Group combination proposals

Update: You can see proposed groups here http://www.librarything.com/groups_combinations.php


Following on the group-tagging (see http://www.librarything.com/topic/79497), I've added another feature to "clean up" groups.

I've added a section down on the bottom right of group pages. It allows you to suggest a larger, better or more popular group to combine the group into.



After you've done that, a little mini-poll appears.



You can see it in play in the "Archaeologists" group (http://www.librarything.com/groups/archaeologists), which is a largely dormant duplicate of "Archaeology."

So far, I haven't figured out how long the polls will be open. I suspect, for now, I'll keep it manual.

I bet most combinations will be readily accepted. But a few won't. Besides the vote, I think, perhaps, we need to start a new thread on "Combiners" to have these issues out.

Also see: I have started another thread, about what else to do with mini-polls now that we have them! See http://www.librarything.com/topic/79509

Well hasn't it been a feature-rich day? Luv ya work Tim (and all the rest of the team as well).

The only thing that worries me about this is that it will become a way for LT members to dictate that a group be combined with another. I know that there's a tendency to make war on duplicative Twilight groups, for example, but ultimately members of a group should have autonomy over whether or not they feel that they want to join another, bigger group. There may be reasons why they prefer to keep their conversation within their own, smaller community and members of the larger groups may be happier without a sudden influx of what they may see to be 'pointless' posts but what is far from that to the people who originally kept that confined to their own social group.

So I guess my question is, is there a way to stop this being used as a kind of bullying tactic by members that don't like a certain type of group?

Not that I don't think it's a good idea in essence though ... thanks Tim ... didn't want to sound churlish ...

Perhaps members of small must-be-a-member-to-post groups could have a veto?

This kind of small new feature polishes the site and makes it shine even more brightly for me.

I guess I think that if you're neither a member of the group that it's suggested should be combined nor a member of the group into which it's being suggested that a group should be combined and you post to neither, I would question whether you should have any right to make any suggestion as to a combination because, in essence, you're making a decision on two parts of the community that you don't interact with and therefore can surely not be qualified to comment on. Just because it bugs a member who doesn't post to Twilight groups (or the next big thing) that there are a lot of them, doesn't mean that each group of individuals don't have their own reasons for wanting their own group area. Especially when group 'ownership' has certain priviledges (well, posting in the description field at least). (Yeah, I know, how I phrased that is likely to annoy people ... it was the best way I could explain it, don't read too much into it). If people decided to mobilise against a particular type of group, the 'yes' votes could outweigh the 'no' votes, even if every member of a group voted 'no' but if every member of a group voted 'no' then that should surely outweigh any votes from people with an axe to grind and no vested interest in a group. Sorry, my faith in human nature doesn't go so far as to think that this isn't going to be used to pick on certain types of group ...

I tend to agree with Klarusu about votes of the group members counting more than non-group members.

And if there's a poll on one group suggesting it should be combined with another, that poll should also appear on the other group page so that you get votes from both sides of the equation ...

*jumping off the soapbox*

>8 klarusu: It already does.

I agree that it would be good to have votes from within counting more, or group members having veto rights, or something else so that a combination can't be forced on a group that doesn't want to combine. Don't know how workable it might be without having to consider every suggested combination individually, though.

I think keeping the poll open and having the discussion open in Combiners! will help keep the bigger groups from dictating what happens. It does seem that Tim's taken great pains to keep this as manual as possible.

At least it seems to me that Besides the vote, I think, perhaps, we need to start a new thread on "Combiners" to have these issues out. indicates that voting is not the sole criteria for combining?

At least it seems to me that Besides the vote, I think, perhaps, we need to start a new thread on "Combiners" to have these issues out. indicates that voting is not the sole criteria for combining?

Certainly a good idea but I think that group combination is a different beast to work combination and really shouldn't be in the hands of the community as a whole but rather the members of the sub-communities that each individual group comprises. I don't think that members of a group should be forced into an argument on an area like the Combiners group just to defend their right to exist as a singular entity. Especially as sometimes people can get a bit snippy with the younger demographic and their phraseology. You shouldn't be forced into having to defend your right to a place in Talk where you can interact comfortably.

Tim -

On the reflexive poll, both of the combination messages say into this group - it can imply both groups will receive dominance at the end. It's just a nitpicky thing...but maybe it should be "combing this group and the group {Name of Group}" so that the dominance isn't really implied? (I got from the original message that it will be decided manually anyway.)

There is, in my opinion, no wiser person posting on LT than klarusu and the more I read of her comments on this group combining by poll idea, the more uncomfortable I get. There's enough bullying goes on here, both subtle and unsubtle. Not so much specific to LT but to human nature and to the exceptional freedoms that people enjoy here. Perhaps this could be run on a trial basis? Then also LT staff could see how much work it generates for them - I'd hate to see them bogged down in a load of arbitration or to see an introduction of unpleasant politics about whose groups are considered OK to stand alone and whose aren't.

v

There is, in my opinion, no wiser person posting on LT than klarusu

*mwa-ha-ha* Does this mean I've trumped Tim ;-)

I, too, am with klarusu on this one. My initial reaction was 'Great, now all the Twilight groups can be combined! And that new group with the typo in the name, Like Stephing King, can be combined with one of the other King groups. Then I realized that some of the longer standing groups might not wish for such a thing.

Will you stick to combining mostly dormant and/or brand new groups?

Perhaps weighting the votes would be better than just a number count. That way a smaller group will have an equal say in whether their group is combined into a larger one.

Yeah clam, what if everyone decides that the best combination is to put all the Twilight groups into The Green Dragon ... mwa-ha-ha!

Although, this could turn into an LT version of Celebrity Death Match. If Tim was having an evil day he could combine the Political Conservatives with the Happy Heathens and just sit back and laugh maniacally.

(Yeah, it snowed this morning, I've been up since 5 and now my serious gene's failed ...)

I would suggest a qualified majority in both communities (*eek* slipping into Northern Ireland speak) groups would have to agree before combination would go ahead.

14: Of course :P

v

#17 - You're evil. }:o)

Perhaps the best outcome here would be to allow group admins who receive a 'merge' request, and who did not want to be merged to clarify the title/description of their group to demonstrate how their group is different from the other group.

I still think that the reason that there are so many duplicate groups in the first place is because the Create a New Group page is so tooth-less. Combined with the horrid search functionality of Groups to find what you're looking for - and you get new, duplicate groups every day. Then it gets so far out of hand that something needs to be 'done' about it.

I rather agree with klarusu that each end of the proposed combination should have a say. But in the main, I think most new members making new groups just don't ~know~ about the prior group and would welcome the combination. My vote would be to make the possibility available, but the process completed only upon the agreement of both groups.

I agree that the two groups should have final say in being combined.

But asking the question seems very very worthwhile because there are just soooo many groups here and just because you joined (or created) one doesn't guarantee that you know the other even exists.

Ugh. The issue of combining groups has come up before, and has been shot down every time.

People who are not members two groups don't necessarily have any idea about the distinctions between them, even when they should be obvious. This has come up in the past when Tim suggested that Canadians are the same as Canadian Literature--No, one is a group of people defined by nationality, and one is a group about books that may be enjoyed by people of other nationalities while not being enjoyed by Canadians themselves. I don't even want to get into all the venom that will result with regard to the Twilight groups.

I think it would be better if tiny and/or inactive groups could be moved onto a subpage of the Complete Groups List, so that they're out of the way without actually being forced to lose their independent existence.

I, too, am concerned about the group combination process. Many groups may be about similar subjects, but have completely different approaches or "moods". And sometimes a second group is created because of some clash or divergence of views between members of the original group. In that case, the last thing members of either group would want is to be merged back together.

If the process prompts groups to revisit and clarify their posted descriptions, that would be another sort of benefit. It certainly seems likely to increase membership in many.

>24 _Zoe_:/25.

It's probably been suggested before, but why not make it have to get a certain percentage of Yeas from BOTH sides.

That is, if Canadians has 100 members while Canadian Literature has 1000, if somebody suggested a merge, it would need at least 51 votes from Canadians, and 501 votes from Canadian Literature.

Or 66.6%, just like US Constitutional Amendments (which, for all the Canadians out there, are Amendments to our Constitution that we do ourselves, and not run them by the UK government first ;))

@18: You think there may be Troubles ahead? ;)

#28 But while there's music and moonlight and love and romance ....

>27 aethercowboy: The problem with requiring certain percentages is that it will probably prevent anything from actually getting done. I think the groups that are most in need of combining are the ones with three members and one post from a few years ago, and I'm not convinced that these members are still going to be active on the site.

On another note: is there a way to see which of our groups have been proposed for combination?

"My initial reaction was 'Great, now all the Twilight groups can be combined!" (clamairy/15)

My first thought, too. Thirty-four of 'em that I know of (plus several that have been made private).

>30 _Zoe_:
Two things you could do:
1. Specify % of votes made, rather than total membership
2. Give deadline - say 30 days - to gather votes (so that if group b's votes = 0 by that stage, they obviously don't care and group a's votes will be only valid poll.

What's the story with group removal? I just came across a group with no members, no posts, and only five words in the description. What are you waiting for?

There really needs to be some sort of notification to the groups if most group members are even going to know this is happening, especially those, like me, who hardly ever go to the group pages but just hang out in the Talk tab looking at the Your Groups view.

I suggest that a thread be started automatically in the groups when the combination proposal is made. That way people will see the new thread in a group they are following. Another idea would be for an automatic message be sent to every group member's profile.

And once the vote is 'no', no-one should be allowed to make the request again for a lengthy time period: 6 months or a year.

I would certainly suggest that if a combining proposal is started, that there should also be a thread in each group about it. Anyone who doesn't see that isn't active, but not every member looks at the group page at all, never mind very often.

So I guess my question is, is there a way to stop this being used as a kind of bullying tactic by members that don't like a certain type of group?

I think we come up with some criteria by which this is judged, with the most important factor being inactivity. Two active groups should never be combined, unless it's some sort of mistake that they're separate.

I guess I think that if you're neither a member of the group that it's suggested should be combined nor a member of the group into which it's being suggested that a group should be combined and you post to neither, I would question whether you should have any right to make any suggestion as to a combination because, in essence, you're making a decision on two parts of the community that you don't interact with and therefore can surely not be qualified to comment on.

I disagree. I think I need to be more clear about the immediate purpose of this. It is to remove the dozens (hundreds?) of completely duplicative and completely dormant groups on LibraryThing. Most of them were formed by someone who didn't do a search first.

The problem with requiring group-membership is that we're mostly trying to solve an inactivity problem.

And if there's a poll on one group suggesting it should be combined with another, that poll should also appear on the other group page so that you get votes from both sides of the equation ...

It does, actually. It appears on both.

Yeah clam, what if everyone decides that the best combination is to put all the Twilight groups into The Green Dragon ... mwa-ha-ha!

I think the feature is restricted to paid members. If not, I want to make it so. It's not that they're better, but this is a "global" feature--suggesting a combination puts the vote on both groups immediately. There are no paid members who are spammers or mere vandals.

Of course, voting is open to all members.

I would suggest a qualified majority in both communities (*eek* slipping into Northern Ireland speak) groups would have to agree before combination would go ahead.

On another note: is there a way to see which of our groups have been proposed for combination?

No. I've got to add that.

What's the story with group removal? I just came across a group with no members, no posts, and only five words in the description. What are you waiting for?

For you to notice and report it, of course! Now, shall I make a "kill this group" poll or would that be too...

I think we come up with some criteria by which this is judged, with the most important factor being inactivity. Two active groups should never be combined, unless it's some sort of mistake that they're separate.

Good. If active groups aren't going to be combined, then this feature is a lot less threatening (in fact, I might even go so far as to say it's good...).

I think I need to be more clear about the immediate purpose of this. It is to remove the dozens (hundreds?) of completely duplicative and completely dormant groups on LibraryThing. Most of them were formed by someone who didn't do a search first.

The problem with requiring group-membership is that we're mostly trying to solve an inactivity problem.

Agreed.

On another note: is there a way to see which of our groups have been proposed for combination?

No. I've got to add that.

Thanks. It might actually be good if we could see all groups that have been proposed for combination, not just our own.

For you to notice and report it, of course! Now, shall I make a "kill this group" poll or would that be too...

Consider it reported. No poll needed; if there's any possibility of dispute, the group should remain.

>30 _Zoe_:.

The problem with requiring certain percentages is that it will probably prevent anything from actually getting done.

I did liken it to the US government...

Yes Tim, you definitely need to be very clear this is about inactive groups because it wasn't obvious at the beginning of this thread. That is a quite different kettle of fish and I can't imagine having any reservations about combining or removal.

v

Let's discuss once we have some before us. The page is almost done.

Why not add another similar module that appears when the newest thread for a group goes dormant (can be a cron job, and not something that hits the PHP server ever time that group page is accessed):

Archive this group?

And then a voting button goes up, and if nobody clicks yea/nay, or there's overwhelming yeas, then it goes into archive land. Otherwise, it sticks around for another 30 days before that prompt pops up again. Or something like that.

Yeah, sorry, I didn't get that it was for inactive groups. If it's clearly for inactive groups then go right ahead ... you have my full permission ;-))

Here's the proposed-group page: http://www.librarything.com/groups_combinations.php

Nice!

See, I see one I dislike already.

*Combine King's Dear Constant Readers into Stephen King Fans

No. Heck, no. Combine an active group into an inactive one? Why? Maybe the other way around, okay.

Propose it.

There is, however, something to be said for clear names. I never knew what that group was about.

Morph's got a point, can you clarify. If you combine X into Y, does that mean the name of X disappears, the 'owner' of Y is the only one who has permission to alter the group page ... and if so, is there any indication on X that two groups have been combined (not that it will make much of a difference for dormant groups but I'm curious).

>48 klarusu:.

Would it be risky to Merge the group admins?

Can you also clarify whether new groups which may seem duplicative but are too new to be able to assess how active they are going to be come under the combine rules? Is this a way to police new groups and prevent duplicates? If it's not, then shouldn't there be a minimum length of time from group inception before we can combine/suggest?

#49, I'm sure it would but I was just curious as to how the mechanics of it worked. Not implying that it should be otherwise but interested ..

#49 -- Yes. It would be risky.

#51 -- I'm interested to know how it will work, too.

Let me note that most of the conversation here is about ways it can go wrong. But nothing has gone wrong. One red flag was raised about the King situation, and it's now reversing itself. (Anyway, I haven't set a rule, but it's got to be an overwhelming majority for a combination to happen.)

This is a typical pattern in social media. I don't want to be critical, but if we didn't have combining, and it was suggested, people would come up with 1,000 reasons it was a bad idea. But, despite problems, it's been a great idea. So, trust a little, and let's deal with problems as they manifest in reality, not in possibility.

So, trust a little, and let's deal with problems as they manifest in reality, not in possibility.

But where's the fun in that ;-)))

With all these new fun group features, it really would be great to have a flag button to propose deletion- after a certain number of hits, there could be an automatic message to a site admin to review the group. I think that would help get rid of spam groups like the limo guys quickly and easily.

If you want to prevent malicious flagging of controversial groups, you could make it so that feature doesn't appear after a group reaches a certain predefined number of members (maybe 5?)

We do have group flagging, though.

56> damn how did I miss that? I only see option to ignore or to propose combination. where do I flag as spam?

If you combine X into Y, does that mean the name of X disappears, the 'owner' of Y is the only one who has permission to alter the group page ... and if so, is there any indication on X that two groups have been combined

I would hope that all mention of X would disappear.

I thought group flagging was at least half broken?

If I click None, does that clear my vote, or is it a way to show abstinence?

eta: I clicked None and it cleared my vote. Now Tim and I have dueling proposals.
http://www.librarything.com/groups/cookbookcollectors

I seem to remember that the flagging option is only there for a short time and it doesn't appear at all if there are no posts.

Question: Two inactive groups, one slightly larger and with more posts, the smaller one with better capitalization and punctuation in the name. Can we combine the larger one into the smaller one?

Should creating a proposal automatically cast a yes vote for the proposer?

>63 DaynaRT:.

No, because you might just be wanting to gauge interest while remaining a disinterested third party, or some other reason.

>64 aethercowboy:
Good point.

Would someone please create a group named Humour so we can propose a merge with the existing Humor group.

> 56

Not to speak of. For whatever reason, the option to flag a group does not exist on most groups pages. If, as Hailelib suggests, that's because it won't appear if there are no posts, then we lose that option for groups that need it most - the spam groups.

> 66

Uh, oh. Can of worms!

56>

Well, maybe in theory. But I can't remember when or if I ever saw an option to flag a group that was actually spammy.

Okay, I'll look into the flagging thing. Let's talk about group combination.

Sorry, I'm being very bossy recently. :)

This group has no proposal option at the bottom
http://www.librarything.com/groups/prehistorichistorica

>69 timspalding: I don't think anyone minds you being bossy when you're bringing out multiple features in a single day!

glad I wasn't just missing something easy. I know there is a group where you can post about spammy groups but that involves a lot of bouncing back and forth between windows- I think it would be a LOT easier and more effective if a user could just click a button on the page of the spammy group. Even better would be if the group disappeared after hitting a predefined number of flags (to reappear obviously if a site admin reviewed and felt the group had been flagged in error).

53> Actually Tim, I think people have been bringing up problems so that they can be dealt with thoughtfully before they happen and something needs to be done right away.

I do think we need to discuss what will happen when groups are merged. I presume the group being merged from goes away and its members are added to the group being merged into, but the Title, Description, and owner of the group being merged into aren't changed. Is that what you were thinking?

#69 - That's what tin pot dictators do!

Fixed, although not understood, so I'm worried I broke something else.

another missing option
http://www.librarything.com/groups/shortstorieslovers

The King combo is hosed.

I go into King's Dear Constant Readers to combine it and it shows stephenkingfans as it's group ID.

I go into Stephen King Fans and it shows kingsdearconstant at it's group ID and it doesn't give me the option to combine it at all.

>73 jjwilson61:

Yes. Merger means removing the old group, and transferring it's messages and members. Members would get a notice. Messages would also get a "Originally posted on X" notice.

I think we're going about this voting business wrong. "Yes" votes should be irrelevant, but if a rather small number of LT members object to a merger, that should kill it.

>78 timspalding: Tim, in message 12, I EXPLICITLY asked about the group merger not reading correctly - where I thought it was just horrid wording originally. I entered the group ID about combining from the SKfans because I wanted it merged into the more active group...

http://www.librarything.com/topic/79507#1659071

It got buried in a crush of "OMG the LT world is going to crash and burn with this!" messages. Of course, I understand it is a manual process and I figure it can be fixed either way (and you'll ultimately decide), but this is one of the frustrations of trying to report an actual issue in a thread you're supposed to report issues in...

I think we're going about this voting business wrong. "Yes" votes should be irrelevant, but if a rather small number of LT members object to a merger, that should kill it.

Irrelevant? I agree, though, that yes needs a large majority for it to happen. I'd say 80% minimum.

I really don't understand why you're doing this. If a group is dormant or was created in error, just write a script to have it be archived or deleted automatically after a certain period of inactivity. End of story. No "combining," no filling up other groups' pages with polls. No one getting in other groups' business and forcing them to assimilate into another group.

>82 littlegeek:

1. I think deleting or archiving a group without member feedback is antithetical to LT's commitment to members. "Dormancy" is relative, and LT tends to solve problems democratically.
2. Combining duplicative groups strikes me as less invasive and objectionable than deleting them.
3. "Archived" groups make no sense; would they disappear off people's profiles? Would they revive when someone posts again.
4. Duplicative groups prevent the critical mass necessary for a group to take off. No doubt this is partially our fault—the system should be easier to search. But not only. Some groups are duplicates because members like clever names, and some concepts have multiple terms.
5. This is a good occasion for people to check out their group involvement, and possibly resurrect some.

Combining duplicative groups strikes me as less invasive and objectionable than deleting them.

But if more than one or two object to combining two specific groups, isn't it just as invasive? If even a couple think it objectionable or think that the groups are different enough, I think it would be antithetical to LT's commitments to combine them.

>84 christiguc:

Yes, I agree. See message 81. It has to be a high bar.

Helllp!! How do I delete a group combo proposal? The second one I proposed here http://www.librarything.com/groups/18thcenturybritishli was a mistake!

>82 littlegeek:

Respectfully, I don't think that addresses the issue of groups created because the members were unaware of an existing group for the same purpose. They might go along merrily, a small group but not dormant, not realizing they could be sharing their interest with a much larger group of people, getting that many more book recommendations, etc.

Edited to make it clear I was responding to LittleGeek--but four posts appeared while I was composing mine!

digifish_books/86, have you gotten an answer yet? I need to delete one, too. I did a proposal for one group, then submitted it to the 2nd group, without realizing that 2nd group received it automatically.

So it shows up twice on Serious Series Lovers: http://www.librarything.com/groups/seriousserieslovers

I'm a bit concerned that some of the more popular groups could be overwhelmed by the mass of generally pretty useless posts coming from the many groups being combined into them. This definitely seems like a cause for concern in the case of Twilight, anyway. And I've noticed that there's a fair bit of opposition to combining various HP groups into the Hogwarts Express, though I don't know whether these No votes are coming from HE members or from somewhere else.

>88 countrylife: Nope, no answer yet.

I'm a bit concerned that some of the more popular groups could be overwhelmed by the mass of generally pretty useless posts coming from the
many groups being combined into them.

I guess dormancy is the key - I assumed that as that's supposed to be the criteria for combination, old threads will disappear fast in active groups.

I guess I'm just not entirely convinced that no one ever looks beyond the first page of the discussion. There are a lot of junk threads that are about to be added to that Twilight group.

I look beyond the first page in some groups but not ones I'm active in because I'm normally up to date. It is likely to all of a sudden clog up subsequent pages but I guess Twilight (and possibly HP) might be the main culprits for that.

On a slightly related note, I'm also not sure how rigorous people are when assessing whether to combine before voting. It's easy to click on a poll are people reading any of the group threads? The reason I ask is that there's a combine option up for Bibliobloggers into Bloggers but if you read the Bibliobloggers thread, the group was intended entirely for people blogging about the bible and they specifically state it's not for purely book bloggers. I know it's dormant but still ... it just got me wondering, are people just looking at a general group heading and clicking or are they delving into the dormant groups? Not that it really matters but I was curious.

Also, if I've missed this thread and I'm a member of a group (take Twilight as an example), it's highly likely that I wouldn't navigate in past the group page and so would never notice that there were proposed combinations. Has anyone posted a thread to the main Twilight group to let them know this is going on?

Bibliobloggers

I suspect you're right. On the other hand, if I set the bar high enough, it won't matter too much if even many users do this... :)

>94 klarusu:

It also appears on the group that will receive the new posts, members.

>96 timspalding:

But does it appear as a talk thread - my point being that most people (I would guess) just watch their groups through the talk page or module so if no-one posts a thread about it, they won't see a poll on the group page. For my groups, I hardly ever visit the group page so I wouldn't know if they were proposed combinations or not...

>96 timspalding: But it appears only in the group description, not in Talk, right? So most people who are already members won't notice.

For new members, on the other hand... I hope these polls go away soon, because the group pages are looking pretty awful.

I'm curious whether there's any way to tell who is voting in these polls. I'm not a fan of Big Brother generally, but one instance that struck me was a proposed combination in which there were 8 "no" votes and only 3 members in the mostly dormant group that would be subsumed into the larger one. Maybe the objections were coming from the group into which the smaller group would be combined, but I'm even having a hard time figuring out why that would be the case.

ETA: the idea of voting without being a member of either group just seems wrong to me.

There definitely needs to be more visibility for these group combination polls for those who never visit the group pages of groups they are members of. I suggested at some point that each poll start a thread in each group. Or maybe I just thought I suggested it.

#93 -- That suggested combination was my goof. I've tried to be pretty rigorous in looking at the group description and scanning a thread or two, but that somehow slipped by me. On the other hand, I don't think combining it into "Christianity" is the answer either. In both cases, it's taking a highly specific group and combining it into something less-specific: my combination focused on the blogging aspect of the group, yours on the Bible aspect, but neither is a perfect fit. That may be a group that, though small and mostly dormant, doesn't need to be combined. However, Tim's system seems to be working in this instance: people are voting "no." I don't see much harm in proposing a combination like the one in question -- if enough people disagree, it will get turned down, and that will be that. I do agree that people voting on the poll should take a look at both group pages and not just go by group name. Perhaps that should be one of the "Group combination guidelines" when that WikiThing page is written?

#94 -- I suspect that the reason for the comparatively high percentage of dissenting votes regarding Harry Potter groups is because I did post a thread in HE about proposed combinations -- not expecting dissent, just wanting to let people know what was going on with all of the polls on the group homepage. I use the group page more than the Talk tab, and might have been confused if a suggested combination (or several) appeared and I hadn't seen this thread first. I don't know that a thread is necessary in all cases, but I do think that it might be good for Twilight Club (and any other group with more than one or two combination proposals) to get a thread explaining what's going on.

#98 -- "For new members, on the other hand... I hope these polls go away soon, because the group pages are looking pretty awful." -- Agreed.

Tim, can you explain your proposed combining of the "Catholic Tradition" and "Catholic Apologetics" groups? The former describes itself as being for "LT'ers of any religion/denomination", while the latter is for "people who can agree with the statement that The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic", clearly two quite different segments of LT!

It seems to me that some polls are proposing combining an major group into a minor group with a more transparent name / description with an eye to making it easier for new members to find a group of interest. And others are proposing combining a minor group into a major group with an eye to reducing redundancy.

When there's a very specific group, and it hasn't received much attention, often in years, the choice isn't between combining it into the major group and not. The choice is between combining it, and killing it.

LibraryThing can't go on showing thousands of dead and dormant groups. We have to start "archiving" or decommissioning them. Dead groups discourage people from the site generally and from getting involved in that topic, which might, in other hands and without lots of dead threads, go somewhere.

I think perhaps that's the next step here. LT starts generating lists of groups slated for archiving. And group members need to speak up to prevent that.

join us, or die.

Back in July, I proposed a scheme of threads being marked as 'ephemeral' for the purpose of deleting them after a certain time. Time for a revisit, or are you only interested in weeding entire groups?

When I first joined LT I quickly set up a group to discuss a topic. I didn't yet know enough to search through other groups & threads to find the appropriate place to talk. And the other places would have had more members and the discussion would have been richer.

Thus I am quite happy to have MY moribund group deleted.

Hmm. will have to look thru some of my old posts to see if there is anything interesting I want to keep.

Wait, I have changed my mind, can we just have a VERY dormant sludge pile?

I agree with #106, yes ephemeral, sure the "I LUV (enter current fad) groups"
can go. But, there is some very usefull stuff out there, eg. HTML formating, a thread someone pointed me towards which was dormant.

Sorry, after all that fuzzy waffle (I have been crook...) perhaps the instigator of the group could be asked if it's OK to delete their dormant groups?

If no answer then executive action could be taken?

#101 foggidawn - not criticising foggi, just exploring the limitations of poll based decisions. I don't think Christianity is a good fit either really but I was hoping it might prompt voters to look a bit deeper on that one.

>107 guido47:

For the HTML stuff, do you mean GFAQ?

When there's a very specific group, and it hasn't received much attention, often in years, the choice isn't between combining it into the major group and not. The choice is between combining it, and killing it.

There are a few of these groups that actually have no posts with content, and I'd be fine with killing them. In general, though, I think archiving is the way to go. People are going to get really angry if you start deleting old challenge groups, for example, because the threads are often still referred to even if not actively posted in.

For a change, I agree with Zoe/110. I still occasionally read something from my 888 Challenge thread and would much prefer archiving with a way to retrieve to deleting old groups.

Well I think it is going to come down to arbitrary decisions made from the top. I made several combination suggestions last week to add smaller history groups that were for specific parts of the United States to the larger, active, and more general American History group. So far all are failing by landslides. The best showing is for the group Texas History, it has 60 members and the last post was six months ago. The votes are 13 to 1 against combining. Licking Valley, Ohio History, three members and two dormant threads is failing 20 to 1. Arkansas History is failing 21 to 1. It has 8 members and 0 threads.

The resistance has to be coming from the active group. I don’t know what it would take to make the mergers acceptable to the larger groups.

> 106

I'm not a fan of deleting old threads. Archiving, but still with the ability to find them via a search, seems to me the better way to go. On this, and other sites I frequent, it's not uncommon for me to go looking for quite old posts in threads that haven't been active in quite a while.

> 112

I think the problem there is that there is quite a difference between the purposes of those groups. Talking about U.S. history in general is quite a different thing than discussing the history of a specific state.

>112 TLCrawford: I voted against all of those mergers, because they're not the same at all. The goal is to combine smaller duplicate groups into larger groups with the same purpose, not to combine any small groups into any vaguely similar larger groups.

> 115

Exactly!

I look at the group descriptions when voting on these proposed combinations. If there's a distinct difference in the intent of the group, the suggested membership, etc., then I vote "No".

Because the proposed combination is only on the group page (or the mass "proposed combinations" page), and I know a lot of folks don't look at those, the people most concerned may not realize what's being suggested.

In at least one instance, I started a topic regarding the proposal, because the groups have diametrically opposed ideas as to who should be members, and I have my doubts as to whether people who voted in favor of the proposal actually read the group descriptions! (And, interestingly, my post seems to have prodded at least some of the members to work on making the group more active.)

I think that groups with only a few members just get lost in talk and then forgotten. Some of these are probably worth reviving.

Yes, there is a difference in the exact purpose of each group. However, as I understand it, the choice is not as simple as combine or not but it is combine or disappear. Of the three groups only Texas could possibly stand on its own. If Licking Valley was deleted we only loose two threads and we loose nothing if the Arkansas group goes away. All three are sub-sets of American History. Any thread in any of the three would work as a thread in the American History where there would be more people to see them and comment on them.

As Big Tim said on the second post on lillithcat’s topic from #116 the question for many of these groups is go away for good or combine into larger more active groups.

I also suggested combining three groups targeted at three areas of Social History into a smaller group of that name. The voting there is similar to the other three but I really expected these to do less well. I would rather see them all under the same group name than see them all go away.

I don't think Tim is planning to delete all smaller groups.

I agree that the old challenge groups need to be kept, but I could see combining 888 and 999 in a few weeks. (I am a member of both.)

I wouldn't want to see them combined together - I think they're a small issue in the bigger picture and they are individual entities. I'd hate them to go though as I do look back from time to time ...

Makes me wonder if Grouping Groups should still be considered, so ~like~ groups can be found together, but with separate identities. The individual state groups and the American History groups could be a family of groups, rather than morphed into one. TLCrawford, I was one who voted against assimilating those state groups, because their purposes ARE different. But having a bunch of small, often not very active groups scattered around non-findable isn't ideal, either.

115> I voted against all of those mergers, because they're not the same at all. The goal is to combine smaller duplicate groups into larger groups with the same purpose, not to combine any small groups into any vaguely similar larger groups.

There are going to be cases where a more specific group doesn't have the volume to be a successful group. In those cases it makes sense to merge them into the more general group, but it should really be the people in that smaller group that make the decision. If those people themselves are dormant then the decision to merge or delete should be based on if there are any threads worth saving.

There are going to be cases where a more specific group doesn't have the volume to be a successful group. In those cases it makes sense to merge them into the more general group. . .

But how do you define successful group? Even if a group has gone months since the last post, perhaps people who are interested in that specific subject are okay with long lapses in posting. If one looks at Talk in the My Groups view, combining these subject-specific groups into a larger, more-talkative group would become annoying to the member, filling up the Talk page with irrelevant, uninteresting topics--topics which they joined a subject-specific group to avoid.

If I like Texas History and am interested in the occasional subject that pops up every once in a while (even every five-six months), I am not going to be happy with suddenly seeing US History all over my talk, with no way to highlight the topics I'm interested in without sorting through all the other mess or abandoning the subject all together.

I don't think "unsuccessful" groups should be forbidden from existing. As LT grows, more niche groups may reach the critical mass needed to become "successful". Also, how do you define "successful" anyway? The Texas History group that was suggested for combination into American History has 60 members and maybe 80 messages; it's not a complete failure even though it isn't very active.

And as Tim pointed out, there's also an archive option; it doesn't have to be merge or delete.

I am a member of Texas History and a watcher of American History, and I, for one, would hate to see them combined.

> 124

I think your point about volume is a good one. There are actually some groups on LT that I'd be very interested in in terms of discussion possibilities, but which have such high volume that I simply don't think I can keep up.

I think it's very possible that some members do in fact prefer the smaller, more specific groups even if they're only posting once every several months.

I have created two groups, one of which I wouldn't mind combining with another, stronger group. The other, while it's not the most popular kid on the block, I've actually put some work into, and it's very specific as to topic and intent. Under no circumstances would I want this rolled up into something else.

The creator of the group should have the final say as to whether or not to combine.

As for long-dead (totally inactive) groups, maybe some kind of "combine or be removed" rule after a certain amount of time would suffice.

>126 countrylife:.

I totally understand this, as in my experience, American History is one class in Texas state colleges, and Texas History is another. And one of them is required to graduate.

Give you three guesses which. :)

I still don't understand how Tim is going to get in trouble for deleting groups that are obviously mistakes. At least 6 of the groups being proposed to be combined with Hogwarts Express have 2 threads or less and sometimes 2 members or less. Why do we need to preserve a couple of threads that basically say, "hey, you should join HE instead?"

I'm sure there are more pertinent issues with some of the other proposals, but I was coming from looking at Hogwarts.

129: Texas history?

It was a complete surprise to me when we moved here this year - after the munchki came home from school the first day, they told me that they pledge allegience to the state flag as well!

>130 littlegeek: Yeah, he's not. But this is going beyond the obviously useless groups.

>131 countrylife:.

Also, Texas Government is required, if I'm not mistaken.

I've only lived here for 4.5 years. I must say, I've never had to pledge the Texas flag. I must also be honest, I have no idea how it goes.

"The Texas flag is like the American flag, only much simpler, just like Texas is to the rest of America."

133: The pledge of allegiance to the Texas state flag is

"Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible."

They do think pretty highly of their state, don't they.

>134 countrylife:.

It is the only State that used to be a country, other than the ones that don't count. :)

I don't think this is the intent, but age and dormancy alone shouldn't determine the combine-or-die fate of a group. I'm thinking about the challenge groups by year; for example, the 75-book challenge for 2009 won't be getting a lot of posts after another couple of weeks, but it is where I, for one (but hardly the only one) have recorded my reading for the year, and I'd like to be able to go back to that now or ten years from now. Do I really have to figure out a way to export those posts and save them elsewhere so I don't lose that thread?

136>

Somewhat tangential, but I don't think it's a good idea to have *anything* online be your only copy of something you might want to be able to get at ten years from now, and certainly not something that is somewhat ephemeral by intent, as a discussion thread is.

>137 lorax: Sure, there are always things that can go wrong, but it's pretty inconvenient to go through copying every thread in a large group. There's previously been no indication that this would be necessary; Tim has emphasized again and again that he has lots of backups and will keep our data safe from accidents. The question now is whether our data is safe from intentional deletion, which is a whole other issue that we previously didn't have to worry about here.

In general, though, I think archiving is the way to go.

Just to be clear, I wouldn't delete the group and all it's threads. Archive might be the right word, although we'd have to talk about whether adding something to an archived group "un-archives" it or not. I'd say no--that you shouldn't be able to add to archived groups.

So, when I say "delete" I don't mean getting rid of the information. I mean get rid of the functionality. Does that make sense? Can we get a good word for that? Archive?

I don't think "unsuccessful" groups should be forbidden from existing. As LT grows, more niche groups may reach the critical mass needed to become "successful". Also, how do you define "successful" anyway? The Texas History group that was suggested for combination into American History has 60 members and maybe 80 messages; it's not a complete failure even though it isn't very active.

I agree that as we grow, more topics are viable. But the number of groups far outstrips our growth, if we never prune the groups back. And dormant, but "alive" groups don't encourage people to try again. I'm not against Texas History. But I think archiving what exists and having some devotee start a new group might be the better option.

Just realised some of the combinations I've proposed are back-to-front, i.e. suggesting a larger/more popular group be combined into a smaller/less popular group. Didn't read the fine print; I thought the proposals were for 'Group X to combined WITH Group Y', not 'X combined INTO Y'. Think I need an (LT) holiday...

Proposals will be better seen by group members if you also post in the groups about it.

139> Yeah, archive sounds better than delete (much less likely to get people upset!). I'm not expressing any opinion on any group I'm not a member of...hmmm, I should check on some of my less active groups and see if there are combination suggestions (or if I can find some). I know there's another Unique Librarything Books group, besides ULTB.

And dormant, but "alive" groups don't encourage people to try again. I'm not against Texas History. But I think archiving what exists and having some devotee start a new group might be the better option.

I think this would just doom the groups to "failure" forever. Much better to try again by starting a new thread in a group that already has 60 interested readers than by starting from scratch with no one.

So, I'd vote for letting archived groups be revived. Just moving them to a separate page will clean up the Complete Groups list enormously.

I agree with Zoe here (and the sky isn't even falling!). Someone who is interested in the topic should be allowed to revive an archived group. But if others don't join in soon, it could be re-archived.

I'd suggest not archiving a group with 60 members at all. If it has more than 10 or 12 members, possibly with the additional requirement that some of them are still active, and it's not combinable, it's big enough to be left alone.

Hunh. I actually agree with _Zoe_ on this one, too. She said it perfectly with, "I think this would just doom the groups to "failure" forever. Much better to try again by starting a new thread in a group that already has 60 interested readers than by starting from scratch with no one."

#145 -- I agree. From looking at the complete groups list, it looks like the majority of groups have less than 20 members -- many, many of those seem to have been started for a book club, school class, or church group, and never took off. Clearing up those, and the obviously duplicative (i.e. the plethora of Twilight groups) should be a good start. I don't think groups with a significant number of members and threads with actual content should have much to worry about.

And I do think that it's too easy to create new groups, but I'm sure Tim&co. are considering that issue, too.

>And I do think that it's too easy to create new groups, but I'm sure Tim&co. are considering that issue, too.

It's only too easy if you assume that groups live forever, that groups can never fail, and that a group gets to own its topic forever.

On failure, I think people misunderstand what makes a group work. It's not the topic, but the participation. Dormant groups are like when you come across a new road and there are dead bodies lying along it; it makes you less likely to want to continue down the road.

#148: I think your analogy is a little extreme. If I want to talk to people, I'm going to head down the biggest road I can find; I'm not going to try forging my own trail except in necessity. If there's a group with even a dozen people in it, I'll be happier to post in it then to make my own group and hope people find it.

>148 timspalding: So let's leave group creation as it is. Whoever wants to can create a new Texas History group, and if it becomes successful the old one can be merged into it then. There's no need to freeze the existing group pre-emptively.

I still think you're wrong about how easy it is to get a new group off the ground, too. That requires finding all the people who want to participate. If you have a dormant group with 60 people already there, you just need to post a few interesting threads to get the discussion started.

Finally, freezing groups that people want to keep alive just isn't necessary. There are so many uncontroversial improvements you can make to the groups page, without making everyone annoyed and worried or forcing us to post periodic meaningless threads in groups that we like just so they don't get frozen forever.

>149 prosfilaes:

Extreme? Dead bodies? Surely you joke!

The trick is, though, a lot of those older groups are full of non-active members too.

I'm not convinced that they're full of *only* non-active members. I still think having the ability to post in a dormant group saying "Hey, I started a new group about this topic" is better than not. Maybe the problem arose from your duplicative groups rule: rather than letting a new group on a topic naturally replace an old one, it's now necessary to kill the old one first.

Also, if non-active members don't count, can other people have their usernames? ;)

Did someone take straight-up Zoe?

I have a question. I'm not particularly worried about a small, not very active group, being folded into a larger group with similar goals if I'm a member of the group. I understand the members will follow into the more active group automatically, but what about those who are watching the small groups instead of joining? Will they also follow as watchers?

>153 timspalding: Yup, and she hasn't added any books since July 2006.

>154 hailelib: I'd assume watchers would follow as well.

... You know, it seems to me that SEARCH and an improved interface on the GROUPS page could solve some of these problems. Why not algorithmically deprecate groups that have few threads or no active threads? The GROUPS page can have (a) most active, (b) good search for group titles/topics/tags; (c) search of text of messages, users, touchstones, etc.

And set up something a little more elaborate for establishing a new group. "Start a new group" --> build in the nice improved search screen as a required screen --> describe / tag / etc.

For some groups, the lack of discussion is the entire point: http://www.librarything.com/groups/thediogenesclub

Please, never get rid of that one!

157> I am so tempted to post a new thread there just to see what would happen.

Or what about FAQ groups like

http://www.librarything.com/groups/greyheadsfrequentlya
http://www.librarything.com/groups/fyi

Should that content be moved to WikiThing?

# 158 - Yes, I thought about posting "Excuse me, where's the loo." But it's so pristine right now with no threads.

Can we get a good word for that? Archive?

Deactivated Groups?

I just joined the Diogenes Group, just for those times I want to be alone, but I didn't post.

Robert

I have a few reservations about combining some of the Harry Potter groups into the Hogwarts Express. most of these groups their talk does amount to "have you heard of the Hogwarts Express" I don't see the point of moving these threads into the hogwarts express. if just threads with content that will remain relavent after the combination are kept, then I wouldn't be opposed to it. (we do have members who go back and read every single thread).

I really think this whole project needs a more specifically stated goal and the prominence of a blog post, notification on the homepage, maybe even a yellow notification everywhere.

It used to be okay to have small niche groups on LT. Now it's suddenly not. And rather than having this stated explicitly anywhere, it's being disguised behind statements like I think I need to be more clear about the immediate purpose of this. It is to remove the dozens (hundreds?) of completely duplicative and completely dormant groups on LibraryThing. Most of them were formed by someone who didn't do a search first. and I bet most combinations will be readily accepted. We've already moved far, far beyond the readily-accepted combinations of completely duplicative groups.

Hallelujah, I'm about to agree with Zoe!!

Seriously though, when this whole thing started Tim specifically said it was about combining "accident" groups. It seems the intent here has completely changed, and not in a good way.

edit: Tim said "I think I need to be more clear about the immediate purpose of this. It is to remove the dozens (hundreds?) of completely duplicative and completely dormant groups on LibraryThing. Most of them were formed by someone who didn't do a search first."

What's wrong with having small "niche" groups in LT?? I belong to more then a few, and no we aren't always talkative, but that doesn't mean we should be corraled into a bigger more general group.

Tim,
I know how to stir up some real wrath. Let's combine the "I love cats" groups with the "I love dogs" groups. After all they're just pets, right?

SHHH.
We don't talk to Tim about CATS.

:-D

Please don't go overboard with this feature. A quick skim of the proposition list reveals a bunch of questionable combinations—for instance Reading Globally with Travel and Exploration Literature, or Sustainability with Self-Sufficiency Thingers, or the particularly eyebrow-raising merger of Ecology and the Environment with Treehuggers.

I did get a chuckle out of the suggested merger of Sad Robots and Robotics. How about combining History at 30,000 Feet with Aviation?

Reading Globally with Travel and Exploration Literature? I share a corridor with a whole swathe of academic Ecologists and they'd have my guts for garters if I likened them to 'Treehuggers' ..

I'm with Zoe & Heather on this one ... and I hate to say 'I told you so' but wasn't it evident it was going to go beyond the initial remit in the beginning, especially as clear guidelines have never really been elucidated. OK, so everyone can go vote 'No' on the propositions but wouldn't it be better to have clearly defined what people should and shouldn't combine from the beginning.

Damn, I've turned into my mother with the 'I told you so' ... sorry.

And there are seriously groups that are not dormant that are being selected for combination here - groups which are small but still have some activity like 'Language', which has posts right up to December, albeit at a low level but consistent and there. It's not dormant. It shouldn't be combined into 'I Survived the Great Vowel Shift' just because it's small. There should be a clear date criteria for dormancy - if a group has had no activity since X, it can be considered dormant for the purposes of combination suggestions. Otherwise this is just a tool to remove niche groups and homogenise everything into fewer large groups.

Yet again - Review Discussions with Reviews Reviewed. Neither group is dormant ... in fact, Review Discussion was only set up in December so I don't think, in anyone's world, this could be counted as dormant. This feature is being used to single out new groups which may or may not have something in common with an existing group and to suggest combining them. That's not 'dormancy' and, as Zoe says, amounts to a change in the ethos behind Groups. It basically implies that you're required to set up a new group under the umbrella of an existing one if the subject matter is similar and that you can't carve your own, slightly different niche without having to be alert to defending your place against a host of combination requests giving you no chance to demonstrate whether or not your small slice of the community is going to form an active group. You shouldn't have to be constantly on your guard just because your group doesn't come up to some kind of arbitrary critical post per day volume. Either this is to remove dormancy or it's to police group formation. If it's to police group formation, it's a whole different argument. Sorry but this bugs me more than a little bit (also, I have nothing to do until the Christmas lunch in an hour ....)

Unfortunately some of the suggested combinations have resulted in rather antagonistic comments being posted in some of the groups. A simple 'no' vote should suffice, but some feel the need to add negative comments directed at the member who suggests the combination in the first place.

>172 klarusu: Is the use of polls as binary as you suggest? I see it as a way to solicit opinions on mergers. There is no automatic process that enforces any merger. These are not a referenda yielding binding outcomes. They are polls of opinions. I trust Tim et al to combine groups sensitively taking account of the size and nature of the various candidates.

I do think it's time for this page to have some concrete content.

ETA:
I also really, really wish that proposing a combination automatically triggered a new thread stating such in the group. I think that would help somewhat with the small-but-active groups (such as some of the Twilight groups) who are being voted into combination with larger groups. If the small but active folks don't want to combine, those 6 or 7 votes are going to make a difference. On the other hand, they may not have realized the larger venue is out there, in which case if no 'no' votes appear, we can feel pretty solid in wanting to combine them, because their input has been /actively/ solicited.

In most combination suggestions, the opinion of the folks in the groups themselves is /not/ being actively solicited. I think that's a problem.

I'm tempted to spend some of my time today just working down the list and posting 'please vote' threads. Is it possible to embed one of these combination polls in a thread, or is a link the best we can do?

I trust Tim too but how can you expect people to reach consensus if there's no clear picture of at least what basic criteria need to be met to combine? Initially, Tim wasn't clear that dormancy was the key:

I've added a section down on the bottom right of group pages. It allows you to suggest a larger, better or more popular group to combine the group into.

No mention of dormancy .. Then he clarified:

I think we come up with some criteria by which this is judged, with the most important factor being inactivity. Two active groups should never be combined, unless it's some sort of mistake that they're separate.

It is to remove the dozens (hundreds?) of completely duplicative and completely dormant groups on LibraryThing.

Apparently it is dormancy that's the criteria we should be looking for. There's a link to the wiki for combination guidelines at the top of the page but there are no combination guidelines, just a circular link to this thread. I'm not implying that there should be dictatorial guidelines but there should be some basics that could be fairly simply hashed out. Surely everyone agrees that the empty/dormant groups need to go, I'm not saying they don't. But before letting this loose, I would have at least thought it was worth working out what our criteria was for dormancy, what the protocol was for making sure that there was a thread posted in both groups for combination because a lot of people don't navigate in past the group page but via Talk, you know, real basic stuff to make the process smoother ...

Zoe, I've just given you a run for your money on the cut and pastes ;-)))

And pretty much what Aerrin said while I was typing ... ;)

> 172

And those groups have entirely different purposes, which is obvious from even a cursory glance at the group descriptions. But I get the feeling that sometimes people are simply looking at group names. "Oh! These groups are both about reviews (or Twilight or whatever, so let's combine them."

Now I'm getting irritated, REALLY irritated. A combination proposal was inflicted on a group I created with a VERY specific intent. I put some effort into it's look and upkeep. I consider myself to be the group's moderator. We have 69 members. It's not dormant. The combination proposal is for another group with a similar name, but with an ENTIRELY different, and much broader purpose! Even worse, the person who started the combination proposal is not a member of my group, and judging from their LT profile, has little or no interest in our topic! Just someone who has decided to help clean house, no doubt. I'll delete my group before I let it be combined!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This has gone far enough - it shouldn't have gone this far without specific guidelines!!!

> 175

I also really, really wish that proposing a combination automatically triggered a new thread stating such in the group.

I agree. I started one such thread, but it shouldn't be necessary for a random person to do that.

The fact is that many people (myself included) don't go to their groups' main page, and so will never see the proposed combining.

> 177 klarusu

I do that all the time! (type something while someone else is busy posting the same thing, that is.

> 179 KentonSem

I think if that is the case, letting it be know (with specifics - group name) here and also in your community will probably garner enough no votes to keep it from happening.

> 180 lilithcat

Although I firmly maintain this should be automatic, perhaps a few willing volunteers would help make shorter work of thread posting today, to be sure that all groups already suggested are aware of the proposed combinings?

Oh, my. The number of proposed combinations where the group is neither 'completely duplicative' nor 'completely dormant' is just amazing. Vaguely similar and with fewer than ten posts this month seems to be a commonly used criterion.

Small isn't non-viable, neither is duplicative. Duplicative isn't redundant if the people in the group want their own group. Small isn't inactive or dormant, it's just small. Some of the really big, active groups are behemoths; navigating them to find and keep up with the threads that really interest you can be the stuff of nightmares.

I do think a clear date for/definition of dormancy would be helpful.

Yesterday I tried leaving a message in a group about the combination that someone had proposed, but there has been no response yet. A small group, its members probably don't check it daily, especially now during the holidays. Hopefully its not necessary to contact each ~member~ that I hope will read it. Does Tim plan to do his yellow alert to let members know to check each of their groups and make their own votes known?

179/181

I left a non-abusive message with the person proposing the merger of my group, letting them know that I find their action to be quite irritating.

I also duplicated the message above (179) and sent it to Mr. Spaulding.

I really don't think that the ability to suggest a combination should be available to every LT member. Maybe just members of the two groups involved should be able to propose/vote? There should have been guidelines set before opening this up to anyone and everyone. Creators of groups should have final say, even if it's just to say "don't combine - archive or delete".

What happens now if a group gets a "yes" vote to combine? Does it automatically happen? Is the group's creator contacted first? Are things left hanging until Mr. Spaulding decides what to do?

I understand and agree with the concept of saving wasted space, but this concept seems to have been launched into the wild before it was totally thought through. Turn off the combination proposals for now, I say.

Thanks klarusu et al. for saving me a lot of typing :)

I have just one point to add: I trust Tim et al to combine groups sensitively taking account of the size and nature of the various candidates.

I don't. Tim is the one who has been most aggressively pushing combination of big, active groups, which is what led to a lot of my concern. Site Talk and RSI, Series and RSI, etc.

Thanks klarusu et al. for saving me a lot of typing :)
Sometimes it's just nice to be of service ;-)

I would add that if relatively new groups are included in this, like several I've found that were only set up this month, then you're almost torpedoing their chances of developing their own niche before they've had a chance to get off the ground. It's going to put new members off if the first thing they're faced with on the groups page is a whole host of combination requests. Now, if that's the aim, then I think it's an effective mechanism for suggesting that people shouldn't worry about joining a newer, smaller group but should come under the umbrella of one of the large ones ... but again, that's a different argument to just clearing dormant groups.

Plus, who's to know what the smaller groups will grow into given time. I assume that The Green Dragon started with but a single post ...

#163 -- Only two of the six groups proposed for combination with Hogwarts Express have threads in them pointing to Hogwarts Express or other Harry Potter groups. One group has no threads posted. The rest of the groups have threads that, while perhaps not containing the most stimulating intellectual discourse, are ones that I feel it would be better to roll into Hogwarts Express than simply delete when Tim starts deleting dormant groups. All of the groups have members that are not part of Hogwarts Express (granted, these may be members that no longer use LT) -- I just went on each profile and checked. If dormant groups are going to be deleted, and if the members of those groups want to be part of a Harry Potter Group, Hogwarts Express is currently their best option.

I just wanted to clarify my rationale in proposing those particular combinations. I did not propose them without putting thought into the matter.

I just spent some time looking at groups that I watch. A lot of them are small and definitely niche groups that are only active once in a while. But most of them are also groups that I'm interested enough in the topic that I want to know when there are new posts. I hope the number of watchers is taken into account when it's decided whether a group should live or die. Watchers could far exceed members.

Edited for typo.

The creator of the group should at least be contacted first by someone proposing a combination, even as a simple act of courtesy. If they agree, then the CREATOR of the group should launch the vote. At the very least, proposals for combining and the voting should ONLY be allowed for actual members of those groups.

I like the idea of specialty groups, as long as they remain somewhat active. This combining process is going to eventually lead to a limited number of broad-concept juggernauts. That's not going to be much fun. Smaller little "societies" will lose their unique identities.

I've said six ways from Sunday that combinations will only happen with an overwhelming majority of votes. So it doesn't even MATTER what criteria you think are appropriate; as long as you disagree, and you vote that way, we won't be combining groups you don't want to combine. In every case I've seen where a member raised outrage at a possible combination, the combination was already well below super-majority level, or instantly became it after the call was raised. The highest level of upsetness and panic so far was on behalf of a proposal losing sixteen to two!

Problem solved, I think. But insofar as the possibility of combination still existed, dispute still raged. I should have anticipated that. I've seen theoretical harm trump actual usage many times. As said before, if I had put work combination up to a vote, and I respected the opinions of a vocal minority, we'd still be considering every ISBN a separate work, or at least restricting it only to paid members. I should write this phenomenon up, and see if anyone has some ideas on how to ameliorate it.

I'm not abandoning the goal. The health of the site requires that it not be 4/5 dormant groups. LibraryThing Talk has never been healthier, measured by daily messages, and never unhealthier, measured by dormant groups. It's an untenable situation.

When in doubt, I like to involve members, not solve social problems arbitrarily myself or through algorithms. Clearly in this case, the fear level is too high. I too should have made doubly clear not so much the criteria, because I think they too should also be arrived at socially, through conversation and voting, but the basic principle of super-majority voting. Maybe I should have said it was 80% or 90%, so there wasn't any doubt. Maybe I should have said "no combination when there are 5 no votes" to remove even theoretical fear.

But, clearly, the effort failed. So, I'll shut down the feature and just come up with some algorithmic definition of dormancy—no new messages in last X months, or whatever—then exclude those from searches unless you click "Your search also found some dormant groups. Click to see them." I'll make it so that dormant groups can be revived, but I'll add another category of "archived" groups--dormant for longer--that can't.

I think that's a worse option, insofar as members from 2006 and 2007 will often belong only to dormant and archived groups, and not learn that new groups exist on the same topics. Maybe I'll keep the combination notices up for dormant groups, and turn them into "You might also enjoy" notices. Unless someone objects.

Tim never said that dormancy should be the only criteria. He also said "Two active groups should never be combined, unless it's some sort of mistake that they're separate."

If there are two groups that have practically the same charter then I think its reasonable to wonder whether the second group was created by mistake. In particular, I'm a member of both I Survived The Great Vowel Shift and Language and I'm not aware of any practical difference between them. I'm going to check out the charters but unless I find something there about the groups purposely being separate, I'll be voting yes.

ETA: Well, I couldn't vote yes because it appears that Tim turned off the feature first.

If a group has been completely dormant for a certain amount of time as determined by LT, send the creator of the group a message saying so and that it will be removed and archived by a certain date.

I bet in most of these cases the group will end up getting removed, the dormancy level will drop, and the potential for disappointed active group members and creators will follow.

Make it a feature for the creators of two active groups to suggest mergers with other groups. Membership then votes. Voluntary and fair.

Again, I agree with what you are trying to accomplish, just not the combining/voting method as it exists so far.

I hope you reconsider Tim. There are clearly some non-dormant groups that the members might actually want to combine.

Perhaps you could allow the owners of two groups to voluntarily merge their groups. Although I think you'll run into problems of dormant group owners.

>191 timspalding: updated with more explanation.

I don't think the issue here is that fear is too high. I think that you're right when you suggest that you should say 80% or 90%. Vagueness isn't helpful in discussion, or in easing fears.

Again, I think the other issue is that this /isn't/ super majority voting. It's voting by people who pay attention to this thread. Because no one else is being notified.

I think it's quite possible that your general goal and even methods are on track, but need some tweaking.

I've seen very few people suggest that this is just flat out a bad idea - what I /have/ seen, though, is a request for some clarification in guidelines (what percentage is 'overwhelming'? Does it make a difference if there are only 11 votes total and 1 of those is a no versus 111 votes with 11 nos?), and a request to be sure that the voting is noticeably visible to parties affected.

Thank you, Tim.

I'm positive you can accomplish this in a manner that will be agreeable to all.

Tim, I'm sorry you're shutting down the combination effort.

Frankly, I thought this was exposing more duplicate groups to members and I was hoping some people would get the idea that it was often more along the lines of combining two or three small efforts into one larger community that could thrive.

We'll manage to sort of rid ourselves of the dormant group issue, but we won't rid ourselves of the fractured subject issue. I personally think that's a bigger issue. We have people clearly interested in talking about things and this combination feature would have helped bring those people together.

/sigh

I agree with 196 that the general idea isn't a bad one but that some tweaking and some specific guidelines would make it more generally acceptable.

I agree with 198.

Group creators need to have some say. Allowing them to voluntarily merge would be a step in the right direction. Wouldn't this go a long way towards the split-subject issue? As long as both creators get credit on the merged page, I think a lot of folks would jump at the chance.

As for long-dormant groups, well, there is a reason they're long-dormant. Chances are that automatically removing and archiving them will go virtually unnoticed. All that's necessary is some form of advance notification.

This is a disappointing outcome to a constructive proposal. It does seem that in some quarters raising the possibility of an action for discussion leaps to a perceived imminent threat that the action will be implemented soon. No matter how the proposal is phrased, it is received by some members as "X is going to happen. What do you think about this".

# 202

It is a good idea, but it wasn't JUST a "proposal". It was launched as an active process without specific guidelines or notification to group creators or members, which was probably the main reason for contention.

The way I read it, the idea hasn't been jettisoned; Tim is working on something better thought out, is all.

As said before, if I had put work combination up to a vote, and I respected the opinions of a vocal minority, we'd still be considering every ISBN a separate work

But ... but ... but ... there are criteria for combination (what defines a work, the sausage-on-stick test, how to deal with translations, etc. etc.). And still there's disagreement on how to apply them (which is fine, that's going to happen, opinions differ ... *cough cough* NCE's *cough cough*). It's not that the concept of maintaining it as a group led thing that's wrong, it's just that there were not really many criteria laid out at all for this.

But insofar as the possibility of combination still existed, dispute still raged. I should have anticipated that.

Well, it is *us* after all ... we are like a large bunch of your incredibly annoying children and will turn you prematurely grey.

On the upside, Zoe and I agreed on something for a change ;-)

Awww, I thought this feature has a lot of potential. While sure, some groups were proposed for combination that shouldn't be combined, the votes seemed to be swinging that way anyway *and* (most important to me) the whole process was bringing attention to groups that were otherwise unloved.

I'm all for bringing people together rather than just shunting "dead" groups into a hole. The problem with just deleting/archiving groups is that should a member come back after a long hiatus, they're never going to see activity on their groups, thus there's nothing to draw them in unless they specifically go searching for it.

I think designating a "hiatus period" would probably work nicely. Maybe only groups that haven't seen activity since 2008 would definitely be combined?

This is a disappointing outcome. There are plenty of groups with 20+ in favour of combining and none opposed. It doesn't have to be a choice between doing something to extremes and not doing it at all. Group members just need some notification, and then the uncontroversial combinations should go ahead.

On the upside, Zoe and I agreed on something for a change ;-)

:)

#191: "I'm not abandoning the goal. The health of the site requires that it not be 4/5 dormant groups"

Why? The percentage of dormant LiveJournal blogs, Facebook pages and Usenet groups is way higher than that.

The first step here should have been to offer some option to voluntarily merge groups. There's no way to merge groups at all, even if the creator wants to do so. And if you're going to put up votes to the general public, you needed to make sure that the groups under question know about it; even someone who regularly follows talk would have no way of knowing that one of their groups was up for deletion.

#202: How would you feel if you found TheoClarke on a list of user accounts to be deleted? No notification, no clear specification of what was the rules for deletion. Reading #191 makes me feel confident that this was not merely the possibility of an action for discussion; that had things kept going as they were, a bunch of these groups were going away, probably when Tim got a whim one night to close it.

But ... but ... but ... there are criteria for combination

Yes, criteria that was at least partly worked out by the users doing the combining. I think Tim wanted to give us users the space to work out the criteria ourselves.

But ... but ... but ... there are criteria for combination (what defines a work, the sausage-on-stick test, how to deal with translations, etc. etc.). And still there's disagreement on how to apply them (which is fine, that's going to happen, opinions differ ... *cough cough* NCE's *cough cough*). It's not that the concept of maintaining it as a group led thing that's wrong, it's just that there were not really many criteria laid out at all for this.

The most basic criteria were proposed by me, and agreed upon by members. The hard criteria were decided by members, and still are. Members here were demanding criteria to prevent combinations that were already running 16 to 2 against! It's like demanding that there be an absolute rule against serving jellyfish for Christmas dinner. Nobody wants to do it anyway.

In this case, if I had defined all the criteria sufficiently, then why have members vote at all? I could have just run an algorithm and be done with it. And that is what I'm now going to do—except I'll be hiding and disabling groups instead of combining them, which might have produced some good.

I'm going out to shop for Christmas. Hope we're serving jellyfish this year.

I too am disappointed that this hasn't gone anywhere.

There are a number of groups which never really got off the ground - because they are almost exact dupes of groups that already existed. The smaller, later group only has a few members and messages. These are uncontroversial combines.

There are cases of premature optimisation. For example there is a Gamers (for analogue games) group which isn't very active. Someone then created a Roleplayers group which isn't very active, someone then created a White Wolf roleplayers group which isn't very active. A bit later someone created another games group (Dice & Table) which falls in the first category. I think the collective membership is just about enough to produce one low-volume group.

There are also those groups with no messages like "Story Gamers" (whose subject overlaps those of the other roleplaying groups). These are usually created to mirror another community else-web. They are not going to be receptive to combining, but probably do not need to be displayed on the main groups page.

Groups with no messages could be relegated to a section on the groups page "Groups without any discussion". Dormant groups should be in a "Dormant Groups" section on the groups page. Both would not be shown unless the section is explicitly clicked. Yes I know such discussions belong in the other thread but it seems a direct result of discussing combination. Groups could auto-magically move between the Dormant and Active Groups section based upon last post date.

> 209

It's like demanding that there be an absolute rule against serving jellyfish for Christmas dinner.

Members here were demanding criteria to prevent combinations that were already running 16 to 2 against! It's like demanding that there be an absolute rule against serving jellyfish for Christmas dinner. Nobody wants to do it anyway.

16 to 2 against, in favor of my group NOT combining, but what if the 263 members of the other group all voted "yes"? The 70 members of my little group wouldn't stand a chance, even if they ALL voted "no", similar groups or not. Isn't that called a "hostile takeover" in corporation-speak? And that's not even counting the "roamers" belonging to neither group, who may have simply clicked the vote button either way on a whim.

No, I think you have done the right thing by turning off the voting feature. Just not a good idea as it stood previously.

Time to move on and come up with a workable solution, agreeable to all.

#219: "It's like demanding that there be an absolute rule against serving jellyfish for Christmas dinner. Nobody wants to do it anyway."

It strikes me that in a lot of families, the serious suggestion (which this was) that jellyfish should be served for Christmas dinner would be disturbing enough to generate this level of argument, even if everyone is against it.

"In this case, if I had defined all the criteria sufficiently, then why have members vote at all? I could have just run an algorithm and be done with it."

Deciding on whether two groups cover the same subject is the hard AI problem, and theoretically a lot harder than arguing about work combination.

16 to 2 against, in favor of my group NOT combining, but what if the 263 members of the other group all voted "yes"? The 70 members of my little group wouldn't stand a chance, even if they ALL voted "no", similar groups or not. Isn't that called a "hostile takeover" in corporation-speak? And that's not even counting the "roamers" belonging to neither group, who may have simply clicked the vote button either way on a whim.

We are having the Wikipedia argument all over again. Social systems don't work like that. They don't guard against every possible bad result, but trust that unwanted and difficult things don't usually happen, and that, if they do, others will combine to prevent or ameliorate them.

For example, we allow restaurants to have knives on the table because eating with your hands is a messy pain, despite the possibility that diners could use the knives to remove their own fingers or attack the waiters.

What would happen if, suddenly, a coterie of inane or evil members decided to flip the 16-2 against, and produce a similar "for" that was above 80%? Well, I suspect someone would notice, and an even larger group of "againsts" could be mobilized. Easily.

Again, you don't run a social system by preventing every theoretical possibility. It's how you kill one.

>209 timspalding: I'm still not sure why it's necessary to jump from one extreme to another. Why does the fact that you ran into opposition when the combining seemed to be going too far mean that no combining should take place at all?

Likewise, if you want to go the "Dormant Groups" route, why can't you stick with andyl's suggestion of dormant groups on a separate page but with the ability to move back to Active Groups at any time? That would clean up the groups page and have the same benefits for the site as permanent archiving would, but without the controversy and opposition that you know are going to arise at the thought of some groups being frozen forever.

Basically, I think you can accomplish everything you want by doing things in moderation. This would also have the benefit of avoiding big controversies and leaving you more time to actually get things done.

The most basic criteria were proposed by me, and agreed upon by members. The hard criteria were decided by members, and still are.

I certainly wasn't seeing this in the case of the Standing Groups. You said I'm strongly in favor of this. But I'll take the results of a vote into my decision, which really doesn't suggest that members would really have had the final say.

What would happen if, suddenly, a coterie of inane or evil members decided to flip the 16-2 against, and produce a similar "for" that was above 80%? Well, I suspect someone would notice, and an even larger group of "againsts" could be mobilized.

Again, you don't run a social system by preventing theoretical possibility. It's how you kill one.

I think you have too much faith in members of society :)

Seriously, if you're talking about merging two groups (the dormancy issue is different), wouldn't it be simpler and fairer to simply make it a LT Groups feature allowing two groups to merge, as long as each group's creators and their members (and not random non-member "voters") are mutually agreeable?

I would voluntarily merge my group with one that was very similar to mine (and there isn't one, so far), as long as both creators get credit on the new page, and can agree on an image, description, etc.

214: I believe certain maintainers thought it was going to be "majority rules" period. This is not necessarily the case.

*rushes to the grocery store to see if they have jellyfish in stock to add to Thursday's dinner*

wouldn't it be simpler and fairer to simply make it a LT Groups feature allowing two groups to merge, as long as each group's creators and their members (and not random non-member "voters") are mutually agreeable?

No. The problem with the vast majority of dormant groups is that their creators and members aren't necessarily around. Restricting combination to groups with active creators/members would sort of defeat the whole purpose.

No. The problem with the vast majority of dormant groups is that their creators and members aren't necessarily around. Restricting combination to groups with active creators/members would sort of defeat the whole purpose.

Note that I said that dormancy was a different issue.

It should be a simple thing to give long-dormant groups a LT-determined countdown to automatic archiving. Won't that make space?

Giving groups a nice new, VOLUNTARY component to facilitate merging makes sense to me. Will dormant groups take advantage of it? Probably not, and they'd be archived out of the picture eventually anyway. I'm certain a merging feature would be used enough by ACTIVE groups looking to increase their membership to make it worthwhile.

#191: timspalding "Maybe I should have said it was 80% or 90%, so there wasn't any doubt. Maybe I should have said "no combination when there are 5 no votes" to remove even theoretical fear."

Maybe you should have. You almost did, back in #81: timspalding "I agree, though, that yes needs a large majority for it to happen. I'd say 80% minimum.", in reply to #79: jimroberts "if a rather small number of LT members object to a merger, that should kill it".

I think there are a few related problems here that make the group list longer.
1. Active Duplicate Groups that want to merge (examples: Kindley Book Club and Amazon's Kindle)
2. Dormant Groups (duplicate or not)
3. Groups with no messages and/or members (with the exception of The Diogenes Club)
4. Spam Groups
5. Private Groups (move to different section, have a p for private?)

>220 gwendetenebre: Yes, you said dormancy was a whole other issue, but it was actually the main motivation behind this whole combining thing (Tim says: I'm not abandoning the goal. The health of the site requires that it not be 4/5 dormant groups.). I don't think the number of truly active groups that would get combined would be significant at all, especially if it were up to the group owner. If the group owner thought that his group fit within another group, why did he create it in the first place?

>222 infiniteletters: And of course, the main problem is deciding when a group is "dormant" and when it's just small and quiet.

16 to 2 against, in favor of my group NOT combining, but what if the 263 members of the other group all voted "yes"?

What if we all suddenly catch on fire?

What if someone develops a script to automatically vote in every poll just for grins in opposing votes at the rate of 20 votes per option but alternating sides every 20 minutes just to mess with everyone's head?

What if the 200 members can't be bothered to see the advantage of voting the other way because it turns out that group isn't key to world domination?

For the love of Pete!

When did LibraryThing become the low-rent version of WallStreet? And when did the default for group combination become hostile takeover? And what of the groups that would like to combine despite the fact that they're mistaken in not viewing it as an inherent act of hosility? Those suckers - thinking they might see it as something good...

And when did the default for group combination become hostile takeover?

I wonder, just musing out loud, whether it's just that Groups are a more personal thing that work combination. I mean, OK, I avoid work pages where I know things are going to be combined in that I don't agree with, like NCEs, because I get a bit OCD about seeing things in when I'm on the out side of the argument, but I can quite easily just avoid those pages. I guess maybe groups are more of an emotive issue because there's an element of personal space there that's not there when you talk about works.

I guess maybe groups are more of an emotive issue because there's an element of personal space there that's not there when you talk about works.

True. If I created the group, if it has a specific intention, if I put some degree of work into its creation, if I try to maintain it as best I can and encourage civil interaction, then you bet I consider it "mine"! Otherwise, LT staff should be creating and maintaining the groups.The issue is indeed a personal one

Why should a stranger, with no affiliation to my group (and maybe not to the other one, either), who might not even have the barest glimmering of an understanding as to what my group is about, be allowed to decide for me if my group should be "put up for a vote" to merge with another group? Uh uh.

I wasn't suggesting that the 263 members of the other group were out to get mine (as a matter of fact, I like the other group - it's just that they are not us). You don't have to take things down to such a literal level. I was pointing out that here is one way in which there is a potential for abuse. You don't have to consider EVERY possibility of abuse, but you also don't just open up something like this to all users and hope they'll work things out amongst themselves. As I have said, merging is a good idea (auto archiving dormant groups is an even better idea) but letting it loose as was done earlier was simply not a good idea. I think Tim showed great sense in at least turning it off for now to re-evaluate it. It can,and I'm sure it will be done, but the voting method was not going to work without making a lot of people unhappy.

Just wondering, in this little pocket of conversation here, how many of us have created a group?

I have created two groups.

One is pretty much dormant, the other is relatively active. I would love to merge the dormant one into a larger group. I would just like to be the one to initiate that.

Like 228, I, too, would like to see the site cleaner and the groups organized better.

Tim said: Maybe I'll keep the combination notices up for dormant groups, and turn them into "You might also enjoy" notices.

Recommendations for groups. I like this idea.

I think the big thing that the combination of the groups created was a long list of misinterpretation of groups, making people suggest that groups be combined when they were created as separate groups for a reason.

Taking the ten groups that all cover the twilight books and making them one group - Good sense.

Taking a group that only wants to discuss a certain imprint's fiction novels and combining it with the discussion of all fiction - Not good sense.

I think the basic guidelines for combining groups aren't related to Dormant groups versus non dormant groups. Subject and tags should definitely relate. If someone created five groups discussing hunting, we need to look at each group. If one is specific to bow hunting, it shouldn't be combined with the one dedicated to rifle hunting, or the generic hunting group that will discuss all forms. Suggesting being part of both groups makes sense, but not reducing them to one group.

But this is just how I think about it when combining groups, which is not the same as combining books.

I've created a half-dozen groups.

One is extremely active, a couple are mildly so (threads often consist of just one or two posts because they are really news of events or question-and-answer, not discussions), and one has quite a few older threads and one thread that does a lot of the heavy lifting).

Another couple of groups haven't had activity in quite a while, but they're rather specialized (Pop-ups and Abecedaria) and there are no other similar groups, so I'd be very upset if anyone tried to delete them.

231> How does it do any good to have a group to discuss a certain imprint's fiction novels which is very low volume when there's a more popular group where the issue is also on topic? If I wanted to post something about that imprint I know that I'd put it in the more popular group since it would probably get more responses there.

232> one possibility is that the group is too high traffic. If there was a group to discuss the Septimus Heap books, and it was combined into a big "boy wizards" group it would be hard to spot the relevant threads among the Harry Potter discussions

I too am sad this effort has been closed down because I think it could have generated some useful data. Archiving dormant groups certainly makes sense, but may just lead to even more redundancy in the future.

I've never created a group so I don't know exactly how the process works, but perhaps when a person tries to set up a group, the system could run an automatic search through existing group titles and descriptions for keywords that match the title and description of the about to be created group? Then the user could get a message that says something like "You are attempting to create a group entitled Agatha Christie Mysteries. The groups below already contain the terms "Agatha Christie" in their titles or descriptions; please review these groups and consider joining them rather than starting a new group dedicated to this topic."

I also think allowing users to easily flag spam groups could quickly and easily cut down on the clutter in the new groups list.

Why should a stranger, with no affiliation to my group (and maybe not to the other one, either), who might not even have the barest glimmering of an understanding as to what my group is about, be allowed to decide for me if my group should be "put up for a vote" to merge with another group? Uh uh....

Just wondering, in this little pocket of conversation here, how many of us have created a group?

I have created a group, with 80 members and 1000+ messages. I'm a lot more concerned about having it suddenly frozen forever because no one talked for a month than about the possible appearance of a poll to suggest combining it. It's not a duplicate group, so the poll would fail. An automated process based on activity is a lot more likely to have negative effects than a poll that doesn't even do anything without specific action on Tim's part.

One of the problems I noticed is that there were dormant groups that really could have done with being merged into a larger group, but no appropriate larger group existed - such as in the Licking Valley example back over in #112, which would fit nicely under Ohio or Ohio History but no such group exists. There is an Appalachia group, but Licking Valley =/= Appalachia.

I like niche topics, but I'd also like to see these topics get actual conversations, which means making them visible, which this proposal would have helped with.

An automated process based on activity is a lot more likely to have negative effects than a poll that doesn't even do anything without specific action on Tim's part.

But...you don't trust Tim.

>238 MerryMary: Yeah, but I trust an automated process even less.

Sorry. My mind's made up on this. In order to prevent any feathers from being ruffled or complaints lodged, nothing will be combined. But dormant groups will be made much less easy to find, while still existing and being possible to find. This way no member can get upset because of any other member's vote, or the theoretical, fanciful fear of how they might vote, and you can just blame the algorithm for hiding what nobody was looking at anyway.

240: If 2 groups request to be combined?

> 240

dormant groups will be made much less easy to find

How are you defining "dormant"?

Hopefully the same way he does dormant threads?

> 243

Which is?

I think a year with no posts? It might be longer...

I took a look at the Groups page and noticed that the newest groups include several that are clearly spam (e.g., Chiropractor Manhattan, Filing Products, Web Link Directory). These will still be deleted, right?

>240 timspalding: I think you're too worried about ruffling people's feathers. One person shouldn't have a veto over a whole feature, especially when it already exists. We saw this before in the case of the Currently Reading checkboxes--there was dispute over one part of the feature, so rather than making the changes that would keep people happy, you scrapped the whole thing. This is a waste of time.

With the group combining, there were only a couple of changes that needed to be made:
1) Notifying group members, either via a thread or via a yellow announcement box.
2) Restricting the focus to dormant, duplicative groups (and although you say this was up to the members, this includes not setting an example by suggesting combination of very active, different groups).

Whatever you do, there are going to be some complaints. You can't just avoid doing anything significant to prevent that.

>235 ForeignCircus:

I do think that group creation needs to force the search for existing groups a little more in order to prevent duplication. The Search Groups box in the right column is not obvious to someone filling out the form in the center of the page. I would bet that most people don't bother to search first.

I think that the Create a Group link should first lead to a page that says something like "First check to see if there is an existing group on your topic". Only *after* the creator has run a search should they be able to create a group.

I agree with Zoe.

Tim, I beg to you to make group combining possible. It's the only way to clean the mess that Talk is for a bit.

I don't think most people have anything against combining, just the way it was introduced.

guidlines for groups being combined need to be worked out.
notification of the new feature needs to be given to everyone, explaining it and giving the guidlines.
and notification of proposed combinations needs to be given to the members of the groups in question so they may have a say.

I also like the idea of volutary combination for groups that want to merge. and to keep duplacate, dormant groups from building up as they have, an easy way for group creators to de-create their group if they realize there's already one out there.

I don't think there can be set-in-stone guidelines for combinations. Or at least, it would take longer to work those out than to do the combinations.

I agree that people need to be notified about the combinations, and 2 active groups should definitely be allowed to merge if people agree.

252 the guidlines don't have to be very detailed. something like, they must cover the same topic, one must be dormant (and a definition for dormant like: have had no posts in 90 days, or all talk topics are dormant). having at least general guidlines will keep the level of combination suggestions from vastly outnumbering the number of combinations that should actually be made.

Why is there still discussion of combination? Remember, "My mind's made up on this. ... nothing will be combined".

When Tim makes a bad decision in a fit of pique, I expect him to stick to it.

254: We've changed his mind before *steeples fingers*. Besides, did you see all the hyperbole in the rest of that post?

It's probably fruitless to ask Tim to impose any sort of rules. He really seems to want the rules to come from the community and not himself.

yes, but rules can come from the community and still be in place before the feature goes into active mode.

what if we offer him cookies?

An offer of a new hard drive might be appropriate at this time.

or....?

I think I know where this is going though ;)

Too bad combining groups is gone.

I was going to propose Hogwarts Express merge with Green Dragon.

0:)

;)

I don't think it's really gone. See this discussion that Tim started yesterday.

#262 -- Sounds great! I'll tell my group, you tell your group, and I'm sure there won't be a single dissenting voice.

0:-)

;-)

indeed.

>#262: you mean The Green Dragon would merge with Hogwarts Express. We have cake.

So do we and roombas, SPITTING COBRAS, blue footed boobies, smurfs, water buffalo, PGGB's and mojitos! and lots more;-)

Not to forget the Cheese!

yeah. snakes. That should help sell it.

Did someone say cobras?? I'm in! (Seriously. Had a fasination with them as a kid)

As I recall the origin of the Spitting Cobras in the GD, they were found by a snake (or general wildlife) wrangler in South Africa. I'm sorry I can't recall her username. But as long as she's around, no worries!

That would be Taliska. And it's SPITTING COBRAS. One of only two cases where it's perfectly appropriate (and sensible) to use all-caps.

#270 -- The other case, of course, is if you happen to notice a falling PIANO!!! on any Hogwarts Express thread. See, we're really not so different.

ever tried to play a jaunty tune on a spitting cobra?

#272

They make an interesting noise if you squeeze them suddenly.