Groups/thoughts Comments?

Aside from myself how many people are flustrated with the limitations of the number of groups we can have?


I have been thinking about this and looking for solutions. I know this has been discussed a time or two but has anyone else thought of what LL Could do that would help us as a whole.

I mean seriously 15 groups is a piddly number when you have numerous friends and people wanting you to place stuff on thier land but because you have too many groups you cant join.

There has to be some alternatives there has to be some options. I would love to discuss this and even bring it to Linden Lab as a Populace decision as to methods that could help us.

They have given us land tools and group tools that interact but what can we do now with the tools we have to tweak it one more time.

Thoughts discussion and suggestions welcome.

Shadow

would have to agree,

Im not yet 4 months into Second Life and My groups are full.

Obviously for those a couple years old this must really be an issue.

ALSO - we need group Mute/Unmute -- to facilitate having all these groups.

I think they limited the number of groups in the hopes that all groups that were created would actually be "valid" groups. But a lot of people don't mind belonging to fluff groups and such. I personally wish they would make it so there are *no* limits on the amount of groups you can belong to. I think this would help for those who rent stalls and have to join groups, those who join the mentors or instructor groups, those who want to join groups for access to certain locations, etc.

There are just a variety of reasons that groups are made and joined. And I don't think it makes sense to limit the creativity of us residents by putting such a limit on our ability to be in a large number of groups if we desire.

Well that, and when they are full, and you HAVE to join a group, it's hard if it's a friend's group you have to quit in order to join the new one.

I mean, hey, at least 25 would be good.

Separate categories of along the line of social, land ownership and business groups with different set of restrictions might be useful.

What if Groups were Classified such as

Business groups would have a Sub key noting for business use like for the mall owners.

Friends Groups or simply fun groups would have a key for that aspect.

Civic groups for Civic functions

and on and on maybe limit it to 15 catagorys of groups and have unlimited enrollment in each.

just an Idea

Shadow

Exactly what I had in mind, Shadow.

I agree completely! I've had to drop out of some friends' fluff groups, and hated doing it.

They could be classified just like the events are: Games, commercial, etc. Has this been made into a proposition?

coco

I cant have more than 10 ones.. wonder why..

I support the creation of more groups for the purpose of land ownership and the creation of political groups.

I suspect that the Linden's restriction on the number of groups offered is due to a preconcieved notion of how they should be used. I think they should let go of their preconceptions and raise the maximum group number so we can use them as we see fit.

~Ulrika~

I posted a similar question to the hotline a while back here.

I agree with all of the above comments, especially this one from Ulrika, which I think explains the heart of the problem:


Part of the reason there is a need to be a member of so many groups in the first place, is because folks are using them in ways that Linden didn't originally intend - to get around current technical limitations.

Mainland Parcel Tools, and the lack of an ability to delegate those tools to others without using groups is one example of this.

<cough> vote for prop 244! <cough>

Now that's a great idea. I was hoping my last game would do that with groups. I see tons of groups in SL. I can only imagine if you have an SL business how dificult it must be with only 15 to belong to! I've only been in SL about a month and I'm already in 5 groups. Just for my interests!

While this may have been true originially, it is no longer the case.

Andrew Linden explained that the current maximum of 15 groups is due to the limitations of an internal message in the system. While that could be almost anything, I'd guess they are using a 2-byte word as a bitfield somehow, maybe to indicate permissions. Anyway, the details aren't important. The important thing is that, according to Andrew, the limitation is technical and it's a bitch to fix it right now.

Various Lindens have said they'd like to allow for more groups, but they'll have to remove this limit in the software before they can do it.

The avatar from the great state of Texas casts his 9 votes (sorry had to give one to try before you buy) for Prop. 244!

Ooh! Where's this great state of Texas? I live here in the U.S. and all we have is a shitty one.

~Ulrika~

Gah! Now that you mention it, I swear I remember hearing this a while back too. I just let it slip my mind. I wonder if they have made any strides? Anyone know?

Yep - I think you're right, Olmy. Although, I still get the feeling that Linden doesn't quite have a handle yet on the various ways residents are using groups, and what the limitations are that folks are trying to overcome.

I did a little forum research, and found a few snippets that might be interesting from the context of this post:

Town Hall Meeting (Robin) 5/11/05:




Town Hall Meeting (Cory) 4/27/05



Town Hall Meeting (Phillip) 10/01/04



Enjoy

Good morning, thank you for some of the responses thus far. The question I have is why cant there be "Membership Only" groups.

I am sure that groups are associated to flags that conect the aspects of linking "Permissions" together.

To expand on my previous thoughts why couldn't there simply be business groups that didnt have to use lets say IM Group feature.

Or Friends Groups that simply used the Group IM Feature...this is for those fluffy stay in touch have fun with name title groups.

Then There are the Land Ownership Groups. These would be your multifaceted groups that would use all the functions of a group tools currently offerd.

If there are limits on the resource servers and comunications issues by the data transfer rate then these latter groups I mentioned would have to pettition LL to actually have them created. These groups would also have stronger tools for Land management. Where the Ban and Allow features worked effectively.

Anyway I digress from rambling this morning but would love more comment on the whole idea. I think there has to be a solution to this issue just not sure what it would be.

Sincerely, Shadow Weaver