Another question about groups (Page 1 of 2)

Content is only posted in groups which the writer has selected. It is not automatically posted anywhere.
We're still examining the limit on group signups. But the reality is that over time there will be thousands of groups. There is no way a writer can join and actively participate in all of them or even view all of the content. When this was one site, it made sense to want to see everything. Now, the way to go about it is to make sure the people you want to read are in a group with you. Or connect with them.

What's the correct number of groups? I don't know yet. But we want to avoid abandoned groups that are set up or joined on a whim and then allowed to drift into the wasteland. A limit seemed like the best way to get writers to focus on the groups that they really wanted to participate in. We may adjust the number once we see how it goes on the site.

Sol

I just wanted to say that you can post simultaneously in several groups, thereby increasing your exposure without using more points.

Hmmm put it that way, it does make sense. And I forgot that your connections show up on your page so I'd be able to review that way.

I kind of agree with Linda, mainly because I write in 4 genres, NA/YA/Adultparanormal/horror-thriller. I post in three group now (plus premium and free). I set up my posts to go into one or two of the group categories depending on the genre (and where my review buddies are), but add the premium and free to every post. This leaves me group heavy for my Adult paranormal should a group open. I think maybe we are already getting group heavy. It seem some groups are posting just to have forums to talk on.

Aw, c'mon, njc. Building walls? That's not what we're about. The purpose of groups is to gather like-minded writers together to share ideas, discuss issues related to the particular genres. At least that was my motivation for starting a group. Most of the time, though, the group just serves as the place to post a story appropriate for the genre. A place for those who like that kind of story to go to and find a story to their liking. How can it be clique-ish if anyone can join a specific group if they think it suits them? And join more than one group? We're a family of writers, each member trying to achieve a success that meets the individual's definition of it.  So have some fun and take advantage of the wealth of talent available here - in whatever group(s) meets your fancy. The paranoia you expressed is misplaced, in my view.

My question was if Free & Premium count as part of the five groups? I was hoping not b/c I'd like to be a part of the romance group as well. And maybe adult fantasy. I may not post for review any private groups. I'd like to see those for discussion and information dissemination on that genre.

If building walls were not an express purpose of groups, why is it possible to create a private or invite-only group?  Those capabilities are wall-builders.

What this suggests to me that -both- capabilties are present in the design.  The problems that we are having figuring out how to use the things might or might not come from having both openness and closedness as part of group function, but it's a question this sometime software designer feels should be asked.

It's only paranoia in the sense that having a system test team to hammer on the product before it ships is paranoia.  You =always= expect bugs, in requirements, analysis, several levels of design, coding, integration, configuration, and in packaging the product to ship or go into service.  It's best if the designers and programmers expect the bugs, and design/code them out before they happen.  But that's a discussion for another place and time.

I believe the problems members are having is equating groups on this site with the Groups section of the old forum. They are not the same, other than the fact that the groups on this site have a forum. On the old site, by far the most popular thread was the Member Announcements. In fact, 90% of the forum traffic went through this one thread. So, for the sake of simplicity, we said that instead of giving each group an entire forum like on the old site, we'll just limit it to one forum thread. People now have one place to post topics for that group. The topics can be announcements, genre issues, writing tips, successes, etc. This is what was already happening on the old site. We consolidated a lot of forums into one for each group. The community keeps telling me they want everything simplified, except on the forums. What this is starting to tell me is that people just want it like it was on the old site. That the change itself is what is tough, not the actual usability of the site, etc.

People are struggling to recreate the old forum system using the groups. Why? If you have a general question or comment, post it in TheNextBigWriter Premium. Post your fantasy, or sci-fi or whatever questions there. You don't need to join a specific group for that. We have sci-fi and horror and romance writers in Premium.

And if you want to take a smaller subset of people and try something different, that is when you create a group. Or if you think Premium lacks something and you want to try moderating and creating your own writing workshop, go for it. Of course, the system is yours to do with as you please, within the guidelines of the site. But that is why we have limited it to 5 groups for now. Because we don't need a million different groups all doing the same thing. After a month or so, we'll reevaluate and see if we should tweak the number.

Sol

Cheers & with respect, Sol. (I realize it's difficult in these forums to express our smiles and good feelings along with a critique of some facet of the site, but you have both of those from me to go along with this little message) -

I think ten groups would be a far more realistic number, at the VERY LEAST. (Not including our ability to weigh in at TNBW Premium/Free, which (IMO) don't count as actual groups but rather a support area for the site.)

There are far too many genres and potential topics to limit the camaraderie to five rooms. I concede I don't really understand what limiting groups means on your end, but I trust there must be some logistical reason why how many groups we can join is being limited. However, I too am facing "I can't join yours, I'm all full up" as well as "you should join us!" along with my "I can't, I'm all filled already." I do see the logic in limiting how many groups people can create, but it seems poor logic to confine those who are active members eagerly in search of literary/writer conversation as a means to deter that grim percentage who may abuse the system and prove themselves in some groups to be dead weight. The site is set up with founders and moderators who can attend to such details on a group by group basis. If I have a group with two active members and eight hundred people who've joined and never taken part, I (once my moderator function recovers from the recent glitch) will be able to clean up that group by removing the members who are not present.

As for wanting to limit how many groups are created and left dead, could there be a sixty-day self-combust thing? I don't know if that's feasible, but I believe many would prefer to know that their groups will be deleted if inactive after sixty days, than to be told they can only talk to some people about some things.

I definitely get that you're looking at the potential 1000 groups of the future which may become madness if you don't set out limits, but with respect, the answer is not, IMO, to limit the discussion of the most vociferous folks on your site. The answer is to be more organized about the groups on your end -- meaning organize them by limited topic (such as genre, writing craft, etc), and make it easier to find what we want to join. Do you know what 1,000 groups is going to look like when 232 are historical rooms, 75 are science fiction, 18 are writing craft, 500 are fantasy, etc? Not pretty, sir, when there's no way to neatly find one another. But fifteen neatly presented categories, with the most active groups in that category at the top of the list for easy joining? That starts to look a little more manageable. There could be a mandatory drop-down list of categories as each group is created which will neatly file it.

What it might instead tell you is that people want more space to talk to one another, and the five-groups limit is proving deficient toward that end. Some are creating groups to link themselves by genre, but others just want a space to discuss writer craft. I might have never written a script and want to join a conversation in a screenplay group -- ask a question, for goodness sake. But I can't, because I have a noose around my curiosity.

I'm not suggesting that has anything to do with the excellent functionality on site to create private groups. I'm suggesting that the climate on this site is quite divergent, and some of us are more wide-sweeping in our extroversion. There are not many wonderful places like this, sir, where so many writers can gather and share our trials, our thoughts, our ideas about literature, our frustrations, our favorite books. We want to have the opportunity to share that with more than a handful of people, and not have it categorized and limited. If that's a logistical issue on your end, the fault is not in our disinclination to give up the old site. The fault is in a design which underestimated the breadth of our voices.

With respect.

Posting in TNBW Premium would give the site as a whole (and the whole world, as I understand it?) access to whatever I post there, but it would still prevent me from taking part in the many visible (and otherwise accessible) conversations which are NOT happening in TNBW Premium.

Speaking only for myself:

I love the idea of having a space where conversations can be archived. I don't see that in TNBW Premium -- not the way it can be managed within a forum specific to the conversation. For example, I set up the Shred Thread. It's completely open to new members, but the conversation is private so we can discuss works that have already been published -- why they work as written, and what may not work -- without having the conversation searchable beyond the site. Having that sort of control over the features of the conversation wouldn't be possible within TNBW Premium. There's also the potential within a group for a moderator specific to that sort of discussion (or several moderators), and the opportunity to send out a message to the group.

If we stuck the conversation in TNBW Premium, those benefits would be gone. The archive of the discussion would be lost in a lot of threads that have nothing to do with shredding.

I don't believe the point is a craving for a space to post threads visible to the entire world -- as in TNBW Premium. (Some may crave this. I certainly don't. I'm somewhere between the extremes I think: a bit private but still interested in many topics.) The point is that we crave more freedom to take part in conversations which would accessible in every way, but for the limit on group membership. I like that conversations can be arranged into groups, that some are private, that some are more open. I like that there is some facet of categorization in the conversations since groups tend to be specific to certain discussions. I like that some groups have different climates to them (some are very relaxed and laid back, some are very focused with a moderator who will take no guff), and some are absolutely silent to anyone but their own specific members. I like the idea that we could weave in and out of the discussions which are intended to be open and accessible to members. The potential for archiving is enormous in this sort of system.

I don't like that I can see conversations but cannot take part in them -- not because those in the group prefer not to have interaction, but because I've reached my five group limit.

Ok. I give up. We'll raise the limit to 10 for Premium Members. It may take a couple of days for us to get around to it.

Sol