Advertisement

Merging Tribes

topic posted Sun, February 1, 2009 - 8:23 AM by  Diana
Share/Save/Bookmark
I've seen lots of duplication in some of our tribe, right down to membership and even threads.

I want to consolidate similar tribes, but what to do with all the posts?

I like the ideas being discussed at brainstorm.tribe.net/thread/...997afd41

Trying to figure a way to "archive" posts from duplicate tribes in a Master tribe, maybe under "Consolidated".

Don't know maybe another way is to quote a thread from one tribe within another. This could be a admin function along with the delete function. Only if you are moderator of one or both tribes.

I have to get rid of some (dead) dup tribe. Hate to see all the content go.
posted by:
Diana
Washington
Advertisement
  • A tribe merge ability would rock.

    --S
    • It might be possible to move a thread from one tribe to another in special cases.
      • how can we do this sort of move.
        would help to clean things up.

        could breathe some life into some old tribes by bring (new) discussions into them

        I'd be happy to spend a weekend merging
        • Have a moderator tool to automate woudl be teh way to go.

          Make it so that you have to be moderator of both tribes, then you pick which tribe is merging into which. Migrate threads and pictures over, and sort by date stamps.

          --S
          • that would be perfect
            working on a way to figure out which tribes to merge
            • Send me an example of a thread you want to move from one tribe to another and I'll try it out.

              It could also be useful for a new offshoot tribe that wants a thread that had been deleted in another tribe. For that, I'd need to know more details like the date of one of the posts, who posted, the subject...
          • Shatter wrote: ... Make it so that you have to be moderator of both tribes...
            >

            Why so? Couldn't we treat moderators as adults and let them decide for themselves to strike a deal and mutually agree? And this would be made simpler if tribes were capable of co-owners and submods.
            • @skooter

              Its not a matter of people being adult, it's called security. If somebody wants to release their tribe for merging, they simply promote the othe moderator to mod of that tribe that will be absorbed.

              This also removes tribe admin from teh picture cause they have better things to do.

              --S
              • Security? You can't be serious. We're talking about a tribe, not a government installation for dog sake. Let's dial it back a notch to discuss the realy essence of a tribe, a community.

                Yes, one moderator could promote the other person as moderator and effectively relinquish their group. That is one method but not the only method. Another is one of cooperative effort for the sake of saving and retaining both the quality and membership of both groups. Otherwise why bother merging?

                Instead of a system where one party is forced to abdicate control/power of their group to another, they could cooperatively exist as co-moderators or co-owners of the merged group. It sure would make a merging less stressful and harmonious for everyone involved. Not the least of which are the tribe members whom all have various loyalties and affiliations. A cooperative effort seems to be the least disruptive and respectful to all involed. Otherwise there is a high tendency for both communities to fractionalize. The very essence of both can be entirely destroyed in petty politics, eventually leading to a general malaise in the merged group and a sharp participation fall-off. A cooperative effort tends to stand a better chance of survival.

                And the cooperative effort I'm referring to could be entirely automated and agreed upon between moderators. No intervention from tribe staff is necessary. Just like requesting someone to add you as a friend...one mod requests the other mod to merge, the other mod agrees, it's merged and they become co-moderators. Super simple.
                • If somebody was co-mod of both groups, then I suppose.

                  I'm going with what's available right now, so to speak. Yes, a few tribes have co-mods but it's a special case situation.

                  With what we have now, it would be easier to code a two tribes owned by the same mod to smoosh together, rather than setting up a transaction permission system between two disconnected accounts.

                  I'm just looking at it from a technical viewpoint and not a philosophical one.

                  --S
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Understood. I get where you're coming from. But I thought this was a brainstorm, anything goes tribe. Not a "let's develop solutions within our current limitations" tribe.

                    Ya dig ma meaning? We're trying to improve the joint, no?
                    • Right, I get that.

                      However brainstorming is tossing around ideas with possible implementations, not shooting down somebody else's ideas.

                      But hey, if we want to get into explaining everything to each other ad nausium I'm game.

                      For instance, if you weren't attempting to knock my idea down you would have said "Would being a moderator of bot tribe really be necessary? Could this work into the other idea of open co-moderatorships?" That would have been conducive to further positive flowing of ideas. Instead you took a conflicting stance of passive aggressively accusing me of treating everyone like they are children and irresponsible, that there was some nefarious idea lurking in teh background to subjugate and belittle the people of tribe.

                      Of course, this is about about as far from the truth as possible. I'm simply using the KISS principal of ideas and going for path of least resistance. Keep the idea simple, and slowly build and expand on it. Things being what they are, I'm always looking at things from a technical standpoint of implementation because anyone can wax poetic about lofty ideas, it's actually making them reality that's the challenge.

                      --S
                      • uh. wow.
                        but I'm up for the challenge to make it a reality.

                        Let try to work this out by example:
                        ROBOTGIRL ( robotgirl.tribe.net/ ) and gynoid ( tribes.tribe.net/gynoid )

                        I'd like to merge the discussions from robotgirl into gyniod.
                        I would then incourage the membership of robotgirl to migate over to gynoid.
                        • "I'd like to merge the discussions from robotgirl into gyniod.
                          I would then encourage the membership of robotgirl to migrate over to gynoid. "

                          That would go with any merger, IMHO. Migrate messages and pictures, sorted into the anchor tribe by date, and then merge in the people as well. Two become one. Tribe consolidation.

                          --S
                          • And then, in your opinion, would the members be notified by PM the reason they are now in a tribe they didn't previously belong to? Or would it be the responsibility of the moderator to post a topic in the tribe to tell people about the merge?
                            • @christine

                              Good point. I'm on tribes that randomly change their names, so seeing different things daily doesn't phase me, though I'm sure some peopel might wig a bit.

                              I could see an auto generated message saying:

                              "On <date> <Tribe recipient belongs to> was merged with <final tribe>. The URL for all content is <URL> and we want to assure you that no content was lost or deleted. All of your threads, discussions, pictures, listings, recommendations, etc. are all present. The Moderator(s) of the two tribes felt that because the interests and discussions were so similar that merging the two tribes would be in everyone's interests to consolidate ideas and memberships."

                              or something like that.

                              I'm sure the Mods would have talked about it ahead of time within tehir tribes... or not. YMMV :)

                              --S
                        • Ok I figured out how to do this. It takes a couple steps, so without the interface for moderators to do it themselves, I can only do this on special request for now. It would also be fairly straightforward to move the membership over all at once as well, and would just essentially be a change in the tribe name. Since there is less content and fewer members in gynoid, doesn't it make sense to merge them over to ROBOTGIRL instead?

                          Having the same moderator for both tribes definitely makes more sense for ease of implementation. It's unlikely we'd put effort into developing a user interface to do this for T2, but I think it's definitely a great idea for T3.
                          • That's awesome though if you can do it even for T3. If y'all can get this place humming, and we can help get the crowd back, I'm thinking a lot of superfluous tribes could end up getting consolidated/merged. So if you put a user interface in place so it can be self-managed, that would sure take a load of work off the staff's shoulders--everyone wins.
                          • I think it's awesome that you figured out how to do it! It will be a good addition to T3, and that also gives you some time to fine tune the process.
                            Very cool, Carolyn.

                            : D
                            • Since we're on a tribe merger idea....


                              Perhaps we can talk about the moderator "Thread Split" idea again... Grab a thread where it's diverting and create a new thread of the material already posted.

                              --S
                              • That should be easily doable along the same lines if you create the new topic first, then we can just move the relevant posts over. I'm thinking of doing that with the libel/slander part 2 thread, or perhaps add a static thread concept for moderators called "garbage dump" ... where the stuff you don't want in a thread goes but you don't necessarily want to delete it or let other people add to it.
                                • ooh, I really like the idea of garbage dump. But they should still have the option of deleting- I can see a problem in trolling situations whereby the trolls would still post nasty stuff if it were going to be visible to everyone, even if it becomes visible in the 'dump' thread rather than the originating thread.
                      • shatter wrote: ...For instance, if you weren't attempting to knock my idea down you would have said "Would being a moderator of bot tribe really be necessary? ...
                        >

                        Read up dewd. That's precisely what I asked and suggested co-mods could help make it work and you shot it down.

                        Takes two to tango. But whine on if you must.
                        • for what it's worth (very little), i was rather surprised at shatter's interpretation of skooter's ideas.
                          at all times, i believe skooter emphasized positive attitudes rather than fear-based ones.
                          he also emphasized collaborative effort between moderators as the ideal. ... carry on. :)*
                          • And for what it's worth, I see and agree with Shatter's point.
                            • so very interesting...
                              • okay, on yet another read, i can see how someone could take issue with the tone of the comments copied below:

                                Couldn't we treat moderators as adults and let them decide for themselves to strike a deal and mutually agree?

                                Security? You can't be serious. We're talking about a tribe, not a government installation for dog sake. Let's dial it back a notch to discuss the realy essence of a tribe, a community.

                                A cooperative effort seems to be the least disruptive and respectful to all involed. Otherwise there is a high tendency for both communities to fractionalize. The very essence of both can be entirely destroyed in petty politics, eventually leading to a general malaise in the merged group and a sharp participation fall-off. A cooperative effort tends to stand a better chance of survival.

                                Read up dewd. ... But whine on if you must.
                                • spark*l wrote: ...i can see how someone could take issue with the tone of the comments copied below:
                                  >

                                  Yes, this be true. My tone could use improvement. But do you think that people getting all butt-hurt and sniveling about something so minor, in a brainstorming thread is really the right way to go? I don't know for sure, maybe it's just me, but when I have something personal to say I usually do it privately. I would expect that it would also be more effective. This effort, is obviously done just for show and politics, so please forgive me for being less than patient with the effort.

                                  And in regards to a brainstorming session, or with any other sort of rational discourse, if someone adds something that you don't like do you interrupt and take over the conversation to expound on how personally offended you are or do you just move on? Especially in this case because it was so minor...and in light of Shatter's usual behavior and recent professions of behaving like a dick whenever he so chooses. So his sniveling protests are incongruous and b.s. and I don't feel compelled to be nice about it just this moment.
                                  • "Especially in this case because it was so minor...and in light of Shatter's usual behavior and recent professions of behaving like a dick whenever he so chooses. So his sniveling protests are incongruous and b.s. and I don't feel compelled to be nice about it just this moment."

                                    Now who's being all butthurt?

                                    I irony is that you're PM'ing me, asking me to lay off PeePee and that I'm trolling some poor Aspie, getting butthurt because declined your request, and then not less than 20 minutes later you're trolling the living hell out of him.

                                    So, you're going to continue to be all butthurt even though I've been nothing but polite to you the entire time.

                                    --S
                                • Sparks-

                                  1. Learn to quote
                                  2. Quit packratting. It's sitting there just above us in less space than that average PeePee posting.

                                  --S
                                  • I'm an average PeePee posting.
                                    sorry to start this fire.
                                    just looking for ideas.

                                    But yes as mod (of both tribes inthis case) I'd let all the members know. They would choose to join the (now Master) tribe., or not.

                                    They could voice their opinions after the announcement, and maybe work to make, what we seen as a dup tribe work on it's own

                                    • Nah, no worries. It's really a great idea no matter how it ends up being implemented.

                                      It's going to be even more important to have a feature like this when tribe eventually ends up busy and useful again. There's a lot of dead and abandoned tribes and I'm sure many of them will need consolidation, aka merging.

                                      Thanks for making the suggestion. I hope tribe uses your idea.
                                    • "I'm an average PeePee posting. "

                                      PeePee is a user, not a bodily function, though it's easy to confuse the two.

                                      You are far below average. So far below that it's not measurable. Then again, not much compares in length except for a dissertation on grand unification.

                                      --S
                                    • Using The Robotgirl tribe again as an example I posted this

                                      robotgirl.tribe.net/thread/1...5a05399ec

                                      Do you think that give everyone a chance of either migrating or voice opinions not the migrate?
                                      (I welcome you suggested verbiage)

                                      • I wouldn't necessarily recommend putting it up for a vote. You could, but expect it will get shot down. And by what margin? One person, three persons? So then what will you do? It really depends upon how sensitive you think the members are.

                                        You could just announce it--I'd recommend way in advance, like 30 days tops, 2 weeks minimum--and risk losing some folks. But it's worth considering you'd likely lose these folks either way because if the point of merging is making things more manageable for you, or to consolidate like-minded activity, eventually one of the tribes is going to languish and die anyway. That might be the best point you have to convince folks.
  • I'm aiming at merging 5 or 6 tribes with EXACTLY the same discussions into one mother tribe.

    One thing I see as I organize things is threads started by people that have Unsubscribed.
    I'd like to keep dicussions from people that are no longer part of the merged tribe or have gone away totally.
  • I'd like to continue this discussion
    I've created
    The Redundancies Tribe
    tribes.tribe.net/peteandrepete
    • i think such a tribe is redundant and too small in scope.

      try a bigger umbrella maybe?

      you seem to have a penchant for creating tribes like a bit of a factory.

      part of the problem is that you are thus not taking the creation of a tribe seriously enough...

      most of the tribes on TRIBE are like that...lol.

      a merge tribes feature would be great.
      :)

Recent topics in "Tribe.net Brainstorm (Archived)"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
Impeach NSA Josh 14 September 19, 2010
Comment voting system Celestine 5 September 19, 2010
how to fix tribe Unsubscribed 24 September 19, 2010
Facebook v. Tribe.net Unsubscribed 9 September 19, 2010