After some discussion, the plan as far as feedback, points, new members and groups is to implement a rules system for groups. The group host will get to choose the rules for the group. These will include:

• number of members the group can have


• whether it is open to 'trial' members or not


• whether there is any requirement to comment before posting work to the group

<br />
We think that if each group is allowed to create its own policy that will allow for a variety of approaches. If there are any other options you think we need please let us know.

That sounds great, David. 

It would certainly help to remove restrictions on numbers in certain groups that are popular but not too busy with uploads. 

As for restrictions on trial members, since trial members can't see what's in the Groups until they join one it's a further restriction on them rather than showing  them what's on offer in WW .  A bit of a fudge, really.

Naomi - if a member sets their work to be visible outside the group then a trial member can see what's going on - a work and all its comments will be visible on the group page if the member sets the work as visible to all.

The idea is to give the groups flexibility so that if some groups want to keep themselves more private (perhaps the group is busy enough and doesn't want any new members for a while, for example) they will now have that option.

Current options for the comment/upload rules are:

• No restrictions
• Member must make a comment of 100+ words before being allowed to upload their first work
• Member must make a comment of 100+ words before every new work

Do we need any other options?

 

 David - I  think it is a good decision and time  to move things along and give every one a chance to have a say at a level closer to their interest groups if they want to. I feel it is important to get this sorted so we can get back to working with each other and doing what we do. It is a very interesting time to be involved in the group.Thanks for listening! MC

thanks, David - this is a great idea.  We can discuss within each group what's appropriate. I think the recommendation of commenting before posting is a good one - and also perhaps an automatic requirement to re-join a group if there's no activity by a member for, say, 3 months? Then, if it's just that people need their memories jogging, they can rejoin. But sometimes they've left and aren't interested any more, but have never resigned from the group.

My feeling still is that there should be a differential made between paid up and trial members.

I don't think trial members should be restricted from joining any group. If a trial member can't have a taste of a group that covers their genre, why would they want to join the site? If groups are allowed to decide whether or not to accept trial members, what will happen if every group decides not to be open to trial members?

I don't really think there has been too much of a problem with paid up members not reciprocating on critiques. I don't think there should be conditions or "rules"attached to the uploading of work by paid up members, except perhaps informal guidelines set in a particular group - for example, the 3 critiques to 1 upload "rule" in IC.

I certainly don't think putting an arbitary word count on comments is particularly helpful. One of the strong points of this site to date has been that it isn't over regulated. I, for one, don't want reciprocation of work to start feeling like school homework.

Just my opinion.

and also perhaps an automatic requirement to re-join a group if there's no activity by a member for, say, 3 months? Then, if it's just that people need their memories jogging, they can rejoin. But sometimes they've left and aren't interested any more, but have never resigned from the group.

What a great and simple idea. Why didn't I think of that?

 perhaps an automatic requirement to re-join a group if there's no activity by a member for, say, 3 months? Then, if it's just that people need their memories jogging, they can rejoin. But sometimes they've left and aren't interested any more, but have never resigned from the group.

Thirded.

Freebird, you’re inspired! I think it’s a great idea that membership to a group should expire after a certain period of inactivity. If it’s made clear at the point of joining, I think that’s fair, and they can rejoin at a time that might suit them better. Actually, maybe it should be less than three months, after all if they don’t feel able to contribute in a whole quarter of a year perhaps they joined before they were ready. And for some it could be that a shorter time period might spur them to contribute sooner. Perhaps I’m a bit simple, but surely if you want to join a critique group it means you want to join in, if you don’t, why join?
 
As for numbers in a group, in IC for instance it’s rare to have thirty members and if the numbers were allowed to be unlimited it’s doubtful it would make more people join. Also, at best you never see more than 6 or 7 members regularly contributing at any one time. There are perhaps another 5 or 6 more who occasionally contribute, and the rest have either contributed once or twice and have then disappeared, or they have never contributed at all.
 
I’ve heard the numbers that could join a group used to be 20, and maybe it would be an idea to return to that. Perhaps members would value their membership more, and if membership also expired after a period of inactivity, I can't see that the groups would become oversubscribed.

As for restrictions, following some recent, large uploads in IC by part members I think there should at least be a restriction on how many words they can upload for a free critique. 


Cripes, lucky I re-read this before posting. I'd written: following some recent, large uploads in IC by pert members. One different letter, a whole different connotation! 

Depends what you mean by 'inactivity'. The Childrens Group is regularly Full with 30 members, the vast majority of whom are 'active' in that they are regularly popping in each week to see what's been posted. However, few of them are actively uploading work. So you have a popular Group that's Full for months at a time and still only a handful of uploads. I don't think paid up members should be prevented from joining Groups if they just wish to lurk and read. If Groups are flooded with members uploading work - Flash Fiction and Poetry being the usual suspects - them maybe have a limit.

I also dislike the move towards giving Group Hosts powers to make Site changes that affect all members; changes that should really be the perogtive of Admin after descussion and concensus from all members. I feel it could become devisive within the colony - the formation of little fiefdoms - rather than helping revamp the colony.
Edited by NMott at 22:38:00 on 29 January 2014

Surely the group hosts are asking what the group members would like to see, aren't they? In that way they should be reflecting the wishes of the group.

We've implemented these changes now, so the group hosts have a new admin link where they can update rules, descriptions etc all in one place. We will obviously monitor how this works out, but hopefully this will eventually allow a healthy mix of options in terms of critiquing and approaches to using the site.

I agree with Manusha that group hosts will (should!) be asking the group members what they think and going with consensus of opinion. Most people that offer to host are doing it as a service and therefore not likely to be rubbing their hands in glee at the new power in their fingertips...