I belong mostly to "everything" groups because I publish such a wide variety of things. I have a few political groups, photoshop groups and poetry groups for those specialized things (I only posted to my lizard group once - I'll have to get rid of it). I only post to a few of my "everything" groups per article, and usually always to my own. To post to all the "everything" groups that I could, every time, would drive me bananas.
I don't think groups matter much. Who reads articles from their groups?


Comments: 35
How are you Peter? Happy New Year!!
I don't think it matters when you publish to "everything" groups, although I do it, too. I think if someone is looking to read just any old thing, they'll do it without going to a group.
Basically, I only read my connections or people I find through stalking my connections. :o)
As for your last question : I do. Yes, I read articles from groups. I actually get certain group email right in my email.
I don't really use subsriptions but instead have my email preferences set to notify me when certain groups and all of my contents publish content. I belong to some of the "freebie" type groups on Gather (where people talk about stuff that's free), and it's good to be notified when content gets posted to those groups as it's usually something time-sensitive that you have to do in order to get the freebie they're giving away.
I also belong to just about every LGBT group that I can find on here, although I don't always pay attention to them.
Then there are the photo groups (which I post to when I'm posting an image) and the poetry groups, and the techy groups, and the groups dealing with my disability (Depression, mental health, etc.).
Other than gaining content, one of the ways that I view groups is as a way of letting others know about you. For instance, on Orkut, I joined a bunch of groups that I'll probably never visit but they concern topics that are of interest to me so it's kind of a quick way of letting people figure out what you're about. Of course on Gather with their current method of displaying groups (I've suggested a way to improve this), it's a bit difficult to sort out all of the "meaningful" groups from the "post anything" groups.
Does this make any sense?
You know I really should turn my comments into articles and then just link to my article/comment from the comment, shouldn't I? :)
I start out by scrolling down through the days new 'articles for me' and reading whatever/whoever catches my eye. Then I may go back through and be more discerning. Or may just go to 'recent' - seems like if I post to about 150 groups, I would get more than 4 or 5 comments... but *sigh* seems to be the way it goes.
My best bet I guess was getting into an argument with a fellow gatherer - got more comments than ever before on my rebuttal article. Most from the gatherer that had blocked me!!!????
The only groups that I tend to go to looking for things to read are my own... other than that, I find articles by following my connections around
I don't believe that 'post anything' groups really help with the visibility of your content, and I advocate eliminating them from your publishing options whenever possible. It is a far better approach to build up your connections and readership, and publish content to groups with a specific purpose that match the premise of your article/image, etc. (assuming the group is maintained and kept on-topic by the group leader).
You are likely to get just as many comments and page views publishing to a few select groups as you would to a list of a hundred 'post anything' type repositories.