Date   

moderated Re: Allow members to mute other members #suggestion

Glenn Glazer
 

On 12/18/2020 15:47, Patrick Dell'Era wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 08:02 AM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
Couldn't they just use whatever MUA they are using to filter out mail from the other person?
Of course that technique fails for members using digest subscriptions.

That's a fair point. I hate digests personally, but I recognize that others find value in them.

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est


moderated Re: Allow members to mute other members #suggestion

Patrick Dell'Era
 

On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 08:02 AM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
Couldn't they just use whatever MUA they are using to filter out mail from the other person?
Of course that technique fails for members using digest subscriptions.


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Larry Finch
 



On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 5:40 AM Mark Irving <m-pfaff@...> wrote:

For me it's a contribution to a low-budget hobby; when looking for a group host site as we moved off Yahoo! Groups two or three years ago, a $3000/year cost for a Premium plan would have ruled out Groups.io completely.

Now we're into competitive territory. A listserv license from L-Soft is about that: $3,000 a year. But that's for up to 20 lists, each of unlimited size. I'm site manager for a co-op server that hosts 15 non-profit listserv lists. Of course, you need an actual server to run it on, and techies who know how to manage a server. We pay about $300 a year for a virtual server on Linode, although AWS is pretty competitive also now. We're thinking of switching to mailman from listserv, which is free and open source. And we think we've found a hosting company that will do the heavy lifting on the server management end for about $500/year. In addition, our server hosts the websites for the groups we host. 

So I'm a little concerned that groups.io may be pricing themselves out of the market.

Larry

 
--
Larry Finch

N 40° 53' 50"
W 74° 02' 55"


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Larry Finch
 



On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 5:09 PM Samuel Murrayy <samuelmurray@...> wrote:
A LISTSERV list that I'm a member of tells me once a year to confirm my subscription by replying to the mail.  If I don't confirm, I get unsubscribed.  This may be an idea for a Groups.io feature to help trim lists of unnecessary members.

Samuel

That sounds like the listserv Probe function. 

Larry

--
Larry Finch

N 40° 53' 50"
W 74° 02' 55"


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Samuel Murrayy
 

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 08:05 PM, toki wrote:
Based on that advice, some list-owners sent a notice to the list every 6
to 9 months, announcing that everybody would be removed from the list,
and would have to resubscribe, if they wished to continue receiving
messages.
A LISTSERV list that I'm a member of tells me once a year to confirm my subscription by replying to the mail.  If I don't confirm, I get unsubscribed.  This may be an idea for a Groups.io feature to help trim lists of unnecessary members.

Samuel





More than once I subscribed to such a list, only to removed
the following week, and having to resubscribe to it. Typically, such
purges resulted in a loss of between 20% and 50% of the subscriber base.

In the early noughts, more than one book on mailing list management
suggested a rule of unsubscribing an individual, if they had not made a
post within the last 91 days. List-owners that implemented that rule
discovered subscriber numbers took a nosedive, and stayed down.

List-owners for free groups may have to resort to tactics similar to
those described, to stay under the maximum member mark.

On the upside, Mark did give a month's notice, for list-owners to skate
in under a grandfather clause.

jonathon


moderated Box.net URL gets UTF-8 BOM added to the link #bug

Samuel Murrayy
 

Hello everyone

I just created a link to a Box.net folder in our Files section, but the link doesn't work, because a UTF-8 BOM is added to the end of the URL.  This was not visible when I pasted the link.  The link is the correct link, but with %EF%BB%BF added to the end of it.  I could not fix this, so in the end I removed the Box.net link and just uploaded a TXT file telling users what the correct link is.

Samuel


moderated Re: Infinite scroll in display preferences not working as expected in photo albums #bug

Chris Jordan
 

Looks ok, thanks


moderated Re: Automatically mark "idle" members in Admin Members list #suggestion

Chris Jones
 

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 08:13 PM, Peter Cook wrote:
The only practical definition of "inactive" that I can think of for members in an announcement-only group is (a) they're email-only and (b) their delivery is set to "no email." 
Not on its own. On all except one of the groups I inhabit I have "Special" set; effectively "no mail". However, I look at the them all from time to time during the day so any No Email setting would have to be combined with log -- in information to get a true picture of my participation. Furthermore some groups are fairly inactive so unless I can see that there has been a change (as evidenced by the Latest Message column on the web interface) I may not visit one or two specific groups at all. Doesn't mean I have lost interest though.

Chris


moderated Re: Automatically mark "idle" members in Admin Members list #suggestion

Peter Cook
 

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 03:05 PM, Christos G. Psarras wrote:
the OP suggestion(s) wouldn't really work for Announcement groups
The only practical definition of "inactive" that I can think of for members in an announcement-only group is (a) they're email-only and (b) their delivery is set to "no email." 

Pete


moderated Re: Automatically mark "idle" members in Admin Members list #suggestion

 

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 11:24 AM, Peter Cook wrote:
I would also find it useful to know who is active and who isn't. Another way to go about it would be to have a sortable "Last Post Date" column in the member list. Then the owner could decide what threshold to use.

I'm also in agreement that some kind of process/capability/metric can help in identifying member active status and help keep group membership trim and fit.  But because different groups operate in different ways, the OP suggestion(s) wouldn't really work for Announcement groups for example as everyone but the mods (who post) would be flagged as "inactive", or for groups which have set the ReplyTo going to the poster only, etc, etc.  Rules depending on email delivery settings only for something like this wouldn't work that well because of folks who read online only, plus many groups do not allow "No Email".  And things could (would) get more complicated work-wise if a dashboard/setting is created to allow for setting/tweaking the "threshold" values and the like in order for the auto marking to work and be meaningful/useful to the particular group, so that means multiple system areas would get touched (group settings, member display, and any underlying supporting/provider areas), which means some work would be involved.

In contrast, Peter's idea of adding a sortable "Last Post Date" column on the member display would (most likely) be the easiest and quickest thing to implement as it would affect only one area, and it would give full flexibility to the group admin to do what they want with that displayed info (and members).  And because it is an "ongoing" value, it would prevent the possibility of a member getting accidentally removed by a mod if when the mods looks, a member who otherwise was posting in the earlier months, for the last 2 months (for example) hasn't posted anything so there would be a "inactive" label next to them, and if there was an impetus to trim the membership they may get thrown out with the bathwater.

Cheers,
Christos


moderated Re: Automatically mark "idle" members in Admin Members list #suggestion

toki
 

On 18/12/2020 16:30, Larry Finch wrote:
I am site manager for a Listserv (L-Soft) mailing list server. One of its
features is Probe, which periodically sends a message to each registered
address asking them to respond positively if they wish to remain on the
list. If the email bounces or they don’t respond they are removed from the
list. This catches addresses that do not receive list email as well as
those no longer interested.
In my experience, GMail is extremely good about identifying those probes, and labelling them as spam. Whilst I should look at my spam box at least once a week, i don't. (Roughly 30% of the email GMail marks as spam, is legitimate email from a mailing list I subscribe to.)

jonathon


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

toki
 

On 18/12/2020 15:29, J_Catlady wrote:
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 07:18 AM, Drew wrote:
as group owners we are like Chichikov in Gogol's "Dead Souls"-- continuing
to pay a tax on the inhabitants of our estates even though they may have
"moved on" since the last census was taken years ago.
That makes me wonder (going off-topic here) if there could or should be a feature wherein we can ask members to actively confirm that they want to stay in the group.
Back in the late 90s, the recommendation for migrating from one list platform to another, was to send an email with the new subscription address for the list, to list-members, advising them that they had to go through the subscription process, and list management would not help them subscribe. A 30% loss of subscribers was about par.

Based on that advice, some list-owners sent a notice to the list every 6 to 9 months, announcing that everybody would be removed from the list, and would have to resubscribe, if they wished to continue receiving messages. More than once I subscribed to such a list, only to removed the following week, and having to resubscribe to it. Typically, such purges resulted in a loss of between 20% and 50% of the subscriber base.

In the early noughts, more than one book on mailing list management suggested a rule of unsubscribing an individual, if they had not made a post within the last 91 days. List-owners that implemented that rule discovered subscriber numbers took a nosedive, and stayed down.

List-owners for free groups may have to resort to tactics similar to those described, to stay under the maximum member mark.

On the upside, Mark did give a month's notice, for list-owners to skate in under a grandfather clause.

jonathon


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Peter Cook
 

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 02:03 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Right. And some of us have been around long enough to know that Mark keeps his word.
Agreed.


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 10:55 AM, Peter Cook wrote:
I believe this covers you. Per Mark's original post:

  • These changes only apply to groups upgraded after January 18th, 2021 at 9am Pacific Time; existing premium and enterprise groups will keep their legacy pricing. If a premium group opts to downgrade and then upgrades at some point in the future, they will be subject to the new pricing changes.
Right. And some of us have been around long enough to know that Mark keeps his word.
 
--
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

Peter Cook
 

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 01:52 PM, John Wirtz SF wrote:

So, Id like to know exactly what my terms will be from next year.  Currently pay a fixed monthly fee.  Is that going to rise, my group is about twelve months old now.

 

I believe this covers you. Per Mark's original post:

  • These changes only apply to groups upgraded after January 18th, 2021 at 9am Pacific Time; existing premium and enterprise groups will keep their legacy pricing. If a premium group opts to downgrade and then upgrades at some point in the future, they will be subject to the new pricing changes.


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

John Wirtz SF
 

My group goes back to “E-groups” in the early noughties and I stayed with Yahoo until they messed things up.  In fact I styed rather longer as I couldn’t find an alternative.

I got ripped off by another group and lost £200.00 and finally found Groups.io.

 

I created the group from scratch, i.e. didn’t attempt a migration from Yahoo. And opted for the premium as I believe that a service should be paid for.

Re cost: £200.00 a year isn’t necessarily cheap and my group doesn’t use hardly any of the bells and whistles, we just need an integrated email system which is provided.

 

I currently have around 800 members.  I didn’t migrate all the subscriber from Yahoo as they were asked if they still wishes to be members but that group had reached about 3000 members in eighteen years. As we are small business, we cannot ask our members to pay for what is a marketing tool for the business.

 

So, Id like to know exactly what my terms will be from next year.  Currently pay a fixed monthly fee.  Is that going to rise, my group is about twelve months old now.

 

It might be harsh, but I would discontinue fee groups.  If they are voluntary, then members should be happy to pay 55 cents a year, that is cheap.  But not all groups will be able to do that.

 

Anyway, can you outline the costs for every type of package please, fee, premium and enterprise.

 

Regards

 

John Wirtz

 

 

 

From: main@beta.groups.io <main@beta.groups.io> On Behalf Of txercoupemuseum.org
Sent: 18 December 2020 17:34
To: main@beta.groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Pricing Changes #update

 

 

Your first two sentences were also true back when Groups.io offered fully featured “free groups”.  

 

I fail to see how the substantially expanded size of Groups.io since the demise of Yahoo Groups is LESS able to offer same, particularly following doubling of the “Premium” membership and related charges instituted as a precondition to moving groups from Yahoo.  A life changing amount of money flowed into Groups.io following the demise of Yahoo Groups. 

 

It would appear that something we can’t see “under the hood” has changed, something one might call a “mission statement”.    Back in the beginning Google’s motto was something inspirational like “don’t be bad”.  Now look at them.  Apple Computer once bragged “It just Works”.  Now they would have to add:  "until we quit supporting it with security updates and make you buy another one”.  

 

We have been put “on notice” that Groups.io will no longer offer those services substantially essential for the formation and maintenance of a functionally useful “free group”.  It may be that it was Mark’s intention to follow this path from the beginning…that was/is certainly his call.  

 

But just because an owner CAN do certain things does NOT mean he/she SHOULD do them.  With absolute authority comes absolute accountability (sorry, theologians).  

 

The level of involvement and effort Mark puts in is considerable, more than a “full time” job.  But most of the “latest and greatest services” like the use of hashtags, etc. my group don’t use.  I suspect the number of groups that do is in the distinct minority.  

 

Most groups don’t need him to do much beyond keeping the lights on, the number of servers adequate and responsive, and the emails flowing.  For all the sound and fury over email server problems in the last month, not ONE of my members complained.   And following up on such problems after someone more clerical pulls the details together is hardly a good use of Mark’s “executive level” time.  That worked well for our “User Manual”.  

 

ALL of these things are Groups.io “overhead” that must, I agree, in some manner be paid for.  But I wonder why  “basic users" that don’t ask for or use many of Mark’s “bells and whistles” be “assessed” to pay for them.  Perhaps fees differentiated by category between “simple services” groups and those who require (and can support) complex services would be more equitable and worthy of consideration.  

 

My groups are “grandfathered” as “free” with most earlier privileges, but we paid a substantial amount to get transferred over.  That said, I wouldn’t object to paying a reasonable amount per month or year if more storage came with it.  Storage is a service relatively easy and cheap to provide.  

 

Since my groups are on this “train”, for better or worse, I am increasingly concerned with where it is going.  The cynical in politics say:  “Watch not what I say, but what I do” when these things fundamentally differ.  At some point anyone's “reasonable profit” (and on what?) can become indistinguishable from greed.  

 

Best!

 

WRB

 

— 

 



On Dec 18, 2020, at 9:45 AM, Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...> wrote:

 

This service costs money, and someone has to pay for it. There is no getting around it. Basic groups are riding on the backs of those who pay, and their very existence cuts into groups.io's profit margin. By that measure, Mark is within his rights to place any restrictions on them that he deems necessary. 

<snip>

Regards,
Bruce

_._,_


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

SP4149
 

Back in 2017 I moved several lists from YG to groups.io.  As a result I became Owner or Co-Owner of several of them.  All of them were Basic(free) lists. One has upgraded to Premium because of

the perceived need for greater image storage.

My biggest list is nearing 2000 members, image storage is about  70%  

It will be another 3-4 years before we reach the 1GB limit, so there is No Immediate Need to Upgrade.

However there is an Immediate Threat to Upgrade to Premium.  After Jan 18th an upgrade to Premium will cost

$1100 a year, a massive jump from Free.

The proposed pricing structure indicates that the preference is for lists over 1000 members to Upgrade to Enterprise

which for my 2000 member list would cost $4400 annually if upgraded after Jan 18th.


Most of the image storage is in the files section, only a small percentage is attachments to messages.  In ten years image storage may reach 2Gb if not managed.

Most members search the archives, only a small percentage post new information.  Searchable archives are the main reason we moved to groups.io


My dilemma is future per member pricing for currently grandfathered lists. I don't expect grandfathered lists like mine to avoid per member pricing forever, perhaps only in the near future.

Mark is leaving a lot of money on the table each year existing lists are exempt from per member pricing.  If this is a first step and in the future, for example, existing Basic (Free) lists over 200 members would be charged

$0.50 per year per member; a decision to upgrade now would be easier to justify.

ken clark

www.shastasprings.com



moderated Re: Infinite scroll in display preferences not working as expected in photo albums #bug

 

Hello,

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 9:36 AM Chris Jordan <chris@...> wrote:

When I select infinite scroll in display preferences and look at the Photo Album page, it only displays the top 20 albums with no scrolling available. 
The navigation buttons are no longer available (as expected if you could scroll) so you can only see these albums with no indication that others are available. The same thing happens inside an album, you can only see the first 20 photos.


This should be fixed now.

Thanks,
Mark 


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

txercoupemuseum.org
 


Your first two sentences were also true back when Groups.io offered fully featured “free groups”.  

I fail to see how the substantially expanded size of Groups.io since the demise of Yahoo Groups is LESS able to offer same, particularly following doubling of the “Premium” membership and related charges instituted as a precondition to moving groups from Yahoo.  A life changing amount of money flowed into Groups.io following the demise of Yahoo Groups. 

It would appear that something we can’t see “under the hood” has changed, something one might call a “mission statement”.    Back in the beginning Google’s motto was something inspirational like “don’t be bad”.  Now look at them.  Apple Computer once bragged “It just Works”.  Now they would have to add:  "until we quit supporting it with security updates and make you buy another one”.  

We have been put “on notice” that Groups.io will no longer offer those services substantially essential for the formation and maintenance of a functionally useful “free group”.  It may be that it was Mark’s intention to follow this path from the beginning…that was/is certainly his call.  

But just because an owner CAN do certain things does NOT mean he/she SHOULD do them.  With absolute authority comes absolute accountability (sorry, theologians).  

The level of involvement and effort Mark puts in is considerable, more than a “full time” job.  But most of the “latest and greatest services” like the use of hashtags, etc. my group don’t use.  I suspect the number of groups that do is in the distinct minority.  

Most groups don’t need him to do much beyond keeping the lights on, the number of servers adequate and responsive, and the emails flowing.  For all the sound and fury over email server problems in the last month, not ONE of my members complained.   And following up on such problems after someone more clerical pulls the details together is hardly a good use of Mark’s “executive level” time.  That worked well for our “User Manual”.  

ALL of these things are Groups.io “overhead” that must, I agree, in some manner be paid for.  But I wonder why  “basic users" that don’t ask for or use many of Mark’s “bells and whistles” be “assessed” to pay for them.  Perhaps fees differentiated by category between “simple services” groups and those who require (and can support) complex services would be more equitable and worthy of consideration.  

My groups are “grandfathered” as “free” with most earlier privileges, but we paid a substantial amount to get transferred over.  That said, I wouldn’t object to paying a reasonable amount per month or year if more storage came with it.  Storage is a service relatively easy and cheap to provide.  

Since my groups are on this “train”, for better or worse, I am increasingly concerned with where it is going.  The cynical in politics say:  “Watch not what I say, but what I do” when these things fundamentally differ.  At some point anyone's “reasonable profit” (and on what?) can become indistinguishable from greed.  

Best!

WRB

— 


On Dec 18, 2020, at 9:45 AM, Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...> wrote:

This service costs money, and someone has to pay for it. There is no getting around it. Basic groups are riding on the backs of those who pay, and their very existence cuts into groups.io's profit margin. By that measure, Mark is within his rights to place any restrictions on them that he deems necessary. 

<snip>

Regards,
Bruce
_._,_


moderated Bulk Loading Banning Domains #suggestion

Kenny Paul
 

Having the ability to upload banned domains from a csv file would be a beneficial feature for those of us managing multiple parent groups. This would be especially valuable during the creation of a new parent group, which we do a lot of at the LF. 

If the capability does already happen to exist, if the https://groups.io/helpcenter/ownersmanual/1/banning-domains-from-the-group page could be updated with the how-to, that would be spiffy. :-)  

As always, thanks for the consideration.
--
Kenny Paul, Technical Program Manager for ONAP and LFN
The Linux Foundation
Pacific Time Zone

2641 - 2660 of 29680