|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
billsf9c
Quite so!
GROUPS are Grandfathered. Not members. Groups are members of IO. Memebers of a group are members oilf a group and not members of IO. SOME outfits for say, $500, give a member lifetime total all-inclusive benefits. But that's not been suggested and would be a unique tier... for a member... not for a Group. BillSF9c
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
Scott Chase
My Grandfathered FREE Basic Group would no longer be freely accessible, if there is ANY form of a user account fee suddenly being charged by Groups.io every year. My FREE Group would be placed behind a traditional Paywall at that point. Someone even remotely interested in joining my group may be required to become a subscriber of Groups.io in order to access my Group's previously-free content.
Nobody on the internet is going to even remotely have the impression that my Group's content is free, if they must now pay for a Groups.io account. I would not have been initially interested in Groups.io, and subsequently paid $220 to transfer my little Yahoo group to Groups.io in the first place, if there was going to be ANY kind of user Paywall put in front of my group at some point. I don't think most people will join my Group anymore if Groups.io becomes a Premium service with a Paywall. That's not what I signed up for and paid a transfer fee for. But, I do support adding a Donation button to me grandfathered free group. And I would encourage my members to use it. Scott
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:22 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
My interpretation is that the grandfathering would immediately cease to be in effect because the new proposal affects all group members. Even if a group itself is grandfathered in, members may have to start paying to join other groups. Nobody who created a groups.io account thought that was going to happen.While I agree that many people who created groups at Groups.io had thought that things would always be the same for them and for everyone else that they recommended Groups.io to, and many such people were disappointed to discover that Groups.io changed in ways that no longer match the recommendations that they had made to their friends, and that the advantages of Groups.io that they had originally mentioned to their group members to convince them to move to Groups.io are no longer available... while I agree with all of that, the fact is that "grandfathering" relates to groups only. I deduce from your comments here and in other mails that you thought that "grandfathering" means that members of a grandfathered group will always have the same rights/abilities in all other groups that they have in the grandfathered group. But the way I understand "grandfathering", the group (i.e. the group structure, not the collection of individual members) continues with the same rights/abilities as before, and its members have the same rights/abilities in that group that they had before. Grandfathering does not mean that all existing members of a grandfathered group can continue to use the rest of Groups.io as if it's still 2018. (I do sympathize with owners and members of grandfathered groups. When Mark's new payment plan goes into effect, if a member of a grandfathered group tries to create a new group, he'll get a very unpleasant surprise when he discovers that Groups.io is no longer the free platform that he had thought it was when he joined the first group. We all have stories about how we heartily recommended Groups.io to friends, and then we were forced to retract it when conditions became less favourable.) To the question of how my suggestion would affect grandfathered groups: one thing that Mark could do is to convert the "unlimited membership numbers" facility of grandfathered groups to "unlimited free-member slots", and nothing else would need change for grandfathered groups to become compatible with the suggested payment system.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
I keep getting drawn back in, so I’ll just say it one last time and then mute this topic so I’m not tempted: my feeling is that any structure wherein members pay instead of just owners violates the promised grandfathering because it affects virtually everything, is messy and complicated in nearly any form, changes the whole model of what we are doing here, and (as someone else mentioned) creates weird inequities. That’s it, that’s my own personal position, it may not be other people’s, and I won’t respond to comments contradicting it. I have to say that least this thread provided a welcome diversion from the rest of what’s going on.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Jan 10, 2021, at 12:09 AM, J_Catlady via groups.io <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
Yes, I understand that. Again, not what I’m talking about.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Jan 9, 2021, at 11:35 PM, Christos G. Psarras <christos@...> wrote:
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
On 2021-01-09 22:38, J_Catlady via
groups.io wrote:
Nobody was promised that those things would be grandfathered, either. You mean, grandfathered forever and ever? If yes, Mark's message promises (to me at least) that, as has been customary so far, groups created before this necessary (Jan-2021) plan change will stay legacy "forever" [or at the very least until there is the absolute need for change due to a sustainability or emergency situation]; an explicit promise in other words that grandfathered/legacy groups will stay as such as for as long as he can help it. (Mark please correct me if I understood/extrapolated wrong) To me that is as good as grandfathered forever.io can get; it's the same promise we have gotten every time so far there has been something grandfathered, and so far it has been forever, hopefully it will stay like that forever. It would be nice but it's unreasonable to expect Mark to promise forever-and-ever; if one thinks about it, grandfathering things is a perk to us from Mark, done at his discretion because it's affordable/sustainable, so far. Things can change with no control over them. Cheers, Christos
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Database buttons
#suggestion
My group deals with loads of databases, by this I mean I have to deal with loads of databases. I would LOVE to have the buttons at the top. Deleting a database is onerous, especially when I have several dozen to do at once, like when we are getting ready for our next semester of classes and I need to delete all the previous databases. Eliminating the scrolling would be helpful. I just now learned about the shortcut to get to the bottom of my screen, how many others aren't aware of this?
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 07:31 PM, Christos G. Psarras wrote:
Not to argue,Haha! :-) -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 07:31 PM, Christos G. Psarras wrote:
nobody who created a groups.io account thought that at some point in time in the future their new free groups would have no Files/Photo/etc capabilities anymore;Nobody was promised that those things would be grandfathered, either. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 07:12 PM, Christos G. Psarras wrote:
or prunes membership, which itself can result in unintended removals making (other) members "payforit" indirectly.That's right. It affects everybody, the whole works. Samuel's idea piggybacks on (1) and adds an extra payment feature ,,, Group.io users can now themselves purchase an optional Groups.io sitewide accountExactly. A big mess. Whereas simply changing the fee structure for owners is invisible to other users. It doesn't have to be Mark's original plan. Maybe that's too expensive, maybe the membership limits need adjusting, maybe not, whatever. But it doesn't turn everything upside down, it's invisible to users, and it's cleaner (no worrying about refunds after a member is kicked out, no worrying about the sequence and flow of confirmation/payment/group acceptance, and probably a dozen other complications). -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
That is still my interpretation. (Even if a group itself is grandfathered in, members may have to start paying to join other groups. Nobody who created a groups.io account thought that was going to happen.) Not to argue, yes but then again, nobody who created a groups.io account thought that at some point in time in the future their new free groups would have no Files/Photo/etc capabilities anymore; I think you may be taking the concept a bit too far, I don't know. Cheers, Christos
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 06:33 PM, txercoupemuseum.org wrote:
If “the rules” change for group OWNERS, obviously those changes apply to their subscribers.Disagree. If owner fees change, that is transparent to subscribers. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
>>> Making members pay is a dealbreaker for me.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
I understand Mark’s proposal and what is grandfathered. That is still my interpretation.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Jan 9, 2021, at 6:47 PM, Christos G. Psarras <christos@...> wrote:
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
>>>
My interpretation is that the grandfathering would immediately cease to be in effect because the new proposal affects all group members. Even if a group itself is grandfathered in, members may have to start paying to join other groups. Nobody who created a groups.io account thought that was going to happen. In case that wasn't clear, the grandfathering *would* be in effect if the original owners-pay proposal takes effect instead. <<< While we don't know if this is the last time anything gets grandfathered (due to some change) or not, grandfathering would not cease to be in effect for existing grandfathered groups regardless of solution; per Mark (4th topic message) they would stay legacy and would not be subject to the membership-cap+charge plans presented; they will stay as they are, no caps, and any Groups.io member can join them for free. But those groups' members would indeed be subject to the new rules when they attempt to join non-grandfathered groups, but then again we don't have anything like user grandfathering. Cheers,
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
txercoupemuseum.org
I fail to see the distinction you imply here. If “the rules” change for group OWNERS, obviously those changes apply to their subscribers. The platform hosting them can and will implement changes in the relationship over time (just like your bank); and, yes, those changes CAN affect subscribers. But, in most cases with grandfathered groups, subscribers, at least in mine, remain relatively ignorant of the intricacies of Groups.io.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I would go so far as to say NONE of my subscribers have ever investigated other groups within Groups,io with the idea of perhaps joining them. Just not an issue, from my experience. You, of course, have found a number of groups of similar interest that “cross-pollenate”. Fine, but, in my humbug’s;e opinion the ability to do so is certainly NOT an unlimited, “grandffathered member.user/subscriber right”. It is an incidental privilege subject to modification at any time in any manner by either Groups.io OR the group owner. Subscribers have NO rights other than as the group owner chooses to grant them, and those are obviously constrained by the realities of the platform hosting them. Best, WRB —
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 04:24 PM, txercoupemuseum.org wrote:
Group owners should know that their provider can and will implement changes as necessary for a platform to remain viable, or even make a profit. There are the “natural prerequisites" of ownership. Any and all expectations to the contrary are simply irrelevant.Exactly right. Owners. Not "users" or "members." -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
txercoupemuseum.org
We need to keep our eyes on "the ball” here. Groups.oi serves OWNERS. Group owners, serve their subscribers.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Group owners should know that their provider can and will implement changes as necessary for a platform to remain viable, or even make a profit. There are the “natural prerequisites" of ownership. Any and all expectations to the contrary are simply irrelevant. I, for one, have never contemplated my members joining other groups. Most of them see no difference whatsoever in being in Groups.io as opposed to being in Yahoo groups, and that’s fine with me. Best! WRB —
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
Bob Bellizzi
Yahoo , once it was the top internet company, cconsistently snatched defeat from the jaws of victory over the rest of its' history.
They even outdid Sperry Rand in that regard. If ever you want a company to bleed technology,money and good people, stuff your board of directors with ex Yahoo directors. They either broke or butchered every product they acquired. -- Bob Bellizzi
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal
#suggestion
In case that wasn't clear, the grandfathering *would* be in effect if the original owners-pay proposal takes effect instead.
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
