Date   

better member list filtering #suggestion

KWKloeber
 

Today I needed to 'un-moderate' two members.  Luckily, the first's name and email address was listed near the top of the ADMIN > MEMBERS list.  no problem-o.  The second, I realized, was tucked away somewhere in the list and I didn't even remember the name or email address.  Just by happenstance it was on one of the top pages as I paged down the member list.  If it wasn't, I would have been going through 1,600+ names trying to find one with an "M" next to the name.  Not very good.

It would be best if all of the attributes (badges?) shown on the member list are available in the drop-down filter.  I don't see why SOME would have been implemented without ALL being implemented.  Not logical.

From the GM forum:

...It would be nice to be able to somehow filter the list based on any of these status badges. 

...it would be very helpful to be able to filter on badges, not just member status badges but also sub preferences badges as well, any available/shown badge in that list.
... I have often wished to be able to easily identify everyone who is not confirmed (NC).
... I've also sometimes wondered by Banned was not implemented as a badge.



 


moderated Image link lost on database export-import #bug

Tom H
 

I've searched for other discussion to no avail. I've exported a Databases table to both JSON and CSV and imported same. In both cases, the images within Image-type fields are lost. JSON import simply has the image file name and a broken image icon. Both the exported JSON and CSV files have just the image file name - no URL.

Is this a known bug or unsupported feature?

Tom


moderated Re: Database buttons #suggestion

 

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 03:30 PM, Jim Fisher wrote:

I haven't tried this (don't use a database on groups.io), but can't you
achieve thiis now by using CTRL + End ?
If you have a keyboard. :-) Let's not leave mobile users out.

There's an example database here in the beta@ group that shows a Google Maps integration. When you scroll it, the map doesn't scroll. Maybe another alternative is to put all buttons at the top, and make them non-scrollable as well.

JohnF


moderated Re: Combination of "hashtags required" and "messages moderated" sometimes causes posts to disappear #bug

Bruce Bowman
 

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 06:01 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Instead of storing a message that requires a change in the subject because of group hashtag policies, we now just bounce it back to the sender, like we do in other instances (messages to groups from non-members, for example). This should prevent any weird corner cases, like I believe what was being seen above.
Mark -- I agree that simply bouncing it is preferable to holding it as a Draft....that is, after all, what the setting says will happen.

I'd be interested to know what the resulting bounce message says.

Thanks,
Bruce


moderated Re: Combination of "hashtags required" and "messages moderated" sometimes causes posts to disappear #bug

 

On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 10:41 AM Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...> wrote:
Mark -- The following bug was recently reported by a user in GMF ( https://groups.io/g/Group_Help/message/1870 ).

If you require hashtags in the group and an incoming email does not meet those criteria, the message is held as a Draft until that person logs in and corrects the subject line. But if the message is also supposed to be moderated, it does not go into moderation after being fixed, nor does it bypass moderation and post. It simply disappears.

This occurs whether the message originated from a regular Member or an Owner. I've confirmed this with the following settings:
Spam Control > Message Moderation > All messages are moderated
Message Policies > Hashtags Required
Message Policies > Hashtag Permissions > Messages from members can only be tagged with existing hashtags, otherwise the message is bounced


I was never happy about the code involved with handling messages that we needed to reject/have edited because of hashtag issues. So I've changed the policy. Instead of storing a message that requires a change in the subject because of group hashtag policies, we now just bounce it back to the sender, like we do in other instances (messages to groups from non-members, for example). This should prevent any weird corner cases, like I believe what was being seen above.

Thanks,
Mark 


moderated Re: Bad debounce uri for plus addresses #bug

 

Hello,

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 8:12 AM Enrico Scholz via groups.io <enrico.scholz+maillists.oecore=sigma-chemnitz.de@groups.io> wrote:

I use plus addresses (e.g. "foo+maillists.groups.io@...") for my subscriptions.  When messages are bouncing, I get a request URI which does not escape the "+",server side translates this to whitespace and debouncing fails without any comment.

This is the case both for E-Mail messages

| You must take action to restore your account. To unbounce your account, go to the following link:
|
| https://groups.io/unbounce?email=maillists.groups.io@...&cookie=.....

and the link in the banner on the website.

This has been fixed in the email, and on many pages on the website (that fix will be ongoing).

Thanks,
Mark 


moderated Re: Database buttons #suggestion

 

I haven't tried this (don't use a database on groups.io), but can't you achieve
thiis now by using CTRL + End ?

Jim Fisher

On 4 Jan 2021 at 15:01, Leeni wrote:

Another suggestion if it is easier then adding the row of buttons at the top
too, put an arrow to we can click on to bring us down to the bottom, like you
have an arrow to bring us up to the top.


moderated Re: in pending messages, "You must include a message" red warning shows up even when there's a message #bug

 

On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 7:43 AM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
In the "Send Message" feature from within viewing a pending message, a red warning "You must include a message" shows up even when a message has been entered. I think I reported this before but don't remember what happened. The bug is still there and is very disconcerting. You think something may have gone wrong with the message causing the member not to receive it. This time, after the member didn't respond, I contacted her outside groups.io to make sure she got it.

This has been fixed.

Thanks,
Mark 


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

Hi All,

For those who celebrated, I hope you all had a nice holiday. I admit that I mostly only skimmed this discussion during that time, as I tried to stay away from the computer for a bit.

I am going to close this topic right now and will more closely review the discussion. I'll summarize in the next day or so.

Thanks!
Mark


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

toki
 

On 05/01/2021 04:14, Drew wrote:

I'm sure some would be able to set up their multiple email addresses for multiple groups in order to avoid the $5 or $10 per year fee, and manage to keep it all straight but, really? To save $10 per year????
I've have four or five addresses on Groups.IO, because list-owners dutifully added those addresses, and I haven't set up a login on Groups.IO for those excess addresses.

jonathon


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Andy Wedge
 

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 12:20 PM, Chris Jones wrote:
For many the absence of advertisements and tracking was a key reason for migrating to groups.io in the first place; both absences were "trumpeted" by Mark.
The lack of adverts and tracking was also a key motivator for my club to switch to Groups.io.

I would be deeply dismayed if there was a move to monetise Groups.io (or any part thereof).
I am not suggesting adverts if that's what you mean by monetise?  What I am saying that the lack of adverts and tracking is a saleable feature so make Basic groups chargeable. if you don't want to pay anything then there are other platforms that claim to be free,  Of course, they're not really free, the price you pay is having to suffer advertising and tracking.


Have a trial period by all means but after that, people should pay for the level of service they use.
No and yes in that order. :)
I take it that means you are not in favour of trial periods?

The planned pricing structure change from 18-Jan does mean there is a big step from Basic (I'll avoid the 'F' word) to Premium group.  Some level of intermediate group may be preferable and I would also look at splitting the Collaboration Suite. There are currently 7 features in that  (Polls, Calendar, Chat, Database, Photos, Files & Wiki) so perhaps split them into two sets with one of the more popular features in the set attached to Premium groups to entice people to upgrade. A more flexible approach may be to price each of the features separately to allow a fully customisable set with the most popular features attracting a higher price.

Arguably messy.
But perfectly doable and will give group owners the ability to create a group with the functions that meet their needs.


At the end of the day, I believe that group owners are those that should be liable to pay for their groups. If an owner has created a group for others (because they have the technical skills to do that) and doesn't want to be on the hook for the cost then a simple solution would be to promote someone else to owner and demote themselves to a Member or a Moderator. 
That assumes that they can find someone willing to pony up to meet group costs. Big assumption IMHO.
Then let the group be downgraded and see what the members think. Perhaps when they lose features they may start to appreciate the value of what they had.   If an owner keeps paying then there's no incentive for anyone else to do anything.  If nobody does then you have to question the value and reason for doing it in the first place. 


if subscribers had to pay a small fee for their Accounts (as I have previously suggested) the question of a groups such as GMF attracting a charge simply doesn't arise. What could arise is owners and moderators who have second accounts for test and "as the members see it" purposes finding themselves paying for their second accounts, but that is not insurmountable.
I think having members pay for their accounts would create utter confusion. My group members already pay (in effect) as they pay club membership fees and the club then pays for a premium group (or reimburses me to be exact). I'm sure a good many wouldn't even consider they had an account at Groups.io as they just use email.  Then we get into how many groups can account belong to and complex solutions such at that suggested by Samuel Murrayy (with two Ys since the start of last year I noticed) earlier in this topic.

I say keep it simple, let the the group owners pay and charge for basic groups.  I'd much rather see charges for Basic groups than higher prices for Premium and Enterprise groups to subsidise them.  As Mark has already confirmed, he's pretty much on his own apart from Nina doing the documentation.  The less time he needs spend on finance admin, the more time he can devote to Groups.io features and extras like the Apps (and I would expect there to be a nominal fee for those too after all time and effort being invested in them).


Regards
Andy




moderated #suggestion Extracting and filing a single message from a digest #suggestion

Dan Halbert
 

Our organization recently switched a bunch of lists from Mailman2 to groups.io. One user presented the following issue: they used to get a Mailman MIME digest, and, with Outlook, were able to file individual messages from the digest into Outlook folders. They can no longer do that. The best suggestion I was able to come up with was for them to subscribe to individual messages and use an Outlook filter to dump all the messages from a list into a separate folder for perusal later.

I see that there was some discussion of MIME digests in the past: https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/1436074
and of a Send To Me feature, which was never added: https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/2195268

If anyone has some other suggestions I be interested. Thanks.


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Chris Jones
 

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 10:26 AM, Andy Wedge wrote:
Mark has ruled out adverting but that along with no tracking cookies are marketable features and money can be made from that.
For many the absence of advertisements and tracking was a key reason for migrating to groups.io in the first place; both absences were "trumpeted" by Mark. I would be deeply dismayed if there was a move to monetise Groups.io (or any part thereof). That aside, as Mark noted earlier in this thread "adverts by email" don't work very well.

Have a trial period by all means but after that, people should pay for the level of service they use.
No and yes in that order. :)

The planned pricing structure change from 18-Jan does mean there is a big step from Basic (I'll avoid the 'F' word) to Premium group.  Some level of intermediate group may be preferable and I would also look at splitting the Collaboration Suite. There are currently 7 features in that  (Polls, Calendar, Chat, Database, Photos, Files & Wiki) so perhaps split them into two sets with one of the more popular features in the set attached to Premium groups to entice people to upgrade. A more flexible approach may be to price each of the features separately to allow a fully customisable set with the most popular features attracting a higher price.

Arguably messy.

  Of course, if most users are email only, this may have little impact.
Quite.

At the end of the day, I believe that group owners are those that should be liable to pay for their groups. If an owner has created a group for others (because they have the technical skills to do that) and doesn't want to be on the hook for the cost then a simple solution would be to promote someone else to owner and demote themselves to a Member or a Moderator. 
That assumes that they can find someone willing to pony up to meet group costs. Big assumption IMHO.

There are very good cases for Groups.io to waive the cost of certain groups such as GMF and Group_Help as they provide a service to others and are cost effective in terms of reducing the number of support queries raised directly.
Clearly true, but if subscribers had to pay a small fee for their Accounts (as I have previously suggested) the question of a groups such as GMF atttracting a charge simply doesn't arise. What could arise is owners and moderators who have second accounts for test and "as the members see it" purposes finding themselves paying for their second accounts, but that is not insurmountable.

Chris


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Jeremy H
 

As an informational aside: at 55 cents a member, under the new charging structure, a new Premium group with 1820 members will cost its owner $1000 per year (annual payment) - I don't know how many groups exceed this. Looking at the list of public groups, there are 10 exceeding 18,200 (so cost > $10,000), for the largest, cost > $36,000.

How many group owners could afford to be in that league? How many group owners would start their group(s) with the deliberate intention of staying out of it?

Jeremy


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Andy Wedge
 

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 01:06 AM, Jeremy H wrote:
Groups.io, Inc's service - providing the underlying system - is, of itself, of no end value: it only becomes valuable because people (group owners) are prepared to run groups,
I don't necessarily disagree with that. The value of the various aspects of what Groups.io offers will vary depending upon how people interact with the service provided. For email only users, the Groups.io website may be irrelevant for example.

in summary, the question for Mark is whether he is in a B2B (to business) or B2C (to consumer) market? (And whether he expects group owners to be 'businesses' or 'consumers'?)  
I think it goes beyond that and also depends upon Mark's long term ambitions for Groups.io. Does he want to keep it going enough to make a living from it as long as possible and then maybe let it fade away or does he want to build it up and eventually sell it off so he can retire? Either way, it costs money to run and costs need to be covered.

Mark has ruled out adverting but that along with no tracking cookies are marketable features and money can be made from that. Have a trial period by all means but after that, people should pay for the level of service they use.

The planned pricing structure change from 18-Jan does mean there is a big step from Basic (I'll avoid the 'F' word) to Premium group.  Some level of intermediate group may be preferable and I would also look at splitting the Collaboration Suite. There are currently 7 features in that  (Polls, Calendar, Chat, Database, Photos, Files & Wiki) so perhaps split them into two sets with one of the more popular features in the set attached to Premium groups to entice people to upgrade. A more flexible approach may be to price each of the features separately to allow a fully customisable set with the most popular features attracting a higher price.  Of course, if most users are email only, this may have little impact.

At the end of the day, I believe that group owners are those that should be liable to pay for their groups. If an owner has created a group for others (because they have the technical skills to do that) and doesn't want to be on the hook for the cost then a simple solution would be to promote someone else to owner and demote themselves to a Member or a Moderator.  There are very good cases for Groups.io to waive the cost of certain groups such as GMF and Group_Help as they provide a service to others and are cost effective in terms of reducing the number of support queries raised directly.

Andy


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Drew
 

On 12/31/20 17:36, Chris Jones via groups.io wrote:
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.
A large portion of the hand-holding that our group owners do is untangling the mess that subscribers cause for themselves by using multiple email addresses, not knowing which they are posting from and why they keep receiving individual messages after they (think) they have switched to digest, etc., etc.

I'm sure some would be able to set up their multiple email addresses for multiple groups in order to avoid the $5 or $10 per year fee, and manage to keep it all straight but, really? To save $10 per year????

Drew


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 06:01 PM, Jeremy H wrote:
you're puttting money into your group, instead of giving it Cats Protection,
Actually I do both. ;)
 
--
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

Jeremy H
 

My compliments. And yes, it is a dichotomy which ignores a grey area in the middle - I would accept there are many group owners who run their groups for similar motives, and so get non-financial recompense. But I would say that perhaps what you are doing is runing your own private charity (not something to criticise), as a form of business - you're puttting money into your group, instead of giving it Cats Protection, or whatever, for them to give it back to you, for you to do the good you do.

Jeremy


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

I think that’s a false dichotomy. I get at least as much reward out of helping the cats in my group as their owners (my group members) do, and I am happy to pay for the group out of my own pocket. I consider it my little contribution to the world, or to cats, or something. And it’s also interesting and intellectually stimulating for me, as well as a growth experience. I think many cats group owners feel the same.


On Jan 4, 2021, at 5:06 PM, Jeremy H via groups.io <jeremygharrison@...> wrote:

In the related "Simplified Donation feature", On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 09:37 PM, Andy Wedge wrote, but (this part) is I think more relevant to this thread:
<snip>
I can understand the option to deal with group owners for payments (less people to deal with so less of an admin overhead) and I'm happy with that. I use a service and I pay for it. The trouble with saying things are 'free' is that people don't appreciate the value of what they're getting.  Personally I think there should be a charge for basic groups.  Even if Mark reversed his decision on grandfathered basic groups and said there would be a nominal $10 per year fee I bet most people would stay with Groups.io.

Andy
While I too can understand Mark's preference to deal with group owners for payment, I would ask the question, who benefits from a group being run? who gets the value? so who should pay? Is it the group members? the group owner? or even Groups.io, Inc? I would suggest, in the end, it is primarily the group members, receiving messages, etc., and maybe posting them.

Groups.io, Inc's service - providing the underlying system - is, of itself, of no end value: it only becomes valuable because people (group owners) are prepared to run groups, and put in the effort to manage them. For some groups, their members provide recompense to the owner (in another word, money) - somehow, directly or indirectly - for their membership, and this case it is proper that some of this should be paid on to Groups.io, Inc. For other groups, they won't. And in this case, it is appropriate for members to pay Groups.io, Inc direct. How (donation? charge per group? per 'profile'?), and how much, are in a sense details.

But I know if i were setting up a group, simply because I thought it would be useful for  people to be able to discuss something, or provide mutual support, or whatever (rather than make money out of it), while I would be prepared to put in the management effort, I wouldn't be prepared to fund it on an open ended basis, or even a token one (beyond any normal 'member' payment). It is for Mark to decide whether, or how, such a group would be beneficial to Groups.io, Inc - noting that it (or should I say he) would be getting a 'free' group.   

I suppose, in summary, the question for Mark is whether he is in a B2B (to business) or B2C (to consumer) market? (And whether he expects group owners to be 'businesses' or 'consumers'?)

Jeremy

--
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

Jeremy H
 

In the related "Simplified Donation feature", On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 09:37 PM, Andy Wedge wrote, but (this part) is I think more relevant to this thread:
<snip>
I can understand the option to deal with group owners for payments (less people to deal with so less of an admin overhead) and I'm happy with that. I use a service and I pay for it. The trouble with saying things are 'free' is that people don't appreciate the value of what they're getting.  Personally I think there should be a charge for basic groups.  Even if Mark reversed his decision on grandfathered basic groups and said there would be a nominal $10 per year fee I bet most people would stay with Groups.io.

Andy
While I too can understand Mark's preference to deal with group owners for payment, I would ask the question, who benefits from a group being run? who gets the value? so who should pay? Is it the group members? the group owner? or even Groups.io, Inc? I would suggest, in the end, it is primarily the group members, receiving messages, etc., and maybe posting them.

Groups.io, Inc's service - providing the underlying system - is, of itself, of no end value: it only becomes valuable because people (group owners) are prepared to run groups, and put in the effort to manage them. For some groups, their members provide recompense to the owner (in another word, money) - somehow, directly or indirectly - for their membership, and this case it is proper that some of this should be paid on to Groups.io, Inc. For other groups, they won't. And in this case, it is appropriate for members to pay Groups.io, Inc direct. How (donation? charge per group? per 'profile'?), and how much, are in a sense details.

But I know if i were setting up a group, simply because I thought it would be useful for  people to be able to discuss something, or provide mutual support, or whatever (rather than make money out of it), while I would be prepared to put in the management effort, I wouldn't be prepared to fund it on an open ended basis, or even a token one (beyond any normal 'member' payment). It is for Mark to decide whether, or how, such a group would be beneficial to Groups.io, Inc - noting that it (or should I say he) would be getting a 'free' group.   

I suppose, in summary, the question for Mark is whether he is in a B2B (to business) or B2C (to consumer) market? (And whether he expects group owners to be 'businesses' or 'consumers'?)

Jeremy

2241 - 2260 of 29628