Topic

About max groups...

Why do we have a max-groups limit? 

(a) Some social engineering goal that I can't guess at. It feels like being told I can only have 7 friends -- and I have to give one the boot before I can even go chat someone up and try making a new friend.

(b) Architecture and performance. All those groups show up in my game panel, and could potentially be active chat windows receiving updates. If you think sneezing powder is bad, I wonder what it would be like to be getting chat updates from 26 groups at once.

(c) The bad joo-joos ????

Since (a) seems unlikely, and even contrary to building strong communities in Glitch... is it possible that there are other ways to accomplish (b)?  I don't need every group open in chat.  Some of them, I never intend to have a chat window open; but I would still like to maintain the group membership so that I can stay in contact via offline group forums.  

Does this make any sense?

Posted 19 months ago by Lelu Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

  • absolutely, Lelu. Wanted to know the same myself. 
    Posted 19 months ago by Cassandria Subscriber! | Permalink
  • They have plans on giving groups a physical presence within the game in the near future (through group halls and who knows what else), so I think these grandiose plans are the reason for the small limit.
    Posted 19 months ago by Shepherdmoon Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Yes, it makes sense, and I agree.  I have to keep leaving groups in order to join others, and then I forget to rejoin the first ones, or I can't rejoin because they're invite-only.  I just looked through old forum posts, and saw a lot of discussion about the limits (the limit used to be lower), but no staff explanation as to why they are there. 

    Devs, can you tell us?
    Posted 19 months ago by glum pudding Subscriber! | Permalink
  • glum.... remember a handful of tests ago when the group channels were still at the bottom of your list? I imagine the answer to the questions is 'because we haven't finished developing that part of things yet'. 

    I agree with Shepherdmoon... the group limit somehow ties into other pieces of the world we haven't seen yet. Stoot said somewhere (and I can't find the thread just now, anyone else feel like the Forums got pruned?) that the Groups as we presently know them will not go away when the reset happens, but that there are other group-related things in the works that will. Can't wait to see what they've cooked up.

    As for getting 20-odd updates at once.... tehehehe I tried that out - but I used IM sessions. It's actually not too bad. Little noisy, but sound adjustments (i.e. mute) aren't difficult.
    Posted 19 months ago by Travinara Subscriber! | Permalink
  • First of all, yes, later on, groups will be a much more tangible and central part of society. Second, the main reason that there's a limit is so that people will be creative about which they join. That way, people will only join groups they'll actually contribute to and care about. There's less people who are join groups just because they can, since to use up one of your 7 you would have to actually want to be in the group.
    Posted 19 months ago by Cupcake Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "Second, the main reason that there's a limit is so that people will be creative about which they join."

    I don't think that really works right now - if anything, it's counter-productive. All it means (for me at least) is that I pretty much ignore groups. I'm already in seven groups. If I notice another group that might be of interest, I can't just join it speculatively and hang around for a bit and see if it's really something I want to participate in - instead, I have to enter serious "group management" mode. I have to actively resign a group I'm already a member of, join the new group, and then if I decide the switch wasn't worth making, resign the new group and rejoin the old one. That seems an awful lot of overhead just to see what "Tiny Speckles" (or whatever) is all about. 
    Posted 19 months ago by dopiaza Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Perhaps being able to review the newest group posts without being able to post new ones would be helpful for players in deciding which group they want to join in? The limited amount of information available now isn't terribly helpful.
    Posted 19 months ago by Shepherdmoon Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'm not sure just the newest posts would help - it's rarely a representative sample. That might pique my curiosity enough to encourage me to join, but it's only by being around for a little while that you really get a feel for a group. The current system just doesn't support that.
    Posted 19 months ago by dopiaza Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I completely agree with dopiaza.  I understand that groups will have group halls and whatnot, but I don't see why that should limit the number of groups.  I'd much rather join lots of groups, and then be able to make informed decisions about leaving the ones which don't hold my interest.
    Posted 19 months ago by glum pudding Subscriber! | Permalink
  • We don't know what the devs have in store just yet... there may be major benefits to being a part of a group, which would give someone that has joined 100 groups an advantage over someone who has joined a modest 5 groups. We'll have to wait and see, but I'm sure there is some reasoning behind the limit.
    Posted 19 months ago by Shepherdmoon Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The only reason I can remember for limiting the number of groups was that we didn't want a lot of dead/stale groups and having people choose wisely meant that that might be less likely to happen. But, that's probably not the real result.

    So, we will change it!

    Much bigger changes are coming to groups soon anyway …
    Posted 19 months ago by stoot barfield Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Oh, and yes: I think the discussions for public/no-invite groups should just be public.
    Posted 19 months ago by stoot barfield Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I would prefer if the group moderator could choose whether or not to have the forums display publicly for no-invite groups.
    Posted 19 months ago by katlazam Subscriber! | Permalink
  • ^ +1
    Posted 19 months ago by Hburger Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Thank you!  that will be wonderful.
    Posted 19 months ago by Lelu Subscriber! | Permalink
  • If the entire discussion list is readable by simply joining then quitting the group, why bother making the discussion private?

    Group members will never know who joined, read, then quit the group.  It's really no different than the discussions being publicly readable.  For the public, open groups that I start, I'm delighted that someone can stumble across the group, get a feel for it and then decide to join.  I don't want to overcome the barrier of making the group name so enticing that people join without knowing what the group is discussing. 

    On the other hand, for the semi-public groups, where I want to approve the membership, I can see keeping discussions hidden until you have joined.

    For me, making it harder to market a group to potential new members makes no sense.  If it's an open group, make everything open.
    Posted 19 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1
    If at all possible I would also like to still have groups with a closed/invite only option. I came here along with a few very good friends. Not FS's ;) Now we are all in and there are a dozen of us. We added a group that no one would ever want to join or with out being rude would let join. It was made purely because party chat only lets you add seven members or something like that. If you made all groups open my friends and I would lose to option to all chat together in privet :(
    Posted 19 months ago by Misha Subscriber! | Permalink
  • No one is suggesting that all groups be made open.

    Currently there are three levels of group privacy:
    1) Open, anyone can see that the group exists and can join
    2) Open, anyone can see that the group exists, but you must be invited to join
    3) Private, no one can see that the group exists, and you must be invited to join

    Currently, you must join a group before you can see any of the discussions.

    The suggestion is to make the Option 1 group have its discussions visible without having to join.  That would help people who are in the maximum number of groups.  They could decide whether or not to join without having to leave one of their current groups.
    Posted 19 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • One side effect of allowing the hiding of discussions from non-members in public groups is that it allows for a group setup where the discussions can't get indexed by search engines. I'm a member of at least one popular group over on Flickr that is set up in exactly this way for that very reason. 
    Posted 19 months ago by dopiaza Subscriber! | Permalink