Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: Opinions on Merging Groups
  • Subject: Opinions on Merging Groups
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Opinions on Merging Groups
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I was reading the thread about inactive groups spreading all over the 7th column, and one member brought up the idea on merging multiple groups of similar interests together to make one, big happy, efficient group. Personally, I thought that this was a great idea. Merging multiple inactive groups or multiple active groups would definitely help the 7th column become a better place. I'm curious on the thoughts of the public.

EDIT: Credit for this idea goes to TechOne7. And you can also find the thread mentioned above here.

[Edited on 8/22/2005]

  • 08.22.2005 5:15 PM PDT

"It's like a cake filled with pies." -Pete "Mango" Parsons

Seventh Column Contests

but how r u gona do that??

  • 08.22.2005 5:39 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Youre right, there is no specific way to merge a group at this time, but it may be possible in the future. For the sake of the argument, lets say that it is possible to merge two groups with the push of a button. Thoughts?

  • 08.22.2005 5:45 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Well you'll have a couple big, inactive group conglomerates. Usually groups become inactive because of the founder losing interest, or being apathetic. Mashing a couple inactive groups together wouldn't make much of a difference, IMO.

But of course, the whole thing would be unofficial, all hinging on an agreement between the involved founders. If two founders agreed to start a new group and invite their active members into it, nobody is stopping them. It may even encourage them to become more active, but I kinda doubt it.

  • 08.22.2005 5:49 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Good points you make Vella, but say you have several, upwards 5 for example, fairly small, and fairly active groups. They each have about 20-30 members and a good majority of them are active. These groups are all based on the same idea, lets say, Halo 3 for instance. You combine these groups, now having 150+ members in one group which is now extremely active and extremely popular. Just an example of how this idea might help, IMO.

  • 08.22.2005 5:54 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Ranger7722
Good points you make Vella, but say you have several, upwards 5 for example, fairly small, and fairly active groups. They each have about 20-30 members and a good majority of them are active. These groups are all based on the same idea, lets say, Halo 3 for instance. You combine these groups, now having 150+ members in one group which is now extremely active and extremely popular. Just an example of how this idea might help, IMO.


Yeah, it could work wonders for active groups, but I'm just suggesting that most inactive group founders probably won't care enough to make the effort. Actually, maybe I should go write up a "How To: Merge" for Cfounders. It could work well for active groups.

Damn the 25 group limit.

  • 08.22.2005 5:57 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

kool, my idea got its own post. lol.

Ok, i posted that because it worked for me and my group. Ask ODST. He was a part of it. My "unnamed" group needed to boost activity and the such. So I did a search for every possiblity of a name that resembled our groups purpose. I also looked on the forums and in sigs for otehr such groups. I found many. Lots with about 3-20 members. I went for the groups with over 20, the ones under were flat out dead, and wouldnt bring in much business. I asked some of the groups if they wanted to merge. "share" members in a way. some said yes, some no. Some we did share and some merged fully. I figured at least we get most the people into one group. As ours was the largest and most active at the time I had everyone join it. less people to move. The groups are still there and a lot of the members havent quit. But most all post in our group now. in fact a few of our regulars are from this merge.

In the long run and as a whole it would be a great thing to somehow incorporate this. Im not quite sure how at the moment, but something will come up. It would delete a lot of the 7th column mess. Also adding a group list would help to. After the merging would be best of course. Otherwise there would be 19 groups with Halo 3 in the title. Making everyone split up again.

yes some inactive groups wouldnt do. The leader may have lost interest as said above. but whats to say the members havent? they may just be wanting to go to a new group on the same subject but more active. Making a "master" group would be best. Find to most suitable leader and then give all the others who join leadership as well. Mebe not "full control" but a special rank. They could form a council. have about the same powers as the true leader and such. If the leader of a group is unwilling and has lost interest, take the members and leave him/her. There are so many possibilites and I think it would do more good than harm.

-Tech

  • 08.22.2005 6:09 PM PDT

It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial. And it is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves the flag, whose coffin is draped in the flag that allows the protester to burn the flag.Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC

one problem would be that the respected mods of each group would all want the same powers. And that would lead to civil war and flaming.

  • 08.22.2005 6:19 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

As for a master group, that sounds like a good idea that I have, but thats another story for another thread.


Posted by: EAGLES5
one problem would be that the respected mods of each group would all want the same powers. And that would lead to civil war and flaming.


As for this, you may be right. The old moderators and security guards or whatever you might have would want their powers. I dont currently have any solutions for this, but I will keep my mind open.

  • 08.22.2005 6:24 PM PDT

"It's like a cake filled with pies." -Pete "Mango" Parsons

Seventh Column Contests

yup TechOne7 is right.

  • 08.22.2005 6:25 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

In my opinion, merging groups isn't a good idea.

* First, you have to decide which group to merge with, or if you want to create a completely new group and have both groups merge there. That takes some time.

* Since each group would most-likely have separate rules, you would have to discuss on which rules should stay and which rules would go.

* You have to take the staff members from each group into the merged group. That would equal into a lot of forum ninjas, which may seem unnecessary.

* The two founders of the group will often times have different opinions over particular issues. Thus, that could result in some flame wars (notice how I said the word "could").

Now, the only benefit I would see if that you will probably have more active members. But if both your groups are big, how are you going to get everyone in a group to merge in another group? Personally, I think it's better to just stick to your own group.

[Edited on 8/22/2005]

  • 08.22.2005 6:36 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Also rather than merging, you could have a larger group "pick up" a smaller group to help with a quick boost in activity or something like that. Just another idea.

  • 08.22.2005 6:38 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

For Mods getting same powers you work out a deal. It depends on if a new group is made or if everyone joins a current one. For now we will say the latter.

The mods in the current group would most likely get the same ranks, as they have been doing it in that group. A deal must be struck thou. if that group has 200 people and 20 mods, thats extreme. so you would restart, and no one gets modship at first...or something.

If theres like 3 mods for 200 people, thats a little small. So more would need to be made mod's. you could say, "ok, we make 1 of each other groups moderators a mod in this group" or something along those lines. Keep it as fair as possble.

Its all about the founders or leaders. A deal of fairness needs to be made between all the groups. Its not to difficult, just takes some talking. I would recommend AIM for this.

  • 08.22.2005 6:40 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I don't think my moderators would like that very much, but it definitely would do good since you wouldn't have to merge groups in the first place. Having it as an option would be very helpful.

  • 08.22.2005 7:25 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Bad Idea, all around. Been there, done that.

  • 08.22.2005 7:40 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: BlackEye319
Now, the only benefit I would see if that you will probably have more active members. But if both your groups are big, how are you going to get everyone in a group to merge in another group? Personally, I think it's better to just stick to your own group.


Well, that's kind of the benefit. If you ask active members to move to the new group, you effectively purge inactive members. So if you do it properly (Which would require a great deal of work), it could be very beneficial. I don't really see any problem with it, if both founders consent, know what they're doing and realize the potential consequences.

  • 08.22.2005 7:53 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

It would probably just be better to leave the group and instruct all the members to join another group. The two founders and several staff members would have to work together to keep up the site though.

  • 08.22.2005 7:55 PM PDT

Discipline is my Sword,
Faith is my Shield,
Do not leap blindly into uncertainty,
And you may live to reap the rewards.

"The Important Thing Is To Never Stop Questioning,"

Never just leave a group incative like that. If you are just going to let it die out then Delete it. Kick everyone out and then Leave the group, it will then be deleted. There is no use leaving a dead group to take up space on Bungie.net. And you can just leave and hope everyone else does, cause they most likely wont. delete your group if you are leaving it inactive. There is no use in leaving it to take up space, 50% of the groups out there now are lie this, and its usless. Persoannly I think Achronos needs to go on a deleting speel. Go check out some groups, if they have not been active in the past few months, delete em', there just taking up space.

  • 08.22.2005 9:08 PM PDT

It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial. And it is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves the flag, whose coffin is draped in the flag that allows the protester to burn the flag.Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC

This idea has another flaw.

The groups are dead already. If members never post what makes u think they will care to join or even be around to join a new group?

Most of the time inactive members in a group are also inactive on bungie, so they wont even be around to join this super group u speak of.

So the gruop would consist of the small active staff, but really the normal members would all be new which in my mind eliminates the point of getting members active.

  • 08.22.2005 9:26 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I have done this. With mulitple groups. And that didnt happen. I didnt bother with the dead groups. I went for the ones that had even a little actiivty. It worked fine. you PMed the old members. Telling them just to join the new group. Once there, then tell them to leave the last one. Like i said, It does more good than harm, it takes a bit of work but not s much as some think. And it works. We got over 100 new members from it. And about 80 of them posted more than once.

  • 08.22.2005 9:37 PM PDT

"It's like a cake filled with pies." -Pete "Mango" Parsons

Seventh Column Contests

when the group that i was in merged with TechOne7 group it worked out fine. eventhough not all of the members really merged but most of them did.

  • 08.23.2005 1:56 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Right, and all of the members who joined the new group are obviously active and willing to make an effort to stay in the group, so it turns out to be a win-win situation.

  • 08.23.2005 2:15 PM PDT

"It's like a cake filled with pies." -Pete "Mango" Parsons

Seventh Column Contests

yeah its actually not a bad idea, try it ur self and see how it works.

  • 08.23.2005 2:22 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Well I'm currently running an extremely successful group of about 200 members, so as of now I have no incentive to merge with someone else. However, I could pick up some smaller active groups to help out, that might be a good idea.

  • 08.23.2005 2:26 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

It has worked fine for me with about 5 different groups. the active members came. the inactive didnt of course. It added to the activness and member count. If the leader wishes to he can then delete his group. Kicking all members and leaving. Or like some do, keep the group but have nothing happen in it.

Generalized groups work great for this. because it opens up tons of possibilities. It would be great to have just 1000 gorups or something all about a certain topic. Instead of 50 groups on the same topic with 10,000's of groups. 1 group per topic. uniformity. It would really clean eveyrthing up.

  • 08.23.2005 3:06 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2