- Joined
- May 30, 2007
- Messages
- 2,872
Nah, I'm one of the people that doesn't loathe the idea of groups.poor hakeem?
The latter is not accurate.Everyone just wanted their special social group to stay and everyone else's to go.
Nah, I'm one of the people that doesn't loathe the idea of groups.poor hakeem?
The latter is not accurate.Everyone just wanted their special social group to stay and everyone else's to go.
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
Bad phrasing. I meant they don't give a damn about the rest or social groups in general, just their own.The latter is not accurate.
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?
![]()
4 THE HIVE!
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.
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...
You people still haven't answered me as to why threads are so repulsive.
Except that you neither have privacy nor self-moderation in social groups.
ya, but then it gets tedious and communication stops. besides, the PM boxes only have a certain limit for PMs... D:
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.
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.
That makes no sense, as discussion changed the plan in the first place.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.
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.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.
If you need a more private image gallery, you have one hooked to your profile already. It even has commenting.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.
It's actually mostly unrelated, and unless you demonstrate that the warcraft stuff cannot be ported to threads, it can be considered entirely unrelated.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.
But the thing is that OT and SE already cover that ground, thus leaving them redundant.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.
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).<--Moderation stuff-->
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.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.
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.If you need a more private image gallery, you have one hooked to your profile already. It even has commenting.
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.It's actually mostly unrelated, and unless you demonstrate that the warcraft stuff cannot be ported to threads, it can be considered entirely unrelated.
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.But the thing is that OT and SE already cover that ground, thus leaving them redundant.
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.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).
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.In general, I think people forget just how much work this gives the moderators to prop up a redundant system.
Saying the problem is solved does not solve it, apparently contrary to popular belief.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.