microsoft can't say whether the Russian hackers changed their code or their updates or their cloud storage or anything else. We may be in deep "yogurt" (as you put it) right 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



locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 07:58 AM, txercoupemuseum.org wrote:
how much our technical capabilities have advanced over that period
Ha. Not so sure about that. Heard about the giant Microsoft hack? Even Microsoft can't say whether the Russian hackers changed their code or their updates or their cloud storage or anything else. We may be in deep "yogurt" (as you put it) right 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


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

txercoupemuseum.org
 

Hi Shal,

Internet operations are obviously infinitely more complex than most of us know, or want to know; and yet it behooves us group owners and moderators to widen our perception and perspective to ascertain what discussions affect how our groups operate, both now and looking into the mists of the future. I would quickly be in “deep yogurt” if I had to covey an overall perspective of all this to most of my subscribers, but you have certainly conveyed to me greater understanding of much that is “behind the curtain’ here in Oz ;<)

I am one of those who was unwilling to “learn a computer language” in order to use a personal computer, and so waited until I became “aware” of the Mac and what it represented back in 1985. Bought a 512k E (enhanced) with a 20 mb hard disk ($4,000+ in those dollars those days) and it took me a decade to fill it!

Looking back to that point in time, ignorance truly was “bliss”; and yet how each perceptive individual’s potential and ability have amplified that of our society through our investment in and use of personal computers make the time before truly look like intellectual “dark ages”. ;<)

The COVID-19 challenge perhaps best illustrates how much our technical capabilities have advanced over that period, and how little our society overall has learned to cooperate in common cause against prevailing pervasive cultural social ignorance. As Walt Kelly said in his “Pogo” comic strip: “We has seen the enemy and he is us”.

Thanks!

WRB

On Jan 1, 2021, at 1:44 AM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi WRB,

How is this burden less for members on “Daily Digest” than for those
on Individual messages?
The total size of data communicated may not be that much different.

But the total burden is likely less for Digest because there would be up to 12 messages represented in a single digest. So that's up to one twelfth the number of transactions between Groups.io's mail server and the member's. Each of those transactions include overhead in both processing and communication.

If we define these as “incoming”, wouldn’t the messages I send
("outgoing”?) also be a burden on FatCow?
We've got our terms reversed: I was speaking from Groups.io's point of view. That is, when you post a message that is "incoming" to the group, and when it is sent out to the members that is "outgoing" from the group. Nevermind that though (the point of view is arbitrary).

A message you send to the group does consume some resources, at FatCow and at Groups.io, but then Groups.io's resource consumption when the message is sent to the group members is multiplied by the number of members - several hundred times over in your example groups. That multiplication effect doesn't affect FatCow, except to the extent that your group has more than one member using FatCow (and then the multiplier is only the number of those members).

Shal


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Chris Jones
 

On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 12:12 PM, Jeremy H wrote:
It is a very basic IT/DataProcessing concept that it's all based on bits - storing, changing, copying them - and it's those that drive the costs and benefits of internet/web services - and those are generated - by individual bits - in picocents: but add up to megabucks: and how you charge and account for them, at an additional cost of kilobucks (or less) rather than (unafforadable) gigabucks that is the great business problem of the industry.
To put it another way, large - scale over - quoting ratchets up (in this case) Groups.io's costs, or have misunderstood? 

Chris


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Jeremy H
 

Looking at recent posts, and picking out some points made

On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 03:57 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
All those hard-working electrons (and photons).

Shal
It is a very basic IT/DataProcessing concept that it's all based on bits - storing, changing, copying them - and it's those that drive the costs and benefits of internet/web services - and those are generated - by individual bits - in picocents: but add up to megabucks: and how you charge and account for them, at an additional cost of kilobucks (or less) rather than (unafforadable) gigabucks that is the great business problem of the industry.

Dave Sergeant, in message 27516, I thinks set out where groups.io is, and its problems lie.
And Samuel Murrayy in 27515 sets out payment scheme worthy I think of careful considerstion, as balancing payments considering the different positions of owners who are, or not, prepared [1] to pay for their groups, and members who just want  to benefit from them. Perhaps not an 'industry standard' scheme, but maybe one to set a new standard.
(The addition to this I would suggest is a 'reserved for invitees' categorisation for 'free slots', but this is, essentially, a detail add on to his concept)  

Jeremy

[1] I think a better word to express my thought than 'can' or 'want', that have been used elsewhere.


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

Hi WRB,

How is this burden less for members on “Daily Digest” than for those
on Individual messages?
The total size of data communicated may not be that much different.

But the total burden is likely less for Digest because there would be up to 12 messages represented in a single digest. So that's up to one twelfth the number of transactions between Groups.io's mail server and the member's. Each of those transactions include overhead in both processing and communication.

If we define these as “incoming”, wouldn’t the messages I send
("outgoing”?) also be a burden on FatCow?
We've got our terms reversed: I was speaking from Groups.io's point of view. That is, when you post a message that is "incoming" to the group, and when it is sent out to the members that is "outgoing" from the group. Nevermind that though (the point of view is arbitrary).

A message you send to the group does consume some resources, at FatCow and at Groups.io, but then Groups.io's resource consumption when the message is sent to the group members is multiplied by the number of members - several hundred times over in your example groups. That multiplication effect doesn't affect FatCow, except to the extent that your group has more than one member using FatCow (and then the multiplier is only the number of those members).

Shal


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

txercoupemuseum.org
 

Hi Shal,

Thanks for the response.

You said: "What matters is how many of your members are on Individual messages: one posted message becomes a burden of up to 875 outbound messages, or 777 in the other group. For most groups the outbound burden is a significant multiple of the number of posted messages.”

I believe I referred to this is the part of the process I referred to as a “re-transmission”? How is this burden less for members on “Daily Digest” than for those on Individual messages?

You said: "Only the messages sent to you are a burden on FatCow (well, plus the messages sent to any other group members that use that service).”

If we define these as “incoming”, wouldn’t the messages I send ("outgoing”?) also be a burden on FatCow?

Best!

WRB

On Dec 31, 2020, at 9:57 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@gmail.com> wrote:

WRB,

One has 875 members at present, the other 777.

In checking our _“email burden”_ under group activity I find my larger
group, by far the most active,_lists 196 messages_ so far during
December. Of These, 21 were via “Web” and 175 were via “email”, ...
It makes relatively little difference how the message was posted.

What matters is how many of your members are on Individual messages: one posted message becomes a burden of up to 875 outbound messages, or 777 in the other group. For most groups the outbound burden is a significant multiple of the number of posted messages.

To my way of thinking, my email “load” is on the FatCow server (POP
account) ...
Only the messages sent to you are a burden on FatCow (well, plus the messages sent to any other group members that use that service).

and I fail to see how that is in any manner a “burden” on Groups.io
unless this relates to the presumably separate functions of “send" and
“receive”.
Exactly as you described.

In every email transmission there's both a sender and a receiver, and each uses computational and communications resources to process the email transmission. In the case of each outbound message Groups.io is the transmitting part of all of those transactions, where the reception part is distributed among the members' various email services.

Additionally, I have no idea how those using POP accounts and those
using IMAP accounts affect Groups.io other than the “rebroadcast”
burden.
Once the message has been transmitted to the member's service it no longer matters to Groups.io. How the member accesses the message is purely between the member and his/her email service.

On the other hand, members that choose to read the message directly from the group's Messages section on Groups.io do incur some amount of processing and transmission cost, again on both Groups.io's web server and at the member's internet service. I don't know how the cost of this web transaction compares to an email transmission, but I imagine it is comparable, or possibly greater.

All those hard-working electrons (and photons).

Shal


moderated Re: HTML format for incoming emails #suggestion

Shahid
 

Bruce,

The "normalize html emails" box is unchecked. If it were checked then the font color would be removed, which it is not as you can see.

I do not include any constructs (eg iframes, javascript) in the emails. I strip the text to plain text before pasting it in Thunderbird and then the only formatting I do is changing the font to cambria/calibiri, font color, font size, and text alignment. Those are the only changes I make to the plain text. I used to do the same thing in yahoogroups and before that in egroups (what your groups is based off) and I never had any issues.

My browser (Firefox) and OS (win7) has the necessary things to render the email as I sent. I never had these issue in yahoogroups, googlegroups, or egroups.

It's important that the group displays the message the same way as it is in the email because I use the group's message as a website and share that link with others (especially on social media) and they come to the group to see the message  instead of me sending an email to so many people constantly. This is free publicity for your site and benefits you.... and I can't do that if the desired message formatting is lost. Hence the reason my suggestion to fix the issue.

Shahid


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

WRB,

One has 875 members at present, the other 777.

In checking our _“email burden”_ under group activity I find my larger
group, by far the most active,_lists 196 messages_ so far during
December. Of These, 21 were via “Web” and 175 were via “email”, ...
It makes relatively little difference how the message was posted.

What matters is how many of your members are on Individual messages: one posted message becomes a burden of up to 875 outbound messages, or 777 in the other group. For most groups the outbound burden is a significant multiple of the number of posted messages.

To my way of thinking, my email “load” is on the FatCow server (POP
account) ...
Only the messages sent to you are a burden on FatCow (well, plus the messages sent to any other group members that use that service).

and I fail to see how that is in any manner a “burden” on Groups.io
unless this relates to the presumably separate functions of “send" and
“receive”.
Exactly as you described.

In every email transmission there's both a sender and a receiver, and each uses computational and communications resources to process the email transmission. In the case of each outbound message Groups.io is the transmitting part of all of those transactions, where the reception part is distributed among the members' various email services.

Additionally, I have no idea how those using POP accounts and those
using IMAP accounts affect Groups.io other than the “rebroadcast”
burden.
Once the message has been transmitted to the member's service it no longer matters to Groups.io. How the member accesses the message is purely between the member and his/her email service.

On the other hand, members that choose to read the message directly from the group's Messages section on Groups.io do incur some amount of processing and transmission cost, again on both Groups.io's web server and at the member's internet service. I don't know how the cost of this web transaction compares to an email transmission, but I imagine it is comparable, or possibly greater.

All those hard-working electrons (and photons).

Shal


moderated Re: Member list format issues #bug

Judy F.
 

Mark it is still in my History column.  I also did a refresh and it still appears. 

Judy F., Moderator
Sew It's For Sale GIO
SW Florida, USA 



On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 03:41 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 7:43 AM Andy Wedge <andy_wedge@...> wrote:

After a brief discussion on GMF I'm raising this as a bug.  The format of the member list has changed so that it now takes two lines per member for those in my group due to the number of badges that are displayed after the delivery method. Others report different results depending on the OS platform.  Was this an attempt to fix a bug for something else?

I tightened up that column as part of some changes to improve the mobile site (and upcoming app). It should be fixed now.
 
Mark 


moderated Re: HTML format for incoming emails #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 04:23 PM, Shahid wrote:
The font size and text alignment is lost and changed to whatever the group sets as default. Please make changes so that the group posts the message as it was sent instead of changing it.
Shahid -- First, check your group settings. If you have the "Normalize HTML Emails" box checked, uncheck it.

Beyond that, the ability to render any page as sent depends on page width, aspect ratio, and the availability of these same fonts on the receiving end (browser, mail client and/or OS). If they're not available, a font from the same "family" will be substituted.

In addition, some constructs that folks may choose to include in an email (such as iframes and inline javascript) have to be stripped so they cannot be used as vectors for malware.

I'm not saying that it couldn't be better than it is -- in particular, the stripping of benign inline styles (like that one that centers your example footer link) does not seem to be justified. Within reason, though, it's appropriate to me that groups.io continue to do whatever is necessary to ensure not only the security of the system but also the deliverability of group messages to the widest possible audience.

My $0.02,
Bruce


moderated Re: HTML format for incoming emails #suggestion

billsf9c
 

The Thunderbird version, for me, was unreadable as text ran off the page to the right... and the latter image was fine...

But then I hit Reply to mention this, and the Thunderburd image has moved to the left and both are readable.

FYI-
Android native browser
BillSF9c


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

I’m just saying that because of the increase in value, a new price structure is (a) more justified and (b) more likely to be tolerated.


On Dec 31, 2020, at 3:17 PM, Chris Jones via groups.io <chrisjones12@...> wrote:

On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 10:49 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Yahoo's further demise also heightens groups.io's attractiveness and value by cementing its place as unique.
Doubtless so, but something of a mixed blessing if too many new groups are "free" rather than Premium or Enterprise, and I submit that the evidence that that has happened is staring us in the face. Were it not so then the pricing structure would not have been altered already and now subject to further change.

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


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Chris Jones
 

On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 10:49 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Yahoo's further demise also heightens groups.io's attractiveness and value by cementing its place as unique.
Doubtless so, but something of a mixed blessing if too many new groups are "free" rather than Premium or Enterprise, and I submit that the evidence that that has happened is staring us in the face. Were it not so then the pricing structure would not have been altered already and now subject to further change.

Chris


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

KWKloeber
 

** How many users does gio currently have? 
** What average $$ donation return would it need to be profitable to the level Mark needs if, say, there was a 2% return on a quarterly or semi-annual "Wikipedia" donation request sent to all members?
Or, differently, what % return would he need at an average $2 per quarter (or per 6-month) of donations?

Additionally --
Features - how many do groups need?  
We use photos, files, wiki.  But not chat calendar database.
I would hope down the road that the features become a shopping list.  Spectrum won't let me watch Turner Classic Movies w/o giving them $30 for 68 others I don't even want to wade thru. 
So it gets zero dollars a month from me rather than two or three dollars a month.  Which makes more sense?


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 02:36 PM, Chris Jones wrote:
following Yahoo's 2 spasms of withdrawal from this market sector radically changed the ratio such that the financial balance was seriously impaired, hence the need for a revised payment structure.
Yahoo's further demise also heightens groups.io's attractiveness and value by cementing its place as unique.
 
--
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


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

Pete,

plan. What I'd /like/ to do instead - and this is for GMF rather than
beta - is to brainstorm about how to fund our groups within the new
pricing framework. It's clear some folks are going to need help with
that.
Agreed, with one caveat:

The definitive statement in the original post notwithstanding, I don't think "the new pricing framework" is yet cast in stone - Mark's continued involvement with this topic suggests that he'll at least consider modifications or alternatives.
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/27218

While that remains true I think it is appropriate to consider here what the various modifications and alternatives proposed in this topic imply for what group owners need to do to support their groups.

Shal


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Chris Jones
 

On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 09:27 PM, Drew wrote:
Up to 3 groups: FREE
4 to 10 groups: $5.00/yr
More than 10 groups: $10.00/yr
Superficially attractive, certainly. but it includes a major flaw.

I have 2 email addresses immediately available, and I could set up 4 or 5 more without it costing me anything. That would immediately give me access to 20 or so groups without it costing me a single, solitary, bean.

FWIW I have serious concerns about Mark's idea of charging owners when a group exceeds 100 members. Owners would either have to pay it themselves or pass the charge on to individual members. Now if a group has a physical existence (e.g. a neighbourhood group) collecting "subs" would be easy, very possibly by rolling Groups.io charges into a wider membership fee. But what about a group with wide geographical dispersal and no physical entity? Collecting what are actually trivial amounts per member would be almost impossible, so the owners would be incentivised to keep group sizes to not more than 100, meaning that there would be no income to Groups.io.

I am reluctant to say it but IMHO Groups.io's financial model looks a bit fragile; it probably worked perfectly well with the ratio of Enterprise & Premium to Basic groups that existed (say) 30 months ago but the influx of groups - almost certainly mainly "free" - following Yahoo's 2 spasms of withdrawal from this market sector radically changed the ratio such that the financial balance was seriously impaired, hence the need for a revised payment structure.

Chris


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Peter Cook
 

Just one last point. My comment is really a response to some posts on this thread that seem to imply that Mark is entitled to cover his costs, or maybe make a little money for his efforts. That's fine by me. It's also fine by me that he make something hugely valuable, sell it for a boatload, and move on. Or something somewhere in between.

I learned the futility long ago of arguing with someone else's business plan. What I'd like to do instead - and this is for GMF rather than beta - is to brainstorm about how to fund our groups within the new pricing framework. It's clear some folks are going to need help with that.

Pete

2161 - 2180 of 29466