Topic

Just wondering about groups

Why are there so many repeat types of groups with only one or two people in them? Granted, I can understand a group being made for the purpose of a group of friends or an invite only club in game. But when its a general concept, like a "Market Chat" for people to gather and discuss, or buy items in game without the auction house - there are 8 groups?

Is it an issue with the kind of items they deal with, is it an issue of how the group is managed - especially with conflict between group admins and moderators vs various members? Are these splinter groups from people that left the old group and reformed new groups? I am curious, since a lot of talk of "Someone should totally make a market group so everyone that wants to trade can go there" seems to gloss over the fact that there are several groups - with a few hundred members in some and only a handful in others. Just, either no one is in the group chat, or the market groups only have a few members. Not nearly as many as Global tends to draw.

It seems odd, because there ARE market groups, just as I don't doubt there are other groups doing similar activities (like the two dozen cubimal groups) . Then you get into the Global groups, like 2.0, 2.1, and so on. Clearly there is an issue with global if people are leaving, but does that really set the proper tone? Are the fractures in the global chat because of conflicting interest or people not wanting to actually be in a global chat and only want to really be in a 'quasi-closed group with a few people they really get along with and want the ability to expunge those they deem annoying'?

Just seems like a lot of wasted opportunities in some ways. But I would like to hear someone that actually has more experience with these groups to weigh in on it. Don't let me get things wrong if I am indeed reading the signs improperly.

Edit: Also, is it an issue of people not bothering to use the search function? O.o

Edit 2: Ok, so the multiple Global chats were more an issue of the chat possibly vanishing. And while my prior statement of 'expunging those they deem annoying' might have been a bit strong - if not downright insulting for which I apologize to those I might have offended. But that was an assumption made upon an over-read conversation I witnessed in global and have unjustly applied to the chat in whole. There are only a few people that act that way towards others, and not everyone in global is bad. I guess I made the old adage of "don't assume" quite true in this sense.

Posted 10 months ago by Wyrd One Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

  • yeah, judging from the ideas that go into the ideas forum, people don't use a search function seems a pretty fair guess!
    Posted 10 months ago by katlazam Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The reason for global chat 2.0 is because there was talk of the eventual shutting down of global chat-- it's not a current replacement, but a potential eventual replacement.
    Posted 10 months ago by MsKelseyClaire Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Yes, I'm sure some of the duplication occurs because people don't use the search function or don't use it effectively. Beyond that, since creating and administering a group is a voluntary player activity, it may be that several people have somewhat different ideas about how a particular type of group (e.g. a market group) should function, so each makes a group based on their ideas.There also may be preferences as to how a group is administered, what other players one associates with in a group, etc. 
    Posted 10 months ago by Splendora Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I think it boils down to two reasons.

    First, as katlazam said, lots of people don't use the search function. Someone will muse, "We should have a group for X!" Others will say, "That's a great idea! I would totally join a group for X!" And because people have agreed this is a good idea and they've said they'll join such a group, another group for X is made, even if there are already several others like it.

    Second, groups die. They take effort to maintain, and if the activity dies down, usually no one bothers to disband the group. There are plenty of groups that have the last post as several months ago (or none at all), with no one hanging out in the channels. Rather than hunting down that admin and transferring permissions to resurrect that group, it's just easier to start fresh with a new one. 

    I imagine it takes a lot of commitment to a group in order to have enough conflict to make it fracture. While there may be a few cases like that, most of the time I think we have repeat groups for the reasons explained above - primarily due to inactivity (lack of search, lack of group maintenance).
    Posted 10 months ago by Melody Pond Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I have noticed that in part lately with a few groups I am in. Either the posts have died down and are months old, or they are still active on the forums but no one is in the group chat. Or people join the group chat and never appear on the forum - making it seem like it has died.

    I try to lurk once or twice in the group chats I joined to see if anyone will pop on, but a lot of times it is just me and the Magic Rock and the tumbleweeds for company. Any recommendations as to how we, either the players, or the staff (of the groups, not TS, they are busy enough) could make it better?

    We have the friends lists, status updates, liking, commenting, discussions, group chat, and invite feature. We have ways for people to connect both off and on the game screen. Is it simply a matter of getting people interested enough or finding the right pattern?

    Or could it be that something that we are missing that TS could implement? Not saying they should, as I said, they are busy enough as it is. . . you know, I'm going to make a quick post in the ideas forum for that.

    Edit: Did just that. www.glitch.com/forum/ideas/...
    Posted 10 months ago by Wyrd One Subscriber! | Permalink
  • These guys who create these new groups need to search for existing groups before thry start a new one.
    Posted 10 months ago by AwesomeCardinal2000 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I think groups will get a gigantic caffeinated shot in the arm when group halls are finally introduced (likely after the new housing is implemented). It will give us alot more to do with each other, a solid goal to work towards, and a physical space to share. I can't wait!!
    Posted 10 months ago by Shepherdmoon Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Thanks for this post.  It cause me to review the 16 groups I belonged to and whittle them down to 5.  Many of the groups were dead and many I realized I never went to. I like that my column that lists groups and friends, won't have so much info I don't use.
    Posted 10 months ago by Peachesan Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I don't think there is any cause to worry about the proliferation of groups.  It's good that anyone can start a group, but the obvious consequence is that many groups get started and go nowhere.  Out of these many "failed" groups some groups will flourish.  It's really hard to have successes without failures.
    Posted 10 months ago by Humbabella Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I agree with what Humbabella said.  It would be nice, though, to be able to sort groups by activity level (e.g. number of posts by different people within the last week).  I'm more interested in this than I am in how many people are members or how new a group is.
    Posted 10 months ago by Splendora Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Possibly there should be a 'header notice' on the Groups page.  It could do two thing:

    1. Encourage people interested in starting a group to search first and see if there is an active group already focusing on their interest.

    2. Letting everybody in general know that there are likely 'inactive' groups and they might need to search around to find the 'live' group to join that addresses their interest. 

    Really, though, there's no 'cost' in joining all the groups that Search says might address your interest, and then culling it down to the one or two that really meets one's needs.
    Posted 10 months ago by Kalstept Subscriber! | Permalink