While we still have no groups here, there's lots of discussion about this topic here. And the majority of people seems to agree in two points (beside many detailed suggestions for different aspects): We need groups here, and groups should handled better than on flickr from both sides, from the technical and from the way they are used by the members.
Before writing something more in detail, two things: Yes, we need groups, and no, groups aren't bad on flickr and will handled here on the long term naturally in the same way.
What is a group? On a place like this, it is two things. It's a pool of pictures and a forum fro discussions, and from that one can distinguish roughly three types of groups:
-
The exhibition type. Pictures are dropped into the pool to be seen by other people.
-
The discussion and interaction type. People met in the group forum to discuss about different topics.
-
The discuss about the pool type. Pictures and discussions are more or less closely related somehow. At least both features are used with equal frequency.
Naturally these are no sharp borderlines, the differences are partly fluent.
In the first group I would put all the groups dedicated to a certain aspect like topic, style or technically points of a picture, and groups sharing images with common secondary properties like popularity measured by views, counts and faves or pure invitation groups. The main purpose of this groups is exhibition of pictures and have two, sometimes identical, user groups, the posters and the viewers, respectively. So people put their bw portrait of girl in Germany in the bw, portrait, girls and Germany group, and if it got's lots of views or favs in a most views or faves group. And if they are invited, they put it in an invitation group.
So this groups are filled sooner ore later by a huge number of pictures having some common aspects, so interested viewers can go through searching for good or interesting pictures. Interaction of the users is low, sometimes no topics posted at all. Such groups are like museums, were artists put their pictures and people come and have a look at them. That's a fair trade, I think, and satisfy a certain desire of being seen and seeing.
In the second type of groups one can find very often technical aspects discussed. They're about cameras, lenses, tools, software, scripts and so on. Sometimes they also have some social aspect, it's a meeting point for people, sometimes accompanied by meetings outside in the real world. The picture pool is here not the main point, sometimes almost no pictures at all in the pool. Interaction and discussion is the point. And also this satisfies a certain desire.
In the third type of groups both aspects came together. People are posting pictures and discussing about them directly, sometimes both things a re independent. Maybe this is the largest type of groups, at least it's the most diverse, I think. Here you can find something like the comments groups, often organizing additional photo contests, you have the pure contest groups with a pool of winner pictures. You have the purpose free fun groups like 'the biggest one', you have very ambitious groups like Utata, people presenting their picture and interacting closely with each other at the same time and many more groups where the forum and the pool are closely connected. And I think for lots of people, especially the more active ones, this is something like the ideal type of groups. The group itself transforms in the ideal case to something like a closely interacting sub community, something like club in the real world.
Yes, indeed, that's a good thing. But it's not better than the other three types. All types are needed, cause the satisfy different desires and so they all should exists side by side. I think it's unfair, for example to accuse someone of dumping and running, if he doesn't always go to tens of pages with certain pictures and gives a comment on everyone (by the way, it has some irony, that the same people often accuse members of comments groups, where you are forced by rules to give a comment, as attention seeking freaks...). They just doesn't see the purpose of such groups and that there existence is appreciated by people who just want to look at certain pictures.
The existence of different types of groups results of the diversity of users. I think that more than 8 million of the 9 million flickr user have no desire in using the community elements of a side like flickr. They just want to have a place where they can easily present their photos to friends and family. And maybe from time to time they have a look at explore or go to a certain group hopping to find a picture about a certain topic. For them the first type of groups is ideal. Another user group I think is looking for help. So they're satisfied by the second type of groups.
And there are the users searching for community. How many? Of course, I couldn't know exactly, but judging from the size of certain groups, the activity in groups and other place I would say it's something like 100000, at least a minority compared to the first user group I described before. Nevertheless this group is he driving force of a place like flickr or ipernity (at the moment this group is here the majority...), due to their activity. But sometimes I fear people forgetting that they're not alone and there are more ways to use a community or especially groups.
What does it mean for this place? This place is full of idealism. Most people are driven by the ida of making everything better than on flickr. So after the start of groups I would expect a majority of groups belonging to the third type. People will discus a lot and post their pictures. The number of pictures is small, so one can spend some time on looking and commenting. So expect a good start and many happy faces around. But what happens one year, two years later? Either ipernity will die after having a short but joyful life or it will grow. In the latter case we will see that the same 'problems' appear as on flickr. Cause they're only problems from a very narrow point of view, for the broad mass of people they are needed and useful.
So we will have dump and run groups, we will have dead groups with lots of pictures, but no discussion, we will have comments groups, we will have best of and award groups, cause it's natural that they exist. So sooner or later there will be complains about that (even now without groups we already have them). But I don't agree with this.
There's no good and bad in the existence and way of use. Groups may work or not, but that's something different. So what should people do? Wait and have a look what happens and then build up the kind of groups that sweats you and your network in the best way, and let other people do what they liek to do. Do not complain about things you can not influence, maybe you don't like but causing no harm for anyone, just fun for people different from you.
That doesn't mean stopping discussions about technically aspects, that's helpful, especially many technical aspects of flickr groups are not satisfying.