Re: From beta - Group Sponsorships
On 14/01/2021 02:06, Leeni wrote: All of my suggestions and ideas made on the beta group are ignored. I'm sure they are not ignored -- Mark simply does not reply to all of them, and sometimes other people have nothing to add. Or, it may be that the feature has been suggested before, so no-one has anything new to add. I recently won the jackpot twice, but several of my other suggestions generated no additional traffic. Samuel
|
I own a Premium group grandfathered in at a $10/month payment which I have been paying out of my pocket.? Yesterday, after Mark gave us the ability to have Sponsors, I announced it to my group and the Sponsoring started coming in.? Soon, there was enough in my reserves to make a yearly payment of $110.? Since my due date is the 17th of the month, I went ahead and switched from monthly billing ($10) to yearly billing ($110).? The $110 was deducted immediately from my reserves and applied to my yearly billing.? Here's my question/concern.? I notice that in the Switch Billing to Monthly Billing now indicates I would be billed $20 per month rather than the original $10 per month should I make the switch.? I don't envision having to switch back to monthly because my members have been very generous and we are well on our way to the next yearly payment.? I'm just wondering why my grandfathered group @ $10 per month or $110 if billed yearly would suddenly change to $20 per month or $220 per year because I switched my billing period.
Janice B
New Statler Siblings
Long Arm Quilters?
|
Re: From beta - Group Sponsorships
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 01:08 PM, Andy Wedge wrote:
I have posted an issue on Beta as the sponsorship option is available on subgroups but any payments made are not totalled in the main group or shown on any subgroup page that I can see (except the activity log).
Mark has very quickly confirmed that sponsorship for subgroups was a bug. The option has been removed and a refund issued. Andy
|
Re: From beta - Group Sponsorships
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 08:16 PM, Leeni wrote:
All of my suggestions and ideas made on the beta group are ignored.
I wouldn't take it personal. A lot of suggestions come to that group. Sometimes they are popular and sometimes not. This one might turn out to be widely supported. It seems worthy of consideration beyond this group.? ? -- Sandi Dickenson
|
Re: From beta - Group Sponsorships
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 08:17 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
now people member or not can sponsor a Groups.io group. If the group owner allows it there appears a Sponsor This Group button on the group's home page:
I have posted an issue on Beta as the sponsorship option is available on subgroups but any payments made are not totalled in the main group or shown on any subgroup page that I can see (except the activity log). Andy
|
Re: Single Owner Group - Owner Deceased
Excellent suggestions! On Jan 14, 2021, at 1:56 AM, Shal Farley < shals2nd@...> wrote:
I think we need to be able to propose something that works without intervention by support.
But you got me thinking...
What about:
1) Add an "Owner Succession" panel to each moderator's page, just below the Moderator Permissions panel. This panel would be accessible only by owners, not by any moderators.
2) In this panel place a checkbox for "Promote this moderator to owner in the event of absence of any owner. Place a second control to define how long an absence triggers succession.
For this purpose I'd define absence as being no activity by any owner's account (either web activity or inbound email).
<Shouldn¡¯t that be?¡°outbound email¡±, as in?¡°owner-originated¡±?>
3) In the event that any owner or any moderator tagged for succession is individually absent (as defined above) send a notification (Web/Email) to all Owners indicating who is absent and that the chain of succession may need review.
<In such case, or if the designated?¡°new Owner¡± declines advancement, just go to the next in line?>
4) In the event that a moderator is promoted by this mechanism, notify the moderator and (attempt to notify) the absent owners.
Pros:
o ?Covers both single owner or multiple owner initial conditions.
o ?Allows the owner(s) to establish a chain of succession (first Alice, then Bob, then Charlie, then ...) simply by setting progressively longer times for each moderator in the line of succession.
<I don¡¯t think a?¡°chain of succession¡± is desirable. ?Once an owner is replaced by someone willing and competent, after six months or a year it should then be THEIR prerogative to designate their own successor candidate(s).
o ?The first moderator promoted would, on their next activity in the group, reset the "absence" timer. Being now an owner that person would have access to the succession controls. If that person is inactive after their promotion then the timer continues, potentially promoting the next moderator in line.
<see above>
Cons:
o ?Slightly complicated for new or inexperienced owners to grasp. ?
<If their?¡°advancement¡± to Owner is accepted, it is automatic. ?If not, designation of alternate successor (if that was done) is also automatic. ?The process of managing a group is almost always a matter of OJT (on-the-job training). ?The perpetual?¡°Con" of learning from experience is that the exam comes before the knowledge ?;<)
o ?Controls are distributed through the Moderators list rather than being in a single page.
o ?Doesn't provide for alternate outcomes (group locked or deleted).
o ??
<Offer the latter tao as optional checkboxes?)The second "con" can be overcome by putting a fixed list of succession slots on a separate Settings page (again, visible only to owners) with each slot containing those same two controls plus a selector to choose which moderator goes in this slot. Shal -- Help: /helpcenterMore Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wikiEven More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list
|
Re: From beta: Subscribers leaving before pricing change
#pricing
ken, This also includes new lists that had to upgrade to Premium to have
their list moved, they may not be able to downgrade to a Basic (Free)
list after the Pricing change. Downgrading to Basic before or after the Pricing Change would still leave you with the legacy-enabled Basic features according to your group's creation date. Which includes unlimited membership. So it is only the legacy Premium features you'd loose (Direct Add perhaps most notably). I asked for a reply on how long it would be until lists larger than
100 members would have to upgrade. For now the answer is never. I figured with 2,000 members I would have three years of freebie
service and then I could face a forced upgrade to Enterprise at
$4400 a year. You mean Premium, at $220/yr + $880/yr for members = $1100/yr, if for some reason you re-upgraded to Premium after the change. Choosing Enterprise would be your option if you need/want the extra features. I have seen nothing stating a firm commitment to pre-existing basic
lists remaining free forever, or even for the next three years. I don't feel Mark owes any of us such a commitment. But on the other hand he's held his word on such things for the 6+ years of Groups.io's existence. Shal -- Help: /helpcenterMore Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wikiEven More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list
|
Re: Single Owner Group - Owner Deceased
Ronaldo, We will need to take this to beta , in due time when Mark isn't too
busy 1) I think it has had a round or two there, and 2) Mark will never be not too busy. ;-) As it would be quite difficult for Mark&co to figure out who is dead,
maybe just allow succession-requests no sooner than when the original
owner has not been active in any group for 2 or 3 months, ... I think we need to be able to propose something that works without intervention by Groups.io support. But you got me thinking... What about: 1) Add an "Owner Succession" panel to each moderator's page, just below the Moderator Permissions panel. This panel would be accessible only by owners, not by any moderators. 2) In this panel place a checkbox for "Promote this moderator to owner in the event of absence of any owner. Place a second control to define how long an absence triggers succession. For this purpose I'd define absence as being no activity by any owner's account (either web activity or inbound email). 3) In the event that any owner or any moderator tagged for succession is individually absent (as defined above) send a notification (Web/Email) to all Owners indicating who is absent and that the chain of succession may need review. 4) In the event that a moderator is promoted by this mechanism, notify the moderator and (attempt to notify) the absent owners. Pros: o Covers both single owner or multiple owner initial conditions. o Allows the owner(s) to establish a chain of succession (first Alice, then Bob, then Charlie, then ...) simply by setting progressively longer times for each moderator in the line of succession. o The first moderator promoted would, on their next activity in the group, reset the "absence" timer. Being now an owner that person would have access to the succession controls. If that person is inactive after their promotion then the timer continues, potentially promoting the next moderator in line. Cons: o Slightly complicated for new or inexperienced owners to grasp. o Controls are distributed through the Moderators list rather than being in a single page. o Doesn't provide for alternate outcomes (group locked or deleted). o ? The second "con" can be overcome by putting a fixed list of succession slots on a separate Settings page (again, visible only to owners) with each slot containing those same two controls plus a selector to choose which moderator goes in this slot. Shal -- Help: /helpcenterMore Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wikiEven More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list
|
Re: From beta: Subscribers leaving before pricing change
#pricing
But you were? also not telling the whole truth.? The price changes are also for lists upgrading after Jan18th (now Feb 2nd).
This also includes new lists that had to upgrade to Premium to have their list moved, they may not be able to downgrade to a Basic (Free) list after the Pricing change.
The impact on new groups is minimal, the number of lists that do not meet the new guidelines for fee per member pricing is far, far greater.
For now some feel they are grandfathered into free service for Enterprise size lists that will cost $4400 a year if UPGRADED after Feb 2nd.
Those of us with Basic (Free) list will not have to upgrade on Feb 2nd.? It's a fact of life that grandfathers expire and so do grandfathered provisions.
I asked for a reply on how long it would be until lists larger than 100 members would have to upgrade.? I figured with 2,000 members I would have three years of
freebie service and then I could face a forced upgrade to Enterprise at $4400 a year.? It would be cheaper to upgrade now.? I have seen nothing stating a firm commitment to
pre-existing basic lists remaining free forever, or even for the next three years.? Mark evidently feels that a fee per member pricing is the future for groups.io, he delayed it a year
and now it will be happening, first for new groups and list upgrades, and then, later, for the rest of the pre-existing lists.? I've had lifetime memberships expire, and grandfather?
agreements pass away; with a Basic (free) list there are no contractual obligations.
The real issue is preparing for a list upgrade if your list does not fall into the new list definitions in the new pricing plan.? Once you have become a list owner on groups.io, you aren't
worried about new lists, only when and at what cost you may have to upgrade in the future.? Mark gave us some pretty severe pricing changes based on member fees and indicated that
was his planned future pricing schedule.? He never said that large free lists would be free forever.? AS an owner of?several large?Basic lists I have a decision, upgrade now (before Feb)
or upgrade later, even if grandfathered for free for three more years, it is still cheaper to upgrade now.
ken clark
| 3a.? |
Re: From beta: Subscribers leaving before pricing change?#pricing
From:?Leeni
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 15:02:52 PST
I didn't let it go unaddressed.
?
I did write to her and more or less gave her a piece of my mind letting her know that she had no business writing what she wrote to my group, alarming them causing havoc?with the members?and other group's members and owners?she had said the same thing to. I did let her know she wasn't speaking the truth and it what she had said didn't concern my members or her. I told her what?she had left out,?that it was only for new groups starting up after January 18th. Her rumor spread like a wildfire.
I never got a response from her. I take that as her being embarrassed.
?
She had left all of my groups and other groups that I was in as well.
?
Now I understand she joined some of the other groups again, but has not joined my group.
I wasn't going to let her in if she tried, but I did chuckle when I read your statement, let her in and a week later remove and ban her LOL. I liked that idea!!!
?
Leeni
|
|
|
|
-- ken clark
www.shastasprings.com
|
Re: Single Owner Group - Owner Deceased
I have commented in the past on this subject and completely agree with the thoughtful and introspective points made by respective posters below. ?This problem is a continuing one that won¡¯t go away until meaningfully addressed.
Moderator opinions have, in my opinion, unduly discouraged earlier discussions on this subject. ?Shouldn¡¯t they encourage legitimate discussions rather than discourage them?
Complete trust is not always possible for a founder or owner to place in a potential successor. ?For that reason circumstances should never force a founder or owner to transfer powers to additional ¡°owners" in advance of need to insure a group does not die when the single owner ceases to do what must be done from time to time. ?
Human nature is such that there is NO management situation in which two ¡°Alphas¡± are an advantage. ?If there is a ¡°good¡± ¡°equal" owner and a ¡°bad¡± ¡°equal¡± owner, I absolutely assure one and all that the bad one will prevail in such scenario. ?That¡¯s not in the best interest(s of any group.
There should be an option available to a single founder or group owner to designate one and alternate successors to advance to ownership powers ONLY when the present ¡°management¡± is no longer acting as necessary to preserve group functions and continuity, in the same sense as a ¡°springing¡± Power of Attorney¡± whose power does not exist until needed.
Since the majority of these diverse elements do not originate with me, I defer to earlier posters to submit the request for consideration to <beta>.
Best!
WRB
¡ª?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Jan 13, 2021, at 7:16 PM, ro-esp < ro-esp@...> wrote: On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 09:26 PM, Michael Pavan wrote: Clearly this is important concern and no solution has been enacted, though
some improvements have been made since the last time I got involved in this
debate.
We will need to take this to <beta> , in due time when Mark isn't too busy Some Owners object because they think it is unnecessary and/or don't want it
for their group.?
My suggestion was to at least clearly imply it: if you want your group to die with you, don't appoint a moderator. If you want your group to continue, do appoint a moderator. Making it explicit would be better As it would be quite difficult for Mark&co to figure out who is dead, maybe just allow succession-requests no sooner than when the original owner has not been active in any group for 2 or 3 months, and have them step in to ask the group whether anybody has objections to promoting the moderator to owner For those who don't want an Owner Succession feature enabled it should
be easy to Opt-Out - this relieves management from having to become
involved in the issue, because the Owner has already made the decision.?
exactly ??????????????????????????groetjes/?is, Ronaldo
On Jan 13, 2021, at 3:39 PM, Art Kocsis via < ArtKoc@...> wrote:
<snip>
FOBLO (Fear of Being Locked Out), is a real thing and could be easily assuaged. Simply restrict owner deletion/demotion solely to the owner account: an owner can only demote him/her self. While an owner can promote another to owner status it ?would be a one-way street - no owner could demote another owner. While that would not prevent a malicious owner from causing havoc it would preclude an original owner from losing control of the group.
Alternatively (or in addition to), assigning special status flags to owners could alleviate some problems:
Founder owner - the creator of a group - cannot be deleted except by the founder himself
Funding owner - the owner of the CC on file that made/makes premium payments
Designated successor owner - to be promoted to Founding(?) owner upon a TBD trigger
FOBLO would be especially worrisome for a Funding Owner under the scenario of being locked out while his credit card is still on file for automatic payments that he cannot terminate. (without closing his CC account which has serious credit score repercussions).
While these would not solve all of the problems, mitigating a large source of dangers should encourage more/most group owners to create/designate successors and reduce the number of orphaned groups on GIO.
Art
BUT, no owner is needed if there is a moderator with all permissions, so they could still operate the group.? No need to opt in or out, just set up a moderator.? I don't see what would be gained by having a succession feature.? Any owner could appoint a moderator like that without fear of being tossed out and the group could continue.
I'm not saying Mark wouldn't consider it, but don't see a need as things stand, so he could spend his time on more pressing things.
Duane
On Jan 13, 2021, at 1:52 PM, Michael Pavan <michaelpavan@...> wrote: <snip>
An Owner Succession feature could include Delete Group, Lock Group, and Remove All Members as options...
However my primary concern, which I believe most share, is for a group to be able to continue with a new Owner.?
Currently there is not enough protection for an Owner to be comfortable in many/most cases to have multiple Owners, or to designate who (or how) a Moderator or Member would be promoted to Owner¡ On Jan 13, 2021, at 12:52 PM, KWKloeber via < KWKloeber@...> wrote:
It¡¯s similar to a medical power of attorney - it takes someone to determine the person is incapacitated (i.e., unable for whatever reason to continue as owner, thus triggering the next one(s) in line obtaining ALL privileges/rights.)
The reason a group may have only one Owner is that they want to ensure that another Owner does not depose them.
Giving a Moderator all Permissions:
- does protect the Owner from being deposed IF there is only one Owner<snip>
<snip>
All of this means that having no 'Owner Succession' feature does not solve the problem, only 'kicks it down the road'.
I'm this real concern will continue to be periodically brought up.
So far, only some Moderator Permissions have consequently been modified, which is an improvement but not a Solution.
Unfortunately, its priority has never risen high enough to institute a solution, hopefully it won't be too many more years before this obvious need is addressed.
My suggestions are:
- That there be a hierarchy of Owners (to encourage multiple Owners), set by the most senior Owner controlling whether junior Owners can remove a more senior Owner or Delete Group).
- That Owner Succession be automated with its trigger(s) controlled by the most senior Owner, so that management is never burdened by having to be involved.
Michael
|
Re: How to stop address harvesting
Hi Donald, >Once ideas are garnered here, we could take Mark an idea in Beta to have anyone Banned have a red B by their application so we can make a better
decicion about their application. I believe all someone with bad intentions has to do is to join with another e-mail address. Ken S "You do what you can for as long as you can, and when you finally can't, you do the next best thing. You back up but you don't give up." ¨DChuck Yeager -----Original Message----- SNIP
|
Re: From beta: Subscribers leaving before pricing change
#pricing
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-------Original Message-------
?
Date: 1/13/2021 8:03:38 PM
Subject: Re: [GMF] From beta: Subscribers leaving before pricing change #pricing
?
I would just pre-ban her proactively.
?
Donald
[excess quote trimmed by moderator]
|
Re: Single Owner Group - Owner Deceased
Better yet, appoint another owner so full group management privileges are there for them. That is, if you can trust the person. On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 17:16:51 -0800, "ro-esp" <ro-esp@...> wrote: if you want your group to die with you, don't appoint a moderator. If you want your group to continue, do appoint a moderator. Making it explicit would be better ---------------------------------------------------- Some ham radio groups you may be interested in: /g/ICOM /g/Ham-Antennas/g/HamRadioHelp /g/Baofeng/g/CHIRP
|
Re: How to stop address harvesting
Bill, On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 11:42:58 -0800, "billsf9c via groups.io" <OOWONBS@...> wrote: Once ideas are garnered here, we could take Mark an idea in Beta to have anyone Banned have a red B by their application so we can make a better decicion about their application. If they are banned, would their application even appear to the moderators? I would think the system wouldn't let the application through. I think they would have to contact the group owner address and make peace first with the mods, get un-banned, then apply again. I might be wrong on that because it's never happened in any of my groups. I've only banned 2 or 3 people, and pre-banned a few who were spamming other similar groups, before they joined mine. So it's not something I have experience with. One person I banned complained a few times to the group owner address. We ignored him and he eventually went away. He might have rejoined under a different address and account but if he did, he's playing by the rules now and not belittling others. He refused to acknowledge that he was doing that and asked for clarification on what that was. Donald ---------------------------------------------------- Some ham radio groups you may be interested in: /g/ICOM /g/Ham-Antennas/g/HamRadioHelp /g/Baofeng/g/CHIRP
|
Re: From beta: Subscribers leaving before pricing change
#pricing
I would just pre-ban her proactively. Donald On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 16:38:32 -0600 (Central Standard Time), "Leeni" <leeniluvsgroups2@...> wrote: Now I understand she joined some of the other groups again, but has not joined my group. I wasn't going to let her in if she tried, but I did chuckle when I read your statement, let her in and a week later remove and ban her LOL. I liked that idea!!! ---------------------------------------------------- Some ham radio groups you may be interested in: /g/ICOM /g/Ham-Antennas/g/HamRadioHelp /g/Baofeng/g/CHIRP
|
Re: Single Owner Group - Owner Deceased
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 09:26 PM, Michael Pavan wrote: Clearly this is important concern and no solution has been enacted, though
some improvements have been made since the last time I got involved in this
debate. We will need to take this to <beta> , in due time when Mark isn't too busy Some Owners object because they think it is unnecessary and/or don't want it
for their group. My suggestion was to at least clearly imply it: if you want your group to die with you, don't appoint a moderator. If you want your group to continue, do appoint a moderator. Making it explicit would be better As it would be quite difficult for Mark&co to figure out who is dead, maybe just allow succession-requests no sooner than when the original owner has not been active in any group for 2 or 3 months, and have them step in to ask the group whether anybody has objections to promoting the moderator to owner For those who don't want an Owner Succession feature enabled it should
be easy to Opt-Out - this relieves Groups.io management from having to become
involved in the issue, because the Owner has already made the decision. exactly groetjes/?is, Ronaldo
|
Re: From beta - Group Sponsorships
Okay, I didn't go as far as putting it?on my group's page and clicking it to see what it says once I do.
I do like the wording once you click on it much better. But I do think an explanation for basic free groups?could have something along those?lines to??go along with the green button before someone clicks it.
As far as me making a suggestion to the beta group on it, I won't do it.
All of my suggestions and ideas made on the beta group are ignored.
So if someone here thinks it is a good idea, maybe you can make that suggestion, or I will just live with that button grayed out and not put it on my Free Basic Groups. But I will look for a group with a green button and make a donation myself as I think it is a great way to contribute something. Leeni
?
?
?
?
|
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-------Original Message-------
?
Date: 1/13/2021 6:33:41 PM
Subject: Re: [GMF] From beta - Group Sponsorships
?
For free basic groups that don't have a fee attached to them, I think maybe the wording should be changed?Allow members to help support Group IO fees (in general)?because grandfathered groups, do not have any fees at this time associated with them.? |
Good point. For Basic groups (grandfathered or not) the funds can support an upgrade to Premium as well as Groups.io generally.
Having it say fees for the group may start some kind of panic with the members and other groups owners who view it on my group's homepage.
|
Well, members won't see the checkbox wording (as that's in each group's Settings page), but looking at the green button on the home page they may wonder why this group needs sponsorship. Fortunately if they click the button the explanation there is a bit better:
So maybe that last sentence could be changed to "... and used by us to help cover the cost of providing this group." Or something like that to try and make it clear that it is Groups.io's costs (hosting fees) that are being paid. I imagine many users aren't really aware of the "man behind the curtain", and that he has to pay for the machinery back there.
Of course, any such change would need to be proposed on the .
-- Help: /helpcenterMore Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wikiEven More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list
?
|
Re: From beta - Group Sponsorships
For free basic groups that don't have a fee attached to them, I think maybe the wording should be changed?Allow members to help support Group IO fees (in general)?because grandfathered groups, do not have any fees at this time associated with them.? |
Good point. For Basic groups (grandfathered or not) the funds can support an upgrade to Premium as well as Groups.io generally.
Having it say fees for the group may start some kind of panic with the members and other groups owners who view it on my group's homepage.
|
Well, members won't see the checkbox wording (as that's in each group's Settings page), but looking at the green button on the home page they may wonder why this group needs sponsorship. Fortunately if they click the button the explanation there is a bit better:
So maybe that last sentence could be changed to "... and used by us to help cover the cost of providing this group." Or something like that to try and make it clear that it is Groups.io's costs (hosting fees) that are being paid. I imagine many users aren't really aware of the "man behind the curtain", and that he has to pay for the machinery back there.
Of course, any such change would need to be proposed on the .
-- Help: /helpcenterMore Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wikiEven More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list
|
Re: From beta - Group Sponsorships
For free basic groups that don't have a fee attached to them, I think maybe the wording should be changed?Allow members to help support Group IO fees (in general)?because grandfathered groups, do not have any fees at this time associated with them.?Having it say fees for the group may start some kind of panic with the members and other groups owners who view it on my group's homepage.
?Allow Sponsorships
Allow members to sponsor the Groups.IO fees for the group.
?
?
|
-------Original Message-------
?
Date: 1/13/2021 5:10:48 PM
Subject: Re: [GMF] From beta - Group Sponsorships
?
?
I have a Premium?Group and do not see the sponsor button on our home page.
?
I see you found it, but for anyone else looking you need to enable it, at the bottom of the General panel of your group's Settings page:
?
?
Even Basic groups have that option.
?
Shal
?
-- Help: /helpcenterMore Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wikiEven More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list
?
|
Re: From beta - Group Sponsorships
?
I have a Premium?Group and do not see the sponsor button on our home page.
?
I see you found it, but for anyone else looking you need to enable it, at the bottom of the General panel of your group's Settings page:
?
?
Even Basic groups have that option.
?
Shal
?
-- Help: /helpcenterMore Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wikiEven More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list
|
Samuel Murray
Andy Wedge
Shal Farley
SP4149
Ken Schweizer