February 19, 2008 by Ciaran Laval
Posted in
May 16th 2007 a Jira proposal was posted asking for group limits to be raised. Here we are on February 19th/20th and the proposal with 1005 votes is still unassigned.
When oh when are LL going to do something about this? The answer is quite clearly not to merely raise group limits, there needs to be some new thinking on this. However something that would greatly alleviate this issue would be if LL would introduce a new type of group, a social group. There would be no land permissions for these groups, they are merely forms of communication and collaboration.
Today I left yet another group I didn't want to leave to be able to perform business functions within SL. Yet again I'm having to leave a group that I have a shared interest in because LL won't address this glaring issue.
I've heard explanations as to why the limit is there. They simply don't wash anymore. This is a feature that is going to seriously impede SL's ability to compete with other platforms out there. There has been talk of linking your SL profile to facebook and yet, that's simply avoiding the issue that SL should be able to be its own facebook.
I know some people don't like social networking, but there's more to this than merely posting messages and funny pictures on someone's page. SL is a social and business platform and yet I've had to leave a land dealer's group that covers SL business issues. This group doesn't need land permissions.
I currently have flexibility for about two or three short term groups, that's it. I've had to leave groups ranging from my local football team to Discworld because of these absurd limits. Indeed there is no point whatsoever in me joining any long term social groups because the time will come when I need to leave. I simply can't get my teeth into anything group related here.
Get an alt some tell me, but that is again avoiding the issue. I shouldn't need to use an alt to work and collaborate with others. Whereas there will never be enough groups for some, the fact that my contacts here are stifled by these group limits disappoints me. There are umpteen projects that could be better managed and proposals that could be given more teeth if LL would simply address the need for communications within their own platform. I shouldn't have to go to facebook or anywhere else to be able to do this.
Ziggy figaro is in favour of a better group system, plenty of people quite clearly are and yet this issue sits there, lonely, unassigned, nobody taking an interest. This is a fundamental flaw in SL. This not only hampers social networking, it hampers business interests too.
The time is now LL, this issue is long overdue. Stop hampering me and more importantly stop hampering yourselves because this will be an issue that will slap you hard around the face one day if you don't get off your backsides and address it.
- Ciaran Laval's blog
- Add new comment
- 763 reads
You think you've got
You think you've got trouble? I have about 100 mainland renters (probably less to be honest) each one in their own unique group. Each group has at least 2 of my alts in to avoid the group being deleted and the land being lost if the renter quits. Each group needs at least one premium member to donate the tier for the land. Add it all up and you've got a huge unmanageable clusterfuck of alts and groups and paperwork. I spend 90% of my time logged into SL on 2 or 3 alts at once just trying to cope with it all.
Of course what I want is exactly what the Lindens say they can't provide: a ton of groups each with their own special land permissions. Nonetheless, it really doesn't seem like an insurmountable problem it just requires the whole group system to be completely re-imagined and redesigned from the ground up.
One extra small thing that would really help me would be if there were some way to allow people to create roles and assign permissions to them without giving that person also the ability to sell my land. I guess it's a dream but it really seems like a no-brainer to me.
Elan
Part of me agrees.
The other part of me doesn't think it is important (and yes, I will tell you why):
There are many ways for groups to communicate. One can create a list of contacts in a separate folder and use that to message a list of people, but it is far from perfect. The best method, in my opinion, is quite simply the internet. It is rare for people from a really large group to be online at the same time, and group IM does not go to email (thankfully) when you are offline.
There are messageboards, blogs and even Wikis that can connect groups. I think that a lot of the 'problems' of Second Life actually have non-Second Life solutions. But some people seem intent making Second Life everything to everyone.
The latter path typically leads to a rather frustrating thing called failure.
Second Life Consultant
Wait.... ummm...
... the author wants their cake and to eat it, too??? LOL.
(Addressed to original post author - and others in their camp)
There are huge technical issues with raising the group limit - and it's due to not foreseeing how these groups would become so important back when they designed the system - and not keeping the architecture as open as it perhaps could have been.
I'm not bashing you, but I am saying this: get over it. Become adaptable. Just like real life, find a work-around.
Now, I'm not saying this is the way to go, but - here is my work-around for this problem (and I do agree it' is a problem. But so are drunk drivers - what can you really do beyond screaming about it?)
For major 'collaboration' work - I use a blog. Now, I don't know which host "Your Second Place" uses, and I am familiar with wordpress... it doesn't offer the feature that is offered by the new Google version of Blogger.
That feature is this: You can set-up a blog, add your personal compatriots as authors (or even editors) and LOCK the blog so only they can even read it. Very, very handy and useful for long term projects that require a lot of collaboration and discussion. It's a lot like the old BBS days. The benefit is that it's easy to use, and can be accessed to participate and read even out-of-world.
I know, I know - the 'in-world' issue. My work around there is this: I create subfolders in my Calling Cards folder - put the calling cards of those 'group' members in to a 'group folder'. When I want to start a conversation with that 'group' - right click the folder and choose to start a conference. (of course, with FOUR different viewers out that all seem to work differently now - this may or may not work. So, you can simply select all the cards in the folder and do the right-click that way.)
As for my actual groups - I only keep the groups that are required (land and rezzing management and such.)
I know - not perfect answers. I'd like to see more groups available to each of us, too. The difference to me is this: I realize the TECHNICAL issues with doing this - it is way too easy for anyone to simpley say "well create a new system, or overhaul this one, or... or..."
Please grow up and get real. Gasoline (petrol) is far too expensive. So why don't they fix the problem - create a new system so my vehicle will run on water?!?!? Come-on, it can't be *that* difficult, right?
Please, just stop whining about it. yes, it has now gotten to the point that any complaint about attachment points and group numbers have become whining.
No offense intended, but really - articles and complaints about group limits are really starting to sound shrill. Honestly.
Just my opinion, your mileage may vary, of course.
Kind regards,
Ari Blackthorne
Oh dear Ari
Oh Ari, I whine because there should be a better solution and I'm not calling for more permissions groups, I'm in the "Let's have social groups" category, where I can just use my groups for messaging and they therefore don't need to be included within permissions that cause the technical problems.
I am getting very real, groups are important, social networking is important, business opportunities are important and this platform is being hampered by these limits. Your comparison with gasoline is wide of the mark because I have been working with groups and permissions in my job for years and my Active directory users can happily have more than 25 groups, so can facebook, myspace, livejournal, you see the common denominator here?
SL? It doesn't do groups or messaging well and it saddens me and I don't believe for one minute that this issue is insurmountable, for a start they've previously increased group limits. The impossible is possible tonight.
The point that those who settle for what we have miss is, this issue will grow and grow until some inferior platform like Kaneva starts delivering the numbers because people can join lots of groups and by that stage, it could well be that LL have missed the bell curve and I don't want that to happen.
I take your points...
And by no means do I agree with Ari, though there are some points in there as well.
But if we hit pause for a second and just churn a few ideas around - don't you think SL could play better with web platforms so that the limitations of Second Life 'social networking' are limited more by the users than the structure?
Second Life Consultant
Agreed
Maybe those of us in the "we want more groups" camp need to broaden our horizons yes, which is kind of where Ari was coming from.
WoW has The Armoury, which caused a furore but I guess that's died down by now.
Maybe if LL allowed us to use messaging on the internet and sign up to groups via our web profiles so we could see events and messages for groups we were interested in, then maybe the answers lie there. There is talk of links to facebook so LL are looking at this but I'd rather it was my inworld profile that was participating rather than my facebook profile.
Then there are inworld utilities like subscribe-o-matic, surely LL can utilise something like that.
Well...
The client is open source. One could put something like GAIM in there... though I don't really see that as 'value added'. I have IM service(s) already and I have no using 2 or more applications at the same time.
And frankly, if they let that web browser in the client be used for something more than profiles and inworld help, a lot could be done with some AJAX and a shoehorn. :-)
Second Life Consultant
I agree with Nobody (that's
I agree with Nobody (that's so true!). We're trying to make the Groups function do too much and the solution may not be to add more slots but to move some of its functionality to a better system. The land ownership and management systems deserve their own sub-system instead of being shoehorned into Groups. Those of us that pay tier to own mainland or private islands should have access to a better system for managing that land - for example options to manage rentals and prim allowances should be BUILT-IN to the system. Access options could still be linked to Groups or maybe even have new Tenant Groups which run in parallel to Groups? We could allow multiple Groups to have access to land etc...
Some better system for managing small businesses would be good too - so you could setup employer/employee relationships, manage company land etc...