|
locked
Re: Pricing Changes
#update
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 09:09 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
ken,I also interpret Mark's comment the way Ken does. Mark says "the pricing plans will be based on the number of members in the group". Samuel
|
|
|
|
locked
Re: Pricing Changes
#update
Duane wrote:
If I were startingI am in the same situation. I am the owner of a group with 2300 members. The group has been around since 1999 as a free space for discussing literary translation to/from Italian and it's always been open to anyone interested in the subject. We do ask prospective members to introduce themselves, but we do not kick them out if they are not professional translators. The group is run on a voluntary basis, there is no organization or monetization involved. We don't use polls, chat and photos and we do not allow attachments. We could do without database and files, too. I might consider paying an annual flat fee of $200, I think I could crowdfund such a sum, but in no way I could pay over $1000/year. I can understand Mark's concern about the sustainability of GIO, but should the new rules apply to grandfathered groups, too, I would simply have to move somewhere else. Marina
|
|
|
|
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. 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
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 toIf 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
Ok. I give.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Preventing the export of a table by non-owners
#suggestion
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
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 11:43 AM, Peter Cook wrote:
(This was a response, to toki, not Duane.)
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Preventing the export of a table by non-owners
#suggestion
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
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
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.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Preventing the export of a table by non-owners
#suggestion
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
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:
|
|
|
|
moderated
RSVP Waitlist Promotion Issues
#bug
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:
That is correct. Your groups would be considered legacy and nothing would change. Thanks, Mark
|
|
|
|
locked
Re: Pricing Changes
#update
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:
|
|
|
|
locked
Re: Pricing Changes
#update
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: FreeSomething 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
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 04:50 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
FreeSomething 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
|
|
|
