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

Hi All,

Seeing if there is a function on the Pro version to have members apply again for posting each year.? Basically trying to aide in the area of keeping active members on our Group by asking them to request membership again at the beginning of each year?? Seeing if there is an API that anyone has done any sort of programming on prior to share in order to help point me in the right direction?? Thanks for any comments or suggestions.

Anthony Lee

Thanks Jim, much appreciated, I will repost to see if I can get some better results.

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 11:34 AM, Peter Cook wrote:

Duane, what's the syntax for that search?

The part after the question mark is known as a query string ( ?). It's used to pass parameters to a server-side script so a page can be built to some specification.

Christos built a web page for the query string parameters associated with Member List display functions at?/g/GroupManagersForum/wiki/15356. Other than that, most of these are undocumented...but as Duane noted they're not too hard to figure out with some playing around.

Regards,
Bruce

---

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

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 01:21 PM, Chris Jones wrote:

A search on "amateur radio" reveals nearly 1500 groups, but I accept that that is quite small in relation to a visible group total of just over 34,000.

Along those same lines, I find that there are just over 5500 of the visible groups with more than 100 members.

Duane
--
The official Groups.io user documentation is in the Groups.io Help Center.
GMF's Unofficial Help Wiki: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 12:40 PM, Mark Murphy wrote:

that for current free groups the average number of subscribers is 85 and he believes the median is significantly less than that. This implies that the majority of current free groups are well?under 85.

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 most common number could be 1.

Bruce

---

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

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 12:06 PM, Jim Baker wrote:

I'd like to set up an auto-responder for all the subgroups to notify the sender that the list is deprecated and point to the new lists.

On the Settings page for the subgroup, at the very bottom, select Lock Group (this assumes that it's a paid group because you can't lock a Basic group/subgroup.)? Create a Member Notice of type Locked Group containing the information you want to send.? Anyone attempting to email to the subgroup should receive that notice as an email.? There's no information shown if they access it online, but the reply button is gone.? You could post a pinned message or sticky wiki page on the subgroup to give them the info needed.? You could also change the Home page of the subgroup giving a pointer to the new subgroup.? Most (all?) of this would apply to a main group as well.? Hope this helps.

Duane
--
The official Groups.io user documentation is in the Groups.io Help Center.
GMF's Unofficial Help Wiki: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki

开云体育

Beth,

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

?
- If by that you mean the mod being able to (indirectly) add a member, the solution is to limit their member-editing privileges as was stated.

- If by that you mean a subgroup member getting added to the main group as well when one would like them to only be in the subgroup, that's not a bug or even unwanted behaviour, it is because the subgroup is just that, a subgroup of the main group, and you cannot have members belonging to a subgroup and not to the main group***. (although you can the other way around)

***if you want that, you need a separate group, not a subgroup.

Cheers,
Christos

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 05:40 PM, Mark Murphy wrote:

Mark Fletcher has stated that for current free groups the average number of subscribers is 85 and he believes the median is significantly less than that. This implies that the majority of current free groups are well?under 85.

So I think there will continue to be significant market demand for the free groups in your first category of potential groups.

Obviously I am not in a position to argue with Mark's figures, but I'm certainly going to query them, here if nowhere else.

Looking at the publicly listed groups there seem to be a lot that simply don't seem to take off, and languish there with but a handful of members and minimal or no activity. I assume they were included in his overll list on which he based his calculations. He may also have included test groups that more or less by definition have a timy membership.

I am in seven radio - related groups (there are many, many more listed) that have membership totals ranging from just over 300 to nearly 2000. A quick check of other listed groups revealed memberships in the 5000 - 10000 range. A search on "amateur radio" reveals nearly 1500 groups, but I accept that that is quite small in relation to a visible group total of just over 34,000.?

So Samuel's assertion that Groups.io is reducing its scope or its intended user base to a very narrow band of potential customers could very well be true, even if that is not the intent.

The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again...

Chris

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 10:34 AM, Peter Cook wrote:

what's the syntax for that search?

You can start by using the selections on the left of the "Find or Create a Group" page.? Then modify to get what you want (hopefully).? No parameters at all shows the newest groups first.

The p= parameter may be:
SubsCount for popular
ThreadsCount for activity
Created for newest
Name for name

The second parameter, after the first comma, isn't used as far as I can tell.

The third parameter, after the second comma, can be a keyword within double quotes, but is optional.

The fourth parameter is the number of items you wish to display per page with 20 being the default.

The fifth parameter is 1 for reverse or 2 for default display order.

The sixth is where the display results will start, but at one position higher (60 would display result 61 as the first on the page).

I haven't found a use for parameter 7 (yet?).

Some of this may apply to searches in other areas, such as the member list.? Have fun playing around!

Duane
--
The official Groups.io user documentation is in the Groups.io Help Center.
GMF's Unofficial Help Wiki: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 01:25 PM, Rob Erikson wrote:

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

Rob,

If you mean you don't want the members to be able to post messages but only be able to read posted messages, set the group to Announcement-Only, where only admins can post messages.

/helpcenter/ownersmanual/1/customizing-group-settings/spam-control-and-moderation-settings

Cheers,
Christos