I agree. Death to groups!

We should start a group for people who agree with this.

As much as I enjoy the groups I am in, I have to agree with you.

I agree about topics vs groups. A discussion about a topic I care about isn't as interesting if I only hear the same things from the same people. It's also much harder to find I interesting discussions... e.g. a good conversation about dog training could just happen come up in most any group.

I agree 100%. I think the groups are what have fucked this site up. There were over 700 when I counted them a few months ago. There must be close to a thousand by now. The site would be better as an open forum. The groups have made this site boring. If you are having groups, no one should be able to start or moderate more than one group. If someone blocks you, you can be blocked from more than one group they started or moderate. I am blocked from a pet group because of a disagreement that had nothing to do with that group. You end up with little fiefdoms with little tyrannical leaders. FUCK THE GROUP THING.

Life here before groups took over was much more fun. I can tell you that much.

I'm going to agree with your assessment, I prefer topics to groups seeing there are so many.

I think I am missing something here. I thought admins went to group only format a little while back but changed it back because of input from people.

What I see currently are both groups (pets, gardening, etc.), but also more general subject area (General Hellos, Silly and Random, etc). Seems like a reasonable and generous balance given the enormity of work the admins have to do.

I participate in a number of groups, but interaction and participation is limited. I spend more time in the general areas and find more interesting conversations that I would not have come across in the groups.

As the site grows, it is more difficult to manage larger areas, so I understand admins desire to move to groups, similar to the Reddit model. But groups can get overwhelming and klutzy for the user as there are too many, they have names that are not necessarily easily searchable. I am content with the current set up but understand it may change.

100%. Ideas and debate are what make the wheels go round not self-congratulatory cliques. I’ve noticed that much of the robust argument has declined and has been replaced by one or two syllable retorts, ad hominem responses or insults and rudeness.

If it weren’t for the erudite and intelligent posters here I would have walked away some time ago. Let’s hope a more steady flow of more informed contingent join.Although how do we know who they are unless they are a member of a group which we are subscribed to.

Completely agree, thank you.

We’re fractured enough within society, with too many factions and divisions as is.. This is our online meeting place, apparently open to the world!

We need inclusion, wide interaction - not cubby-holes or isolation chambers… Closing in on two years participation, I’ve only, if recently joined one ‘group,’ basically led by one person (for which I’ve not checked in for weeks).

Growth would stop with ‘groups only.’ And personally … I’d find another place to be ~

Totally agree.

"General Forum"

I created this Group when it looked like we lost the Forums forever.

It has five blocks. (People on site who have proven to me time and again I don't want to have to deal with their shenanigans) - speaking of focused cliques.

It's a moderated group - but it's open to all members level 1 and up.
With the same purpose as any general forum - the idea was to replicate the General Forum and allow the same sort of activity - it's gained members fairly swiftly. And has deliberately not been made to have any one direction.

This might be the middle ground you're looking for.

Some groups are closed, I've read, but there are no menu options that currently allow it. I've joined about 50 groups and not found a closed one. I'm host of Battling Obesity, because the original host left and @Admin drafted me to take over. Only one member posts daily a few post occasionally, but most do not post. All BO posts are visible to everyone. If you join you may see a list of only BO posts. I try to welcome every new member, but most do not reply. There is nothing else special for members. And we are not a clique as far as I can tell.

I'm an engineer (sort of autistic) and oblivious socially; I'm not aware of any cliques. Although, I've read that the conservatives have a closed group entrance only by invitation. As far as I know, a group moderator would have to block everyone that joined, except for ones they want in the group.

Although necessary, IMO blocking is more divisive than groups. However, both contribute.

It got to be waaay to much for admin to moderate the general forums so they left the admining to the members in their groups to handle it. There are maybe 4 or 5 developers working for free with jobs outside of this site. Do they have time to respond to someone who claims someone made a negative statement about an LGBTQ person at some point, but they can't produce the thread or the quote or anything? I stand by their decision. Unless someone is breaking a law, leave admin alone. If you don't like what your group is doing, leave the group.

Do you want us to have to start paying for a free service so an admin can monitor every comment and every complaint 24/7? Let's think this through...

I agree with you, and since groups have become the standard the site feels stagnant. Even within well-attended groups, I'm noticing very little activity. I assume more conversation is happening somewhere, but I'll be damned if I can find it.

My problem with the groups isnt that I feel like I'm not allowed or that I don't like the people in them. It's that If I take the time to put my very interesting and important thoughts on here I would like them to be seen by people checking out the site for other interesting secular people. Anyone who isnt interested in spending their time an active community member and just want to see who's out there will miss everything I have to say entirely if it's all portioned off in groups. I realize we are allowed to do that but since all the active participants portioned off into groups there isn't much to hold the conversations together in the main area.

I know exactly what you mean. It might help to click on the "Recent Member Posts" [agnostic.com] at the top of the homepage. That seems to show a less filtered list of posts than the homepage. The homepage seems to stagnate too often, and despite the filter settings, I can't seem to keep religious post out of it.

Administration did go "Groups only" very briefly and members protested and Forums returned.
I know I was one of them.

I believe Groups are the common ground where like minded folks are apt to form friendships/relationships.
Forums are more about topics to make you think and often disagree. (More about adding to your opinions or changing them).
I see nothing wrong with having both those things on one site.

Not everyone is pleased by constant disagreement or repeated chewing over of the same discussions - which happens a lot in some of the Forums. You can loose compassion with the new folks coming in who have the same old questions about religion/agnosticism - so people turn to groups instead for a while.

Some groups are more educational than others - some pure fun. Some echo chambers.
But that's anywhere online.
Forums are much the same. Only with more fighting.

And remember Groups have hosts and moderators who often work to make the group pleasant - which is not the case with Forums. You rely entirely on the site admin to do the work to keep Forums running smoothly - and to put the entire burden for the site on them? That would be entirely unfair in my book.

Look at FB - they too have moderated groups for shared interests.
Larger sites can't seem to survive without the free labor. That's just the way trolls and unpleasant people work these days.
A small group of people running a site just couldn't keep up with monitoring all that and it would descend into a place no one would enjoy.

Remember Groups are driven by the folks who have agreed to abide by the idea and rules of that group - so it has a certain flavor to each. It might not be one you enjoy - so don't join that group.
Forums are for everyone - so you may rub against folks you really don't enjoy - and the option for that is just the block button.

It's really entirely up to members which they enjoy more.

The groups are fine to me, but there are so many and I visit the site sporadically. sometimes daily and other times less often so get so many alerts it's impossible to read them all. I prefer to.follow people who I find interesting or resonate with, so I scroll through and read a small portion when I have time.

Most of my groups are music related, where the chat is directed at a particular artist, song or genre. I think this kind of group is fine, as is the Uncommon word group and the Quotes group, but I only post in them once a day, spending most of the rest of my time on the site in the general forum, where most of the “craic” is. I think we have already gone through an experiment in Group only postings which was unanimously disliked and to give @Admin their due fixed it to a more open format again....but this was months ago, so why this question now?

Requiring posting to groups was a HUGE mistake.

You can join the groups that interest you ... I find myself swamped with posts most days ... even from just a few groups

From reading this post, the comments and replies, people seem to be divided about the need for groups and their desirability. IMO there will be undesirable features both with and without groups, and the division will remain.

The groups are subject orientated . Pick what ever topics interest you and join those groups interested in discussing those topics . You receive alerts when ever someone posts to the groups you have chosen . No one else is excluding you , unless their research has shown that you are a scammer , cause you choose which topics interest you .You make whatever posts you feel like making , within polite society . Rudeness and trolls are , generally speaking , not readily tolerated .

I have joined a few groups, but I seldom go into them. I think it is fine to have some, for those who share some interests; but, having nothing but groups--I would not like that either.

What do you mean cliquey? If a user wants to post, they can post. Anyone can reply to that post. Literally every mechanic involving joining groups, and interacting with groups is non-exclusive. Everything concerning group communication is always open....Are you meaning to say that there should be group chats for every group, within each group to facilitate more open conversation? Because that would make sense. That way, if someone doesn't want to post for discussion, they can have what they probably want in that case.

I'm also for a better breed of open chats, where ongoing conversation is possible. That would create more interaction, bonding, etc.