Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE 禄

鉁达笍馃挰 Creating your own Groups on SW 馃摜

Poll - Total Votes: 357
User-Group Creation is Important to have
User-Group Creation is Not Important to have
I'm Neutral on the idea of User-Group Creation
Show Results
You can only vote on one answer.
Hello all!
[b]We would like to receive feedback on your ideas and preferences for SimilarWorlds offering users the ability to [u]create their own Groups[/u]. (Sub-Groups)[/b]

[u]Please submit suggestions / ideas for[/u]:

鈥 The [b]General Process[/b] for users to create their own Groups on SW.

鈥 The [b]Minimum Requirements[/b] for users to have the privilege of creating their own Groups (and how many groups per user).

鈥 [b]What Abilities[/b] should a Group owner/creator have? Should they have certain "Moderation Power" within their created group (and what exactly?)

鈥 [b]How Necessary[/b] is it for SW users to be able to create their own groups (especially since we already have "Post Collections").


[u]On-Topic comments[/u] here will be taken as [u]Feedback[/u] for user-created/owned Groups, but doesn't guarantee that every or most ideas will be integrated.

SW Staff do already have some ideas in mind for how this could and should be done, but we would still like to hear feedback from users, to better shape our ideas to best serve our user-base.

Off-Topic comments will be ignored (as usual). Kindly do not post off-topic comments on any posts (Admin or otherwise).
One can eventually lose the ability to interact on certain posts/groups, if they continuously break Code of Conduct.

Kind regards!
[i]-The SW Team[/i]
AndrewAdmin Pinned Comment
Thanks for the useful feedback given towards this feature idea so far! 馃憤

[i]Q:[/i] [u]When might this feature become available?[/u]

[i]A:[/i] [b]We would like to try to release this by/before the end of this 2022 year, if possible.

Otherwise, if we cannot, highly likely within the month of January 2023.[/b]


鈥 We are taking note of your suggestions, and will be developing this feature in a way that should be suitable, fair, and useful to most users.

鈥 There will be some minimum requirements for users to be qualified for group creation.
We expect that most very active and long-time users, should have the ability to create groups.

鈥 There will be a limit as to how many groups can be created by a qualifying user.
VIP Membership will likely allow for a higher group creation limit.

鈥 A user can lose the ability to create groups in the future, if they abuse this privilege, by creating inappropriate groups.

鈥 There may likely be some minimum Moderation abilities for Group Owners, to start;
such as, the ability to Remove posts that are Inappropriate or Irrelevant to be placed in that particular group.
These moderation abilities will only extend as far as within the group the user owns.

鈥 User created groups will actually be considered as "Sub-Groups", at least comparatively to the current Admin consolidated Groups.

鈥 We may re-word our entire Categorization Hierarchy structure, in a way that may be more accurate and relevant at this time:

[u]Current[/u] --> [u][b]New (potentially)[/b][/u]
Topic --> [b]Category[/b]
Category --> [b]Topic[/b]
Group --> [b]Forum[/b]
Sub-Group --> [b]Group[/b]
Carissimi61-69, F
What about the groups we imported from EP? They are still here in our groups, but there is no ability to post from that group. It鈥檚 read only, with no 鈥渘ew post鈥 button. @Andrew
@Carissimi I concur.

Hi everyone 馃殌

I just want to let you know that we're still actively working on this.

Unfortunately it's taking longer than we expected, as this is requiring a lot of changes to SW under the hood,
but, being able to create your own groups is something that will definitely happen!

Stay tuned! 馃憤馃徏
@Nuno Yea, no worries if it's taking a while. And thanks for the update, I will still be patiently waiting 馃檪

@SilkenMist I'm really looking forward to all the Potato groups that will be sprouting @PotatoGaga 馃
@twiigss we definitely need more of those. 馃榿
Hi everyone 馃馃徏馃馃徏
Good news!!!

[b][u][c=BF0000]Users can now create Groups on Similar Worlds!![/c][/u][/b]

Only accounts older than 6 months can create new groups. There is also a minimum account reputation, to qualify.

To create a new Group, find any "level 3 forum" (like, for example, [b]People & Family > Pets > [c=BF0000]Dogs[/c][/b]), and then press the link "[u]Associated Groups[/u]".
If you are eligible to create a new group, you will find this button:

[b]Please note:[/b]
- Non-VIP users can create up to 3 groups, currently.
- VIP users can create up to 10 groups, currently.
- Groups that are offensive, hateful, discriminative, revolting or disgusting, or containing name-calling or personal attacks are not allowed.
- Creating an inappropriate Group will risk you losing the ability to create new Groups in the future.

As this feature is still in BETA mode, some moderation features are still under development, which we will be releasing in the coming days/weeks.
If you find any issues, please let us know. 馃憤馃徏

Hi all,

There is now a new button to "[u]Create New Group[/u]" (for eligible users) located in the "Topics" page:

(this page can be accessed by selecting "Forums" located in the SW header, and then tap "All Topics")


The Help page has also been updated:

@Nuno oh nice, that'll make it so much easier for people who haven't figured it out yet 馃憣
Carissimi61-69, F
Thank you for making it easier. I probably still won鈥檛 bother because what I really want is the ability to post in my groups that were imported from EP. All that requires is 鈥渘ew post鈥 button on the group, which is not there, so those groups are 鈥渞ead only.鈥 @Nuno
@Andrew I have a few ideas for group creation below:

鈥 The General Process for users to create their own Groups on SW.

So the general process for users to create their own groups on SW would be, say a user makes a post, but there's no group that user feels that their content fits in. Have an option such as, "If your content doesn't closely match a group listed, you can create your own group here" And have a button they can click, "Create Group"

Then the user can type in the name of the group they want to create, and then once the group is created, they can submit their post they want to make.

鈥 The Minimum Requirements for users to have the privilege of creating their own Groups (and how many groups per user)

I think the user should be, maybe a month old at least to have the privilege of creating a group, but it has to be monitored if people just want to abuse it. How many groups per user? I'm gonna say 100, VIP members get 500 groups they can create. (my OCD goes through the roof when I make a post and it doesn't exactly match the group, and I soooo wish I had the ability to make a group, specifically for that post.)

鈥 What Abilities should a Group owner/creator have? Should they have certain "Moderation Power" within their created group (and what exactly?)

A user who creates a group should be allowed to delete that group any time they want to. If the user is seeing content in their group they don't feel is relevant to the group, or if they just don't want any content other than theirs in the group they create, users should have free will to remove any content from their group at any time.

鈥 How Necessary is it for SW users to be able to create their own groups (especially since we already have "Post Collections").

I feel that it is a huge necessity for SW users to be able to create their own groups. As I mentioned above, I have real bad OCD. Sometimes when I make a post, I wish that I could have an option to create a group just for that one post. Or if I have multiple posts that are just random, I would make a random group, or if I'm at work just making random posts, I'd make a 'Random At Work' group. Or have a Computer group, but maybe things a bit more specific, Computers>Software>DOS Games or Computers>Hardware>GPU's, I just like having that ability to do post specific groups, vs. having groups already made. I feel like I'm so restricted sometimes when I go to post because at work I don't have the time to search for a closest match group.

Thanks for hearing the feedback.
Thanks for the well structured feedback! 馃憤
It seems silly to me that the group creator should be able to control who posts in the group and or what.馃@twiigss
DeWayfarer61-69, M
@twiigss 50 groups is far too many. 10 groups at best can be easily moderated. Reddit has that problem currently. Too many groups under one moderator.

VIP it really shouldn't be more than ten either. The reasoning still applies. You can't moderate more than ten groups and be of any good at moderation.

FYI Legally a moderator doesn't moderate more than two cases at a time! Conflict of interest are often the reason.

Imagine what a moderator of both Atheist group and the Christian group would be like.
I would like that. But I do hope that it鈥檚 monitored, so groups promoting hatred, or extreme fetishes (for example) aren鈥檛 allowed to remain.
@abracadoo22 [quote] You have a group on drugs and dope-smoking in your profile, now I assume it's there not because you are ani-drugs? [/quote]

Actually, the group is [b] Marijuana (Weed, Cannabis)[/b] and boy, you really had to search to find it. Cannabis is legal in my state and I occasionally buy edibles. But If you post in a group at all, even against the subject, you may find it among your "forums".

And if you鈥檙e comparing cannabis to extreme fetishes, you鈥檙e really reaching. You鈥檙e obviously arguing this point because it鈥檚 important to you, but I stand by what I said. You have [b]yet[/b] to explain why folks whose [b]primary interests[/b] are such fetishes don鈥檛 just go to Fetlife, where there鈥檚 no judgment of them ?
[quote]And teens can certainly develop fetishes.[/quote]

Why are we sexualizing teens in this discussion and even discussing what their fetishes may or may not be?

Either we don鈥檛 have children and teens here on site (and then most of my issues with content go away,) or teens and children are allowed and we have a responsibility to moderate what is here in regards to sexual fetish content, but there is no cake and eat it too. That is my opinion.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Just a few thoughts (off the top of my head):

Minimum requirements should include a minimum length of SW membership... say like a week (or more), maybe be limited to verified members or VIP members or maybe some usage level and not have more than one account.

Group owner/creator should be required to clearly outline rules and purpose of any group being created and have the ability to decline membership to their group. Should be able to appoint associate moderators (maybe up to 2) and they (owner and moderators) should have the ability to remove group members who break rules or go off on tangents.

Groups promoting hatred of any kind/variety, violence, extreme fetishes, pedophelia of any type, etc., should not be allowed and all groups should be monitored to some degree by SW admin to preclude these type of groups.
@Ontheroad yes this 鈽濓笍
@Ontheroad [quote]Group owner/creator should be required to clearly outline rules and purpose of any group being created and have the ability to decline membership to their group. Should be able to appoint associate moderators (maybe up to 2) and they (owner and moderators) should have the ability to remove group members who break rules or go off on tangents.

Groups promoting hatred of any kind/variety, violence, extreme fetishes, pedophelia of any type, etc., should not be allowed and all groups should be monitored to some degree by SW admin to preclude these type of groups.

This is all logical and correct thinking.
Muthafukajones46-50, M
Group creation should be subject to approval.

Hate/racist/profane groups
Are among those which should not be permitted
@SW-User Well for sure it's filled with bad and cruel people, predators, if that's what you mean? ... Monsters. Duplicitous people....Etc

Yes, I tend to want to see things with rose coloured spectacles,
and then some azzhat just smacks me back to their reality, their level.
[u]I have to remember that people treat others, as they are and from the place they are at; it's always personal. [/u]
Unless you are Data from Star Trek :)

Some people are sociopaths
and some people get off by hurting others
and some people are just in a sht mood, take it out on others
and leave the collateral damage, as if it's not their doing.

And so on.
Muthafukajones46-50, M
@LunadelobosIAMTHEDRAGON I think that possible groups should be evaluated by the admin and then possible feedback sent to the creator鈥 for example

I like cats

But we don鈥檛 need

I really like cats
I really really like cats
I love cats a lot

You get the idea.
@Muthafukajones nope, I only read geek ....
AuRevoir36-40, M
You can even add it as a VIP option... Like you get to create up to x amount of extra groups... compared to free members

Start making VIP membership start having some extra value to it...

Maybe also gives a use for the tokens as well... 2k tokens to make a group.. idk...

But yes, group creation was always super important I think..
Gangstress41-45, F
I understand that, but I don't get how you mean by dictating? is that even a thing on here? I didn't realise VIPS are moderators on this site?
DeWayfarer61-69, M
@Gangstress currently there are only two moderators they are apart of the paid staff. They have their own MOD tag.

VIPS on Reddit are not all moderators. Just 90% of the moderators happen to be dictators. They use bots to moderate.

I know because I have looked into this. Was considering in becoming a moderator before I learned about the bots.
Gangstress41-45, F
@DeWayfarer ahh i see what you mean now! Sorry i think it threw me when you said dictator!
Yeh youre right about reddit ive noticed this the past few months if honest. Hmm
OldBrit61-69, M
I support users creating groups it was one of the features in ep that was terrific having the ability to just start a group about your interest and seeing others join it and making those connections.

I don't agree with the creator having moderation so you don't get people creating their own fiefdom. I think moderation just be left to the sw moderators across all groups with equal rigour.
@OldBrit I鈥檝e always wanted to be queen. 馃槍
OldBrit61-69, M
@DarkHeaven you need to marry Prince George then. Bit early for him at the moment
@OldBrit That hasn鈥檛 seemed to work to well for most commoners, marrying into British royalty. I think that鈥檚 a hard pass for me. I just meant a little fiefdom here. ha ha.
I鈥檇 probably include this as a VIP Only feature - the potential for this to blow out is enormous.
That's a good idea. I like that. @SW-User
MarineBob56-60, M
As long as tou can keep down the repetitive groups
JohnOinger41-45, M
Now I Can Create A John Olinger Group 馃ぃ
MrBrownstone46-50, M
@JohnOinger What do you of JohnOlinger and would you do him group?
JohnOinger41-45, M
@MrBrownstone awesome & hell yes
Punxi26-30, F
Two words: Elvis Group 馃暫
JohnnySpot56-60, M
Punxi26-30, F
@JohnnySpot Happy E
JohnnySpot56-60, M
@Punxi you can do anything but lay off of them shoes
DeWayfarer61-69, M
I am ambivalent about this. Yet here are some concerns and suggestions.

1. You have a hierarchy. The problem will arise where a group will not fit any hierarchy. How do you resolve this? 馃し馃徎鈥嶁檪锔

Must note I already have some qualms about the current hierarchy. Beliefs does not belong under Spirituality & Religion. Spirituality & Religion belongs under Beliefs.

The Religion group should actually have various religions in them. Not certain aspects of one type of religion. Like there is no categories on religions themselves.

Just like the Abrahamic beliefs have categories, so do the Hindu and Pagan beliefs have categories.

2. If the above is somehow resolved, there needs be some kind of limits and penalties. Not just on the number of groups created. Yet within any given category as well.

I remember well the mess Usenet became. Haaaaa designing ASCII art out of the group hierarchy!

3. Like in 2 I mentioned penalties. There should be many penalties for different actions. Like if you create a group and don't post in it that's basically trolling. More than just a"reputation" penalty should be given.

Then there's the moderation you briefly touched on. Not everyone should be allowed to moderate. Nor should they be miniature dictators like on Reddit.

4. speaking of which, moderators on Reddit are allowed to create their own moderation bots.

Please don't allow this. I beg you to don't allow moderation bots. Reddit is a good example of why bots shouldn't be allowed. It's easy to become a miniature dictator using bots.

5. A different suggestion. Let people create temporary groups. Groups that exist under their own hierarchy and will disappear after non use. The posts can remain in the main hierarchy yet the group itself will disappear after say six months of non use.

If a temporary group should remain active after a year then you the admin can place that group in a proper category related posts and all.
Finally, what I have been waiting for.

I want to have full executive / Admin power in my group. Of course, we have to follow the site's TOS.
And I want my name next to the group, it's a big deal.
I want to add my own avatars and my own little motto or saying, next to the group.
I want to be able to add my own stories and also block anyone who I find is offensive or rude or just inappropriate in the group and or in my PM's from being able to join the group I have created :)
Essentially: When I create a garden I have the right to pull out weeds, okay :)

Obviously if it already exists [b]verbatim[/b], I would not be able to duplicate it.

Thank you very much.

When will we be able to create our groups?
I don't know about group creation...but I sure would like a way to organize the recipes section with type of food, ie: Breakfast dishes, entrees, desserts, casseroles, and so on.
On the surface seems like a great interactive feature of the site, but the flood gates will open and I can see users attempting to make groups for fun, fetish and fights. This site already appears to have a low tolerance for some very poor behaviour and I think this will just escalate the issues already present.
FreestyleArt31-35, M
@Morrigan not a lot of users including Myself are rarely active these days and only see a small group of roleplays.

We'll see how it goes.
@Morrigan I agree..
@Morrigan I can actually totally see that. Creating grounds purely to troll or harass.
KiwiBird36-40, F
Now we can bring back the "I Love @sarabee1995 group. "
sarabee199526-30, F
@KiwiBird Was there a group like that back there?
KiwiBird36-40, F
@sarabee1995 Sorry I meant your story about "crushing nuts" was literal.
sarabee199526-30, F
@KiwiBird Ohhhh .... ummm ... yeah. 馃
deadteddy26-30, F
Honestly I wouldn鈥檛 like to see those creepy groups that we had on EP supporting creepy behaviors like 鈥 I wanna have sex with a skunk鈥 馃あ. I鈥檓 fine with the way things are. If groups were created I think they should be reviewed by a moderator before getting accepted.
Turtlepower36-40, M
I think it's a good idea to have BUT should perhaps be limited to avoid spam and redundancy. If I was running this as a business on some level, I'd make it a VIP only feature. We don't need 15 groups for the same NSFW topic slightly worded differently again.

I don't think it's a good idea to have creators moderate unless your idea is to have private groups too then it's fine, otherwise it invites bullying and headaches.

As for general process, perhaps keep it simple, but for user created groups have a flag a group feature? Because inevitably someone will find a way to create a group based on an illegal activity or fetish.

I think it's a great thing to bring back but it needs a lot of control and may be very time consuming for you all.
DeWayfarer61-69, M
Highly related addition!

I just now had to delete the whole darn post because you folks have lessened the scope of the number of replies I can delete.

I had a INSULT war going on in my own post!

If you're going to limit the moderators ability to moderate in such a way as reputation, then they simply can not moderate at all.

You can't be a moderator and allow groups of users to insult each other!

Was forced to delete the whole darn post which simply will not do in a moderating situation!

Please don't force the issue. The whole post would have to be deleted. Which will upset the original poster who had not a thing to do with the wide spread insults!
DeWayfarer61-69, M
Idea here!

How about the moderator putting a hold on people replying, instead of the moderator deleting. Sort of slowing the insults down.

I wasn't even online when the insults started though.
Well, first of all... why do we need groups at all? Seems like the subject filters don't work to start with... the groups overall, to me, seem pointless. Other than when checking out a new profile and seeing what they're into.

But how about simply having a suggestion box (like the Question Bot) and have someone approve or disapprove of group subjects.

And, I don't think there should be any additional powers to the group creater, as that's just going to create a power struggle and bad feelings that we don't need.
@Viper What if I want to create a group that is like a support network for me when I'm struggling???

I've already had to give up posting about my abuse in English because many of the replies I received weren't helpful at all.

Having the means to get rid of abusive and mean posts in my support group would be a nice option.
MasterLee56-60, M
Maybe we can get our own groups back without being classified improperly or have actual veterans groups for a change.
ninalanyon61-69, T
Groups are only useful if a given post can be in multiple groups. That is: we need hashtags not groups.
DeWayfarer61-69, M
@ninalanyon I agree with the tagging, yet that is not the way it will be used on this site.

They have purposely limited the search feature long ago to avoid stalking others.

Forget about machine learning (ML) except for site specific use. Such as "reputation" factors. ML currently is being used for reputation. Specifically NLU forms of AI.

No way will they allow site users to use any form of AI.

Too easy to stalk others.
ninalanyon61-69, T
@DeWayfarer [quote]They have purposely limited the search feature long ago to avoid stalking others.[/quote]
But then they make all posts public by default which means that Google indexes them which means that most posts can still be searched by a much more powerful search facility than is provided by SW itself. So I'm not convinced that preventing stalking is really the motivation. The other option is to believe that they are too stupid to realize this which seems a bit far fetched to me.

Edit: For instance searching like this:
on Google gives over two thousand hits.
DeWayfarer61-69, M
@ninalanyon [quote]But then they make all posts public by default which means that Google indexes them which means that most posts can still be searched by a much more powerful search facility than is provided by SW itsel[/quote]

Correct! They have no choice there. In fact Google is why they were forced to restructure the groups at all.

I'm talking about on site searches only.
Dainbramadge56-60, M
No moderation power for the creator. Bad, bad, bad idea.
Maybe make creating a group something you can only do after a year or even like someone else already said make it part of the VIP stuff.
It's not horribly "Necessary", so to speak, but I think it makes some users feel more proactive with the site. I think people would be more productive if they could contribute to a group they follow or created their selves.
lonelyandyb36-40, M
I think it is an interesting idea. I think it needs to be moderated to prevent hate groups, child abuse groups,etc from forming and creating dangerous and sick environments. I recommend groups are requested and approved. This could be automated .Also no private groups should exist. This could create private areas where these groups are more dangerous
DeWayfarer61-69, M
@lonelyandyb interestingly enough there was closed private groups for years. Nothing of interest outside of the group really happened. It was an art drawing group that I knew of.

Sadly it just fizzled out.

Private groups were closely monitored I believe.
Yaaaassssss :) thank you andrew AND especially nuno
Ambroseguy8051-55, M
Wow. It only took five years to get to this point. 馃槀

I voted neutral because I鈥檝e somehow managed to make everything work for me here the way things have been. Having said that, we had tons of fun at EP creating our own groups - The Voyeur Hotel being one of them. So鈥. Neutral - but it would be more fun to have the ability.
DearAmbellina211341-45, F
I definitely miss being able to create groups!
I believe the individual (鈥淚鈥) groups is what made the site feel like a community. Removing them took away the feeling of connecting with others on similar experiences.

Funny that you are bringing this back, but it鈥檚 a good idea.
DeWayfarer61-69, M
@Pinkstarburst I don't believe they will ever allow the "I *** ..." group thing ever again! 馃ぃ

That cost them badly with Google search. Google refused to index it. And why they absolutely had to restructure it at all, over so many complaints.

Google speaks, website owners better listen! That includes sites like Twitter, which are far, far bigger than this site ever will be.
Starcrossed41-45, F
Group creation subject to approvals.

Not allowed by new accounts or accounts younger than 6 months.

Only VIPs can create groups.

Approval/Verification process for group creators.
@Starcrossed Only VIP is excessive but no new accounts is wise
I would like a setting for my feed to see all new threads chronologically by default, with no additional sorting and preferencing unless I want it.
Starcrossed41-45, F
Dear SW Staff: Some members are keen on the group inception, being a VIP feature. But hold on just a moment please:
1. I don't want most of the 'benefits' that come with being a VIP, I have exactly zero desire to know who is stalking me. ZERO.
Not a cogent idea in this light.

2. Now, if you want to invest in a secondary kind of VIP2 or VIPG, for new groups only, that's something I can entertain.
I'd want a VIP, with the sole conditions of, creating my own groups and having more blocks and mutes.

3. So, my suggestion also is, for the VIP, can we please choose the features we want, tailor it to our needs? That's an absolutely STELLAR idea.

***ADDENDUM: In principle I am against VIP period.
I don't want to pay and I don't want to loose benefits, etc.
However IF you insist that groups are a VIP feature, this is what I propose. [b]IF[/b]...
(See above)
@HootyTheNightOwl what ever then .... no one is forcing yall to be vip is all il say seem u both hate sw so you can leave if ya want u kn ...........
@Vidaboheme101 Why don't you go back to Reddit with the rest of them???
@HootyTheNightOwl [quote]VIP's do have a choice though... they either use the features offered or they don't.
[/quote] I had no idea it is optional.
Thank you for informing me.
Honestly I have never used the groups or understood their relevance as part of my SW or EP experience for that matter , but I have noted many members were upset when their groups were deleted or consolidated and they would probably enjoy the chance to create their own. You would likely need to limit the number of groups a member can create or have some sort of minimum interest requirement that , if not met by the dead line ( 30 days/ 60 days? etc) would result in the group being deleted. Otherwise you are going to need a lot more space on your drives for all of that data.
I love the idea of having groups as long as we don't forget the lessons of EP and Yahoo! Chat. People do dark things in dark corners.
akindheart61-69, F
We need to be able to add new groups. sometimes the current groups don't cover it. i honestly don't have specifics in mind.
Patientlywaiting46-50, FVIP
Should be limited to VIP membership or those who have been members for more than a year.
I suggest we buy sw coins to create our own group
@PepsiColaP Not all of us have coins to create groups, I don't live here, I have a life
and so nope, not really a viable idea.
@LunadelobosIAMTHEDRAGON stop being poor
I remember birthday cards we could buy and send. Not a group...oh well.
@4meAndyou That was awesome, also, anonymous (not x rated) confessions or little vents.
(obviously following the TOS of SW).

Most EP features were excellent IMO.
FreestyleArt31-35, M
Holy shit. THANK YOU!!!!! I remember creating my groups back in EP XD
I definitely want some way to delete posts created in my group if I want to - regardless of who wrote them.

I've seen shit posting that goes on in other groups and I won't be tolerating it in my own zone. It was bad enough when people were posting in German on my Dutch posts - and no, I don't understand German as well as Dutch.
PotatoGaga31-35, F
I loved this feature back on EP.
@PotatoGaga you could have your own potato group for all your favorite potatoes 馃
gregloa61-69, M
I like the idea but it needs to be simple. The more like EP the better. After all SW basically replaced EP. I know SW isn鈥檛 EP however it鈥檚 where most of its users migrated from because SW was closest to EP. They didn鈥檛 have to. So if you want to make changes model it after EP. Please and thank you.
@gregloa [quote]So if you want to make changes model it after EP. Please and thank you.

Except for the colossal downward spiral and collapse, we don't want that (obviously) .
how are you going to handle topic areas with blocking/user imposed limits? e.g. if I create a group/sub group whatever for something and someone named kasper hauser blocks me or I block him does that topic become unavailable for kasper? if I'm the owner of the group, do I just see a bunch of threads/posts that I can't view?
I would love to make my own groups like on Ep.
This is surprising. You went through all the trouble to clean up and aggregate so many groups. 馃 Give us a week and we've undone that. 馃槍

But you asked for ideas. So I'm thinking that when someone tries to create a group, they should get suggestions of existing groups and also a spelling check.

It would be nice if stuff like this was prevented:
I like cats
I love cats
I Am a cat lover
I Cats are my favourite animals
I I think cats are great

That annoyed me. 馃槄

Honestly I don't believe it is necessary to be able to do this, but for a lot of users it will be welcome, so in that regard it is a nice to have.
Group Consolidation was an important step, which now makes User Created "Sub-Groups" more possible.

[quote] You went through all the trouble to clean up and aggregate so many groups. 馃 Give us a week and we've undone that. 馃槍[/quote]

[u]Topics[/u] > [u]Categories[/u] > [u]Groups[/u] > [b][u]Sub-Groups[/u] (User-created)[/b]

User-created Groups would need to be Sub-Categorized under Existing Parent Groups.

It won't complicate the structure and organization we have worked to build.

Thanks still for your feedback!
@Andrew It is something I really liked about the group consolidation is that there weren't 30+ groups for more or less the same thing anymore (that's a compliment). You're investigating sub-groups now. At least that would have people be more inclined to put it into the proper group, still I hope you have measures to prevent chaos under the parent group and at the same time let people be creative in a constructive way. I think that would make it a great feature.

Your idea of moderation rights feels a bit off to me. Then two people could make the same sub-group (maybe just add a number behind it), just to have those moderation rights. Also it feels like it could become a competition to get your sub-group to be the blooming one where many people posts. If that is the case I'm calling dibs on "I wish more people would post in my group"-sub-group. 馃構

Anyway just thinking out loud. Maybe such a thing wouldn't happen at all.

No problem giving a little feedback.
The main problem with creating your own groups on EP was the many duplicates and misspelled ones, but organizing them underneath the current categories solves that. It won't matter whether there are 2 or 100 similar ones if you can simply follow the category to follow every variation at once.

With that, I see no need for any limitations on amount or requirements, just moderation of hateful ones and other undesirable topics.

Groups added a layer of creativity and I would like to see that freedom back. As long as posts are in the right category, it should be allowed in the "wrong" group if that adds to a joke for example.
@NerdyPotato The problem is that some people are still shit posting in whatever group they can think of because random post = fun times. Most of the time, it's not remotely relevant or part of a joke... just random shit posting.
That is one of the things I miss about experience project. They really had this platform going well and was quite a disappointment when everything got stripped from it. I really appreciate that we have the first amendment right in America and would like to preserve that.
I'm broadly in agreement with @Classified

Post Comment
100,000+ people following
Admin Announcements
Announcements from the Similar Worlds admins.
Associated Groups Forum Members