Date   

locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Jeremy H
 

I've thought fairly long and hard before making this  post, but...
(Note; in this post, by "groups.io" I mean the whole groups.io ecosystem)

On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 09:37 PM, Tom Madden wrote:

As I read this thread I get the feeling we’re overthinking the situation. Especially when we drill down into the minutiae of incremental costs, social “worthiness” of groups, and financial resources of individuals. Here are a few thoughts that clarified things for me…..

Most of which I would not disagree with. Except

5. This is “groups.io”, not “subscribers.io”. We transferred from Yahoo as groups, not as individuals. Individuals do not join groups.io; groups do.

But individuals do join, and become part of,  groups.io - and have individual relationships with Groups.io, Inc as well as the groups they are members of.

The value of groups.io is down to - and enjoyed by - the triad of Groups.io, Inc; group owners; and group members. All three are needed - and benefit. And for a better groups.io, all need - in their various ways - to grow. The problem with the proposed new pricing structure is that, for new and upgraded groups, (increased) members impose (increased) cost on group owners, which has not been the case so far.    

Discussing ways Mark can administer individual subscriptions is pointless. That’s the group owner’s job. Mark doesn’t approve subscriptions, monitor topics, moderate “loose cannon” subscribers. Determining how (or if) to pay to maintain or upgrade to Premium from Basic is one more responsibility of a group owner. For existing Basic groups, that can be as simple as limiting uploads or attachments to keep memory usage below the 1GB limit.

While some groups have funds from, or for, their members with which they can pay Groups.io, Inc , others do not (and, I would suggest, that includes some of the largest publicly listed groups, which have 5 figure mamberships), and so are reliant on being free Basic groups; which hitherto have been available. But that in the future are unaffordable.

While their owners may be prepared accept the responsibilty of running them, putting in the time and effort required, payment is - for many if not most - not a responsibility that they can or will be prepared take on.

And so suggestions have been made as to how individual members - as beneficiaries of the service - can make payments to Group.io, Inc , for that service.

The absence of 'free to owner', basic, groups will make groups.io poorer.

Jeremy H


Re: Gray out option for mods to receive notifications without the corresponding permissions #suggestion

 

On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 06:28 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
And you/Chris
should read "and you (Andy) and 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


Re: Gray out option for mods to receive notifications without the corresponding permissions #suggestion

 

YES! (And no;). Yes, I have been talking about the mod's own SUBSCRIPTION page! And you/Chris had been looking at the mod's page in the MEMBERS list. That's brilliant detective work. Yes, it's a bug. But the fix you describe would IMO make things much worse. The mod needs access, at least in part, to their OWN notification options. The problem is that they currently have 100%, no matter what their settings. The fix you describe would give them either 100% or 0%. That's wrong, too.

I draw a distinction between setting one's own notification on the one hand, which is the thing I've noticed is off-base,  and setting other people's notifications, on the other. The mod should have access to notification X if and only if THEY themself have the corresponding permission X - e.g., they should be able to select getting pending message notifications if and only if they have message approval permission. They should be able to set OTHER MEMBERS' notifications only if they have "set moderator privileges" permission. The "set moderator privileges" permission should have nothing to do with their OWN notification options. That's too draconian if turned off based on that variable, and too lax if turned on based on it.

So the member page is behaving correctly. But the mod's own subscription page is not behaving correctly, but not in the way you describe. The request/suggestion (or bug, since as I said, I thought Mark had implemented this already) is that the Subscription page should allow access to the specific subset of notifications for which the mod has corresponding permissions. Currently, all notification options are available to them no matter what, I agree with you there. But the fix is not to turn the whole panel on or off, zero-one, depending on "set moderator privileges" being on or off, as in the Members page. That shold apply to OTHER members, not the mod themselves. The fix is to make the available notifications correspond to the mod's own permissions.
--
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


Increase font size for group email address on invite page #suggestion

Andy Wedge
 

Hi Mark,

when accepting an invite to join a group by clicking on the link in the invitation email you are taken to a page where subscription options can be set. The group email address in the title bar of the top panel is in a much smaller font than the rest of the text for some reason. Can we make that the same size or if the intention is to distinguish between the group name (to the left) and address, perhaps put the email address in parentheses (if it needs to be there at all).

Cheers
Andy


Re: Gray out option for mods to receive notifications without the corresponding permissions #suggestion

Andy Wedge
 

On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 05:22 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I just went through the whole sequence again, with the same results.
OK - I can reproduce what you are seeing and I think this is a #bug.  Any permission that gives a Mod access to view the member list can be used to demonstrate this as it gives a Mod two places to look at their details. If a Mod views their own details via the Subscription page then the Moderator Notifications panel is always visible.  If they view their own details via Admin > Members then the Moderator Notifications panel is only displayed if  'Set Moderator Privileges' is checked (along with the Moderator Permissions panel as could be expected).

So, I think the bug is that the Moderator Notifications panel is displayed in the Subscription settings for a Mod when it should only be displayed via Admin > Members if they have been granted
'Set Moderator Privileges'.

Cheers
Andy


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

Tom,

Here are a few thoughts that clarified things for me…..
All good, except:

2. This group was set up to avoid swamping the GMF. Given the number
of posts, that was a wise move.
That one is almost exactly backwards.

It is Group_Help and GMF that serve in part to avoid swamping beta, beginning when beta got too busy for Mark to keep up with.
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/2268338

That appeal was only temporarily successful, and Mark had to reiterate it a time or two. Ultimately (so far) the Guidelines were introduced to clarify and structure topics in beta:
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/guidelines

The intent is that beta should be reserved for topics that only Groups.io (Mark) can act on (#bugs & #suggestions, primarily). The pricing structure, of course, falls squarely in the "only Groups.io can act on" category.

Group_Help and GMF act as user-to-user support for questions that a hive mind of knowledgeable users can answer. You know, until a sufficiently strong general AI comes along. I agree with what Mark Murphy and others have said: advice and opinion on coping with the pricing structure, as a group owner or a group member, falls into this category.

Shal


moderated Re: Email Address change #suggestion

Christos G. Psarras
 

Hi folks,

I had to resurrect this, I think I may have come up with a fast and simple code-wise solution (he says, hopefully) for this that will cover and self-correct the resulting problems.  In short, change the current process into a timed self-expiring process which, if it doesn't get the expected confirmation link click within the time limit, it reverts back to the previous email address value.
 
In long, a research & testing by-product of this GMF thread of mine, namely whether on premium+ groups an admin can help a user recover from a typo-ed address change, (yes it can because of (a) below), helped me understand the current process flow.  There are two underlying problems which cause this issue, (a) the timing of the new address database write, and (b), no undo/Plan B when things go wrong.
 

(a)
Right now, the new address database write (and in effect site-wide change) takes place right away pretty-much after OK is clicked, before the member has a chance to click on the emailed confirmation link sent to the new address.  The write probably takes place when the confirmation email goes out or thereabouts.  Then, I guess the account goes to NotConfirmed by default and ...

- if the new address is legit and the member clicks on the emailed confirmation link (or if a premium+ admin confirms them) it removes the NC status and all is fine.
(b)
- if it was a typo/non-existent new address, when the Dave's-not-here reply to the confirmation email comes back, the account then changes to blue Bouncing and it will stay there since nobody will ever click anything on the other end.
- if a false positive, and more than likely the wrong recipient probably knows it is a mistake and will never click on the link, the account again "stays in limbo".  (if they do click on the confirmation link, then at least a group admin can sort it out with the member)
 
OK, IMO the (a) database write should be moved and take place when the user clicks on the emailed confirmation link as that process should really determine (confirm) if the new account is legit, hence the change should commensurately happen at that point; until then, we continue operating with the old credentials until we prove who we claim to be, or we continue using the existing credit card until we get the new one in our hands. But this fix would still not cover the other cases in (b).  That's where adding Plan-B comes in handy, as it can take care of both (a) and (b) cases, meaning no code change (et al) is needed to move the db write part as Plan-B will compensate for it regardless.
 
Here's the thing, when one changes their email address anywhere, it is more or less expected that they are already in front of a internet-connected device and that at the very least they have access to the new email account.  So I personally think that it's a reasonable expectation that the user will complete this changeover (including clicking on the emailed confirmation link) within a reasonable amount of time; 15 min? 30 min? 45?  So with this -do it in a reasonable timeframe- presumption then, for Plan-B, when someone initiates an address change, a user-specific "ChangedEmail" timer/timed process/thread/whatever is started which remembers the previous email address value and will revert back to it by default if not stopped in time.

-If the user clicks on the emailed confirmation link in the meantime before the timer expires, that click kills the timer and does everything else normally as it does now, and all if fine.
-If it was a typo/bad address/false positive but they won't click/whatnot, or no confirmation link click takes place, the timer will expire, at which point it will write back the previous (good) address, and all is again fine.

This will cover pretty-much everything that can go wrong, because the only thing that will stop the rollback from automatically taking place, is the user clicking on the emailed confirmation link.  (OK, also a false-positive and the (wrong) recipient clicked on the confirmation link would also prevent the rollback, but that would happen/happens now regardless, a group admin and the user have to sort it out)

So when a bad-address happens, the account will stay in limbo for only the timer duration then revert back, so all an affected member has to do is nothing but wait a bit and things go back to the way they were.  But even if it's a good address but part of a (forgotten) test, a false-positive address which the recipient is ignoring, a (premium+) admin member email address change gone wrong, etc, unless if the new email address recipient clicks on the confirmation link, things self-correct back to what they were.

Cheers,
Christos


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 01:37 PM, Tom Madden wrote:

 

4. Mark’s expenses, what he needs to charge, and what he feels is a fair return for his efforts, are none of our business.

Hear, hear.
 
--
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

KWKloeber
 

On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 10:23 AM, Mark Murphy wrote:
Happy New Year!

Thank you, Mark M. Ditto. 

maybe you can enlighten me.  Why do some forum members choose to try to silence others, when it’s so much easier to simply control what they receive?


I haven’t been able to see an obvious answer to that conundrum. 


 

 


Re: Discard button on Send Message page #bug

 

I noticed that too. (I also noticed it in Drafts when the draft message is still empty. Maybe that's intentional but still seemed odd.)
--
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


Discard button on Send Message page #bug

Duane
 

While attempting to send a message to a member this morning (accessed using Send Message at the bottom of that member's page), I noticed that the Discard button on the page doesn't seem to do anything.  There's no draft created, but I can't leave the page using the button.  I think it used to take me back to their member page.

Thanks,
Duane


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Tom Madden
 

As I read this thread I get the feeling we’re overthinking the situation. Especially when we drill down into the minutiae of incremental costs, social “worthiness” of groups, and financial resources of individuals. Here are a few thoughts that clarified things for me…..

 

1. Mark has extend us the courtesy of advance notification of a price increase giving existing groups a chance to upgrade at the old rates. This will presumably give Mark an immediate cash infusion.

 

2. This group was set up to avoid swamping the GMF. Given the number of posts, that was a wise move.

 

3. Although Mark has asked for our thoughts, he has not asked for our permission. One hopes he will take our comments into consideration but he is not required to do so.

 

4. Mark’s expenses, what he needs to charge, and what he feels is a fair return for his efforts, are none of our business.

 

5. This is “groups.io”, not “subscribers.io”. We transferred from Yahoo as groups, not as individuals. Individuals do not join groups.io; groups do. Discussing ways Mark can administer individual subscriptions is pointless. That’s the group owner’s job. Mark doesn’t approve subscriptions, monitor topics, moderate “loose cannon” subscribers. Determining how (or if) to pay to maintain or upgrade to Premium from Basic is one more responsibility of a group owner. For existing Basic groups, that can be as simple as limiting uploads or attachments to keep memory usage below the 1GB limit.

 

Finally, Mark is not changing the rules while the game is underway. But when a new game begins on the 18th, we get to play by the old rules while any groups joining after that date have to play by the new ones. This should be a tremendous advantage for existing groups, because new arrivals might be more inclined to find groups to join rather than start new ones. (Also should discourage a disgruntled member from setting up a competing group for spite.) All that potential “new blood” could be really valuable, particularly for large groups comprised of geographically dispersed members who share a common interest but seldom (or never) see each other. Such groups are often dominated by the owner and a handful of contributors, and they can wither when time takes its toll. (The groups. Nothing we can do to keep individuals from withering! I’ve tried…)

 

Just my thoughts, thanks for reading.

 

Tom Madden


Re: Gray out option for mods to receive notifications without the corresponding permissions #suggestion

 

On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 09:01 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
I removed my second membership's Set Moderator Privileges, .... The list of checkboxes had vanished, as had the ability to select Moderator Notifications. I then reversed the process and lo! my list of selectable notifications had reappeared.
I would say again, as before, that if this is happening, it's a distinct and even weirder bug. Toggling "set moderator privileges" on and off should have no effect on the mod's abiltiy to select relevant notifications. Turning it off should not wipe them all out. In any case, I am not seeing this at all, for some reason.
 
--
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


Re: Gray out option for mods to receive notifications without the corresponding permissions #suggestion

 

It means I haven't checked any of their privilege boxes. It's a test case. 
It does not make them a (non-mod) member. They have a subscription and member page in the moderator template.

On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 9:24 AM billsf9c via groups.io <OOWONBS=Netscape.net@groups.io> wrote:
which is a mod in my test group but with no privileges....

What am I missing?!?
A MOD with No Priveleges...
Cannot Moderate.

They would be as a Member.

BillSF9c


--
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


Re: Gray out option for mods to receive notifications without the corresponding permissions #suggestion

billsf9c
 

which is a mod in my test group but with no privileges....

What am I missing?!?
A MOD with No Priveleges...
Cannot Moderate.

They would be as a Member.

BillSF9c


Re: Gray out option for mods to receive notifications without the corresponding permissions #suggestion

 

I just went through the whole sequence again, with the same results. I can't drink any more coffee or I'll be on the ceiling. (Have switched to tea;). I'll leave it to Mark and/or others to sort this out.

Bottom line: I have a non-owner moderator in my test group with no permissions who has the complete panel of notification options available in their subscription page. Toggling this mod back and forth between set-moderator-privileges on and off has no effect. The complete notification panel is available no matter what.

I'll leave it at that for now. I am concerned about this from a practical point of view because, as I said originally, I just promoted someone to moderator status in my group and I am concerned about her having the abiity to elect to see notifications she should not. So unlike in some cases where I comment in beta, it's not just an intellectual curiosity.
--
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


Re: Gray out option for mods to receive notifications without the corresponding permissions #suggestion

 

Chris,
Thanks for the sanity (or insanity?) check. This is really weird. I've done it about five times now, not trusting myself, but will do it again. Pretty sure I'm saving because I log out and back in each time.


On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 9:01 AM Chris Jones via groups.io <chrisjones12=btinternet.com@groups.io> wrote:
On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 04:43 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
If you, Andy, are doing the same sequence and seeing something different, maybe I just need another cup of coffee.
I have done similar tests and would support Andy's point. I have two memberships of someone else's test group, where as a general rule everyone has moderator status. Using my "main" membership I removed my second membership's Set Moderator Privileges, leaving other checked boxes unchanged. I then logged out, and logged back in using my second membership. The list of checkboxes had vanished, as had the ability to select Moderator Notifications. I then reversed the process and lo! my list of selectable notifications had reappeared.

One thought; when you changed the permissions did you remember to Save the change? I ask because I nearly forgot...

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


Re: Gray out option for mods to receive notifications without the corresponding permissions #suggestion

Chris Jones
 

On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 04:43 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
If you, Andy, are doing the same sequence and seeing something different, maybe I just need another cup of coffee.
I have done similar tests and would support Andy's point. I have two memberships of someone else's test group, where as a general rule everyone has moderator status. Using my "main" membership I removed my second membership's Set Moderator Privileges, leaving other checked boxes unchanged. I then logged out, and logged back in using my second membership. The list of checkboxes had vanished, as had the ability to select Moderator Notifications. I then reversed the process and lo! my list of selectable notifications had reappeared.

One thought; when you changed the permissions did you remember to Save the change? I ask because I nearly forgot...

Chris


Re: Gray out option for mods to receive notifications without the corresponding permissions #suggestion

 

I do see the effect you note, Andy, in regards to the moderator permissions panel, which is as it should be - you should see the moderator permissions panel if and only if you have "set moderator privileges" permission. But it does not happen in my tests with the moderator notifications panel, which also is as it should be.

So maybe we are talking about two different things. I am reporting that the moderator notifications panel in the mod's own subscription page is not filtered according to the actual permissions that the moderator has, and I am requesting that it be filtered.
--
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


Re: Gray out option for mods to receive notifications without the corresponding permissions #suggestion

 

On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 08:43 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
and look at the member page.
more accurately: and look at the subscription page
 
--
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

601 - 620 of 27950