Date   

moderated Re: On Line Swap Meets Hosted by groups.io #misc

lloyd lehrer
 

image storage is silly for a group that sells.  And if we want to save storage space, use links to your personal photo storage site.  that takes up very little space.  All messages in a sales group should expire after a reasonable amount of time, like 3 weeks. 
lloyd lehrer, MANHATTAN BEACH, CA (310)951-9097


On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 11:46 AM SP4149 <ken@...> wrote:
I belong to several Online Swap Meets that are Basic (Free) lists on groups.io
They generate considerable message traffic and image storage and will be impacted by the Jan18th price increases.
Some of these lists are large (2000+ members) that are being subsidized by the paid lists.
Retailers and manufacturers are on these lists as they provide free advertising and free web sales postings.
For Sale listings can be compact; one email listing 100 items for sale, or wasteful, a separate listing for each for sale item.
Frequently the Digest  will list only for sale items from one seller, sometimes over multiple Digest messages.

These lists have the resources to upgrade to Premium at the current $220/year but will not have the resources to upgrade in a week to over $1100/year
for Premium.  For now they are happy to be grandfathered as they are using all their Free image storage.

WE have a pricing plan that will take effect in a week; introducing a new fee per subscriber plan and also promulgating target list sizes.
The pricing plan should also state what pre-existing pricing structures will be grandfathered and for how long.
For example :
  • Free lists under 100 members remain free for next ten years
  • Free lists under 500 members remain free for five years
  • Free list under 1,000 members remain free for three years
  • Free lists over 1,000 members remain free for two years
And there should be a NEW, separate pricing plan for Online swap meets hosted by groups.io lists.
Perhaps:
  • Free swap meets under 100 members remain free for next ten years
  • Free swap meets under 500 members remain free for five years
  • Free swap meets under 1,000 members remain free for three years
  • Free swap meets over 1,000 members remain free for two years

Grandfathered provisions need a definite expiration date if the costs of groups.io lists are to be shared equitably.
And accordingly list owners facing a Premium upgrade in three years can plan ahead
And list owners of High Cost/volume Online Swap Meets can plan ahead as well.

ken


moderated Re: On Line Swap Meets Hosted by groups.io #misc

Duane
 

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 01:46 PM, SP4149 wrote:
They generate considerable message traffic and image storage and will be impacted by the Jan18th price increases.
The existing group(s) should not be impacted at all by the upcoming changes, unless or until they decide to upgrade, per Mark's announcement - https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/27191.

Duane


moderated On Line Swap Meets Hosted by groups.io #misc

SP4149
 

I belong to several Online Swap Meets that are Basic (Free) lists on groups.io
They generate considerable message traffic and image storage and will be impacted by the Jan18th price increases.
Some of these lists are large (2000+ members) that are being subsidized by the paid lists.
Retailers and manufacturers are on these lists as they provide free advertising and free web sales postings.
For Sale listings can be compact; one email listing 100 items for sale, or wasteful, a separate listing for each for sale item.
Frequently the Digest  will list only for sale items from one seller, sometimes over multiple Digest messages.

These lists have the resources to upgrade to Premium at the current $220/year but will not have the resources to upgrade in a week to over $1100/year
for Premium.  For now they are happy to be grandfathered as they are using all their Free image storage.

WE have a pricing plan that will take effect in a week; introducing a new fee per subscriber plan and also promulgating target list sizes.
The pricing plan should also state what pre-existing pricing structures will be grandfathered and for how long.
For example :
  • Free lists under 100 members remain free for next ten years
  • Free lists under 500 members remain free for five years
  • Free list under 1,000 members remain free for three years
  • Free lists over 1,000 members remain free for two years
And there should be a NEW, separate pricing plan for Online swap meets hosted by groups.io lists.
Perhaps:
  • Free swap meets under 100 members remain free for next ten years
  • Free swap meets under 500 members remain free for five years
  • Free swap meets under 1,000 members remain free for three years
  • Free swap meets over 1,000 members remain free for two years

Grandfathered provisions need a definite expiration date if the costs of groups.io lists are to be shared equitably.
And accordingly list owners facing a Premium upgrade in three years can plan ahead
And list owners of High Cost/volume Online Swap Meets can plan ahead as well.

ken


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

txercoupemuseum.org
 

I respectfully but emphatically disagree.  Incessant criticism without suggestion(s) for improvement is a waste of everyone’s time.  

I happen to believe this DISCUSSION, ongoing though it may be, is of considerable value to Mark.  It certainly makes him aware of infinitely more considerations than he would likely consider on his own.  Isn’t that good?

And I think we presume too much to expect a “perfect” solution to suddenly spring forth self-evident, clean, clear, and acceptable to all parties.  The parable is that the process necessary to produce both consensus and sausages is intrinsically messy and those participating need to accept that.  

When “the wine” is complete for putting into barrels, it will still be Mark, the vintner, who decides the “character” he wants in the finished product and when it has aged to the point he is willing to put his name and reputation on the final product.  Some things take time.  Nine women cannot have a baby in one month.
  
I think Mark’e original good intentions had a dark side in that with time and growth they are unsustainable in present form for the long term.  I further think we are extremely lucky that he has asked group owners to contribute their opinions for his consideration in resolving this problem.  

Ultimately, it will be Mark who adopts a course of action that will transition Groups.io into a sustainable organization capable of providing him with an acceptable long term income for his efforts.  I suggest that, in terms of input, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

Best!

WRB

— 

On Jan 9, 2021, at 9:35 PM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

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 account
Exactly. 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.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu



moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

txercoupemuseum.org
 

The logic supporting your absolute pronouncement here is not clear to me.

Let me put this another way…a group owner has little, if any, control or input as to Groups.io rules or fees.  He/she is a “subscriber” to Groups.io and pretty much has to “take it or leave it” regarding what Groups.io chooses to offer.

When Groups.io directly or indirectly increases a group’s fees, said “subscribing" group owner has choice. He/she may “eat” (pay themselves) such increases, pass those increases on to subscribers, or leave Groups.io.  In either case, a group owner’s subscribers have NO SAY.

In my preceding post, "Fine, but, in my humbug’s;e opinion…” was a spell check interpretation of “Fine, but in my humble opinion…  Sorry for any confusion.

Best,

WRB

— 

On Jan 9, 2021, at 9:20 PM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

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.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu



moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Jeremy H
 

Ultimately, while no one wants this, the point may be reached when FREE cannot be continued: the choice then becomes pay or lose... as I've mentioned before, in this situation, there is no good option, only a choice of bad or worse...

Note: members are members of Groups.io, having a relationship with it separate from, but combining, their membership of groups. Groups.io 'knows', and 'acts on', both that X is a member of group Y, and that group Y has X as a member, as required.

My thoughts on 'message to users' for (and so 'members view' of) Samuel's proposal (as I understand, and would intend it implemented - in bullet point form - would need revision before sending out):
  • Groups.io costs money - someone has to pay. The current model, of free memberships, with payment by (some) group owners is unsustainable.
  • There is a consequent need for members to contribute, so we (groups.io) invite you to take out a 'Contributing Member' subscription ($? p.a.), to help ensure the continuance, growth and developement of Groups.io. We hope you feel it worth it....
  • 'Contributing Members' will benefit from unlimited groups memberships; also possible future additional features may only be available to 'Contributing Members'  
  • In the future, some groups will only have a limited number of spaces available for non-contributing members.
  • There is no requirement to become a 'Contributing Member': you may continue as a free member, with your current group memberships and features unchanged (including use of web interface).
  • But you may not able to join additional groups (if they do not have 'free' spaces available), or take advantage of new features.
Notes:
  • People will continue to be able join as free members (though with an invitation to become a 'Contributing Member')
  • Invitations to become a 'Contributing Member' can/should be sent periodically...
  • When someone wishes to join a 'full' group (no free spaces), they should (perhaps) be invited to become a 'Contributing Member' for the purpose, on a 30(?) day provisional/trial basis.
  • For a 'full' restricted group, the ability of group owner to add an additional 'free' space must be considered: possibly the process should be an additional response to 'can I join?' - 'yes, if you become a 'Contributing Member'; or an initial request take it on 'trial' basis (cancellable on rejection).  Process may differ, depending on whether additional 'free' spaces are bought by the block (50? 100?), or individually.
  • If a group is full, with public archive, etc., then someone with free membership will still be able to read the archive, etc.: just be unable to join, and post, etc, as a member,

Jeremy


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Duane
 

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 11:30 AM, Scott Chase wrote:
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.
I don't believe that's true.  I think Mark would have some sort of setting at the group level to determine if a site membership would be required.  A new group would have a limited number of free members, but any paid members wouldn't count against that limit.  A grandfathered group would basically have unlimited free members.  There are certainly a lot of details like this that would need to be accounted for, but I don't think it will be that much of a change, if any, for existing groups.  Only existing groups that upgrade may be presented with a limit that they'll need to keep in mind.

Duane


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

Samuel Murrayy
 

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.


On Jan 10, 2021, at 12:09 AM, J_Catlady via groups.io <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

Yes, I understand that. Again, not what I’m talking about.


On Jan 9, 2021, at 11:35 PM, Christos G. Psarras <christos@...> wrote:


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



--
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


--
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


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

Yes, I understand that. Again, not what I’m talking about.


On Jan 9, 2021, at 11:35 PM, Christos G. Psarras <christos@...> wrote:


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



--
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


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

Nancy Funk
 

My group deals with loads of databases, by this I mean 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.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


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.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


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 account
Exactly. 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.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


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.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

>>> Making members pay is a dealbreaker for me.
>>> It seems like a member-pay model affects every member, and therefore, affects all groups, even if indirectly.

I think I now get what you mean, so if I interpret things correctly:

(1)  A plan (Jan-2021 or similar) which caps the number of (free) users in a group, and requires payment from the group owner for more membership capacity, is technically "making [Groups.io] members pay", because when the new non-legacy group now uses up their free capacity, no new members can join the group unless the group owner either pays for a free membership capacity increase, for a group upgrade, or prunes membership, which itself can result in unintended removals making (other) members "payforit" indirectly.

(2)  Samuel's idea piggybacks on (1) and adds an extra payment feature; instead of only the owner having to pay in order to increase capacity (which would still be an option), Group.io users can now themselves purchase an optional Groups.io sitewide account upgrade (VIP pass if you will) that will allow them to bypass the free member/slot limit of any group and join it anytime.  But while "optional", that account upgrade could still be considered "making members pay" if looked at from the same perspective as above, because if the member doesn't purchase that voluntary/optional  account upgrade (or the owner doesn't pay) the member still  cannot join said new non-legacy group they like because it just so happens to have no more free capacity.

So yes, in both of these cases, with cap-limiting plans like these, at the end of the day it is technically making members pay one way or another if you look at it from the perspective of any Groups.io member wanting to join a new non-legacy group and not being able to without SOMEONE having to pay something, voluntarily (member VIP) or involuntarily (owner increases capacity); but from other perspectives as well it does seem there are other indirect ways by which members pay one way or another.

That's partly another reason I'm not personally fond of cap-limiting per-member-pay plans; just like in a restaurant buffet, I'm not fond of limiting user options in order to generate income, I think enhancing/offering more user options instead is better, especially for the long run.  Or a mixture of the two if absolutely necessary, but still much more enhancing than limiting.

Cheers,
Christos

1401 - 1420 of 28910