Samuel,

Very impressive tad bit of work.? Even some of your well thought out assumptions are very plausible.?

When our group left Yahoo and came here, we opted to do the transfer ourselves.? Yahoo had 2,793 members over the 35+ years including GeoCities history.? IF we did a membership ADD to GroupsIO, those members may have been dead emails or even deceased people by upwards of 50%.? So, notices went out multiple times on Yahoo over various months and weeks before the FULL closure in 2020 over the entire year.?

Fast forward to today, we are still a healthy group with about 160+ members with no direct ADD.? A clean slate I must say.? This is prior to Mark's pricing program.?? Our community is averaging on good months over 100 messages and on weaker months just over 30.? Winter tends to be a popular time for posting as more people are indoors.

In your tabulations, our group does swing the median a tad with the spikes of members from the 150 to 160 range and the posted messages. ?

BMaverick

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 11:50 AM, Paula wrote:

Unfortunately the Google search result entry apparently shows "enough" of the deleted message to be of concern for this member.

Is there any way for a group admin (such as myself) to eliminate whatever is generating the Google each result showing this message?

See??for instructions on how to induce Google to re-crawl pages. Be advised that it will not happen immediately.

You can help mitigate recurrence of this problem by making your group's message archive private.?/helpcenter/ownersmanual/1/customizing-group-settings/privacy-settings?

Regards,
Bruce?

---

Check out the groups.io Help Center?and?groups.io Owners Manual

A member requested deletion of her messages from the group (I think it was prompted by a personal safety concern). We immediately deleted her posts.

Today she emailed saying that she Googled her name and found a reference to a deleted message appear in the Google search results. If one clicks on the Google result, you are taken to the group but the message of concern isn't shown; this also is true if you click for the cached version of the message.

Unfortunately the Google search result entry apparently shows "enough" of the deleted message to be of concern for this member.

Is there any way for a group admin (such as myself) to eliminate whatever is generating the Google each result showing this message? Or is this search entry the result of Google's search engine picking up the message before it was deleted, and there's nothing we can do at the group end to remove this search result?

Thanks for any help.

Paula

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 10:56 AM, WBennett wrote:

I see that there hasn't been any improvement in the "deleting photos from the Emailed Photos folder" function.
I've just done about 20 and gave up because it STILL is selecting the next or previous photo, instead of the one I click on.

Browsers will often serve the thumbnail images from your local cache instead of the site. For this reason you have to refresh the thumbnail page between deletions.

See?/g/GroupManagersForum/wiki/7120?for full instructions.

Regards,
Bruce

---

Check out the groups.io Help Center?and?groups.io Owners Manual

开云体育

I see that there hasn't been any improvement in the "deleting photos from the Emailed Photos folder" function.
I've just done about 20 and gave up because it STILL is selecting the next or previous photo, instead of the one I click on.
When I wrote previously (some time last year) I was given some tips on how to go back to the original page after deleting and I had kept those emails in my mail program, however Thunderbird decided to throw a fit one day and totally wiped a couple of my sub folders from both my computer and my IMAP web mail, so I had no way of getting them again.
Could you please give me a link to any help file regarding this problem?
I'm in the process of searching the archived messages but haven't yet found what I want, thought it would be quicker to ask again... lol
Many thanks.
Win

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 12:40 PM, Beth Weld wrote:

I want the mod to be able to add members to the subgroup but only if they are already members of the main group. It sounds like I can't do that

No and that's because the Add Members permission for a Mod in a subgroup also opens up the Invite option.? If they were separate permissions you could grant the Add (which allows adding of main group members) without giving Invite also.

Regards
Andy

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 12:06 AM, <alee@...> wrote:

Here is the issue, some members are active, some are not, and seeing if there is an easy way to trim the non-active members each year by asking them to re-authenticate when they post, a script by which I can do this with an API, or if there is a function I am not aware of?

If you have a list of members recorded elsewhere (an Excel spreadsheet or whatever), you can use one of the member sync functions on a periodic basis. Instructions beginning at?/helpcenter/ownersmanual/1/managing-members/syncing-group-members-with-slack-teams?single=true?

If you have a Premium/Enterprise group, syncing can be accomplished by uploading a file containing the member information, one entry per line. Basic groups can only sync with a Slack team (I do not have experience with Slack teams).

Hope this helps,
Bruce

---

Check out the groups.io Help Center?and?groups.io Owners Manual

On 07/01/2021 13:25, Beth Weld wrote:

I want the mod to be able to add members to the subgroup but only if they are already members of the main group.

This sounds sensible to me. If someone is a member of the main group, it means that they have already passed some form of vetting.

I'd actually like to be able to turn of the Invitations feature for the main group and all subgroups, but that is a bit granular for the suggestion box in Beta.

Well, one alternative is to disable invitation permissions for the subgroup moderators but to create a template that moderators can send directly to invitees via their personal e-mail, that essentially tells the recipient how to join.

This is not a true "invitation" since the recipient would still have to do something manually in order to join, but it can be made to contain information that would otherwise be sent to people who get invited.

It does not appear to be possible for moderators to send messages or noticed to non-members via Groups.io, so the subgroup moderator would have to send the customized template via his own personal e-mail.

Samuel

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 12:40 PM, Beth Weld wrote:

I'd actually like to be able to turn of the Invitations feature for the main group and all subgroups, but that is a bit granular for the suggestion box in Beta.

No need to go anywhere near beta; just turn off Moderators' ability to invite or add new members.

Chris

Thanks everyone,
I want the mod to be able to add members to the subgroup but only if they are already members of the main group. It sounds like I can't do that, and I think I vaguely remember the discussions about the duplicate invitations.? Back to the drawing board. I'd actually like to be able to turn of the Invitations feature for the main group and all subgroups, but that is a bit granular for the suggestion box in Beta.
Thanks again
Beth

On 06/01/2021 21:00, Bruce Bowman wrote:

[Edited Message Follows]
[Reason: I got "median" (middle value) mixed up with "mode" (most common value). Sorry.]

In almost all of my analyses, the mode is always the lowest number. So, for groups with 11-1000 members, the mode is 11. This statistic simply tells us that groups have lower numbers before they have higher numbers, which is perfectly logical and should be unsurprising since 99% of groups start at 0 members and then grow from there :-) :-)

I'm not even sure if median is a useful thing to look at here. The issue that I raised that resulted in this sub-thread is not whether Mark's model is profitable, but whether Mark's model is ideal for the types of [idealistic?] groups that I was thinking of.

Samuel

alee,

Jim wrote:

IMHO, however, I recommend replacing "re-authenticate" with "maintain
membership" as there is no authentication involved.

I'll nominate "renew" or "renewal", as that's a familiar term used with other types of subscriptions (e.g. magazines).

Shal


--
Help: /helpcenter
More Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Even More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list

Marina,

Before removing them, however, I wonder: can a member with a (red or
blue) bouncing account still access the group and read messages via
web?

I believe the answer is no - they get a dialog on the site that asks them to unbounce their account before they can access group functions.

Shal


--
Help: /helpcenter
More Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Even More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list

Beth,

I can't say this is a bug - I can certainly say that it is not
behavior that I want to happen.

As Andy said, it is by design.

The intent is that when you want a person to be a member of the subgroup you (and the invitee) don't have to go through the Invite process twice: first for the primary group and then all over again for the Subgroup.

With Direct add you do it somewhat the other way around: you Direct Add the person to the primary group, with the intended subgroup(s) checkmarked.

It is possible that a sensible #suggestion for beta would be to have Invite work like Direct Add. I haven't really thought about it that way, so I'm not sure if it would introduce any issues or more confusion.

I'm not sure how to lock down the main group so that subgroups can't
add members. Am I missing a setting?

Anything you want to lock down about a subgroup, you generally do though the subgroup's Settings page, not the primary's. The only exception I can think of offhand is the ability to create subgroups.

Shal


--
Help: /helpcenter
More Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Even More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list

Ken,

In the pricing plan Mark has defined the three list types by member
size:

We bumped into this in the beta list, but I don't think that the number of members defines the plan.

While it is true that in Mark's initial post Basic has no option for additional members; with Premium and Enterprise it is only a question of what feature set you want. I do not believe there's any reason you couldn't create a 80 member Enterprise group or a 8,000 member Premium group under the new pricing policy (if you can afford it).

The Enterprise plan far exceeds are needs as do the costs exceed are
ability to pay. The list would disband it forced to upgrade to
Enterprise level.

As I said, I really do not believe that would be the case, regardless of your number of members. If it were, Mark should have said that Premium would have a cap of 1000 members, but that's not anywhere in what he said. Moreover, Mark effectively approved of Peter's chart, which shows Premium extending out to 3,000 members:


Shal


--
Help: /helpcenter
More Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Even More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list

Beth,

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 10:14 PM, Samuel Murray wrote:

We're going off-topic here, but I'll pitch in anyway

I don't think we are, and "excellent" in that order!

IMHO what you have produced does rather suggest that Mark's published figures take too simplistic a view of what is actually going on. I'm not suggesting that he is wrong, just that his published figures are not properly representative.

I know that Mark closed the beta topic on the subject, but could I suggest that you start a new one (Further Analysis of Group Memberships, perhaps) in the hope that he might consider an upward revision of his proposed 100 member limit for free groups on the grounds that "100" does not really reflect the true position.

I know this shunts the responsibility on to you, but it would be wrong for anyone to plagiarise* your work and use it themselves.

* Even if it is called "research" as suggested by Tom Lehrer...

Chris

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 09:00 PM, Bruce Bowman wrote:

It's certainly not a Gaussian distribution. A lot of groups have been created that simply never got off the ground. On that basis I strongly suspect the median number could be 1.

We're going off-topic here, but I'll pitch in anyway:

What makes the use of statistics more complicated is the fact that some of the groups were transferred from Yahoogroups, so some of them may have a lot of dead weight in members who moved along with the transfer even though they're not active anymore.? On the other hand, I've seen some groups where actually a rather small percentage of members from Yahoogroups went along with the transfer (if Direct Add was not used).

The only access that I have to group statistics is the publicly listed groups.? I fiddled with the URL and created a list of about 28000 groups.? I'm not good with Excel, so I attach the list here for anyone to play around with.? Here are some interesting excerpts:



The chart shows the number of groups on the vertical axis and the number of members on the horizontal, for groups of 11-250 members.? It would seem that what Mark said about the numbers do apply to the current situation, but note the caveats mentioned earlier.? Also, I have no idea which of these groups are basic or premium, or which of them are active or practically dormant, or which of them gained a lot of members recently or after they got transferred, etc.? So one must be very careful with speculating about what the numbers might mean.

Clearly Groups.io remains a good option for a large number of potential groups.? And perhaps my statements about "many" and "most" groups aren't all that accurate, statistically speaking.? But the fact remains that Groups.io is going to become a less good option for a large number of potential groups, and if we want to be helpful (e.g. in a wiki with advice to people thinking of creating a group), it may be a good idea to admit it.? I'm not suggesting chasing people away from Groups.io, though.

Samuel

No, there is no built-in way to do something like that but I'm not sure though if there's something in the API to allow you to do that programmatically.? But IMO it's easier to just send a special notice to the group and announce what's going on; yes, you'll have to keep track of which member replies and do the work manually.

What is your ultimate goal in wanting to do this?? Maybe we can come up with some other way to accomplish it.

Cheers,
Christos

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 07:25 PM, Rob Erikson wrote:

Is it possible to limit members from read only and prevent them from posting?

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say, but I'll just guess..

As owner you definitely CAN set individual members to "override: can not post", or set the entire group to "only owners and moderators can post".

As a verbal person I object to calling the latter "announcement-group". I would call them "newsletter" for the simple reason that any group that doesn't allow discussion is an announcement-group, even if every member/subscriber can post.

groetjes/?is, Ronaldo