Date   

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


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

I understand Mark’s proposal and what is grandfathered. That is still my interpretation.


On Jan 9, 2021, at 6:47 PM, Christos G. Psarras <christos@...> 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.
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,
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

 

>>>
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,
Christos


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.

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

— 

On Jan 9, 2021, at 6:28 PM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

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.
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 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.
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
 

We need to keep our eyes on "the ball” here.  Groups.oi serves OWNERS.  Group owners, serve their subscribers.

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

— 

On Jan 9, 2021, at 5:22 PM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.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.


On Jan 9, 2021, at 2:30 PM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 03:02 PM, billsf9c wrote:
Grandfathering, once in place, cannot end without the Grandad itself - IO proper, ending
I was thinking more along the lines of a company acquiring GIO.  There are many cases of major changes when a new company is in charge of a business.  Just look at Yahoo, from the time Mark sold groups to them to where they ended up.

Duane

--
J


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


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.


On Jan 9, 2021, at 2:30 PM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 03:02 PM, billsf9c wrote:
Grandfathering, once in place, cannot end without the Grandad itself - IO proper, ending
I was thinking more along the lines of a company acquiring GIO.  There are many cases of major changes when a new company is in charge of a business.  Just look at Yahoo, from the time Mark sold groups to them to where they ended up.

Duane

--
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

Duane
 

On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 03:02 PM, billsf9c wrote:
Grandfathering, once in place, cannot end without the Grandad itself - IO proper, ending
I was thinking more along the lines of a company acquiring GIO.  There are many cases of major changes when a new company is in charge of a business.  Just look at Yahoo, from the time Mark sold groups to them to where they ended up.

Duane


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

txercoupemuseum.org
 

Hi Dwayne,

You said (in part):  "While I do appreciate the grandfathering that is in place, at some point I expect it to end.  Maybe not while Mark is in charge (hopefully for a long time ;>), but someday.”

Back many years ago when I lived in California there was an older “tax reformer” by the name of Howard Jarvis that managed to get passed (by the referendum process) an absolute limit on property tax increases for homeowners.  It was called “Proposition 13”.  After all the hue and cry from the bureaucrats, it took effect.  The world didn’t end.

They made it a “one-time thing”, so if you didn’t have a home when it [assed, you didn’t get the benefit.  When you moved, you couldn’t take it with you.  So, over time, it made less and less difference to government finances. 

In the same sense, over time, grandfathered groups will make up less and less of the demographics of Groups.io to the point their existence won’t make that much difference.  There is no reason Mark can’s put “growth limits” on grandfathered groups, since there IS an operational in redistributing lots of emails to subscribers.  He might even require, at some point, that “free groups” mandate digest delivery (less operational burden).

In short, there is no intrinsic reason that grandfathering has to end.  Like all things it can be managed, in terms of cost.

Best!

WRB

— 

On Jan 9, 2021, at 11:09 AM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 10:34 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
So I can juwt tell anyone I don't think should be forced to pay
No one would be forced to pay as I read it.  There would be 'free slots' for each pricing tier that could be used or the group owner could upgrade to a higher tier with more free slots, as well as having the option of paying the incremental fee for additional members.   Unless/until the 'site membership' (assuming that's the plan) is implemented, there's no way to know how many people would get one.  Even though I have several grandfathered groups, including a Premium group, I'd still be willing to pay up to $10 per year to GIO for a membership.  I'm guessing/hoping that there would be quite a few people that feel the same, but we can't know unless it happens.

Based on Mark's comments and some research on my part, large groups are the exception rather than the rule.  Yes, it would be of some concern for those groups that attract a large number of members, but a site membership option might minimize the need to upgrade a group while still bringing in $$$ for GIO.

While I do appreciate the grandfathering that is in place, at some point I expect it to end.  Maybe not while Mark is in charge (hopefully for a long time ;>), but someday.

Duane


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

billsf9c
 

While I do appreciate the grandfathering that is in place, at some point I expect it to end. 

Grandfathering, once in place, cannot end without the Grandad itself - IO proper, ending - dying - being scuttled in-totality... Furture Grandfathering can be removed for the future potential recipients - but never going backwards. Otherwise, it was never Grandfathering in the first place.

That said, some sort of honorarium can be calculated for those that wish to pay or partially pay or ignore.

At some point, Mark could entreaty "us" to pay that and be gifted some small perk.

BillSF9c


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Jeremy H
 

Some of the recent posts seem to be trying to avoid the fundamentals: Groups.io has to be paid (or it will go the way of Yahoo groups); that payment has to be, in some combination, by groups owners and members; payment of individual group memberships (55cents a time on Mark's proposal) cannot be economically made; and that, as Mark has decided (thanks!) that existing groups have their current charges 'grandfathered' without increase, new groups will have to pay more than might be regarded as their fair share (and I would also suggest that existing, long standing, groups cause more than their fair share of costs).

I struggle to think that there is a better (read: less bad) way forward than - essentially - Samuel's proposal:
  • a group owner can create and have a free group with minimal features, and a limited number of members
  • group owners can pay for more features; and more members. Based on what they want and can afford.
  • members can have free membership of groups, as provided (free or paid for by owners) above. If they want more, they have to pay for a (groups.io) membership, providing for more group memberships.
The rest is details... No one wants to pay; someone has to; anybody got a better idea?

(The eagle eyed might spot what I have (implicitly) added to Samuel's idea: the concept of larger basic groups, where owners pay for more members, but not more features. But this is an extra option,which would reduce simplicity, and might not be worth it)

Jeremy


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Scott Chase
 

ro-esp,
You over-snipped two different concerns that I had. I would prefer not ANY members be forced a charge, but rather enable members an easy way to contribute/donate directly. But, if Groups.io does ultimately FORCE a member charge, I don't want some members charged and others not charged.
 
Here's what I said...
 
RE: Once the free member slots are filled up, someone wishing to be a new member of the group would have to pay a yearly fee to Groups.io.
 
  1. Having any mix of free slots versus paid slots will create a Group culture of have/havenot members, and a perception of some being freeloaders while others are forced to pay to remain a member of a group. Free members will sit on the free slots and not release them, preventing the most valuable members to the Group from being free. Resentment, etc.

  2. We create these groups to bring people together to discuss and support each other. The threat of forcing payment to simply join, or shortly thereafter, will kill the vast majority of the not-for-profit and hobby groups on Groups.io. No one will join any group if Groups.io develops a reputation of forcing a fee for membership! Even Free Grandfathered Groups will be dodged by the masses, because people will think they have to pay to use Groups.io in general. "Groups.io isn't free!" Impressions are everything!
If something must be done for Groups.io to survive, I'd prefer...

  1. A uniform price for ALL members of Groups.io;

  2. And the first YEAR is free, so members become very well established in a Group, and for them to develop a sense of value and belonging, before a time-is-up, pay-up or be forced-out scenario occurs.
As it is now, only owners are able to give Mark money. I still think a Wikipedia-style 'Groups.io depends on donations' button needs to be added to help support the funding of individual groups and Groups.io as a whole. If donations alone don't generate enough income, Mark could figure out an accounting method to credit group owners for member donations, where the owner then would only be charge the remaining balance for a Group at the end of the billing cycle.

Scott


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

ro-esp
 

On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 06:26 PM, Scott Chase wrote:
No one will join any group if Groups.io develops a reputation of
forcing a fee for membership!
[snip]
If something must be done for Groups.io to survive, I'd prefer...

* A uniform price for ALL members of Groups.io
sounds like a contradiction

If payment is necessary, it needs to be per group and/or per group-administrator, so you don't chase people to googlegroups, groupworks, cubits.org or riseup.net, and you don't have to keep track of a million payments per year

As it is now, only owners are able to give Mark money. I still think a
Wikipedia-style ' *Groups.io depends on donations* ' button needs to be added
Definitely! Linked to a normal bankaccount for those who don't have a creditcard

[sorry if what I say was already said/adressed]
groetjes/ĝis, Ronaldo


moderated Fw: Re: [beta] Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Leeni
 

I have been sitting on my hands for weeks now. I have wanted to write but since I don't have a premium group at this point I started emails and then never sent them thinking that my opinion wouldn't matter.
 
My groups are grandfathered in but I would be willing to let's say pay $10 a year to host them all - not each one as I could not afford it. I am a senior citizen, living on social security. I host groups which I have been doing for years as a way to fulfill my hobby and bring some joy to others.  
 
I can get each group I own down to 100 members or less. The biggest group I have has been around for over 12 years and has a little over 400 members but I know many of them aren't even around anymore. It is a signature tag group. There is no way except if I do a roll call, which I may do to determine who is active and who isn't. That is because only the taggers (graphic artists) are allowed to post to the group. The members request tags and it goes to the sender. One member may request tags from tagger A and not from Tagger B and visa versa. In my sharing groups, I can also make it mandatory for members to share at least once a week and remove those who do not share to get from 167 members to less than 100. Or even split the group up into two groups if I have to.
 
I will say though all of my groups are EMAIL BASED GROUPS as well as all of the groups that I belong to are as well. I try to delete the message archives every other day. 
 
But I agree with  what Catlady  wrote below. Making members pay would be a deal breaker for me too. I know the circle of groups that I am in are all HOBBY type groups. They just don't have to be. They are made up of the elderly, handicapped, housebound population who are living hand to mouth on their social security checks. Many whose computers break down can't afford to get a new one for many months. I know for a fact, many would just leave group IO groups and either go to forums or Google groups to get their fix of signature tags or graphic shares. They couldn't pay to be in a groups IO group or in their cases maybe 50 or more group IO groups. I belong to 48 group IO groups - 2 which are this Beta group and GMF.  
 
Legally, with graphic type share groups that I own - part of the artist's terms of use prevent anyone making any money off of their artwork. So wouldn't that violate the terms if members had to pay for such groups -whether I make money off of them or Groups IO themselves.
 
There is a lot to think about. But one thing I know for sure if the grandfathered hobby type  groups are made to pay to host their groups many groups would move elsewhere. Maybe that is the solution to get Groups IO to have less groups. But in the scheme of things, these hobby type groups are only a drop in the bucket to the groups that are on IO that have thousands of members. Our groups don't even have 1/3 of that amount.
 
Thanks for listening to me.
Maybe some of my points are valid and maybe they aren't.
Many elderly,handicap, homebound (even before Covid) but now with Covid there are more would be very sad to give up part of their day from something that gives them enjoyment and makes them smile. That is what my groups do.
 
Thanks, Leeni
 
 
 
 

-------Original Message-------
 
From: J_Catlady
Date: 01/09/21 11:20:33
Subject: Re: [beta] Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion
 
Making members pay is a dealbreaker for me. I know some feel the opposite. My feeling is that I am hosting. I’m not running a paid business here.

And the refund issue is orders of magnitude more complicated when members pay. There are synchronization issue between confirmation, pending questionnaires for restricted groups, multiple vs single groups, etc.

For me its a dealbreaker. It radically changed the entire model and what we’re all doing here. But that’s just me.


On Jan 9, 2021, at 9:07 AM, Sandi D <sandi.asgtechie@...> wrote:

On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 10:21 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
I think it would be clearly unethical for a member to pay for a year's worth of a group, get kicked out, and not get their money back.
What happens to groups who have paid and get closed down for not following the rules?

If a member of a group has paid $3-5 a year for an individual GIO account, they can join a different group. Maybe they have learned their lesson after the banned behavior. I have paid many a $69 a year no refund fee for a service I was not satisfied with. I don't think a non refundable $5 a year for an individual account is going to break anyone. They aren't banned from GIO. They have all their GIO benefits including joining another group. 

The optional model of allowing individuals to become paid supporters of GIO is in addition to the optional model of allowing group owner to become paid supporters of GIO. 

If the groups I helped create are forced to pay at any point they will leave GIO. If the members in those groups are given the option to pay at any point, many will continue on as members and the created groups they are in will remain as groups and attract more paying and non paying members. 

Someone has to pay. Allowing both group owners and GIO account holders the option to pay seems like it should be reasonably to considered. 
 
--
Sandi Dickenson

--
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

Dave Sergeant
 

Mark obviously has the actual figures, but of the 21 groups I am
subscribed to only 2 are below 100 members, 11 below the 500 Premium
level and the biggest has 5000 members. Virtually all volunteer groups
whose owners could not afford the cost of Premium and most members
would just leave if they had to pay. Incidentally one of my groups now
does most of its communication via Wattsapp (but not me, I don't have a
smartphone).

Dave

On 9 Jan 2021 at 9:09, Duane wrote:

Based on Mark's comments and some research on my part, large groups are
the exception rather than the rule.

http://davesergeant.com


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Glenn Glazer
 

On 01/09/2021 04:27, David M wrote:
In reading this proposal and the comments, one thing that seems not to be addressed is the situation where groups.io is used as a mailing list handler only. The members of the group do not actually ever login to the system. They are just subscribed and send/receive e-mail.

More to the point, these people are not groupies. They just want e-mails and the idea of making them have an account and login to pay is not going to work. Simplicity for the members is the goal.

I have no idea what would work best, but wanted the perspective of e-mail-only users considered.

David

Absolutely. All of my groups are like this. None of them would see any value in membership except the occasional file retrieval.

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est

1961 - 1980 of 29453