It is working as expected today. Must have been a temporary glitch.

Drew

JMichaelTX,

I could go for $10/year for 100 GB of storage. Any ideas how the
groups.io management would feel about that?

I've never broached the subject. Hard to guess, but among the downsides would be increasing complexity in his pricing tiers. I'd like to see it as an à la carte add-on, where one could buy as many extra storage increments as one wants, on top of the base plan.

And, of course, it would have to be priced to break-even or profit - which would require some analysis to work out.

I'm not sure I understand the Amazon pricing,

Me either.

but the Free Tier looks like it includes somewhere between 5 GB - 65
GB. I'm fuzzy on what is total storage vs monthly bandwidth. IAC, it
looks very good!

Groups.io couldn't use the free tier, they'd have to pay for it (as they already do for file and photo storage).

The trick would be to work out the "total cost of ownership" for the extra storage, which would have to include the storage itself, any overhead costs for management and backup, and some reserve for an essentially unpredictable amount of increased bandwidth charges for uploads and downloads.

Shal

Duane,

Pure conjecture on my part, but I'm wondering if Mark isn't trying to
minimize storage for the site and get folks to use other services for
things that take a lot of space?

I'd be happy to see some integration with sites like Flickr to hold photo content as an extension to the group's Photos section.

That is, Flickr allows even private photos to be shared with selected people through a "Guest Pass" URL. If in the photo upload process I could provide such an URL (rather than navigating to a photo on my computer) then Groups.io could reference the photo file from Flickr rather than consume group storage for it. Likewise for sharing whole albums from Flickr.

I think I've suggested this in the past in beta@, but maybe I should mention it again in the context of this thread.

Shal

Drew,

I'm having a problem sorting our database by clicking on the column
titles. The only one that works as expected is the ID column.

I haven't tested it, but that's the kind of bug to report to support.

Shal

开云体育

One suggestion I'd like to make is after a short time, depending on the amount of photos, is to move them to a free storage web site where they could be downloaded and removed from groups.io . . . some will retain them for as little as a week to a year or even forever. Some will also charge at various prices. After downloading & removing them (saving on owner/moderator local hard drives) upload and post the download link. Members then can download photos (or files) as needed, and as often as required.

An option would be to charge a small donation or fee for any group costs to get the link, photos could be grouped by subject, months or years or whatever. This may require extra work for some but it would solve the problem of adding expense to groups.io to increase cost for storage space or smaller groups to upgrade to paid because of limited space.

I've shared Old Time Radio, old music or videos using web sites with files up to 2gb for years . . . for free!

ncatt

example
I uploaded an Abbott & Costello (OTR) for some to try, both are the same mp3
The 1st is packaged, the second is a single file


These are only available for 7 days to try (just click or paste into address bar)

JMichaelTX,

> While the groups.io service is a good one, IMO the storage limits are
> way too low, and the pricing way too high.
> </static/pricing>
>
> Anyone else have this view?

I do.

I ran into a problem moving one of my classmate groups from Yahoo to Groups.io - we had over 4 GB of photo data. Well within Yahoo's 100 GB limit, but too much for the 1 GB limit in a Groups.io free group.

The problem was resolved by rescaling the photos to a lower resolution (one particular folder was full of camera originals an 5000x4000 and 4096x3072 pixels). Still, I would rather not have had to do that.

I'd happily pay something more like $10/year for a boost that matches (even a reasonable markup on) Amazon EC2 storage pricing. But the Premium plan pricing is twelve times that, for a capacity that is little more than double what I wanted to import.

I haven't gotten around to writing that as a proposal on beta@, but IIRC others had run into the storage limits as well.

Shal

-- 
?
God Bless America
"While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us swear allegiance to a land that's free,
Let us all be grateful for a land so fair,
As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer."

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 04:09 pm, Shal Farley wrote:

I'd happily pay something more like $10/year for a boost that matches (even a reasonable markup on) Amazon EC2 storage pricing.

I'm not sure I understand the Amazon pricing, but the Free Tier looks like it includes somewhere between 5 GB - 65 GB.? I'm fuzzy on what is total storage vs monthly bandwidth.? IAC, it looks very good!? If anyone can clarify, please do.

See??.

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 04:09 pm, Shal Farley wrote:

I'd happily pay something more like $10/year for a boost that matches (even a reasonable markup on) Amazon EC2 storage pricing.

I could go for $10/year for 100 GB of storage.? Any ideas how the groups.io management would feel about that?

开云体育

Unless it's something like an art group where detail is important, setting the group to reduce file size when uploaded will save a lot of space. I've got my groups set to reduce them to 312X312 maximum when uploaded. When viewed online, they're a max of 720x720. Some detail is lost, but we haven't had a problem using them yet.

Pure conjecture on my part, but I'm wondering if Mark isn't trying to minimize storage for the site and get folks to use other services for things that take a lot of space?

Duane

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 04:09 pm, Shal Farley wrote:

I'd happily pay something more like $10/year for a boost that matches (even a reasonable markup on) Amazon EC2 storage pricing. But the Premium plan pricing is twelve times that, for a capacity that is little more than double what I wanted to import.

I haven't gotten around to writing that as a proposal on beta@, but IIRC others had run into the storage limits as well.

Shal

I agree Shal,

Premium plan pricing is too high for a small group like mine which gathers lots of photos. We are going to have to rely on Mark simply removing "oldest files first" when we reach our 1GB limit. Not ideal, but I will put up with it.

John P

Sarah,

If this does turn out to be a bug the beta group woudl be a good
place to discuss this.

Actually, if it were a bug [email protected] would be the official place to report it. The beta@ group is more for suggested improvements.

Sometimes one might not be sure if what you're seeing is a bug, or a feature you've missed or misunderstood, or something that could be improved. And that's where a discussion group like GMF comes in.

Shal

JMichaelTX,

While the groups.io service is a good one, IMO the storage limits are
way too low, and the pricing way too high.
</static/pricing>

Anyone else have this view?

I do.

I ran into a problem moving one of my classmate groups from Yahoo to Groups.io - we had over 4 GB of photo data. Well within Yahoo's 100 GB limit, but too much for the 1 GB limit in a Groups.io free group.

The problem was resolved by rescaling the photos to a lower resolution (one particular folder was full of camera originals an 5000x4000 and 4096x3072 pixels). Still, I would rather not have had to do that.

I'd happily pay something more like $10/year for a boost that matches (even a reasonable markup on) Amazon EC2 storage pricing. But the Premium plan pricing is twelve times that, for a capacity that is little more than double what I wanted to import.

I haven't gotten around to writing that as a proposal on beta@, but IIRC others had run into the storage limits as well.

Shal

Bob,

With 155,000 messages and well over 3000 members, a global search
would simply generate far too large a load of garbage that no one
could possilby use in our group

That seems like an odd assumption.

Yes, it would if one searched for a word or phrase that is too commonly used in your group, but that's what search refinement is all about.

After all, web search engines like Google and Bing index untold billions of pages, yet people routinely get useful search results from them. I doubt Groups.io's search relevance ranking is anywhere near to being in the same sophistication ballpark as the major engines, but then the universe of content (messages + photos + files + ...} in a single group isn't anywhere near to being in the same size ballpark as the entire web.

Shal

开云体育

I can't remember if you did this or not, but did you bring this up in the beta discuss group maybe that might be a good idea.?If this does turn out to be a bug the beta group woudl be a good place to discuss this.

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 02:51 pm, Bob Bellizzi wrote:

I find the potential? results of any such search frightening and fear it would be meaningless info

Bob, to coin a phrase, "There is nothing to fear but fear itself".? LOL

Have you ever done a Google search?? Google searches hundreds of millions of records to often find thousands of matches, but presents the best matches on top.? I usually find what I want within the first 3-5 hits.

In this case, it found your foundation, as the top 3 hits:




So a good search engine benefits from more quality sources, like your groups.io wiki, which should be better than the chatter from your 3,000 members.
Nothing to fear my friend, if the search engine is good.

JMichaelTX,

However, I'm very concerned that nothing in the wiki, not even the
title itself, is found by a Google search.

The wiki is set for public viewing. We want the wiki to be a great
resource for JXA, for everyone, not just our members.

GMF's Wiki is public and can be found in Google searches. So it isn't a general problem with Groups.io Wikis. Maybe with subgroup Wikis, I've just created one in a test group to see if it can be found. I haven't yet taken any measures (below) to call it to the attention of the search spiders. I'll let some time elapse first to see if it is found without such prompting.

If you the text you're searching for isn't unique enough there may be a great many pages that rank higher than yours. That is, your wiki might be found, but buried in other results.

To overcome that you could add site:groupname.groups.io to your search string to return only results within your group (primary and subs).

Or...

If the wiki is new the search spiders may not have found it yet. They're unlikely to find it if there are no links to it from other sites. If your group's messages are public, and already indexed, that would be one convenient place to put a link. That's probably how GMF's wiki was found.

I assume Groups.io publishes a sitemap, but I don't know if it includes user-supplied public content (Messages and Wikis, in groups where they are public). If so that would help immensely in having new pages be found by the spiders.

If all else fails you can tell Google's spider where to look:


There are probably similar facilities for other search engines.

Shal

Is it possible to move a subgroup to its own group?
If so, how?

While the groups.io service is a good one, IMO the storage limits are way too low, and the pricing way too high.

Anyone else have this view?
Over time the $/GB have gone down with the other Cloud vendors.
I wonder if we can expect this with groups.io?

At first I loved the features of groups.io, but now as we are really starting to use it, and to develop a wiki, the storage limits, and corresponding pricing, have given me pause.? Storage is obviously very cheap these days, so the groups.io limits/pricing seem inappropriate to me.? I am concerned about getting started with a wiki, and then running out of storage space.

Of course, since we are on the basic/free plan, I can't really complain that much.? I'd be happy now if the free limit was raised to, say, 5-10 GB.

groups.io Pricing:

• Plan? ? ? ? ? ?Price? ? ? ? ? ? ? Storage? ? ?I'd Like to See
• Basic? ? ? ? ?Free? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?1 GB? ? ? ? ? ? ?10 GB
• Premium? ? $10/month? ? 10 GB? ? ? ? ? ?1 TB
• Enterprise? $100/month? 100 GB? ? ? ? ?10 TB

This is way out of line with , , and :

• Company? ? ? ? ? ?Plan? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Price? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Storage
• Google Drive? ? ? Basic? ? ? ? ? ? Free? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?15 GB
• ? ? ? ?"? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Paid 1? ? ? ? ? ?$1.99/mo? ? ? ? 100 GB
• ? ? ? ?"? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Paid 2? ? ? ? ? ?$9.99/mo? ? ? ? 1 TB
• ? ? ? ?"? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Paid 3? ? ? ? ? ?$99.99? ? ? ? ? ? 10 TB
• MS OneDrive? ? ? Basic? ? ? ? ? ? Free? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?5 GB
• ? ? ? "? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Paid 1? ? ? ? ? ?$1.99/mo? ? ? ? 50 GB
• ? ? ? "? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Paid 2? ? ? ? ? ?$6.99/mo? ? ? ? 1 TB + Office 365 Personal Subscription
• ? ? ? "? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Paid 3? ? ? ? ? ?$9.99/mo? ? ? ? 5 TB + Office 365 Home Subscription
• DropBox? ? ? ? ? ? ?Basic? ? ? ? ? ? Free? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?2 GB
• ? ? ? "? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Plus? ? ? ? ? ? ? $9.99/mo? ? ? ? 1 TB
• ? ? ? "? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Pro? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? $19.99/mo? ? ? 1 TB + many features

I find the potential? results of any such search frightening and fear it would be meaningless info
With 155,000 messages and well over 3000 members, a global search would simply generate far too large a load of garbage that no one could possilby use in our group

--
Bob Bellizzi

The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation

Hi,? I did quite a bit of searching here, could not find an answer to my question.

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).

For my subgroup (), we will have important information in both messages and wiki.? While it is nice to have a wiki-only search, we very much need to have a search that covers everything, or at least an option to select which sections should be included.

Thanks.