Continuation of the little discussion started by @AncientBoi ’s status.
The Groups feature wasn’t my favorite from the beginning, and what I silently feared when it started became true: A lot of groups hardly getting any members and/or posts spawned and clutter this custom subforum section.
For reference: This older thread goes into a similar direction.
Of course, like @Chary stated in above profile discussion, the Groups feature is theoretically a valuable addition with a lot of pro-arguments. Sadly in practice it isn’t working so good for the most.
================
My suggestion on this: It would be nice if the staff would remove (mostly or fully) empty and completely inactive groups (which never saw any significant activity), from time to time. Just for the sake of simplicity and cleanness.
Also: there shouldn’t be multiple groups for the very same topic allowed. What happened the last few days isn’t funny, but spammy in my opinion.
================
The Groups feature wasn’t my favorite from the beginning, and what I silently feared when it started became true: A lot of groups hardly getting any members and/or posts spawned and clutter this custom subforum section.
For reference: This older thread goes into a similar direction.
Of course, like @Chary stated in above profile discussion, the Groups feature is theoretically a valuable addition with a lot of pro-arguments. Sadly in practice it isn’t working so good for the most.
================
My suggestion on this: It would be nice if the staff would remove (mostly or fully) empty and completely inactive groups (which never saw any significant activity), from time to time. Just for the sake of simplicity and cleanness.
Also: there shouldn’t be multiple groups for the very same topic allowed. What happened the last few days isn’t funny, but spammy in my opinion.
The Groups feature is also an additional argument against anybody suggesting a new official category/section.
Any suggestion in this direction usually gets disregarded without consideration, but instead with the rhetoric question:
“Does the suggested topic ‘X’ have too many threads in off-topic section? No? See: No need for a new official category!” which is now accompanied by “Simply create a group.” (which for 99% will fail to get any attention – opposed to a new official category).
There have been interesting suggestions in the past that could(!) have lead to a category being added to GBAtemp, maybe sparking interest, which some off-topic threads or a user group wouldn’t achieve on their own. This is why this rhetoric question isn't convincing as a general reply on any "How about a section for X?" suggestion.
Any suggestion in this direction usually gets disregarded without consideration, but instead with the rhetoric question:
“Does the suggested topic ‘X’ have too many threads in off-topic section? No? See: No need for a new official category!” which is now accompanied by “Simply create a group.” (which for 99% will fail to get any attention – opposed to a new official category).
There have been interesting suggestions in the past that could(!) have lead to a category being added to GBAtemp, maybe sparking interest, which some off-topic threads or a user group wouldn’t achieve on their own. This is why this rhetoric question isn't convincing as a general reply on any "How about a section for X?" suggestion.
Last edited by KleinesSinchen,
we have half a dozen active members!!!
