test split

[Mushxx]

I also suggest members not to compare IPB with Facebook. They are for a totally different market, with 2 totally different uses.

Facebook is a social networking site, thus groups are a must. IP.Board is not a social networking package, thus groups are not necessary.

I don't entirely agree with that. We should compare with Facebook, Twitter, VB and every other form of communication out there if we are to get ahead of these and create something much better which will draw people in to post. In fact IPB should be looking at ways to draw these social network posters back to forums. Implementing ways to post on these social networking sites from IPB IMO only pushes them to use them more and defeats the object of trying to keep our members on our boards.

The only difference between sites like Facebook and Twitter and IPB is the fact we are specialized in our particular field, our content is easier to be looked up and read like an archive, whereas FB and Twitter move so fast something which was posted is very hard to find for future reading.

One huge beneficial aspect Facebook has are the games and social activities which are done as groups, I would like to see this kind of thing officially implemented into IPB. It has been proven if an arcade is added for example, members will spend much more time on the forums especially if they are competing against other members. If they can also create and manage their own groups within a forum for whatever reason, be it their favourite music genre or to arrange online games together we would see an increase in the time spent on the forum leading to them using other areas more. If you look at Twitter, the speed the user is able to post messages up is the key here and this is why my members love the IPShoutbox. I would also like to see something like Facebook's wall where all content is updated as it happens and they can comment on them from there, I don't particularly like how the view new content is split up depending on application and would rather this altogether in one part.

So IPB should be looking at as many ways as possible to keep our members active and happy on OUR boards not sending them to other social networks, but these social network site also hold a very important key to the future of forums.

[.Ian]

I also suggest members not to compare IPB with Facebook. They are for a totally different market, with 2 totally different uses.

Facebook is a social networking site, thus groups are a must. IP.Board is not a social networking package, thus groups are not necessary.

This should be kept to a modification/application.

Why are groups not necessary? Why should members not compare IPB with facebook?

What makes a site based on IPS software - the forums, articles, blogs, photos, intergration with twiter, facebook, RSS feeds, a store or something else?

The truth is that members do compare facebook or twitter with forums - as far as they are concerned both are simply places to chat with others.

[.Ian]

What I find strange is that people say, we do not want groups, yet IPB already has groups built in.

All that is missing is the ability for members to add themselves to these groups, and for people to lead some groups to add/remove people from them

[Jυra]

Making IPB into a lackluster version of some other specific site won't help.

[AlexJ]

What I find strange is that people say, we do not want groups, yet IPB already has groups built in.

All that is missing is the ability for members to add themselves to these groups, and for people to lead some groups to add/remove people from them

+1. Well said.

[Jinkler]

What I find strange is that people say, we do not want groups, yet IPB already has groups built in.

All that is missing is the ability for members to add themselves to these groups, and for people to lead some groups to add/remove people from them

That is EXACTLY it. The function is already within IPB, it just needs to be tweaked to allow members to join and change them.

+1

[iozay]

What I find strange is that people say, we do not want groups, yet IPB already has groups built in.

All that is missing is the ability for members to add themselves to these groups, and for people to lead some groups to add/remove people from them

That is pretty much a feature I miss. It wouldn't be a huge difference as the fundumentials are already there, However it will defenitly be useful.

[Tanax]

What I find strange is that people say, we do not want groups, yet IPB already has groups built in.

All that is missing is the ability for members to add themselves to these groups, and for people to lead some groups to add/remove people from them

Yes yes, but please make the social groups separate from usergroups. :unsure:

[Robulosity2]

It's funny how you see the social groups in vB as the "general" way of doing social groups.

Just because vB had a bad implementation of this feature doesn't mean that it's a bad feature. Think of groups in Facebook, it is widely used and often very interesting. I can definitely see this feature as a very good one, IPS just needs to think it through to get the maximal implementation.

And just because you want a feature, does not mean it's needed as a core function of the product..

[Tanax]

And just because you want a feature, does not mean it's needed as a core function of the product..

I never said I wanted this feature. I don't even own a license!
I merely said that it is a great feature and that people need to get away from the extremely poor job that vBulletin did with their social groups. The idea behind it is great but their implementation was not.

To be honest though, I don't see how it wouldn't benefit people. If they don't want it they only have to care about ONE single setting and that would be the global on/off setting. It won't "clog" up the system with lots of settings people who don't want the feature will have to go through.

It's funny how you get all defensive for no apparent reason. I just stated the facts. Let's hear your facts that would make this system a bad idea :)

[Derek M.]

Social groups do little or nothing for community building. It is niche.

It depends how you go about it, and how it's integrated into the system. Essentially, it's like a way to have a community clusters, with a group that essentially functions like a single form but with more 'apparent' media sharing and exclusive permission set. The social groups for vB would be an example of a niche/gimmick really. So, if IP ever did the feature, it would need to have purpose, even if not matching everyone's need (like many of the products, i.e. Nexus is good for that that want to do commerce).

I never said I wanted this feature. I don't even own a license!

I merely said that it is a great feature and that people need to get away from the extremely poor job that vBulletin did with their social groups. The idea behind it is great but their implementation was not.

To be honest though, I don't see how it wouldn't benefit people. If they don't want it they only have to care about ONE single setting and that would be the global on/off setting. It won't "clog" up the system with lots of settings people who don't want the feature will have to go through.

It's funny how you get all defensive for no apparent reason. I just stated the facts. Let's hear your facts that would make this system a bad idea :)

The issue is development time. While people can turn off the feature if they want to, it's whether the feature is worth building in the first place. You can complain competition, but at the same time, I hardly see any vBulletin sites that really use the Groups feature. I mean, sure there are sites that have groups made and some posts in them, but how many of them last longer than a week?

So, should they do that or use their development time on other features that have a greater appeal/functionality? While I would like to see a groups feature, it depends on what they can do that would make it effective. Just doing the standard stuff might not be enough.

[Tanax]

The issue is development time. While people can turn off the feature if they want to, it's whether the feature is worth building in the first place. You can complain competition, but at the same time, I hardly see any vBulletin sites that really use the Groups feature. I mean, sure there are sites that have groups made and some posts in them, but how many of them last longer than a week?

So, should they do that or use their development time on other features that have a greater appeal/functionality? While I would like to see a groups feature, it depends on what they can do that would make it effective. Just doing the standard stuff might not be enough.

Of course, as with all features they would have to decide if it's worth the time to develop.
But again you're comparing with vBulletin's poor job of implementation. They took an idea, half-developed it and did a lousy job of slamming it into the interface. That's why there hardly are any sites out there with group activity. If they would've done it right we might have had a totally different scenario but we can't know now for sure - thus we can't say that "hardly any vB site uses groups, is it then worth implementing?".

Another funny fact is that groups don't neccessarily NEED much "use" or fill any functionality. Note that I said NECCESSARILY as in it COULD but DON'T NEED TO. If you look at Groups at Facebook there are tons of groups that are just "there". People join them for fun but don't really "use" them. Like all of those "We who ..." or "The awkward silence that occurs when ....". Perhaps those 2 examples are Pages but nontheless, there are groups with a similar "non-purpose" functionality so perhaps IPS don't need a whole lot of things for the groups here. They just need GOOD IMPLEMENTATION so that for instance it doesn't get tucked away and forgotten. Have "newly created groups" and feeds like "Charles joined the group Charles Fanclub".

That's the key. If a feature is there but isn't "advertised"(I know it's a bad word but I'll use it in lack of another term), it won't be used unless it's a setting or something that users just "know" is there.

But like I said, there are also groups that might want to fill a function, like "Extreme Modders" who might even want to share stuff, be able to upload things to their "group page"(perhaps via IP.Download) and collaborate with creating mods. There are tons of applications for groups that needs to be considered. As long as they remember implementation and layout.

[Derek M.]

Of course, as with all features they would have to decide if it's worth the time to develop.

But again you're comparing with vBulletin's poor job of implementation. They took an idea, half-developed it and did a lousy job of slamming it into the interface. That's why there hardly are any sites out there with group activity. If they would've done it right we might have had a totally different scenario but we can't know now for sure - thus we can't say that "hardly any vB site uses groups, is it then worth implementing?".

Another funny fact is that groups don't neccessarily NEED much "use" or fill any functionality. Note that I said NECCESSARILY as in it COULD but DON'T NEED TO. If you look at Groups at Facebook there are tons of groups that are just "there". People join them for fun but don't really "use" them. Like all of those "We who ..." or "The awkward silence that occurs when ....". Perhaps those 2 examples are Pages but nontheless, there are groups with a similar "non-purpose" functionality so perhaps IPS don't need a whole lot of things for the groups here. They just need GOOD IMPLEMENTATION so that for instance it doesn't get tucked away and forgotten. Have "newly created groups" and feeds like "Charles joined the group Charles Fanclub".

That's the key. If a feature is there but isn't "advertised"(I know it's a bad word but I'll use it in lack of another term), it won't be used unless it's a setting or something that users just "know" is there.

But like I said, there are also groups that might want to fill a function, like "Extreme Modders" who might even want to share stuff, be able to upload things to their "group page"(perhaps via IP.Download) and collaborate with creating mods. There are tons of applications for groups that needs to be considered. As long as they remember implementation and layout.

I'm comparing vBulletin cause they're the only (or one of the few) that have such a feature. For vBulletin, it's no more than a portal for each forum and lacks exposure as well as less features. There's plenty of potential in a group-like function, but it's all about development time and priorities.

I love the groups aspect, don't get me wrong, I have my own web project in the making the centers fully around it. So it's nothing against the feature, it's more if they can find the right type of features that give it real appeal. I'd love to see them be able to do that, but the more functionality they give it, the longer and more development time is needed. That's when you gotta keep in mind the real use of groups and compare it to the other functionality that's on the list. Does the other stuff have more priority/use?

Anyways, to help towards the idea of social groups, I'll at least say their appeal. Social Groups let you essentially flag you agree to a certain theme of the group (interest, funny, etc). You can then find others with similar interests, creating a potential way to get to know more members aside from opinions they post in the forums. That is, groups are similar to individual forums in a sense, but more of a subscriber-unique atmosphere and more categorized (as well as the portal-like environment that allows members to share media, etc). So, groups can be an awesome thing, just depends on the two factors mentioned before.

[DaveNYC]

Without rehashing things, I thought these two posts provided useful detail about features that would make social groups a beneficial part of IP.Board:

[url="

[url="

[Jinkler]

Social groups would be a massive boon for my site, as my users are really only interested the model of car they own, so by being able to tune the site layout to each specific group I create would be, for me, the holy grail.

I might actually get this custom made by someone to suit my specific needs.

[911Connected]

I read a few of these posts and here is my two cents. Social Group functionality, such as that in PHPBB and other forums out there, is a core component to a strong community. For example, my site is driver by a community of First Responders (Police/Sheriff, Fire, EMTs, etc). So the community as a whole, is there to grow. Taking it a step further, what about workplace/assignment specific conversation? This is when social groups are key! Persons working/assigned to one unit of assignment, don't want others working another assignment to see conversations specific to that unit. Above and beyond that, We have Baker-to-Vegas, a Challenge Cup (Run) Relay. Teams would love to use the forum; however, don't want other teams to know their training days, the times they are running, etc; but they do want to represent their team!

So, all in all, Social Groups, in respect to my forum/community, it furthers communication and pride of users in the community. Plus, when users go from one assignment to another, they are granted access to the forum. As such, it's perceived as "exclusive". This encourages ones drive to become a part of that community. My forum goes beyond the web realm, because we have events and issues that we all share in common and frequently see each other. So this is why I support "Social Groups" as they are a key component in life off the web as well as on.

[Ohio Riders]

They actually get used a bit on my site. I like them.

I wouldn't mind getting rid of Social Groups, but I'd need some where to migrate that content too (social group threads). For instance, if IPB isn't going to include social groups, maybe make it an option to import them as threads to a new forum and the images to the gallery. That way all isn't lost.

[amkr]

I too would like to see social groups!

[Michael R]

I too find myself competing more and more with sites like Facebook and Ning. Most of my members belong to one or more regional and national groups and many of them are now starting their own "local" groups on these site. I've provided them with specific discussion forums for their groups, but I am loosing them to Facebook and Ning because of ease of use issues. The most common comment I hear is that my site is fun and informative, but it's too hard to use. Most of my members are in their late 50s early 60s. I've done everything to help from written step-by-step instructions to video tutorials to helping folks over the phone. Mostly they struggle with posting and uploading images -- all things that are really simple to do on these other sites.

[Jυra]

I don't understand how adding another layer of complexity that is social groups will help them learn how to make topics or reply.

[Pfeiffer]

I too find myself competing more and more with sites like Facebook and Ning. Most of my members belong to one or more regional and national groups and many of them are now starting their own "local" groups on these site. I've provided them with specific discussion forums for their groups, but I am loosing them to Facebook and Ning because of ease of use issues. The most common comment I hear is that my site is fun and informative, but it's too hard to use. Most of my members are in their late 50s early 60s. I've done everything to help from written step-by-step instructions to video tutorials to helping folks over the phone. Mostly they struggle with posting and uploading images -- all things that are really simple to do on these other sites.

I think the point is which feature will work for which target group. I think that IPB is a great product going in the right direction. And Social Groups is another good feature.
BUT, I am always talking for simplicity and the option to turn features on/off.

So like when your user group is aged 50/60+, then there are maybe lots of "Share this" links, Like, ratings, etc, that are too confusing and clutter the picture for them. Facebook looks easier for them, but it doesn't really meet the requirement of community software.
If you could choose to disable things individually to suit your target users, then you can decide what and when they feel comfortable with something. Build the features (bells and whistles) around the community.

This is not only the case with new users. Sometimes a forum caters for a closed group of professionals, that do not need features like Friends, Share this, etc. They just want to get there and discuss whatever their closed community discusses.

One thing I and others have pointed to, is the Post editor - with all the options for Polls, Attachments, etc. They are used so rarely, so I think they should all be 'hidden' below everything as a "Post Options" button. This way, new users always see a simple straightforward posting screen. The advanced user will know where to find these options if and when they need them.

Anyways, I am sure that this is what IPS looking at, when reading the company blogs for the direction for IPB 3.2, Gallery 4, etc.

[CallieJo]

Social Groups can be used in so many ways, it's impossible to list them all. Many admins can find use for them, while other admins see no need for them. However, they can be very powerful and useful if created right.

Because vBulletin was brought up, I will add the reason why they fail so badly in VB is simply because they feel like a poorly added addition. VB's social groups lack too many features and don't have good integration with the overall feel of the community. The whole feel of VB's social groups just feels like you are adding "hidden" small forums with no real "social group" features.

If you want to take a look at what others have created for social groups besides the obvious big social networks, take a look at sites based on scripts like socialengine.net, jomsocial.com, buddypress.org, boonex.com, and others that make better use of social groups in a community setting.

For better examples of how social groups are being used, other than with VB or in Facebook:
http://www.jomsocial.com/overview/showcase.html for JomSocial. Even http://www.linux.com/community and http://people.joomla.org/ use JomSocial.
http://buddypress.org/showcase/ for BuddyPress.
http://www.socialengine.net/examples/showcase for SocialEngine.
http://www.boonex.com/ for Dolphin.
Search google on how others are using sites like Ning, and others. There are hosted solutions and white label solutions.

JomSocial alone has privacy options, ownership options, photos, video, events, wall post and discussion, etc.

Some of them integrate google maps for their events on their own social group calendar. Some have options for purchasing graphic "Gifts" via a points system or real money. Many have an abundance of already available addons created by others for a fee or for free. The list is endless.

Social Groups IMHO are a benefit to a community that wants to expand it's offerings as a community and keep people on their site longer rather than forking off into Facebook or others. But, that's just my "personal" opinion. I have been actively looking into many scripts for deeper community feel options. Stands the reason why I don't utilize all my VB and IPB licenses. Some of us need more than what is currently here, sadly. I love IPB, but I loved VB for many many years. As the internet progresses, so do the needs of community admins and their members.

[Chris Ticehurst]

I guess there's no bridge between IPB and SocialEngine?

[Luke]

I think a lot of communities would have a lot of uses with Social Groups. Gaming communities could use them for clans, other communities could use it as fan clubs, etc...

What I am against is using user groups as the "social groups". It makes user management a nightmare (doesn't vB do it this way?). I don't want users to be able to create user groups. I would be for social groups if it was separate.

[Wolfie]

I think one of the problems is in calling it a 'social' group type function. Really, it could be used for any sort of grouping scenario, but putting a label on it limits the concept.

I once mentioned this in another topic about the same function. It could be used by businesses for work groups. Let's say that a business is using IPB as it's central communication hub. Instead of having to juggle member settings constantly to add/remove someone from a task or 'committee', the groups add-on could be used. Person who is the 'boss' could make the group and then those who are a part of the task could join the group. Of course in this scenario, a feature to allow the group owner to 'draft' someone into the group might be useful. Anyway, those who are supposed to work on a particular project could all be part of that group and they would see the content that they need to see while they wouldn't see what other groups/committees are working on.

Let's look at neighborhood watches. People who are members of that neighborhood join up and they see what's related to their area. In that case, membership might be closed to people who aren't in that community.

Someone mentioned about cars. Same could be said for sports fans. Go to a football site (for example) and if you're a fan of the thieves (Steelers) you join that group. Jeff Gordon fan? You join a group for that on a racecar board.

Let's look at television. On a site about different shows, someone could join the shows that they are fans of. Then they see content that pertains to them.

Software developers within a company could use it the same way.

The potential uses are vast, but it is important to steer away from thinking of it as a 'social' function and try to think in the idea of groups, teams, communities, etc.

With the above mentions, if it's set so that people only see the groups they are members of, then it could be a very useful way of customizing your membership. For a business, if someone is a member of say three work groups, then in a particular category they would see the forum(s) for those three groups. So they would see some content/forums that everyone can see and then they would see some content that would be only for them based on the work groups they are a member of.

In some ways, that might be seen as overkill, using IPB for helping a business to organize tasks. But considering that IPB is geared towards discussions, the tasks part would be the small part of the job while allowing team members a powerful way to communicate with one another.


I do believe that it's best as a separate/add-on type function and not pre-installed/integrated with IPB. I can see it being something that some sites would never use, just like Tracker, but for those that would use it, they could easily add it.