|
locked
Re: Pricing Changes
#update
On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 03:33 PM, billsf9c wrote:
Pointing out that at 5$/groups we joinI don't believe that was ever mentioned. You may be thinking about the $5 per account (email address) that was proposed, so you'd only pay $5 per year if you use the same account for all groups. Duane
|
|
|
|
locked
Re: Pricing Changes
#update
billsf9c
Maybe we could think and suggest better if we first ask Mark...
How much do you need per group? And/or... How much do you need per member... To fund all that must be funded, including 'growth.' Pointing out that at 5$/groups we join would cause me to drop all but 1 or 3 groups I'm in (of perhaps 30, most of which I am inactive in,) is a cumbersome way to describe our potential to pay... aside from the difficulty of payment if it is done group by group. Rewarding non-posters who lower bandwidth is a recipie for failing lists. Maybe rewarding those who don't read online helps, but then Premium is shot in the foot. BillSF9c
|
|
|
|
locked
Re: Pricing Changes
#update
Bob Bellizzi
Trying to put this email burden into perspective, I've just done a bit of simple math on our main group.
In December we received 379 individual messages from our members. I base this on the message numbers in our archive. Our December 31 membersip was 3892 but I figured to usinng 38i50 average members which is conservative for our 20 year old group Doing the math based on premise that all members received individual messages, groups.io transmitted 1459150 total messages to our members. Doing the math based on premise that all members received digest, each of 12 messages, groups.io would have transmitted 121595 total digests to our members. This would have also reduced the compute burden just for message transmission to 1/12 of individual message transmission burden. BTW it would have also reduced each member's supplier's burden by the same amount. Of course if all members simply used the online messaging the burdens would be a great deal smaller. -- Bob Bellizzi
|
|
|
|
locked
Re: Pricing Changes
#update
Bob Bellizzi
Shal,
There is also a fairly large amount of compute burden in modern email for DMARK and other spam preventive measures for each message sent that must be considered when comparing the "burden" difference between individual message dellivery to members and digest delivery. -- Bob Bellizzi
|
|
|
|
locked
Re: Pricing Changes
#update
Happy New Year to you and everyone too! 😊🐱
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Jan 1, 2021, at 10:10 AM, txercoupemuseum.org <ercoguru@...> wrote:
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
|
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.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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 —
|
|
|
|
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 periodHa. 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.
|
|
|
|
locked
Re: Pricing Changes
#update
txercoupemuseum.org
Hi Shal,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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:
|
|
|
|
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).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 thoseThe 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 sendWe'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,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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:
|
|
|
|
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.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 (POPOnly 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.ioExactly 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 thoseOnce 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
|
|
|
|
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.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Judy F., Moderator Sew It's For Sale GIO SW Florida, USA
On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 03:41 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: HTML format for incoming emails
#suggestion
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
|
|
|
|
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.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Dec 31, 2020, at 3:17 PM, Chris Jones via groups.io <chrisjones12@...> wrote:
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
