97 Groups, but who’s counting?
97 Groups, but whos counting?
There are others beside myself who feel that the groups are not being used properly, and that there may be reasons why NT members are discouraged from using them. Some feel that what they wish to post would be lost in a group and prefer to post on the front page notwithstanding what they post may be quite appropriate for a specific group. My personal opinion is that there are simply too many groups, some of which are redundant and unnecessary, many of which are ignored and unused, which makes it an effort for NT members from seeking someplace relevant to post articles or make comments thereupon. Some groups are quite active, whereas others languish. What should be done to make the use of groups more popular?
I have just noted that there are 30 groups that have had absolutely no activity for the past 6 months, and 19 of those have been inactive for at least a year. If a group is to retain its standing, why have their administrators not posted anything to keep them active? In some cases the administrators themselves have either left NT or have either become inactive or no longer have any interest in the groups they created. There are a few inactive groups that have only one member what kind of a group is that?
Although I am of the opinion that such inactive groups should be deleted, whether as decided by the membership it should be after either 6 months or a year of inactivity, my concern is the loss of certain articles that have been posted on the groups that have since gone to sleep. For example, Terry, who has left NT, created a group called Classic Car Collectors Corner, now among the long-time unused groups, on which I posted an article I do not wish to lose. How can such articles be preserved other than by copying and pasting them to a memory stick or other backup procedure? Perhaps Perrie can determine if there is a way to archive such groups so that they are dropped from the Groups category yet the contents thereof still remain accessible if necessary.
What do you think?
Tags
Who is online
178 visitors
What to do?
I happen to agree with you, Buzz. I would like to go through the groups and close out the inactive ones... especially if they are orphaned. What do the rest of you think?
Why not ??
Looks like only two have answered your question. Either that is proof that very few people are involved or concerned with groups, or else this article got knocked off the front page long before many got to see it (or a combination of both).
If the group is inactive for 6 months, then close it out.
I agree with Robert, keep his ''Lonely Heart Club'' intact.
"That's the only way they can maintain their free speech rights, as persons."
You're kidding, of course. There are many alternatives on NT that allow them their free speech rights. Remember, even "free speech" has its limitations. All one needs to do is post a word every six months to keep a group alive - "Use it or lose it", as the saying goes.
What "Lonely Heart Club"?
Well, I'd go for theSatanic rituals and themarshmallows.
Well, I hate to see this happening. My group, Video Fun, is dead right now. But I have hopes to revive it. Frankly, I'd rather see the orphan groups go, but keep the ones with active member owners, unless Perrie is specifically asked to delete it.
Other than that, what's wrong with having 97 groups? Surely there are enough of us, with so many varied interests, to keep them alive...
Granted there are lots of varied topics, but if nobody is showing interest in them and their admins are not going to feed them once in a while to keep them alive they just clutter up the place and nobody will bother to spend the time to seek out ones in which they might be interested. I have also noted some unnecessary redundancy which adds to the confusion - in such case competition isn't advantageous.
Dowser, my point was not to discourage members from using groups, but to encourage them to do so. To keep a plant healthy, sometimes it's good to prune it now and then.
I would agree, which is why I suggested deleting the old groups that are orphaned. That's smart pruning!
Then, I remember, (which you didn't live through), Daddy's new, advanced pruning kit. It came, special ordered from the Sears Catalogue, to the house, via the US mail, in a HUGE cardboard box. Daddy spent many a happy evening, slicing the air with his various sheers, cutters, and pole things with a little rope-operated saw on the end. He could sit on the couch and chop-chop over the kitchen table... One fine day, he went to work. He pruned the pin oak out front so that it looked like a very tall, very small umbrella, and my pink dogwood so that it was nothing but a stob. They both lived, thankfully, but the dogwood was pruned below its graft on one side, so now, we have a pink and white dogwood...
Does anyone else have any ideas?
Gene,
I think that is an excellent idea.
But maybe first, we should look through the list and ask if anyone wants to take on an orphaned group.
Not a bad idea.
Another way would be to put an article on the front page listing them, and ask for any member of any of those groupwho does not want the group dissolved to reply. If, after a set period of time (perhaps a week or three), no one from a group responds requesting the group continue, then delete the group.
In addition, it might be a good idea to delete any group that has existed for more than a few weeks and still has only 1 member.
The ''Three faces of Eve'' comes to mind. Ooppsss one to many faces.
I have an even better group-- there are 0 members total.
And its also active...in a mysterious sort of way...
Not good. it is important that we must certainly definitely change that to necessary redundancy!
You mean the ones created by aliens? Or spirits?
I love that group!