|
|
|
[
Permlink
| « Hide
]
Lex Neva added a comment - 26/Oct/07 09:23 AM
Add "no sharing objects" to that list. I believe sharing objects is one of the biggest drains caused by groups.
I like this concept, but I think normal and simplified is too... simple.
I'd like to see a more in depth system whereby you choose what functions a group should have. Frankly, I don't need my customer update group to have group chat, so an option to permanantly disable that would be good. Likewise, groups which exist solely for discussion don't generally need ot own land or objects. 'Sharing objects' (meaning, setting an object to a group) is one of the most basic reasons to have groups in the first place. This is why in my overlapping feature request (see above) I suggest leaving the current group system as is (complete with 25 membership limitation), and adding more lightweight group system that only allows for notices and IMs and so forth without having to check permissions all the time.
It would be ideal if the new system was more flexible about configuring the group, so you could just turn off all IMs, for instance. I raised the priority to major, as I noticed that having to limit groups quickly becomes a social problem/limitation.
as we go on in our social life in SL, we discover new people, new activities, and having all the time to refuse group invitation and remain severed from friends quickly becomes a major brake to our involvement. We can still create alts, but is this the real solution? The most prominent issue about group numbers is MISC-208, see especially the post of Veronica Quackenbush about detailed analysis, and asking $L500 to create a full group versus only $L100 for a simplified group. So other thought to the same things, but my issue proposes to use the same code, with only features disabled. So I think it should not be marked duplicate. Creating a meta issue would be fine, but it would dilute the votes already gathered This is a wonderful idea. I belong to several groups which are used only for communication, and some only for one-way communication, from group officers to group members. The idea of Announcement Groups is excellent, and would solve many social problems in SL. Setting these up so that the ability to post messages to the group could be controlled would be even better.
MISC-208 is not the same thing, it is just about raising the 25 limits for normal groups.
But is there any usefulness to re-open this one, to complain or anything? I re-open because this issue was closed with a wrong motive, and in more by a person who is a stranger to the development team (not a Linden). THIS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.
this issue MISC-767 is not a duplicate of MISC-208: it proposes a different solution to the same problem. (MISC-208 asks to raise the group number limit, at the expense of database load, when this issue MISC-747 proposes a woorkaround, which would much less load this database). at a pinch, this issue MISC-767 and MISC-847 are very similar, so one should be marked duplicate. But even this was note done (see the discussion in MISC-847). Anyway MISC-767 gathered more votes and gives more details, and, after what happened here, sorry, but I don't feel the heart to ask to Cinco Pizzicato to mark his MISC-847 as a duplicate. I would rather prefer to see the discussions and votes merged in one. And also this thread is to discuss raising the group limit. I don't want to see any dispute on JIRA management here, there is while the limit to the number of groups is indeed an issue, there is currently no way to increase this number AND reduce database load. Any sort of group at all will add load and strain to the current system.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the JIRA system was implemented with the ability for any user to close or resolve an issue for a reason: that reason being that the Lindens not only do not have the time to act as JIRA moderators but quite simply do not want to get into that entire mess. I am sorry that someone closed/resolved your issue here but quite frankly no one person can determine the motive for such an action. Universal, any system will obviously load the database. But a simplified group type will load it much less, as it will have much less data fields to check. So it is would be less problematic to add 50 simplified groups, than, for instance, 10 full groups.
Anyway the 25 limit will be raised one day or another, to 30 or more. But this will not really solve the issue: for my own purposes I would already be at 100 groups, and most profiles are stuck at 25. Also another problem with groups is that an av walking on lands has to check for group ownership each time it crosses a land boundary. This not only loads the database, but it also slows down the viewer. There are probably several other issues like this, and only simplified groups could allow to significantly raise the limit without loading the database or slowing the viewer into the same proportion. But of course there will alway be a limit. Otherwise some people would be members of 2000 shopping groups. The lag in the viewer caused by a permissions check to a group is minimal - at least for me - at best.
Another factor here would be: How easy would it be for the average user to have all of these single purpose groups? I know I personally would go insane (kidding). One of my own friends has a full group list and quite frankly has enough trouble with the normal system. Two of the groups he is a part of impart building rights, another gives him a discount when buying a specific user's wares. In short - how cumbersome would this single purpose system of yours really be? i'm against this. having 25 "classical" groups but more than 25 "simplified" groups would be completely useless for me. the reason i need more than 25 groups is for places i rent at, which necessarily own land. check the other proposal on deactivating group memberships.
Even though this would not solve every problem in SL in one fell swoop, I continue to support it, because it would go a long way towards solving quite a few problems, Remember, "baby steps!"
Beware, that simplified groups will not solve your own problem is not a reason to oppose this feature request, which can be very useful for other people.
The 25 full groups limit is a pain for everybody, and adding simplified groups will certainly allay the database load, which coul result in more full groups. The allowed full groups number was much lower in the past (5!!), and it will probably be raised again in some future. If I understand well your statement, you would like land owning groups. This makes sense, and would be another kind of simplified group. Just give the reference of "the other proposal" and add it in the "relates" list (at top of the page), so that, when the developper team will check for wanted features, they will find yours easily. You do know that some groups are multi-purpose and cannot be 'simplified' ... don't you?
Simplified or not we need more group's like Yichard say's people meet more people with new things going on and would want to check it out and be able to join there group, without having to leave any other group. i get invites all the time to people group's then i have to leave one, just to join the other one, but i want to be able to keep all the groups i join without having to leave one.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
New Feature
Reopened
Major
to have simplified groups to raise the limit of 25 groups 
