locked Proposal: limit number of groups you can create


 

Hi All,

I'm thinking of capping the number of groups a person can create (*not* the number of subgroups, just groups). There are a few people who've created 20-60 groups each, and I think at a certain point it's counterproductive and leads to a lower quality experience for everyone.

I'm thinking of capping it at 10 groups per account. Thoughts?

Thanks,
Mark


Ro
 

yes, with of course, the ability to petition you privately if more is needed for some special reason.  


Ro

with Silk gazing over the fence, and Sally, Handy, Feliz &  Police Kitty patrolling in the Great Beyond.





From: beta@groups.io <beta@groups.io> on behalf of Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io>
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 1:06 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: [beta] Proposal: limit number of groups you can create
 
Hi All,

I'm thinking of capping the number of groups a person can create (*not* the number of subgroups, just groups). There are a few people who've created 20-60 groups each, and I think at a certain point it's counterproductive and leads to a lower quality experience for everyone.

I'm thinking of capping it at 10 groups per account. Thoughts?

Thanks,
Mark


 

Mark,

I'm thinking of capping the number of groups a person can create
(*not* the number of subgroups, just groups). There are a few people
who've created 20-60 groups each, and I think at a certain point it's
counterproductive and leads to a lower quality experience for
everyone.
I think that's a weird idea.

I don't see that there is necessarily a connection between the quality of the experience, whatever that means, and the number of groups created by a particular account. That is, groups exist to serve a wide variety of purposes - I think imposing an external measure of the "quality" of the group members' experience necessarily imposes a parochial view of what the groups are for.

Too, some individuals may have a talent for recruiting good group managers. That person may be a serial group-creator, but they may not take an active role in most of those groups, and those groups might well thrive under the guidance of recruited moderators and co-owners.

There may be problem cases where people are creating groups "on spec" - something like cyber-squatting on the group names, or otherwise creating them for purposes that may not benefit others. But I don't think this is an effective way to control that, even if you've decided that it is a problem.

I'm thinking of capping it at 10 groups per account. Thoughts?
Speaking as someone who's over half-way towards that limit, I can easily imagine bumping into it. Of course, I also imagine obvious and easy ways to circumvent it - unless you intend to run background checks on each account holder.

Shal
https://groups.io/g/Group_Help
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


System Seeds
 

Please don't limit to the number of groups of people can create, it isn't fair for those who don't have friends apart from those online, but discriminate against those who only have groups as a network, please don't cap them?

[I trimmed a footer advertising a number of groups. -Mark]


Maria
 

Perhaps the option to create more than 10 groups could be offered with the premium plan? This might be useful in cases when people are creating multiple separate groups for business reasons.

Or if the issue is more about quality control, and what happens is that people create groups on a whim and these in turn don't thrive, perhaps after a certain amount of time where there is no activity, groups.io can look in to archiving those groups? Or removing them from the directory?

If instead someone creates and manages 40 groups that are thriving, well managed, etc, and this brings users to groups.io, that could only be a good thing.

But if you have cases where people set up tons of groups on a whim, and then those don't take off, have few members,  no activity, etc.. that probably weighs things down.

I think it's good for the service to have limits so you can ensure quality, but you don't want to stop a great group manager from bringing people to the service either.

Maybe if you place a limit of ten with the ability to either upgrade via the premium plan or via a reputation system?

Maria


Steph Mathews <smathews@...>
 

Mark, you have it set to where you approve groups.  New groups.  Right?  Well, my suggestion would be if they are creating too many groups that you notice for their account, tell them sorry, but you cannot create any more.  Otherwise, then I think 10 is fair enough.  Steph

Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 3:06 PM
Subject: [beta] Proposal: limit number of groups you can create

Hi All,

I'm thinking of capping the number of groups a person can create (*not* the number of subgroups, just groups). There are a few people who've created 20-60 groups each, and I think at a certain point it's counterproductive and leads to a lower quality experience for everyone.

I'm thinking of capping it at 10 groups per account. Thoughts?

Thanks,
Mark


 

I agree with Shal that this could inconvenience some legitimate users, but the bad guys would find a way around it.

I think you should just have a policy against group creation abuse. If someone is creating groups not for legitimate purposes, but just to cause trouble or prevent someone else from owning a group with the same name, there should be a process to report that and clean it up. Do you have plans for what you'll do when a trademark owner comes along with a takedown order?

JohnF


 

Full disclosure: I have created two groups with the same name as mine, one without the underscores (which I would love to get rid of someday by changing our group name, although that's looking less and less likely), and one with dashes instead of underscores. I did this with the express purpose of keeping a handle on the name. I would not want there to be other groups with the nearly exact same name as ours (minute the underscores, or with dashes instead), mostly to avoid confusion, and/or to make sure people know that they are joining our group, which has developed an excellent reputation, rather than an "imposter."  Several people have now mentioned name-squatting as abuse. Is this considered abuse? I don't see it that way, but if it is considered such, I will delete those groups. I have called them "synonym groups."
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

p.s. I also have no objection the 10-group limit, because I would never need that many myself. However, I agree with Shal that the limit seems odd, without understanding what problem it would be attempting to solve.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

I don't like the idea of forcing groups to be active and removing them if they are not, though. I have one group created many months ago for the purpose of recruiting animal yahoo groups to Groups.io. It took off for a little while, then sank, and then I repurposed it for moderators of *current* animals groups on Groups.io. There are not a lot of those now, but as more and more of the animal and pet groups come on board with Groups.io, I intend to try to build it up again. I wouldn't like it to be deleted in between, if possible.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


Nightowl >8#
 

Mark Fletcher wrote:>>I'm thinking of capping the number of groups a person can create (*not* the number of subgroups, just groups). There are a few people who've created 20-60 groups each, and I think at a certain point it's counterproductive and leads to a lower quality experience for everyone. I'm thinking of capping it at 10 groups per account. Thoughts?<<

I'm with Shal in that I don't think it's a good idea to limit the number of groups created. I think it's more a case by case basis, something to examine as the case arises.

For example, how many people have created 20+ groups? and 60+ groups? And what seems to be the purpose of them.

And can you explain the sentence: "I think at a certain point it's counterproductive and leads to a lower quality experience for everyone. "

What seems counterproductive, and what causes a lower quality experience for everyone. Can you give us some examples?

Either way, 10 is really low by group standards...I'd at least up it to 20-25 depending on use case.

I need more information though, to actually weigh on this better.

Brenda


David P. Dillard
 

I kind of doubt that Mark is very worried about a trademark takedown letter. Outside of spammers who create Groups.IO lists or post to the lists of others, Group owners on discussion groups do not run their groups to sell merchandise, not just here but on Yahoo Groups, Google Groups, Listserv and so forth. Moreover, protecting a name with a trademark cannot be done for common words, it is usually a different spelling of such a word or a made up word or person's name. Since many group owners
use words and phrases that describe the theme or desired content of the groups they own, these names cannot be trademarked as far as I know.

Intellectual Property Trademark and Patent Resources

http://guides.temple.edu/copyright-plagiarism


.

.




Sincerely,
David Dillard
Temple University
(215) 204 - 4584
jwne@temple.edu

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016, JohnF via Groups.io wrote:

I agree with Shal that this could inconvenience some legitimate users, but the bad guys would find a way around it.

I think you should just have a policy against group creation abuse. If someone is creating groups not for legitimate purposes, but just to cause trouble or prevent someone else from owning a group with the same name, there should be a process to report that and clean it up. Do you have plans for what you'll do when a trademark owner comes along with a takedown order?

JohnF


 

What do we mean about "person"? I guess it means "account" or "email". But, if there isn't any limit to get a new e-mail by free mail servers? Then how can we put a logically limit to it?


 

That's true. I have 7 groups under one email address/account, the one I use for cat stuff, and 3 under another one, which I use for neighborhood stuff. (I have 3-4 other accounts that I use as test members but have not created any groups.) So I'd already be at the 10-group limit if you count all accounts together.

J

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 10:52 PM, Sener Yelkenci via Groups.io <seneryelkenci@...> wrote:
What do we mean about "person"? I guess it means "account" or "email". But, if there isn't any limit to get a new e-mail by free mail servers? Then how can we put a logically limit to it?



--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


Nightowl >8#
 

I agree with Catlady, that I don't want groups removed or closed because of inactivity. My groups are slow running, and used when needed. For the most part, they can be active at times and then less active at others.

In addition, I'm still waiting for things to crystalize in terms of procedures to invite more people to my Hollow Tree group.

My Sanctuary group is low traffic, but we discuss the Yahoo Crusade on it when needed. I'm trying to get Owlperch to become a subgroup of that, but so far that hasn't happened (I know you're busy, Mark).

So inactivity should not be the reason a group is disallowed or closed.

Brenda


Maria
 

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 06:20 pm, J_Catlady wrote:
I don't like the idea of forcing groups to be active and removing them if they are not, though. I

To clarify, i agree with you. What I meant was that if a group is created, never used, or created barely used, has 3 members ( example) and hasn't had any activity in the past 4 years... I mean that at some point there should be limits place because those groups are likely abandoned or defunct and shouldn't bog the system down. 

Maria


 

On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 07:14 am, HR Tech wrote:
hasn't had any activity in the past 4 years

Agreed. It's a matter of where to draw the line. I would want it drawn fairly liberally. Four years is good. ;)
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

OTOH, I hope there could be an exception made for "same name groups" - i.e., groups with the same name as a very active one, but with dashes instead of underscores, etc. I don't understand the prior comment about name squatting to prevent someone else from starting a group with the same name being a sort of abuse. I think it's natural not to want that. Would Mark like it if someone started a group called _beta_ or -beta-, or would Shal like it if someone created Group_Managers_Forum?

These same-name groups (created by the same person as the creator of the original, "legitimate" group) would presumably remain inactive forever, and I wouldn't want them to be deleted. OTOH, I would want to complain if I noticed that someone ELSE created a synonym ("imposter") group to mine, and ask that IT be removed.

(If I'm wrong about this, and people think it's perfectly valid to "ape" existing, successful groups, I will remove mine. But I don't see it that way.)

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

"I would want to complain if I noticed that someone ELSE created a synonym ("imposter") group to mine, and ask that IT be removed."

Thinking about this more (in my still uncaffeinated state): perhaps the system could ignore dashes and underscores when determining whether a group name has "already been taken." That would prevent people from starting groups of essentially the same name, without the original group's creator having to create them all and squat on them, or having to complain when an imposter group is started. 

J

On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 8:31 AM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

OTOH, I hope there could be an exception made for "same name groups" - i.e., groups with the same name as a very active one, but with dashes instead of underscores, etc. I don't understand the prior comment about name squatting to prevent someone else from starting a group with the same name being a sort of abuse. I think it's natural not to want that. Would Mark like it if someone started a group called _beta_ or -beta-, or would Shal like it if someone created Group_Managers_Forum?

These same-name groups (created by the same person as the creator of the original, "legitimate" group) would presumably remain inactive forever, and I wouldn't want them to be deleted. OTOH, I would want to complain if I noticed that someone ELSE created a synonym ("imposter") group to mine, and ask that IT be removed.

(If I'm wrong about this, and people think it's perfectly valid to "ape" existing, successful groups, I will remove mine. But I don't see it that way.)

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu



--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


Maria
 

J

Actually I think it's very important for a system that provides an identical interface/ identical digests etc to all groups to have a way to avoid duplication/confusion of groups, whether unintentional or done maliciously. There has to be a better way then creating empty, inactive groups as placeholders.

Perhaps something akin to domain registration but within groups.io.where you can register a name but not "host" it in a group.

Perhaps something that can be offered at the premium level so that for a relatively minor cost one can ensure that their group isn't vulnerable to other groups creating extremely similar names or names containing your business name, etc.

Maria