Thoughts on limiting the community size or culling members?


(Dave Charbonneau) #1

What are your thoughts on LIMITING communities in size? Or, trimming back on those who aren’t actively participating?

I’m not liking the idea of giving the boot to those who don’t participate, but I’m curious if others have done this and how it worked out.

Some context: I’ve followed FeverBee’s suggestion to start slow. I really had no choice looking at both my budget and my contact list, but I’m also not doing contests and other things to grow my community on Facebook. We’re around 70 members. Communications seem to come in waves from week to week, and when it’s there, it seems to be quality communication (a business community, quality meaning, people are asking questions, answering, providing resources; not simply there to self-promote. That’s a win in a Facebook Community).

In interacting in other Facebook groups, I’m finding I’m really liking the groups of 50 to 500 as far as communication goes. It’s more like hanging out at Cheers (Norm!) rather than Costco.

Anyhow, I’m playing with the idea of keeping a more exclusive group rather than “just another Facebook group” by keeping things small, looking for those who interact. However, I realize some people may be voyeurs for months (or longer) before getting involved.

Any thoughts on this?


(Shreyas) #2

I personally think we shouldn’t have limitations on the size of the community. If getting people to actively participate is our challenge, we should work on solving that. “Lurkers week” by @Suzi_Nelson is what comes to the top of mind.

Also, since we’re talking about Facebook groups here, I think this topic would be interesting.

On the same thread, @Charlotte_Moller_van had mentioned about limiting their community size.

We have a ‘Mozillians’ Telegram group for Mozilla contributors+staff. Before the introduction of Super groups on Telegram, it was really difficult for us to have everyone interested on the group due to size limitations. Thankfully, the admins checked the “Last seen on Telegram” and kicked people out if they were not it to make room for new members. We called it “Kicking Friday”. It then became ‘a thing’!


(Dave Charbonneau) #3

Interesting, @dun3buggi3. My initial thoughts on the subject are to keep the lurkers for 1.) the chance that they may want to get involved some day, 2.) they may never participate, but still end up buying a product (outside of the free community), 3.) social proof: The group looks big then it simply “must” have value (of course this is not true). I do like that most of the 20,000 person business groups I’m in on Facebook yield many responses if I have a question.

On the other hand, I could see having a “use it or lose it” policy would develop into a tight-knit group that, perhaps, greatly valued the membership.

I’m off to read the ‘Lurker’ article from @Suzi_Nelson. Thanks for your input, Shreyas.


(Sarah Hawk) #4

@Charlotte_Moller_van limits her Facebook groups to 250 members and then starts a new one.
You can read more about that here.