Just an observation. We had 7 at the meet<div>yesterday. Given the way the tables were </div><div>arranged, there were conversations at both</div><div>end of the gathering, and sometimes in the</div><div>middle.</div><div>
<br></div><div>No problem, but at some number of people</div><div>the conversations break down in to smaller</div><div>groups. Unless you're having a lecture, I </div><div>doubt a bigger turnout adds much. Yes,</div>
<div>people can choose were to sit - to a point -</div><div>to join in to a conversation of interest, and</div><div>maybe bigger numbers can add in that way.</div><div><br></div><div>But if even at 7 people there cab be as many</div>
<div>as 3 conversations - and there were yesterday -</div><div>so numbers are not necessarily the measure of</div><div>what people get out of the gatherings. Interesting</div><div>conversations is, and there seem to be plenty</div>
<div>of those whether there are 3, 7, or, presumably, 20,</div><div>present.</div><div><br></div><div> -- Bob</div><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Michael Mol <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mikemol@gmail.com">mikemol@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Adam Tauno Williams<br>
<<a href="mailto:awilliam@whitemice.org">awilliam@whitemice.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Sun, 2011-01-23 at 15:33 +0000, Michael Mol wrote:<br>
>> On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Michael Mol <<a href="mailto:mikemol@gmail.com">mikemol@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> > On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Ben Rousch <<a href="mailto:brousch@gmail.com">brousch@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> I just got an email from Meetup saying that there were 179 people in<br>
>> the Grand Rapids area, waiting for a group with the properties I'd<br>
>> listed, and that if I finished setting up the group, Meetup would send<br>
>> the invite.<br>
>> That's a pretty large mass-mailing. You'd think those folks would have<br>
>> gone to BarcampGR...<br>
><br>
> Do they explain what their matching mechanism is? Having diddled around<br>
> looking at groups on Meetup, personally, I smell the now very familiar<br>
> stink of social-networking total-BS.<br>
<br>
</div>I couldn't handle a meeting of 179 people. I couldn't manage one of<br>
even 79 people. However, the runoff of even 10% of that number would<br>
be a good visit.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
><br>
>> I'll probably poke through that paywall, but not before the Saturday<br>
>> Social can comfortably move over towards the Geek Group location.<br>
><br>
> Care to make a wager that poking the paywall has a net-zero impact on<br>
> attendance over a three month period?<br>
<br>
</div>I wouldn't wager either way. What's irritating is that I hear so much<br>
advocacy for announcing via Meetup.com, but then there's a paywall for<br>
even the most basic-level service. I don't like it, but it seems to be<br>
to meetups what Facebook is to personal networking and what LinkedIn<br>
is to professional networking.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
:wq<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
--<br>
This message has been scanned for viruses and<br>
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is<br>
believed to be clean.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
grlug mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:grlug@grlug.org">grlug@grlug.org</a><br>
<a href="http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug" target="_blank">http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug</a></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.