Groups in the Community

[leigh.bess.toad]

Either I've been asleep at the switch for a very long time (which given my sleep pattern is entirely possible) or the administrators have just added a new feature to the site. Under the Community section at the top of the page, where they have Friends & Contacts and Member List, there is a new listing for Groups. Would the Admins like to expound on that a bit? Can anyone start one? Does one need to be invited to join a group? Any protocol for the groups? Anything you might want to add would be appreciated.

 

Or have they been there all along and there just are no groups at all? NONE??

[bcohen7719]

First time I've seen this...but I'd like to start a group or two. I think

it is an excellent idea.

 

BC

[leigh.bess.toad]

First time I've seen this...but I'd like to start a group or two. I think

it is an excellent idea.

 

BC

 

There are a few that immediately pop into my head as well: given the interest in the luncheon upcoming one for DC (and maybe for other larger metro areas); I know there was an interest in a Maria Callas fan group. I'm sure there are others that would quickly pop up.

[josephga]

iv seen sites b4 with the group option. normally someone starts a group on a topic of interests and anyone interested in that topic joins that group where they post about that particular interest

[+ deej]

You know as much as I do. Give it a whirl and report back.

[Mark Gordon]

You know as much as I do. Give it a whirl and report back.

 

When I hit the Create Group button, I get the following message:

 

Mark Gordon, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

1. Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
   
2. If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
   

[+ deej]

Thanks, Mark!

 

Now that I've had a chance to review the docs it's still not clear to me what this new feature is or does, or even whether we want to turn it on!

 

We'll study on this, folks.

 

Sorry! None of us knew this new feature was coming.

[Kevin Slater]

I hate to tell y'all, but we've been using groups to snicker behind all y'all's backs for years. <jk>

 

More interestingly, I originally tried to post a different word than snicker, one that happens to rhyme with a certain racial epithet, and the software automatically replaced it with s******. What a hoot.

 

Kevin Slater

[Kevin Slater]

Upon further investigation, I can still tell jokes about Sarah Palin's cunt (http://www.companyofmen.org/showthread.php?71256-Palin-confuses-Iraq-and-Iran), but Dolly Parton was in The Best Little *****house in Texas.

 

Kevin Slater

[leigh.bess.toad]

Thanks, Mark!

 

Now that I've had a chance to review the docs it's still not clear to me what this new feature is or does, or even whether we want to turn it on!

 

We'll study on this, folks.

 

Sorry! None of us knew this new feature was coming.

 

Deej --

 

If it is something that is workable, I do think it would be a really great addition. It would allow those of use with specific interests or those of us in a specific geographic area to get together and I think that's always a good thing. Just MHO. That and $7.75 may get you a small coffee at Starbucks. Maybe.

[+ deej]

Deej --

 

If it is something that is workable, I do think it would be a really great addition. It would allow those of use with specific interests or those of us in a specific geographic area to get together and I think that's always a good thing. Just MHO. That and $7.75 may get you a small coffee at Starbucks. Maybe.

 

So, you've figured out how the feature works and what it does?

[josephga]

when i click on community the group options no longer there. it was there yesterday

[seeker630]

I'm surprised there's no online Help available here. I Googled 'vbulletin groups' and found SOME information (for an earlier version?). http://www.vbulletin.com/docs/html/vb2_manual_cp_usergroups

 

Groups seem to be primarily a means of allocating different sets of permissions. (e.g., members of group A can read AND post, but members of group B can only read). Apparently you could create a forum that was only accessible by members of a certain group, but I'm not sure that controlled-access is what the OP had in mind?

 

I'm not sure why a specific thread on a topic wouldn't meet the need? Those interested can read & post, those not interested can skip.

[Steven_Draker]

Groups seem to be primarily a means of allocating different sets of permissions. (e.g., members of group A can read AND post, but members of group B can only read). Apparently you could create a forum that was only accessible by members of a certain group ...

 

A new form of segregation? No, I can't believe that ...

[happyguy2]

Gives us cause for pause, hmmmmm

[+ deej]

See FAQ in the main navigation bar at the top of the page. That's the help (such as it is) for vBulletin.

 

You are correct about user groups. They have been central to user management on computers since computers were invented. But this thread is about social groups, a new feature. (A new POORLY NAMED feature. )

 

Features are being added to the board software all the time to keep it "competitive" with Facebook et. al., and many of those features are (IMO) pretty useless. (Checked out the tag cloud lately?)

 

My reading on the social groups feature is that it would actually fracture the community, making it necessary to go "somewhere else" to find out what your group is discussing. Just start a new thread!

 

But we're willing to be open about it.

[seeker630]

See FAQ in the main navigation bar at the top of the page. That's the help (such as it is) for vBulletin.

 

You are correct about user groups. They have been central to user management on computers since computers were invented. But this thread is about social groups, a new feature. (A new POORLY NAMED feature. )

 

Features are being added to the board software all the time to keep it "competitive" with Facebook et. al., and many of those features are (IMO) pretty useless. (Checked out the tag cloud lately?)

 

My reading on the social groups feature is that it would actually fracture the community, making it necessary to go "somewhere else" to find out what your group is discussing. Just start a new thread!

 

But we're willing to be open about it.

 

Deej, thanks for pointing out the FAQs! So, it does imply a 'place' for each group. I suppose it would allow muliple threads, unlike a single topic. How it would differ from a topic (e.g. The Deli) is unclear to me. I gather you would be able to see a members list for a group, tho, so you could identify members even if they haven't posted.

 

I definitely need to work on my social media IQ!

[leigh.bess.toad]

I guess my only point for it might be that like minded individuals might find it easier to meet and either form social groups simply on-ilne or maybe even allow for off-line meetings, such as by allowing people to identify in a certain region. For example, if we had a group for DC area residents, that would have been an easier place to start for the luncheon we are having next week. You could have user groups for favorite escorts who might tend to be polarizing and keep those threads off the general forums and among only those interested. Of course you do run the risk of more isolation of people as well, so there is a potential downside as well.

 

I guess like most things, there are positives and negatives.

 

Just a few things to ponder.

[+ deej]

I guess my only point for it might be that like minded individuals might find it easier to meet and either form social groups simply on-ilne or maybe even allow for off-line meetings, such as by allowing people to identify in a certain region.

 

I'm willing to be convinced. How will something that's hidden from view of the casual visitor enhance participation when visitors can't find it and don't even know they should look for it?

 

For example, if we had a group for DC area residents, that would have been an easier place to start for the luncheon we are having next week.

Seems to me you'd want broad visibility, not limited, eh?

 

I guess like most things, there are positives and negatives.

I see this one as more negative. It's mostly clique-building and exclusionary, but as I said we're still listening.

[+ sam.fitzpatrick]

As a new member, it is all somewhat overwhelming to start navigating through the a new site. For the sake of newer members, keep it simple.

[leigh.bess.toad]

Deej --

 

I'm just playing devil's advocate -- I'm still on the fence myself really. I'm just trying to look at both sides. But I do know that one time I've seen it, it was only exclusionary in that non-group members couldn't post but all posts and threads were completely visible to everyone. So for example, if the fans of Maria Callas wanted to have a group and have discussions about her recordings and performances they may have witnesseed, they would have one place to do it. As it is now, they do have one place: the Comedy & Tragedy thread, along with hundreds of other discussions. And it can be more daunting to find a specific thread than if it were segregated into a smaller grouping. However, the general "public" at large would still be able to see all the threads and discussions in that group. If someone felt the need to contribute, simply join the group and dive in. And assuming that everyone would be able to see all posts, even the "lurkers", having groups for regions (such as the DC area) may encourage more, not less participation. And it might help foster a feeling of community within that region that could be beneficial as welll. Nothing guaranteed and maybe a bit pollyanaish. But it's a thought at least worth considering.

[+ deej]

Deej --

 

I'm just playing devil's advocate -- I'm still on the fence myself really. I'm just trying to look at both sides. But I do know that one time I've seen it, it was only exclusionary in that non-group members couldn't post but all posts and threads were completely visible to everyone. So for example, if the fans of Maria Callas wanted to have a group and have discussions about her recordings and performances they may have witnesseed, they would have one place to do it. As it is now, they do have one place: the Comedy & Tragedy thread, along with hundreds of other discussions. And it can be more daunting to find a specific thread than if it were segregated into a smaller grouping. However, the general "public" at large would still be able to see all the threads and discussions in that group. If someone felt the need to contribute, simply join the group and dive in. And assuming that everyone would be able to see all posts, even the "lurkers", having groups for regions (such as the DC area) may encourage more, not less participation. And it might help foster a feeling of community within that region that could be beneficial as welll. Nothing guaranteed and maybe a bit pollyanaish. But it's a thought at least worth considering.

 

It's a little bit insulting to suggest we haven't thought of any of that over the last decade, but I know you didn't mean it that way.

 

The thing is that discussions today happen in visible forums that are easily discoverable by visitors. The way I read the "groups" feature is that only registered users will be able to see the groups assuming they're willing to go looking.

 

Both requirements are earmarks for failure, frankly.

 

If we need more forums, for geography or whatever, the request bin is always open. I'm still having trouble seeing how the groups thing would add value. And I'm openly LOOKING for added value!

[gp0560]

I don't know if this is possible, but could you set up a new category on the Forums page? Like, for example, the Destinations category we have today. Call it Special Interest Groups (or whatever) and list the various topics under that heading? That way, the special interest topics would be more visible, to newbies and oldbies alike.

 

There are probably dangers in having an unmoderated forum. How are Groups monitored in the current setup?

[+ deej]

I don't know if this is possible, but could you set up a new category on the Forums page? Like, for example, the Destinations category we have today. Call it Special Interest Groups (or whatever) and list the various topics under that heading?

 

We sure could! Of course that further buries discussions in areas that visitors may not bother to visit. It's a two-edged sword that we constantly grapple with. Would you rather discuss Maria Callas with people who visit the "arts" forum or with the three people who bother to visit a more specialized forum?

 

We could have dozens of forums easily. Would it be an improvement?

 

There are probably dangers in having an unmoderated forum. How are Groups monitored in the current setup?

 

Nothing here is unmoderated, and that's also a consideration. We already ask way too much of our already overworked but still magnificent moderators. We've tried to add more moderators over time, with mixed results. Cooper, for example, was added along the way and grew into the role as if born to it.

 

When you add more of this you have to add more of that .... and sometimes this is more difficult than that.

[Rick Munroe]

I wanna join the "Suck My Cock" group. Please.