Pep up the groups thing
|
by
Munzly
11. May 2008 @ 11:50:14 |
Having the biggest groups at the beginning of the list will encourage more people to join them. At the moment you have to scroll through hundreds of failed one owner/member groups just to find a few with a chance of success.
Also, I think groups with only the owner as a member should be deleted after a given time - such as three months. At the moment they just clog up the user-experience.
Trackback address for this post:
Comments, Trackbacks: Hide subcomments
This is how it is at present. If you click on the 'more popular groups' tag at the bottom right of the popular groups display then this gives you a list of groups with the most members from the most to the least.
| Munzly [Member] http://poppycock.blog.co.uk/ 2008-05-11 @ 12:07 |
But not in the Groups tab, which is in view more of the time... 
 | GilraenH pro http://www.gilraen.blog.co.uk 2008-05-11 @ 12:10 |
?It is in my groups tab, not sure what you mean.
The 'one member' groups are annoying though.
| Munzly [Member] http://poppycock.blog.co.uk/ 2008-05-11 @ 12:12 |
You're right, I just never look at them from there. Thought I still think the failed groups should be removed, empty blogs might also come under the same rule.
| GilraenH pro http://www.gilraen.blog.co.uk 2008-05-11 @ 12:38 |
Yes - the empty blogs and empty blog groups should be removed, say, after 3 months (only the empty ones, not the ones that haven't posted for a while as some have a sabbatical and wouldn't want all their blog deleted without them knowing!).
 | menhir [Member] 2008-05-11 @ 14:15 |
You've raised an interesting topic Munzly. It's not one I am getting involved in but, if I were,I would be equally as frustrated as you have been.
My frustration was different. I linked into one group, came out of it as my own blogs (for some inexplicable reason) got tied into it and were being moderated...eaargh!! I could only get to my blog publishing site after I had been through the group.
I have re-joined the group and now have a feature I should have had before, a separate group blogs box as well as my own. If I hadn't, I would have been out of ye groupie thing, again, like a shot.
I am loathe to get into groups because of the very points you raise. I can't be bothered wasting time sifting through millions of possibilities. Finding the click links to ease ones search, is the other point raised here and one, I agree, that should be refined.
As for the empty blogs, there seems to be an inordinate amount of those. I wonder if that has something to do with the sign up process. I haven't investigated this, it is just a thought. What made me think of it was someone commenting on being led to pay for pro facilities that they weren't prepared to move in to. It is, perhaps, hard to find the free sign up.
| Munzly [Member] http://poppycock.blog.co.uk/ 2008-05-11 @ 15:50 |
Also, people who join a group should be prepared to contribute postings and comments - on a REGULAR basis, not just join and forget!
| menhir [Member] 2008-05-11 @ 22:12 |
That is very true Munzly; why join a group if you never contribute; it beats me. Unless, some people may prefer to be silent observers and learners. That's not a position I would want to take. It's not communicating or sharing.
On the basis of commitment, allowing for extraneous requirements, I think one group is enough for me.
 | Rampage team 2008-05-13 @ 13:19 |
When you click on the 'Groups' tab, you see the most popular groups, followed by the newest ones underneath.
| Munzly [Member] http://poppycock.blog.co.uk/ 2008-05-13 @ 14:34 |
Yes, I was originally looking at the Recent Groups listing and wondering why they didn't seem to be sorted. It didn't occur to me that they were in date of creation order. Perhaps a group should have to have a minimum of say, ten founder members before it becomes official?
| Rampage team 2008-05-14 @ 18:44 |
I think that would defeat the purpose of the Recent Groups - if a group creator doesn't want more that a couple of members, it would be unfair not to consider that group a 'real' group worthy of inclusion on BCUK.
| Munzly [Member] http://poppycock.blog.co.uk/ 2008-05-14 @ 19:19 |
Two isn't a group! A group has to be more than a couple, and probably more than "a few" - it has to be substantial. At least five, preferably more.
Otherwise they could just use the co-author arrangement that was already available before the groups thing was implemented.
At the moment it really doesn't add anything to the BCUK experience, apart from the organisers being able to use the numbers as a false statistic of "success".
 | cYzzie team http://das.blog.de 2008-05-16 @ 16:28 |
you have to distinguish between
"what its ment to be" and "how is it used"
groups in the social communities are often used as "identification" people want to be in a group
like "Backstreet boys" to show that they are into that stuff ... they dont want to post, they
dont want anything just to show the identication.
so its not really possible for us to implement any forms of restrictions whattoever to the
amount of regular postings, comments, members or so.
| Munzly [Member] http://poppycock.blog.co.uk/ 2008-05-16 @ 17:01 |
Oh dear! Just a brainless fashion label then?
http://www.gilraen.blog.co.uk
2008-05-11 @ 12:04