What makes a great online community?

[Melooon]

What do you think makes a great online community, what are the ingredients that make a social space not just safe for you but also fun and rewarding to be a part of; and conversely what are the pitfalls that you think need to be avoided?
I think about this a lot and I have plenty of opinions of my own, but Id like to hear what you think

[MrsMoe]

Well, for one thing, a competent goddamn staff.

After years of using Tumblr and Twitter, something I've noticed is that neither of the staff behind both sites know what their userbase wants. They've let terrible people run amuck and harass others over stupid crap while preaching about "kid-friendly spaces" and ban people for saying naughty words. They don't care at all about protecting their communities and are obsessed with keeping things ad-friendly. On top of that, they ignore features that people have been asking for for years (art folders, an edit button, proper tagging systems, etc.) and instead give us pointless shit (like the NFT icons :drat:smile:.


Other than that, I'd say a common goal. Part of why social media as a whole in comparison to forums are more chaotic and filled with drama is that they're huge dumping grounds for every kind of community or content imaginable. Forums tend to be me more focused on a specific topic or a project, so the people who come together have similar views and values. There's a lot less discourse happening as a result.

[Memory]

I have to agree with that last point. The best communities are those that are generally focused around a specific topic or even a specific project. You will always have something in common with the others, you will generally meet people who are somewhat similar to you, and there will be plenty of things and tangents to talk about there.

Bad communities are usually those that are centered around nothing or only around the fact that they are a community. You will meet all kinds of people there that are very different from you, and that leads to clashes over ideology or lived experience, and so on. Meeting people different from you is generally a good thing, but communities with deep trenches can be toxic.

Oh, and of course, moderation that actually takes a clear side against bigotry. One of my favorite hobbies used to be GTA roleplaying (the old text based serious stuff on GTA San An, not the cheap voice chat based streamer knockoff for GTA V), but the community was made up almost entirely of conservative edgy young teenagers, often from countries where the general baseline is even more conservative than in the West. The moderators always hid behind the "let them have fun and take a joke, or are you triggered" thing, which made the entire community unsafe and full of bullying hiding away behind plausible deniability and "u mad bro". Was like that everywhere.

[purelyconstructive]

I think the main ingredients for a safe and fun social space are fairly simple, especially if it is on a smaller scale...

• Rules for basic etiquette (e.g.: no "flaming", "trolling", "doxxing", etc.); not censorship of topics, but some general guidelines that are conducive to actual conversation taking place instead of "cyberbullying"
• A few shared interests or projects that everyone in the group can potentially contribute to, even if it is just expressing their opinions
• No "punishment" or "reward" mechanisms that form a hierarchy (e.g.: "likes", "upvotes", etc.), other than warnings and time-outs for violating basic etiquette
• And especially, NO behavior manipulation like: "dark patterns" (i.e.: user interfaces intended to trick a people into doing specific actions), design elements that facilitate addiction (e.g.: "infinite scrolling":wink:, "surveillance capitalism" (e.g.: selling of user data, violations of privacy, "targeted advertising", algorithms that prioritize sensationalism / "clickbait", "astroturfing":wink:

The converse of all of the above would be most "social media" (including those touted as "free speech":wink:.

[memo]

Overall I agree with most of what has been said. Something I could add is that for communities to thrive I believe there needs to be some sort of place where people can take their time to write, read and reply to topics and those topics have no hard limits on length (like twitter) and not disappear in a sea of other posts in a matter of minutes.

I also like neocities and the small web in general, because even though there's no forum component, users take their time to read others' pages and then proceed to make contact if they want - said method requires effort, has more meaning and could more easily spawn saner relationships.

I'm saddened to see that so many teenagers try to use TikTok as some sort of community hub - I believe said platform is as bad as a social network could be. I don't blame the teens who stay on it, it's hard to escape something when everyone is using it (see WhatsApp) and they don't want to be left out of trends and memes (plus they had it real bad in the last five years in terms of social network predatory extravaganza). GOD am I that old?? because I sure sound so in what I just wrote lol

[DJoftheCoven]

I think what I always find the best about smaller online spaces such as this forum and general small web content is that the interactions are a lot longer and more personal. My only social media platform is Tumblr, so I don't know if this is even a universal issue, but it's generally frowned upon on Tumblr to contribute to posts that have already been deemed by the community to be "finished". Small users rarely get interactions with others on the platform unless they happen to be funny enough to inspire a tiny following--for instance, I have about 80 regular browsers of my Tumblr blog and they usually appreciate my posts. Yet we never talk! I only ever see them responding to my content in the tags, which is kind of like the Tumblr equivalent of looking over someone's shoulder at what they're texting their friends about. It's nice to know when something I've made is appreciated, but after the post has made a hundred or so circulations it disappears into the void (unless someone happens to find it years later).

What I appreciate about small web culture is that I'm able to directly respond to people on Melonland Forum and be reasonably confident that my short essays will be read by somebody who's interested in seeing longform text responses. I also like that the interactions here tend to be less trend-based, meaning that they tend to stay relevant long after they were posted because the content isn't as focused on a new song or movie being memed to death and dropped in ten minutes.

And for a brief footnote, I also like that everything on Melonland is clearly timestamped and in chronological order. Tumblr is in chrono order as well, though I hear that other socials are not for some reason??

[Vidknight]

I do have a lot of personal things I think makes a great online community that I do want to get into, but I feel like there is ONE major thing that no matter who you ask, what they want in a group, social level, etc, that is a must for any online community especially a great one is "Why is everybody here" What is bringing everybody together?

It could be shared interest in a certain musician ,or music genre. It could be enjoyment in a hobby, or a piece of media there need to be some reason everybody is here together or else you just have a bunch of people standing awkwardly. I feel that this part is incredibly easy, it can also be done wrong.

A big example of this in my opinion is a shared interest in hating something. I found that anytime a community is bound by hating something even if that thing I agree with it's just a breeding ground for toxicity and just the absolute worse. Funnily enough I say that it's a strong glue as our brain usually get attracted to more negative things, but it's like if said glue was made out of radioactive waste.

As for something that is more personal it's the difference in opinions. Granted I feel that this will just happen naturally because when you have a community of like 10-15 people there is a strong chance there will be different opinions and taste, but I mean the reaction to said different taste. Is it accepted, or is it instantly attacked?

Obviously there should be a limit, there a massive difference in "I like this unpopular show" and "I think we should kick more puppies for fun".

[littlelum]

I believe an important aspect is that there are discussions where it is important to read other's replies. For example, "What's your favorite xyz" doesn't really facilitate discussion, rather it just asks for a response. You can post something, and ignore what everyone else said.

Meanwhile, a more thought-out discussion requires people to read what others before them have said before writing their response.

[Noah_S]

Something I like here is that there isn't a hierarchy nor popularity contest. And things don't get hidden if a ton of people don't react to it almost the moment when it's posted.

A staff enforcing the rules. I've been in so many places where the report button might as well be for decoration.

Chronological order for the posts. Not just in the no algorithm way, but as someone coming from reddit, the "post your response directly under the post your replying to" becomes a mess to return to when you want to read new posts.

[azalea]

having great staff is a significant contribution to what makes a "great" online community. if a community can trust its staff to take care of problematic users, and if the staff makes sensible policies that both enhance the user and staff experience, then it extends the longevity/lifespan of the community and makes the place more enjoyable to be. when both users and staff work together, and the vibe is generally pretty chill, it makes for a fantastic experience.

i say this as if it's simple, and i suppose on paper it is, but i've witnessed far too many forums over the years fall because the vibe was toxic, the staff weren't exactly competent, or there's drama that got out of hand... it's unfortunate, really.

[BlazingCobaltX]

Agreed with everything said above, but there's one thing I oddly enough haven't seen yet: A consistent group of people! This is probably also the natural consequence of all the things mentioned above (e.g. consistent moderation, a few shared interests), but I find it very telling of a community's quality in how many people stick around over a longer period of time. Not to say that a community can never change people or all the same people should stay as active forever - not at all. But I do think a good community is one that its users want to invest in more. Where people want to stick around and show new members the way even if they've done this many times before. A place where people only come in to get their questions answered and don't stick around to have an actual conversation (ahem, Reddit) is not a community.

[Pip]

A generally positive space that is both co-constructive and gives people a sense of 'ownership' or belonging, but also a place that can acts as the grounds for building trust with others so that deeper conversations can be had!

I think a space that attracts people with common interests (art, the web revival movement, the indie web) also attracts people with similar values which makes the above a whole lot easier, too.

[vampiredazai]

Ditto to what everyone said here--no scrolling or heuristics feeds, some moderation, a shared interest(s). In biology there is a concept called emergent properties. When you go from a simpler order to a higher order of complexity--say, from chemico-physical to that of organism--new properties emerge. I think that also applies to human social gatherings. As more and more congregate new properties appear. While you can never predicate what is going to emerge you can set-up structures to foster good interactions. Each forum heading is like a different room of a party. In this room I'm going to talk about art. In this room I'm going to talk about books. In this room the state of the internet. And together they forum a healthy ecosystem to continue the biology metaphor.
I think it's also important for it occur outside of the panopticon and speed of the mainstream. It takes time for something to grew, for a people to find a purpose to this thing we're creating together. The mainstream web is all about speed and scale in order to get to $$$ quickly and they're designed to do that. I went to Anime Expo this summer, and at one of the panels a senior executive at Sega said that in Japan the manga/anime industry was at the bottom of the entertainment ladder. They were treated like quote-unquote "shit" he said, at home and abroad, but they did this crazy thing because they loved these art forms. Because it existed outside of the spotlight of TV and film, it developed very differently and has a very distinct relationship with its fan base. At a bunch of the panels the artists were crying because they had never expected this sort of response from foreigners. They didn't plan for any of this. But if enough people get together with the intention to create something meaningful it will eventually appear.
With the sudden breakout of things like the backrooms from the containment of creepypasta you see how the most vital, healthy internet spaces were things happening outside of where all the VC money was being thrown-at.

[Daniele63]

Some thoughts about what makes a good community (and this is my subjective opinion):

• A place where any new users can feel welcomed and listened to, instead of being shamed or ridiculed.
• A place that is focused on a specific niche or topic, or catered towards a certain community of people (for example, indie web folks, tech lovers, musicians, etc.)
• Moderators/owners who actively participate as if they were regular users.
• Rules should be reasonable and not filled with bullsh*t, too many rules can scare people away.
• Respect can only be earned when it is given, the most important thing to have a healthy community is treating others with kindness and respect. There are places that thrived on negativity and drama, but they attract the kind of people I wouldn't want to be with.
• And most important of all, it should be fun! Don't be serious all the time, lighten up and joke around once in a while. Don't be like that discord mod who bans you for posting a meme in #general

Features I dislike:

The Like/Dislike system
I think that fundamentally, rating posts is impersonal and cold. Think about it like this: I'm having a conversation with you, but instead of replying to me, you do a thumbs up or thumbs down gesture (like the roman emperors deciding if a gladiator should live or die). Wouldn't that be rude?
It also creates an expectation: I made a good post, I should receive likes! But if I don't, then my post must suck, right?
It's addictive: Some people will make posts that will attract likes, if you look at Reddit for example with its karma system, people will post "karma-bait" of little substance just to get those sweet points.

That's why I think that in a public forum, they do more harm than good, generally speaking (of course, exceptions always exist, as with anything.)

Reactions are I think, a bit more nuanced, as they can signify different emotions, so these may be fine and even enhance the community in some cases. But they still may cause some people to react instead of posting a reply, so for my own forum I avoid them for this reason. But I do like using them on some other places that have them.