开云体育

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 12:16 pm, JMichaelTX wrote:

Is there a way to search everything in the group/subgroup, not just messages?
This means including, in the same search, all of the sections of the group:? Messages, Calendar, Photos, Files, Databases, and Wiki (especially wiki).

Well, after a bit of distraction, the question remains unanswered.
If I don't get an answer within a few days, I'll go ahead and post the question/request to the beta group.

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 05:24 pm, Ginny T. wrote:

I would like to clarify that my post to beta was not to request that Mark enter the cloud storage business - rather that we, as group owners, had the chance to purchase increments of storage as needed for our groups' needs,

I guess I find that confusing.? On one hand you don't want Mark to enter the "cloud storage business", but on the other hand you want more cloud storage.? Surely it is clear that he can't offer more storage without being in the cloud storage business.???

I for one would not like to mix up this request to Mark with the discussion of whether his current offerings of storage in the three existing levels are competitive or not - that's his choice and I trust that he has made it based on his experience, knowledge and a sound business plan

Well, this discussion here in the GMF, which I started, is about the amount of cloud storage, and the pricing for it.? If you want a different discussion, then please feel free to start one.

Do you, or anyone in this discussion, know Mark personally, or have a direct professional or business relationship with him?? Have you seen his business plan?? Have you seen his financial backing?? If not, I'm not sure what basis there is for a trust that he will do the best thing for his customers.? Even if you have, things can change, and change quickly.?

IMO, it is naive to assume that the vendor providing a product or service has a well-thought-out business plan, and will always offer his product/service at a competitive price.? Most startup businesses fail within the first 5 years;? many much? sooner than that.? Many also hope to just get things going until they can sell out (for a huge? profit) to some big company, like Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc.? Were that to happen, all bets would be off concerning the current services pricing.

Sorry if this offends anyone, and I don't mean to sound calloused, but frankly I? can't be too concerned about Mark personally.? I have to treat groups.io as a business.? As far as I can tell he has started groups.io as a business venture, and it is up to him (and any partners/investors he may have) to provide a service that is competitive and will attract and hold customers, and, ultimately, make a profit.

Even when a business has a great product, great service, fair, competitive pricing, and lots of customers, they can fail unexpectedly (to us).? A great example:? .

Having said that, I'm all for Mark, or anyone, to make a fair profit selling a good product/service.? As a customer, or even a potential customer, I have a right to make known what services, features, storage, and pricing I would like to see.? The business owner can consider (or not) this along with other feedback and research he/she has.

Finally, lest it be misunderstood again, I am NOT asking for a huge amount of storage for nothing.? Also you should know that I have no problems paying for a good service that I use. As an example, I have been a paying customer to?Evernote since its early days, even though the large major (> 200M) of its users use the free plan.? I didn't then, and don't now, know anyone at?Evernote personally.? But I did recognize their service as an unique, outstanding one, that I much valued, so I almost immediately subscribed to their Premium Plan, and have been ever since (> 10 years).? A very similar story with DropBox -- I've been a paying customer for > 7 years.

On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 09:45 pm, Shal Farley wrote:

The flip side of the coin is that Mark may decide that cloud storage, at those capacity levels, is not the business he wants to be in.

We can't read Mark's mind of course - but I would like to clarify that my post to beta was not to request that Mark enter the cloud storage business - rather that we, as group owners, had the chance to purchase increments of storage as needed for our groups' needs, and at the same time provide some income to Groups.io as a business - especially us Basic groups owners.

I for one would not like to mix up this request to Mark with the discussion of whether his current offerings of storage in the three existing levels are competitive or not - that's his choice and I trust that he has made it based on his experience, knowledge and a sound business plan. That's something different from making available packets of extra storage as needed by Groups.io groups, in particular Basic groups which would also allow Basic owners to support the business.

Just my thoughts,
Ginny

JMichaelTX,

... but I believe (as apparently several others do, including
yourself) that the storage offered by groups.io is substantially too
low, what the storage that comes with Premium and Enterprise is
woefully too little, especially the Enterprise plan at $100/month.

I don't have any opinion about the pricing of Premium and Enterprise plans, or the base level of storage included with each. I'm more interested in being able to opt (and pay) for incremental increases in storage for my Basic groups.

I have no idea what Mark's mission, objectives, or roadmap are. Since
all we can do is speculate, I don't find discussion about any of
those to be worthwhile.

Agreed, which is why I closed with a deferral to see what might come of the discussion in beta@. I mentioned them here only as a caution nothing may come of that discussion.

Shal

On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 09:45 pm, Shal Farley wrote:

Of course, we still need to be careful about comparing apples and oranges in that the storage services don't offer all the communications and other services provided by Groups.io.

The other cloud services also have additional, but different, features.? They also are not just cloud storage.? I think my main point was that if you look across the board, storage everywhere is much cheaper than groups.io.? I'm not saying storage is the only cost, or should be the only factor in groups.io pricing, but I believe (as apparently several others do, including yourself) that the storage offered by groups.io is substantially too low, what the storage that comes with Premium and Enterprise is woefully too little, especially the Enterprise plan at $100/month.

Enterprise groups have a bunch of extra features beyond the storage bump.?

Are all of the Enterprise features shown here:??Plans And Pricing??

Enterprise plan provides only 3 extra features for 10X the cost of Premium:

The flip side of the coin is that Mark may decide that cloud storage, at those capacity levels, is not the business he wants to be in.

I have no idea what Mark's mission, objectives, or roadmap are.? Since all we can do is speculate, I don't find discussion about any of those to be worthwhile.? All I know is what the groups.io service/features/price are today, and some indication of near term changes as shown at beta.groups.io.? I will say that for me, having all of the features and storage I need in one place is attractive, provided that it is available at a reasonable, competitive price.

Cloud storage and services is a tough, competitive market today, especially when so many of the big companies offer so much for free, and charge very little for the paid plans with more storage and features.

Even if it were doable, it would not get you enough storage.? $100/mo gets you only 100GB!!!IMO, $100/mo ought to get you at least 10TB.

I am sorry but it seems that I was out by one order, I have now been told that it is 10GB.
Thank you and Shal for your replies.
--
Arno

JMichaelTX,

IMO, $100/mo ought to get you at least 10TB.

Of course, we still need to be careful about comparing apples and oranges in that the storage services don't offer all the communications and other services provided by Groups.io.

I'm not saying your figure is wrong, as an add-on price, nor that it's right, but noting that Arno was looking at it from the existing options - and Enterprise groups have a bunch of extra features beyond the storage bump. He may not need those features, and he does need even more storage, so that brings us back around to the wish that there were a la carte storage options.

The flip side of the coin is that Mark may decide that cloud storage, at those capacity levels, is not the business he wants to be in. The questions he may have include whether it fits with his mission statement and whether the effort to implement and support it is a better use of his resources (supports more end users, more groups, or by whatever metric he might use) than the other ideas on his plate.

However that may be, the question has been asked in beta@, so I'm interested to see what Mark may say about it.

Shal

On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 05:30 pm, Arno Martens wrote:

I don't think we have problems raising USD 110/annum but need about
200GB at this time with trickling increase.
I do not think 110/month is doable

Even if it were doable, it would not get you enough storage.? $100/mo gets you only 100GB!!!
IMO, $100/mo ought to get you at least 10TB.

I am here because the 'head' moderator in our Yahoogroup suggested I
join to get a bearing should we be forced to leave Yahoo.
We are a world wide group of people (mostly lurkers) with a common
interest, having a large amount of documents and pictures in the
archives.
I don't think we have problems raising USD 110/annum but need about
200GB at this time with trickling increase.
I do not think 110/month is doable.
--
Arno

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 08:44 pm, Bob Bellizzi wrote:

I simply was expressing my exasperation with the topic since I feel Mark will never be able to satisfy everyone who wants endless capability and storage space at not cost.

I don't know who "everyone" is, but I have NOT seen anyone asking for "endless capability and storage space at not cost."? If you are referring to me, all I want is reasonable storage space for a reasonable price, consistent with what other cloud providers are providing.

Is there any way to add hashtags en masse to a selected batch of messages? We have thousands of message posts in the archive from the former yahoo group that we'd like to hashtag. Doing them one by one would be excruciating.

Drew

We are using the group database primarily to catalog images. Since the images are the primary fields in the records it would be desirable to set a minimum display size for them. Unfortunately, as it is now, as the text columns expand the image size shrinks to a tiny thumbnail. Is there any way to set a minimum column width for particular fields in the database so we can keep the image columns from narrowing too much?

The only way I have found to maintain a reasonably large image size is to hide some of the other columns. Unfortunately, this setting does not stick; users have to re-hide the columns every time they go to a another page in the db.

Drew

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 09:18 pm, Shal Farley wrote:

but I made his message a new topic (edited the subject while pending) because it seemed like an interesting subject of its own, regardless of the specifics of the storage thread.

Shal, thanks for moving all of the off-topic discussion about "unlike" etc out of the discussion about storage and pricing.? Great job of moderation!

Bob,

Someone took my comment out of context and made it a new topic by by
partially quoting my message, ...

Well, I quoted you, then Drew quoted me quoting you, but I made his message a new topic (edited the subject while pending) because it seemed like an interesting subject of its own, regardless of the specifics of the storage thread.

Notably, in the context of this thread, Drew was advocating up/down voting (a net count of likes and unlikes by all members).

... and also leaving out my answer to Shal which would limit my answer
to only the conversation we were in at that time viz:
Bob,

I truly wish there was an unlike button on groups.io for this
conversations.

Hmm... now you seem to be misquoting yourself. With the word "this" in the sentence I might not have been so curious.
/g/GroupManagersForum/message/2476

I would now like to have an UNLIKE button to show my disappreciation
for being only partially quoted

I didn't have any intention of misquoting you.

I took an opportunity to springboard Drew's comment in support of an unlike button into an entirely new topic. I didn't know whether your comment conveyed an intent on your part to have a broader conversation; that's why I asked what you would unlike.

Shal

Kevin,

Once sent, the user gets a message from me the moderator but then the body of the message refers to me in the third person using my full name twice. Then that's followed by a custom message. At the end, even though it supposed to be from me, it is signed off on by someone else.

Yeah, that's why I insert horizontal lines at the top and bottom of . That way I've got:

I'm hoping that the lines give enough distinction to make the change of speaker less confusing.

Shal

My wish for an unlike button was in the context of the Price Too High, Storage Too Low topic which went on and on and then on some more.
I simply was expressing my exasperation with the topic since I feel Mark will never be able to satisfy everyone who wants endless capability and storage space at not cost.
Someone took my comment out of context and made it a new topic by by partially quoting my message, and also leaving out my answer to Shal which would limit my answer to only the conversation we were in at that time viz:
Bob,

> I truly wish there was an unlike button on groups.io for this
conversations.
Well, now I'm curious - what would you unlike?
Shal
My statement above, answering Shal's "what would you unlike?" was answered by me thus:
"This entire conversation" in my next reply to Shal
Absent the above answer to Shal, my original comment is given an entirely new meaning which I did not intend.

I would now like to have an UNLIKE button to show my disappreciation for being only partially quoted


--
Bob Bellizzi

The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation

Sat, 28 Oct 2017 18:19:07 -0700, "Shal Farley" <shals2nd@...>,
wrote:

INTERNAL: Relaxed requirement that the person paying for a group
must be a member of that group.

That is OK as long as the name of the payer is known by the group
members.
("Have you ever been or are you now a member ...")
--
Arno

Sat, 28 Oct 2017 18:19:07 -0700, "Shal Farley" <shals2nd@...>,
wrote:
[ ... ]

There's a vigorous discussion on
beta@ about how to best implement the unsubscription link in Groups.io
footers.

I think the best way would be not to display the user's name but request
to have her/him enter that to be un subscribed.

I am the moderator of a small Yahoogroup (owner's gone AWOL) and most
who have left in the past have sent an eMail to be deleted.
That again caused several members to post "All you have to do is click
on the unsubscribe link .. ", upon which the OP posts "Why can't Arno
just do it?".
It isn't much work but creates a lot of idle chatter.
--
Arno