|
moderated
Re: Maximum image size default for groups transfer
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 8:12 PM, D R Stinson <dano@...> wrote:
This is all correct (including the need to clarify the descriptions). It's currently: Label: Max Attachment Size Help text: Max size of attachments sent in emails. What should it be changed to? And Dano, going through the code, this setting, along with Message Selection and Auto Follow Replies is currently hardcoded when transferring a Yahoo group, ignoring the Default Sub Settings. I did this on purpose some time back and I don't actually remember why. Should we use the default sub settings when doing a Yahoo transfer? Also, send the name of the group to support and I will change everyone's max attachment size to 100kb. Thanks, Mark
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Maximum image size default for groups transfer
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 08:12 pm, D R Stinson wrote:
the default size of attachments each individual member would accept. I agree that the word "received" or "accepted" should be in there if that's what is meant. I was wondering if that was the intended meaning. Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones. I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Maximum image size default for groups transfer
That's an excellent observation, J, and one I pondered the wording of myself. As I recall their evolution, the "Max Attachment Size" in Settings > Default Sub Settings was the default size of attachments each individual member would accept. I understood this to be the same setting that an individual member can change to their own preferences in Subscription > Membership > Advanced Preferences > Max attachment size. Under that setting it reads "Max size of attachments sent in emails.", but I believe it should read "Max attachment size received by the individual member in emails before converting to a link."Images are resized to a "pixel dimension". Not a file size.They're set to a max file size in the default sub settings. But that brings In Admin > Settings > Settings under Messages is a setting called "Max Photo Size In Email" with the underlying note "Automatically resize photos that are larger than a specific size in emails." I *assume* this is a group global setting that resizes any incoming images to the group before they are sent out to all members. Perhaps there is enough confusion about this that a little clarification of the descriptions would be helpful? Dano
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Maximum image size default for groups transfer
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 06:49 pm, Jim Coffee wrote:
Images are resized to a "pixel dimension". Not a file size. They're set to a max file size in the default sub settings. But that brings up yet another point of confusion: what do the individual subscription settings for "max attachment size" (which presumably apply to all attachments, including photos) have to do, if anything, with the overall group setting "max photo size in email"? Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones. I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Maximum image size default for groups transfer
Hi Dano... I'm a bit unclear about your question. In the subject line you refer to images. In the body of the message you refer to attachments and mention 100K. And then you go on to mention that you don't want to moderate every photo posted. Images are resized to a "pixel dimension". Not a file size. In my case (a photo exchange group) I limited the image sizes to 1024 X 1024 pixels. Note that there is a "Maximum photo size in email" option. -Jim Coffee-
On 19 April 2017 at 17:16, D R Stinson <dano@...> wrote: I have recently moved two groups from Yahoo. As I have commented before, a significant number of my group members stay in the far right hand lane of the information highway, and a few of them are more likely to be found crawling along the shoulder. I intentionally set the default subscription settings for new members to 'Max Attachment Size' ='none'. I had considered setting it to 100Kb, but decided 'none' was safer. My thought was that those people who were most able to handle larger attachments were also most likely to be able to change their own settings.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Maximum image size default for groups transfer
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 05:16 pm, D R Stinson wrote:
'Max Attachment Size' ='none'. I have no idea what happened to your limits in the transfer, but as a separate issue, I think the above description of the setting is unclear. What does "max attachment size = none" even mean? At first glance, it sounds like none means "no maximum" (as in, unlimited). But clearly that's not what it means, since "unlimited" is a separate option. So does it mean "no attachments allowed"? If so, then "0" or "no attachments" seems more clear to me than "none." Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones. I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Pricing increase
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 09:00 am, J_Catlady wrote:
Is this correct? How would this be done with Patreon? One of my group's adminI have no experience on either side of Patreon, so maybe it can, or maybe it can't. Here's an intro page about it: https://patreon.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/204606315-What-is-Patreon- Patreon is designed for people who make lots of videos or other shareable online art and want to provide a way for their viewers to sponsor them monthly, usually in return for some special perks for people who sponsor them. I've been assuming that that could translate into supporting a Group, but I don't really know for sure. JohnF
|
|
|
|
moderated
Maximum image size default for groups transfer
I have recently moved two groups from Yahoo. As I have commented before, a significant number of my group members stay in the far right hand lane of the information highway, and a few of them are more likely to be found crawling along the shoulder. I intentionally set the default subscription settings for new members to 'Max Attachment Size' ='none'. I had considered setting it to 100Kb, but decided 'none' was safer. My thought was that those people who were most able to handle larger attachments were also most likely to be able to change their own settings.
After the transfer, it appears that those limits were reset to unlimited. Was this supposed to happen? My concern is based on the concept of 'fail safe'. In this case, a member might be left with a situation that could overflow their mailboxes and they have no understanding of how to stop it. They could be left feeling that their only alternative is to mark the message as spam or block group posts; essentially driving them away from the group. Needless to say, that is not a desirable outcome for a history-based group. Has anyone else run into this? I don't want to have to moderate every photo posted. It would probably be easier to go through each of the 2000+ subscriptions, one at a time. Dano
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Pricing increase
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 06:40 am, JohnF wrote:
Right now, the group owner could set something up with Patreon or PayPal or whatever, Is this correct? How would this be done with Patreon? One of my group's admin team members just suggested that. Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones. I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Pricing increase
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 08:24 am, J_Catlady wrote:
I personally am highly reluctant to give up my credit card info to any site that requires money right away to join, p.s. I fear we may be talking about apples and oranges. In this ^^^ I am referring to members of a group being asked to pay something to join the group, and worry that they may be too reluctant to do it for various reasons, including privacy/security, and thus not join our group. I have already signed my group up for premium (mostly in order to take advantage of the still-low monthly fee), and trust Mark and groups.io implicitly with my own information. I'm just worried about members of our group being asked for money, and in what way. I don't have a problem affording the $120/year, but I and my admin team feel that I/we should not be personally subsidizing the group financially, because we put in a lot of time as volunteers to run it. So we are interested in finding a benign, friendly, and non-off-putting way of asking members to contribute to the expense at some point in their membership. -- Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones. I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Pricing increase
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 03:52 am, Dave wrote:
Yahoo, whose recent merchandising interface is quite burdensom What recent merchandising interface? Whatever it is, I'm glad it exists, because one of my worries is that groups.io groups would ask for money and yahoo groups don't, causing some people to stick with yahoo. I personally am highly reluctant to give up my credit card info to any site that requires money right away to join, even if it's only a buck or two. I just won't do it until the site is highly known to me. From my point of view, "bait and switch" is better than "you must pay to join." I like a "voluntary" bait and switch. The Wikipedia idea sounds good, if it could be accomplished on a per-group basis. Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones. I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Pricing increase
Be careful you do not
create the impression that the free services are not simply a
"bait and switch" sales technique. I think that many of the
current free groups are disgruntled former members of Yahoo, whose
recent merchandising interface is quite burdensome.
I happily contribute each year to Wikipedia. You might want to consider that model for Groups.io. David
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Pricing increase
Er, no.
For most groups the running costs, invoices for such, and the facilities offered by free or premium, are a matter solely for the group administers. Although the moderators can make their membership aware there is a funding problem (which would obviously be related to overall group finances, possibly involving existing membership fees) they have no need to know this nitty gritty. I appreciate the need for Mark to raise his prices for the premium product. This will affect different groups in different ways, as does their requirements to use premium or to remain on free. For small groups especially a 300% increase in fees is significant. A group with 300 members or so who are part of a club (say) whith an annual membership fee this is no big issue. But take our local amateur radio club, for instance (not currently with groups.io but might happen) - 25 members who pay an annual club membership fee of £15 (UK pounds). $360 dollars per year is almost all our annual turnover. Free would do what we needed, premium would be out of the question whatever any benefits would be. I suspect this is a chicken and egg situation (if you chaps in the USA understand that English saying...). Once folks realise free does just about the same as premium there will be far fewer new groups even considering premium so the increased costs will achieve nothing. Then reduce facilities available in free to make premium more attractive. Dave On 19 Apr 2017 at 1:20, toki wrote: If payment has not been received, then an automated notice that bypasses http://davesergeant.com
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Pricing increase
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 04:48 pm, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I really like the idea of having a platform where group owners/moderators can get paid for their work creating and managing groups. The ability to charge members of your group (either a recurring subscription or a one time fee) will be added before the end of the year for premium groups, most likely via PayPal. Mark, If the group's regular monthly fee could be paid to groups.io via a Paypal account of the group owner's choosing, then group owners could (on their own) ask group members for *voluntary* contributions to be sent to that Paypal account. This would preclude owners having to ask *all* new members for a recurring subscription or one-time fee. I would never do that, because too many potential new members would simply bolt at the prospect that the group is not free. I think our members only see the benefits of the group some period of time after they join, whereas when they're just applying to the group, it's an unknown. I'd rather have us be like NPR, where people who know and appreciate us can contribute. So my bottom line request is to allow payment by Paypal, making it easier for group owners to solicit voluntary donations. I realize the option to require new members to pay something would be useful for some groups, but it would not be for ours. Thanks! Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones. I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Pricing increase
toki
On 04/18/2017 01:40 PM, JohnF via Groups.Io wrote:
The challenges are what happens when there isn't enough to support the group for the next month,Some possibilities: 1) Each billing cycle, an automated notice is sent to the group owner, stating that payment has/has not been received. If payment has not been received, then an automated notice that bypasses any group moderation, is sent to the list, when 1 day, 30 days, and 60 days delinquent, stating that if the group is not current within 30/60/90 days, the list will be reverted to "free group" status. On day eighty-three of the delinquency, a note that bypasses any group moderation is sent stating current balance due, and the date that the status reversion will occur. On day ninety-one of the delinquency, a note that bypasses any group moderation is sent, stating that the group has been reverted to "gratis" status, and "advanced options" have been removed. This notice is sent as part of the reversion process. First time offender lists that were reverted due to non-payment, may go back to a paid account, provided the delinquent amount is paid in full. In the event of a list reversion due to delinquency, all lists owned by the same entity may, at the discretion of Groups.IO, be reverted to gratis status. In the event of a list reversion due to delinquency, Groups.IO may, at its sole discretion, decline to migrate any other lists owned by the same entity, to paid status. Lists that are reverted due to non-payment twice, may not go back to paid account status. Lists that are reverted due to non-payment twice, may, at the sole discretion of Groups.IO, be permanently deleted. 2) Quarterly / semi-annual / Annual / Biennial billing (^1): Every time a payment on the account is received, an automated notice is sent to the group owner, listing the amount paid, the cumulated balance, and the billing amount. Every time the cumulated balance reaches a multiple of the billing amount, an automated notice is sent to the group, stating payment for billing period "x" has been received. and what happens if there's a charge-back that removes some of the money.Payment via BitCoin removes the potential for chargebacks. ##### Three tiers: Brass: gratis: basic options, no support other than any current (1pril 2017) email support lists for users of free lists; Copper: US15.00 / month; US$40/quarter; US$60 / biannual; US$100 / Annual; US$175 / biennial: basic options, support on a par with the current (April 2017) level that is gratis, Group member financial processing; Gold: US$50 / month; US$130 / quarter; US$250 / biannual US$300 / year; US$500 / biennial: Advanced support - ie support at current (April 2017) non-gratis level, Group member financial processing; Group member financial processing: This includes the ability for: * List members make direct, one time, payments to demonstrate support for the list; * List members make pledges (weekly/monthly/quarterly) to demonstrate support for the list; Group financial processing is suspended whenever the cumulated balance hits a predetermined amount: * For annual and biennial billing, the predetermined amount is twice the charge for that period; * For biannual and quarterly billing, the predetermined amount is six times the charge for the period; * For monthly billing, the predetermined is twenty-five times the charge for that period; Group financial processing is re-instated whenever the cumulated balance is less than one half of the predetermined amount. When Group financial processing is suspended, all pledges are permanently halted. Each pledge maker is individually notified that their pledge has been suspended due to the cumulated balance. Pledge makers are individually notified that Group Financial Processing has been re-instituted, and to continue their pledge, they need to redo the appropriate paperwork. In no instance will funds processed through Group Financial Processing be sent to the list-owner.(^2) In the event of a list closure, Groups.IO may, at its sole discretion, re-assign the funds to a different list owned by the same entity, or donate the balance to a 501(c)(3) [United States] or registered charity [United Kingdom] of its own choosing. Once group financial processing is configured, the billing cycle can not be changed. (In other words, if the billing cycle is monthly, when group financial processing is implemented, it stays monthly until the lists shuts down, or groups.io shuts down.) Terms and conditions of Group Financial Processing may be changed, provided notice is given 180 days prior to such changes, unless a government ordinance, rule, regulation, or law prohibits such notification. In the instances when such advance notification is prohibited, the terms and condition shall be changed, with the maximum advance notification permitted by such law, rule, regulation, or ordinance. In all instances, the terms and conditions, as provided at URL for "Groups.IO/terms and conditions" shall list both the current terms, with the date that they went into effect, and any proposed changes, with the date that they are to go into effect. (^3) Prices, and associated limits are purely hypothetical, and serve only as examples. ^1: Biennial is unambiguously two years. Biannual is ambiguously every six months. ^2: I am not adverse to list-owners being able to monetize the list. The two concerns I have are: * Unscrupulous list owners not delivering upon what they promise; * Unscrupulous individuals claiming that the list owner did not deliver on their promise; Groups.IO would be put in the middle of a dispute between those two parties, with unfortunate consequences from their processing agent. There are various other scenarios which might have a negative impact upon Groups.IO, as an organization, but most of them exist, regardless of the ability to specifically monetize the list. ^3: Ideally, a github-type repository for terms and conditions is available for users, enabling them to see changes between earlier and later versions of the terms and conditions. jonathon
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Pricing increase
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 04:52 pm, Mark Fletcher wrote:
That means the price won't increase. Ok, that would be awesome! Thanks! I also love the idea of allowing group members to contribute via Paypal (or whatever). Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones. I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Pricing increase
Hi J,
You could sign up for the Premium plan before the end of the month, at $10/month and be grandfathered in at that price. That means the price won't increase. Thanks, Mark
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Pricing increase
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 6:40 AM, JohnF via Groups.Io <johnf1686@...> wrote:
I really like the idea of having a platform where group owners/moderators can get paid for their work creating and managing groups. The ability to charge members of your group (either a recurring subscription or a one time fee) will be added before the end of the year for premium groups, most likely via PayPal. Thanks, Mark
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Pricing increase
While I am certain that the $30 per month is well-worth all the extra bells and whistles, I, too run a small volunteer group and could not justify spending that. However, I was considering switching to the premium at the former $10 rate simply because I am terrified of losing the "premium support" (or any support). I am afraid that when the premium level goes into effect, groups.io support may turn into yahoo "support" (sic) - i.e., no support. Mark, I think you implied that support might, or probably would, go away completely, or mostly, or something, at the basic level. Would you consider an in-between level where for $10/month, groups would get just support? I don't need any of the extra features. Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones. I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Pricing increase
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 09:19 pm, D R Stinson wrote:
The expense of maintaining a group has come up as a subject on the group atRight now, the group owner could set something up with Patreon or PayPal or whatever, but I think it's an interesting idea to add something like that directly to Groups.io. $30/month might be too much for one person, but if six people want to pay $5/month, or 60 people want to pay 50 cents per month, or someone well-off who really benefited from the group wants to make a one-time gift of $360 to support the group for a year, or a group wants to charge a sign-up fee for new members and have Groups.io handle the financials (with proceeds only going to support the monthly fee), that might work for some groups. That would require accepting payments from individual members and allowing them to designate how much goes to each group. The challenges are what happens when there isn't enough to support the group for the next month, and what happens if there's a charge-back that removes some of the money. JohnF
|
|
|
