Social Groups

[Hakeem]

poor hakeem?

Nah, I'm one of the people that doesn't loathe the idea of groups.

Everyone just wanted their special social group to stay and everyone else's to go.

The latter is not accurate.

 

[a7xpwns3]

Well, even though so few were in it, I shall, if I may, propose to keep the user group Icon Makers of the Hive. It was just started a couple of weeks ago, too D:

 

[RED BARON]

Well Ralle seems to be looking into it, but seems to me like one of the wierdest things (and I not sure just how smart it was) I seen Ralle do... Mostly I completly agree to what he does. But Hive is more then just modding.... Even though I wholeheartly agree that many groups were unneeded... but then so are many treads... Whats the difference? I would rather have a group were people can spam all the like, and being able to delete the whole bunch with one click, then having to go trough tons of spam treads. Might just be me though.

And well agree with before mentioned good points, about creation groups, map groups so on. Evolved Hive to a new level and I really liked it when I first saw they were implanted - Gave Hive a more serious feel to it (although it was properly just on the outside ). Still they worked out - And I am glad that Hakeem (alone?) is going to get the good ones back.

People are people, and they talk no matter what anyway. So why not just let them do it, where others doesnt have to listen?

Well... not going to post in this tread, just felt I wanted to voice an opinion aswell, although so many have already done so.

Keep on watching Hive Ralle

 

[Hakeem]

Okay, here's how I'm going to do this. There are a lot of spam groups that didn't do much of anything that I'm just going to delete. There are also a bunch of groups that I'm going to have to delete, but they are very large, so I wont delete them immediately.

I'll be posting in groups that they are to be deleted. You will have 24 hours or so to get whatever data you need out of them.

 

[RED BARON]

Okay, here's how I'm going to do this. There are a lot of spam groups that didn't do much of anything that I'm just going to delete. There are also a bunch of groups that I'm going to have to delete, but they are very large, so I wont delete them immediately.

I'll be posting in groups that they are to be deleted. You will have 24 hours or so to get whatever data you need out of them.

You already looked them though? Amazing

 

[NoAmmoSrry]

You already looked them though? Amazing

wtf happened to your icon...

 

[PurplePoot]

The latter is not accurate.

Bad phrasing. I meant they don't give a damn about the rest or social groups in general, just their own.

 

[Tleno]

People must socialize, but most of social groups are "Yay! I have my own crapy group!". If we would have 3-5 social group administrators, this problem would be solved. And if Hakeem and Ralle managed to take care of those groups in such a short time, 3-5 can too.

 

[Ricardo Irving]

Wth?

Why yank all user created groups? Considering as how you can just make a whole separate forum containing groups that everyone can make, and a section of official groups. After a month with 5 members or less, or groups with similar attributes as other user created groups, an automatic deletion can work... I don't see the logic here. Does this have to do with the Hive's general cost?

Uh, why is some people accidentally having same ideas as me... Lol.

 

[PurplePoot]

Why not just create forum threads? That's what social groups amount to anyways.

 

[Misha]

4 THE HIVE!

OK, this needs to get closed so staff can work in peace. ~.~

 

[HailFireer]

Obiously...

 

[NoAmmoSrry]

4 the HIVE!

 

[Dr Super Good]

This is not the place for spamming. Spamming will result in you being punished so be warned.
If you want to spam go to something else.

 

[Gilles]

The site ran well long before social groups. The site will continue to run well long after them.

 

[Linaze]

What I suggest is to never re-enable Social Groups, let's just put them behind us.
If someone has some vital information, he/she could always PM Ralle for it, to avoid having to re-enable the shit again.

 

[varsaigen]

What I suggest is to never re-enable Social Groups, let's just put them behind us.
If someone has some vital information, he/she could always PM Ralle for it, to avoid having to re-enable the shit again.

except so many people enjoy the social groups. Otherwise, you end up with them "spamming" in threads, or massing the chat, which the mods hate not being able to see their own conversation. Besides, you may not use them for much at all, but there are some good ones for entertainment or even organizing data for mods, maps, modeling, or even conversation due to timezones where tey would be otherwise unable to catch eachother in chat and not having to pick someone's profile to post in with 5 other group members all stating their opinions or thoughts... Social groups are excellent to draw all that into one spot instead of spreading it across the site.

 

[HappyCockroach]

I believe the better thing to do is to delete nonsense stupid groups, keep only the useful ones (there are many useful groups) and disable group creation.

 

[varsaigen]

i dunno about disabling group creation, but perhaps go through the new groups every week or month and clean out the spam groups. :/

 

[HappyCockroach]

Just prompt moderators for creation approval.

 

[Mr. Bob]

I still think an un-moderated social group section would not be entirely bad. Considering as how you can just make a separate section of official groups. What's wrong with auto-deletion script? 1 month with less than 10 members should do...

Gah, I guess they weren't that great anyway. But, it did add a nice level of access. For instance, if I wanted to create a team of people to work on my project, an invite only group would eliminate the need to large forwarded PM clouds.

At least, groups upon request, where in order to request you must have at least 100rep or something to limit the request spam. Otherwise, every member of the team is limited by their own specific communications.

Yanking the user created spam groups, yes. Taking away the ability for a project team to easily contact each other privately, no. A 'popular persons request' would be nice. It sure would speed up the teams out there. The problem with forums is, everyone has access to the files, pics, spoilers, etc. Some teams may not want to give out such information.

Of course, you would have to change the name "social group" to "team page". It is the same basic idea though. And, you would also have to limit the viewing of the conversations to the members.

A lot of work yes, but it would give teams a very handy place to station there project production. Yanking the whole idea is a waste.

 

[varsaigen]

I still think an un-moderated social group section would not be entirely bad. Considering as how you can just make a separate section of official groups. What's wrong with auto-deletion script? 1 month with less than 10 members should do...

Cause I have a modding group with only four members and it is only those four who seem to even know what game the mod is for, and the details of what the game is like, and have played it before, and are willing to make the mod. No one else has even heard or care about the game. If you have a 1 month with less than 10 ppl = deletion, then all the data of the mod disappears and we have to try remembering what details and plans were. It's also the group we had all of the deveopement in, and we don't want to lose that cause we don't have 10 people (6 of which would end up only being there to make sure we don't get deleted.... which is hard to convince people to do...)

 

[Dakadoon]

wat up wit dis?!?!
i say some groups were very useful, and its senseless to delete them all
y not just make a different section of off-topic groups instead of getting rid of them all?

 

[PurplePoot]

You people still haven't answered me as to why threads are so repulsive.

 

[RED BARON]

You people still haven't answered me as to why threads are so repulsive.

I believe its because Social Groups feels more private. A place you can reign so to speak.

But well the problem is kinda solved with the new news, so why still discuss things

 

[PurplePoot]

Except that you neither have privacy nor self-moderation in social groups.

 

[Hawkwing]

Yes, but people are less likely to come across a social group discussion versus a thread.

 

[PurplePoot]

And that also prevents relevant users from joining the discussion. Also, the main reason they are so well insulated is because of all the spam groups.

 

[HappyCockroach]

This thread bores me. It's so simple: some groups are useful. Some are not. Apparently they're keeping the useful and deleting the useless.
Threads are threads, groups are groups. You choose what you prefer.

 

[Mr. Bob]

Except that you neither have privacy nor self-moderation in social groups.

Did you even read all that I typed up there...? D: Threads are not private. Invite only social groups are. Also, who says we can't make "members only conversations"? Projects could find this to be useful.


Also, Var, then make a it less then 6 members. Any team with less members can simply use PMs. When I said, "PM clouds" I meant "Large PM clouds". : )

 

[varsaigen]

ya, but then it gets tedious and communication stops. besides, the PM boxes only have a certain limit for PMs... D:

 

[Mr. Bob]

ya, but then it gets tedious and communication stops. besides, the PM boxes only have a certain limit for PMs... D:

Then, as I said earlier, ask a moderator to approve the group anyway. : )

 

[varsaigen]

but no one has mentioned the group about to be deleted or otherwise. I think they see it's purpose. Besides, it is nearly impossible to find anyone else on Hive who play the game or would be wililng to help in making the mod. Besides, it isn't all that logical to base approval or deletion due to numbers. It's better spent on its purpose and non-spamming life as a group

 

[Pyritie]

Did you even read all that I typed up there...? D: Threads are not private. Invite only social groups are. Also, who says we can't make "members only conversations"? Projects could find this to be useful.

Invite-only groups aren't really private at all. Anyone can read your messages.

If you want a private place to discuss things, then get a hosted forum and ask for a private subforum. I have one of those for my CB forum. Works well.

 

[Mr. Bob]

Invite-only groups aren't really private at all. Anyone can read your messages.

If you want a private place to discuss things, then get a hosted forum and ask for a private subforum. I have one of those for my CB forum. Works well.

Again I say "Then make the messages private"....

 

[Kyrbi0]

Personally, Social Groups to me have always been a big "LOL, this isn't Facebook!!".

I can understand that sometimes it's good for a project, but really, a Thread works just as well and stuff, for all the reasons stated above.

If some are being kept, I'd say Race Creators and that Naga one... Also perhaps Lore Lovers. But I'm not supremely attached.

 

[Chaos.]

Why are we still debating this. Ralle has already desided what he is doing. End of discussion. Hakeem is looking through the groups and removing the spam groups and keeping the useful ones.

 

[RED BARON]

Why are we still debating this. Ralle has already decided what he is doing. End of discussion. Hakeem is looking through the groups and removing the spam groups and keeping the useful ones.

Inded. Closing of tread should be approaching.

 

[PurplePoot]

Why are we still debating this. Ralle has already desided what he is doing. End of discussion. Hakeem is looking through the groups and removing the spam groups and keeping the useful ones.

That makes no sense, as discussion changed the plan in the first place.

Anyhow, I'll rep (and that's rare) the first person who comes up with an argument for social groups rather than threads that actually holds water. This argument also must provide a solution within a context that leaves social groups still beneficial to the site for practical and not off-topic purposes.

 

[Pyritie]

They're just that. Groups. They group you into categories and stuff. Like the (now nonexistant) nationality groups.

 

[Masiah]

Why should social groups stay?

Firstly, because they are useful. Many projects are actually developed within social groups; it's an option for starting ideas that still don't have enough consistency or members to ask for being a hosted project. Creating threads is not really an alternative, as they are completely open to everyone, while social groups do give some privacy. Not much, but just enough for keeping images, like concept art and stuff, away from general public and just to not appear in the “New Posts” section, so that some random user can go in and find out everything that is going on. Also, social groups are a good way for artists to group up to learn from each other and share ideas. I know free forums are an alternative for both, but why should users meet somewhere else? It is extra activity, most of it related to Warcraft, what this site is all about, and it may lead to the submission of awesome resources.

Secondly, because they are fun. Most of the "fun" obviously happens in the OT social groups, and I agree that these should be revised, deleting the ones that have gone out of hand or simply have died out, something that should have been done long ago. But, as Ash said, social groups have the same right to exist as the OT and SE forums do, and all together are quite an important fraction of the activity of the site.

Most of this has already been said.

But what should we do in the future?
The main problem with social groups is the obvious lack of control that staff has over them, maybe caused by lack of attention. How to solve this?
Easy: In first place, just hire moderators whose specific function is to moderate social groups. I am convinced that there are many users trustworthy and willing to do so. Secondly, give group creators nearly absolute control over their own groups, so they are able to moderate the inner “threads” and images, and thus lowering the workload on aforementioned moderators.
Still, we face the problem of the huge number of groups that are created; something that even a numerous group of moderators can’t cope with. The solution this is also quite simply: each created group will have to be approved by a moderator before it becomes functional. Any user can create one, but before it becomes open to public it has to be reviewed by Social Group Moderator (SGM), and if he or she considers that the purpose of said group is worthy enough, approve it. For example, “Worship” groups as “Frosty’s Bar” (sorry Frost) or “XXXXX fangroup” probably won’t get approved, while others like “Ideas for WC4”, a topic that continuously appears in the OT forum but with no specific function (unless we have a Blizzard employee lurking for ideas), or “Project X Group” should be approved. This decision is left to the SGM, and if in doubt, he or she can always contact the creator of the group so that this individual can expose his reasons for the creation of the group (obviously backed up with arguments). This measure should be activated just after the purge, which I consider necessary, is completed.
Also, a good idea could be limit the access to inner threads (as access is limited to images in a group) so that only members and moderators can view them, reinforcing the point of privacy.
I hope this ideas are useful, and didn’t hurt your eyes that much. If there is any point unclear or if you see any flaw in the system (other than possible lazynes of chaning things), please mention it and I'll try my best to fix it.

 

[PurplePoot]

Firstly, because they are useful. Many projects are actually developed within social groups; it's an option for starting ideas that still don't have enough consistency or members to ask for being a hosted project. Creating threads is not really an alternative, as they are completely open to everyone, while social groups do give some privacy.

Why wouldn't you want them to be open? Also, as I mentioned, the privacy of social groups derives from the fact that so many of them are garbage, which is being dealt with either way.

Not much, but just enough for keeping images, like concept art and stuff, away from general public and just to not appear in the “New Posts” section, so that some random user can go in and find out everything that is going on. Also, social groups are a good way for artists to group up to learn from each other and share ideas.

If you need a more private image gallery, you have one hooked to your profile already. It even has commenting.

I know free forums are an alternative for both, but why should users meet somewhere else? It is extra activity, most of it related to Warcraft, what this site is all about, and it may lead to the submission of awesome resources.

It's actually mostly unrelated, and unless you demonstrate that the warcraft stuff cannot be ported to threads, it can be considered entirely unrelated.

Secondly, because they are fun. Most of the "fun" obviously happens in the OT social groups, and I agree that these should be revised, deleting the ones that have gone out of hand or simply have died out, something that should have been done long ago. But, as Ash said, social groups have the same right to exist as the OT and SE forums do, and all together are quite an important fraction of the activity of the site.

But the thing is that OT and SE already cover that ground, thus leaving them redundant.

<--Moderation stuff-->

The moderator point just goes to show why they are unfeasible. However, if they could be made private viewing as well, then to a certain extent I see a use for them, as they actually become a private section. However, as Pyritie suggested, you can easily get a hosted forum which is invisible to the public, and they basically hand them out for free (from the looks of it).

--

In general, I think people forget just how much work this gives the moderators to prop up a redundant system.

 

[Masiah]

Why wouldn't you want them to be open? Also, as I mentioned, the privacy of social groups derives from the fact that so many of them are garbage, which is being dealt with either way.

Because people steal ideas. As simple as that. Once the garbage is dealt with and the creation of social groups limited as previously said, it will become a clean functional option for starting project teams. Heck, the possibility of setting the image gallery or the threads to be accesible or not to non-members will also be useful.

If you need a more private image gallery, you have one hooked to your profile already. It even has commenting.

Yeah, but compressing the activity of a whole group into one user's profile is unadvisable, maybe even impossible. And people can't upload images on others' profiles, so social groups will be somehow like a "shared" profile.

It's actually mostly unrelated, and unless you demonstrate that the warcraft stuff cannot be ported to threads, it can be considered entirely unrelated.

Well, imagine that you are working on a model. By posting your unfinished work in an open thread (which can always be a possibilty) everyone can comment on, but probably most of the comments will be like "Hey good model, keep it up" when in reality you may be looking for an opinion of someone that actually KNOWS about modelling, not just some random guy. This is what groups can offer, a "forum" with limited acces.

But the thing is that OT and SE already cover that ground, thus leaving them redundant.

Maybe... But they may serve another function, specially with popular topics. For example, there has been a thread about WC4 possibilites going since last year, and recently it somehow "died out". A few days ago, a new thread about exactly the same thing apeared. And before those two, I remember an older thread that talked about the same. By creating a group dedicated to talk about WC4, we shall stop seeing the same threads appearing over and over again, as people's opinions about the topic will be stored in the same place. This kind of groups may not be as relevant as the other, but I still see a great use in them.

The moderator point just goes to show why they are unfeasible. However, if they could be made private viewing as well, then to a certain extent I see a use for them, as they actually become a private section. However, as Pyritie suggested, you can easily get a hosted forum which is invisible to the public, and they basically hand them out for free (from the looks of it).

Invisible to the public. You've said it yourself. What people seek with these groups is actually a somehow private place but that people know that it is there and what it is for, so that any individual with similar interests from Hive's community can join them. And if a group actually really grows very active and big, this subcommunity will voluntary move on to their own forum to talk about whatever they like to, something that has already happened.

In general, I think people forget just how much work this gives the moderators to prop up a redundant system.

I am convinced that there are people that are willing to do so, as they enjoy the activity in the social groups. And if there is so much work to, just hire more moderators, as suggested. Sometimes redundancy is the only way to keep a powerfull tool, such as social groups, under control.

 

[PurplePoot]

If it is open to the public so that they can join then it is not private so that it is protected. You can't have both.

Also, you can't just "hire more moderators". For one, a moderator should be an enthusiast, but that does not mean an enthusiast should be a moderator. Additionally, staffs get less and less stable the larger they become, and adding a bunch of new moderators whenever anything occurs is only asking for long-term collapse.

 

[Mr. Bob]

ARGH did nobody read my post?

It can be private if made private. Simply get it approved. Problem solved. It can be public for fun. I see no problem there. But, it can also be spammy. Then someone can report it and then Ralle can delete it.

Problem solved. Now close this blasted thread.

 

[Tleno]

Bob is right. Problem is solved. For now...

 

[kommunist]

Bob is right. Problem is solved. For now...

+1

 

[PurplePoot]

ARGH did nobody read my post?

It can be private if made private. Simply get it approved. Problem solved. It can be public for fun. I see no problem there. But, it can also be spammy. Then someone can report it and then Ralle can delete it.

Problem solved. Now close this blasted thread.

Saying the problem is solved does not solve it, apparently contrary to popular belief.

 

[Mr. Bob]

Saying the problem is solved does not solve it, apparently contrary to popular belief.

Problem is solved. Saying it reveals the fact.

 

[Kyrbi0]

Well, if you actually reveal the "facts", then say "Problem Solved", I can see what you mean.