Date   

moderated Re: RSVP Waitlist Promotion Issues #bug

 

Hello,

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 5:50 AM Charlie Behnken <charles.behnken@...> wrote:
I've had two reports of issues with the promotion from the Waitlist to Attending recently - both on the same event.

This is a small event with a limit of 10 people.  Most are singles, but a few are +1s.  The invite was sent out on December 16th and about 23 people RSVP'd as Will Attend.  The 10th person to respond was a +1 and was put on the Waitlist.  Unexpectedly, to us,  the next person to respond was accepted as an attendee. 

I have fixed this behavior. Someone earlier in the waitlist with a +1 will prevent someone later on the waitlist from being added, even if that later person doesn't have a +1.

 
The second one was on the same event where there were about 12 people on the Waitlist when on December 17th a response was changed to Not Attending.  In this case no one was promoted and the spot remained open until on December 18th a totally new response was received.  This person should have been the 13th on the Waitlist, but instead they were immediately accepted and filled the 10th spot.  This is definitely a bug, and the leader had to reach out to them, explain the system incorrectly accepted their response, and manually remove them from the  event.

I wasn't able to reproduce this, but I believe the changes I made will prevent this from happening in the future.

Also, on the /viewevent page, I'm now include +1 numbers when displaying the number of people on the waitlist as well as the number of people ahead of you on the waitlist.

Thanks,
Mark 


moderated Re: Preventing the export of a table by non-owners #suggestion

Peter Cook
 

Guys, as I've already said, I understand that. I'm simply wanting to make it more difficult to share the data en masse, especially in digitally readable format. 


moderated Re: Preventing the export of a table by non-owners #suggestion

 

On 21 Dec 2020 at 7:30, Peter Cook wrote:

So my request is to have the option in the Permissions section of a table to
disallow anyone other than the table owner, the groups owner, and/or the group
moderators to export the contents of the table.

Pete
If someone can see the data, then they can save it to their own computer, if only as a screen shot. There is no way anyone can prevent that.

Jim Fisher


moderated Re: Preventing the export of a table by non-owners #suggestion

Peter Cook
 

Ok. I give.


moderated Re: Preventing the export of a table by non-owners #suggestion

Duane
 

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 10:49 AM, Peter Cook wrote:
I understand that. As I said, I just don't want to make it easy to send this out in a wholesale way, as in a spreadsheet export.
Just did a quick test and they don't even have to do screen captures, just use View Page Source (in Firefox) and copy what they want from there.

Duane


moderated Re: Preventing the export of a table by non-owners #suggestion

Peter Cook
 

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 11:43 AM, Peter Cook wrote:
Yeah, that's a separate conversation from GIO. I'm just looking for a tool to help.

 

 
(This was a response, to toki, not Duane.)


moderated Re: Preventing the export of a table by non-owners #suggestion

Peter Cook
 

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 11:43 AM, Duane wrote:
If they can see the table, they can always do screen captures. 
I understand that. As I said, I just don't want to make it easy to send this out in a wholesale way, as in a spreadsheet export.


moderated Re: Preventing the export of a table by non-owners #suggestion

Peter Cook
 

Yeah, that's a separate conversation from GIO. I'm just looking for a tool to help.


moderated Re: Preventing the export of a table by non-owners #suggestion

Duane
 

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 10:11 AM, Peter Cook wrote:
So my request is to have the option in the Permissions section of a table to disallow anyone other than the table owner, the groups owner, and/or the group moderators to export the contents of the table.
I don't see how that could work.  If they can see the table, they can always do screen captures.  A little more work, but they've still got all the information.

Duane


moderated Re: Preventing the export of a table by non-owners #suggestion

toki
 

On 21/12/2020 15:30, Peter Cook wrote:> So my request is to have the option in the Permissions section of a table to disallow anyone other than the table owner, the groups owner, and/or the group moderators to export the contents of the table.
If a user can access the table, the user can export the table.

This is where you have to do a deep dive into what data you are providing, and why you providing each specific datum.

Depending upon your legal jurisdiction, national, provincial/state, county/parish/district, city/town/village statutes, regulations, ordinances, and laws may have a bearing upon what data your organization may disseminate, either publicly, semi-publicly, or privately.
Also note that employers may have rules about data dissemination of employees by other organizations. Rules that may or may not be legally binding.

jonathon


moderated Bad debounce uri for plus addresses #bug

Enrico Scholz
 

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.


groups.io should escape the '+' to '%2b'

[Mod note: Added a subject to the message.]


moderated Preventing the export of a table by non-owners #suggestion

Peter Cook
 

One of my groups is limited to the residents of my community. It contains database that is an opt-in directory of residents, including some who are actually group members. (It's a holdover from the days when we used to publish a hardcopy directory of everyone in the neighborhood and provide one to every household.) We're grappling with privacy issues here and want to minimize this data getting out into the world, at least in a wholesale way.

So my request is to have the option in the Permissions section of a table to disallow anyone other than the table owner, the groups owner, and/or the group moderators to export the contents of the table.

Thanks for your consideration.

Pete


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Ellen Moody
 

Thank you, Mark.  And as merry a Christmas to you as you can manage, Ellen


On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 8:49 AM Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 4:25 AM Ellen Moody <ellen.moody@...> wrote:
Just to be clear:  I own/moderate 3 lists, one is 234 members (Trollope&Peers), another, 148 (18thCenturyWorlds), the third, 133 (WomenWriters, femnist); we began March 2002; we have 
no special features that I know of.

So I take it we are to be grandmothered (I'm a woman) in to be for free, even though all three are above 100.  I do not expect any gigantic increases for the foreseeable future. I haven't 
checked but my impression is maybe 5-10 people join a year, but then we also lose some people. We think we are valuable: we are literary lists, reading and studying literature and art 
subdivided in three different ways together.

That is correct. Your groups would be considered legacy and nothing would change.

Thanks,
Mark 


moderated RSVP Waitlist Promotion Issues #bug

Charlie Behnken
 

I've had two reports of issues with the promotion from the Waitlist to Attending recently - both on the same event.

This is a small event with a limit of 10 people.  Most are singles, but a few are +1s.  The invite was sent out on December 16th and about 23 people RSVP'd as Will Attend.  The 10th person to respond was a +1 and was put on the Waitlist.  Unexpectedly, to us,  the next person to respond was accepted as an attendee. 

Others have told me that they have seen in the past where the +1s on the Waitlist never get accepted since the attendees are primarily singles and only one spot at time opens up.  The +1 stay at the top of the Waitlist while others are promoted past them.   So even if 2 or more change to Will Not Attend over the course of time, the +1s never get promoted.  To be fair, the spot should remain open until another person changes to Will Not Attend  allowing the +1 to be accepted. (Yes, this could become an issue if the +1 is a +5 and open spots just sit there, but the organizer can manually add people).

The second one was on the same event where there were about 12 people on the Waitlist when on December 17th a response was changed to Not Attending.  In this case no one was promoted and the spot remained open until on December 18th a totally new response was received.  This person should have been the 13th on the Waitlist, but instead they were immediately accepted and filled the 10th spot.  This is definitely a bug, and the leader had to reach out to them, explain the system incorrectly accepted their response, and manually remove them from the  event.

We get a lot of flack from members who don't get accepted to events, and we can't have the system not promoting in they order they respond..

Thanks for looking into this,
Charlie


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 4:25 AM Ellen Moody <ellen.moody@...> wrote:
Just to be clear:  I own/moderate 3 lists, one is 234 members (Trollope&Peers), another, 148 (18thCenturyWorlds), the third, 133 (WomenWriters, femnist); we began March 2002; we have 
no special features that I know of.

So I take it we are to be grandmothered (I'm a woman) in to be for free, even though all three are above 100.  I do not expect any gigantic increases for the foreseeable future. I haven't 
checked but my impression is maybe 5-10 people join a year, but then we also lose some people. We think we are valuable: we are literary lists, reading and studying literature and art 
subdivided in three different ways together.

That is correct. Your groups would be considered legacy and nothing would change.

Thanks,
Mark 


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Ellen Moody
 

Addendum from Ellen:  are all three of my lists added together or are they counted separately?  If added together, I could delete 18thCenturyWorlds which has very little traffic.  
I would regret doing that and/or could ask members there to move to one of the other two.  That would bring the total down to under 500.  E.M.


On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 7:25 AM Ellen Moody <ellen.moody@...> wrote:
Just to be clear:  I own/moderate 3 lists, one is 234 members (Trollope&Peers), another, 148 (18thCenturyWorlds), the third, 133 (WomenWriters, femnist); we began March 2002; we have 
no special features that I know of.

So I take it we are to be grandmothered (I'm a woman) in to be for free, even though all three are above 100.  I do not expect any gigantic increases for the foreseeable future. I haven't 
checked but my impression is maybe 5-10 people join a year, but then we also lose some people. We think we are valuable: we are literary lists, reading and studying literature and art 
subdivided in three different ways together.

Ellen



locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Mike Hanauer
 

I believe Groups.io is an important resource for our society. 

How about considering becoming a non-profit and asking for donations similar to what Wikipedia does to fill in the shortfall, at least for those who are not profit making businesses?

Consider Better, not Bigger. So many advantages. Just ask. USA adds a Chicago to our overpop each year.
"Still more population growth is not our way to a healthy community, a healthy planet, OR enjoyable cycling."

    ~Mike


On Monday, December 21, 2020, 08:08:59 AM EST, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:


On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 04:50 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Free
Up to 100 members
1GB storage
Single mailing list only
Something about this level popped into my head this morning.  Would there be a possibility of a fee for additional users (Basic+?) at this level?  Say $5/mo per each 500 or 1000 additional members?  Some types of groups work well enough with messages only and minimal storage.  If worth doing, it might be acceptable to groups that just can't come up with the fee for Premium.  This might tie into an a la carte menu for additional features later.  Of course it would only take 1 or 2 additions to make Premium more palatable considering the extra features and storage included.

Duane


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Duane
 

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 04:50 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Free
Up to 100 members
1GB storage
Single mailing list only
Something about this level popped into my head this morning.  Would there be a possibility of a fee for additional users (Basic+?) at this level?  Say $5/mo per each 500 or 1000 additional members?  Some types of groups work well enough with messages only and minimal storage.  If worth doing, it might be acceptable to groups that just can't come up with the fee for Premium.  This might tie into an a la carte menu for additional features later.  Of course it would only take 1 or 2 additions to make Premium more palatable considering the extra features and storage included.

Duane


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Ellen Moody
 

Just to be clear:  I own/moderate 3 lists, one is 234 members (Trollope&Peers), another, 148 (18thCenturyWorlds), the third, 133 (WomenWriters, femnist); we began March 2002; we have 
no special features that I know of.

So I take it we are to be grandmothered (I'm a woman) in to be for free, even though all three are above 100.  I do not expect any gigantic increases for the foreseeable future. I haven't 
checked but my impression is maybe 5-10 people join a year, but then we also lose some people. We think we are valuable: we are literary lists, reading and studying literature and art 
subdivided in three different ways together.

Ellen



locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Dave Wade
 

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:50 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:


Hi All,

I mentioned a year ago that I was considering changing to a per-member based
pricing scheme for new groups.
This would align our revenue with our costs; the larger the group, the more it
costs us to host. It's also industry standard.
As Dilbert once said "Industry standard" roughly equates to "average"


- The non-profit Enterprise discount will continue; $100/month or $1100/year,
with the per member pricing being either $0.10/member/month or
$1.10/member/year.

Please let me know if you have any questions.
I am a member of many groups that offer peer support for users of a particular price of free software or are enthusiasts about a particular piece of Vintage hardware. Such groups are essentially "not for profit" but they don't have any formal constitution. Probably the only money they have is that raised specifically to pay for the groups.io bill. I assume these will be treated as commercial.

In the UK there are many forms of "not for profit", so "Charitable" , "Company Limited by Guarantee" and "un-incorporated clubs and societies". How would you treat those. I personally find it incongruous that some UK Charities are in effect huge businesses who now concentrate more on making money than they do in fulfilling their charitable aims.

For example in the UK the "National Trust" a charity that is supposed to "preserve" yet makes more from its coffee bars and souvenir shops than it does on admission fees and pays its chairmain something like $300,000 a year.

Thanks,
Mark
Dave Wade

741 - 760 of 27857