Group Engagement Network?

hmmm.....it is a complex one.

I started my own groupsite (psychology and health forum) to help keep in touch with local colleagues. Having found the features collectivex really useful, I then started 2 other groups (i got a bit addicted!).

It was very cool when I discovered that I could log-in and monitor all my groups at once (view all mode instructions) as well as easily switching between the groups (quick switch instructions). 

Starting or joining 1 group opens the gateway to being part of many groups!

We are starting to use the phrase "Social Collaboration Network" - what are your thoughts on that?

Not sure if it really adds much beyond some of the original descriptions. The platform concept rings better for me.

use the collectivex platform to:

a) start a social network

b) join a social network (find one on groupsites)

c) organize your involvement with many different networks.

Hello Shaun

The use of the words Global Engagement attracted me to this discussion. I think that's the right track, but for CollectiveX I think the terminology "Collaborative Network" is valuable and useful.

I came up with the terminology "Global Engagement Trust" a couple of years ago.  We have a committee,and the basic idea of what the G.E.T. will do.  Our objective is to promote these three ideas.

1: Make your computer safe from attack.

2: Join online groups of people who share your own interests.

3: Become an active member of an online social network.

It is our view that there are millions of people who are supposed to be "online" at least they pay for a connection, but they are frightened to join groups. there may be a 100 imagined reasons why they don't join, or why if they do join they never participate. 

It is my view that online learning is highly stimulated by group membership and by social engagement with you peers online. If you are unwilling to join groups and unwilling to take enough interest to become an active member, your real online life can't begin.

John

Here's my 11-yr old son's attempt to explain what we do: http://blog.collectivex.com/articles/2008/05/09/sketchcast-from-jack

what a champion!

A few things stand out to me, (triggered by Jack's presentation)

1) CollectiveX groups are purposeful. You create a groupsite with a specific goal in mind (e.g., to connect football players in a team).

2) Anyone who joins your group is then afforded all the same tools and features they can use to create their own group.

"I joined a groupsite for my footy team, but then realised I could create a group for my knitting class, using all the same features!!"

I doubt anyone will actually ever say this, but you get what I mean.

3) There is the issue of thinking about who you are advertising to. Are you after people to create groupsites and populate them? Are you after people to visit the groupsites page and join  a group?

As someone who creates and runs groupsites, the attractiveness of the platform for me is that I can create multiple groups and manage my involvement in them from one location. However, this may not be hugely different from the competitors. I could create multiple googlegroups and run them from my igoogle page. I believe CollectiveX is different because of the quality and implementation of the platform (same idea, better implementation). Selling that comes down to having unique feature set and kick arse user interface.

When I was looking around for online software to start my group, I set up free accounts with a number of services. What made me stick with CollectiveX was I got much more done in a shorter period of time cause the interface and implementation was easier. I didnt really "click" onto the whole intergroup engagement concept until much later. It was not the selling point for me. I'd be interested to hear from other members as to what sold them to CollectiveX.