Membership Longevity: going the distance!

[Byrn 102]

Wasn't sure what prefix to throw this under... it could fall under either.

 

Can anyone tell if a site will last these days? Its hard to look at a site and know they will be around for years to come when the overall lifespan of new role play forums is generally a few months. What do you look for in a site that makes you think they will be around for a long time? Particularly when a site is under a year old? It always seems to be a gamble when joining and perhaps it always will be. But for sites that have been around for a year or more, what do you think keeps them going? 

 

It doesn't appear to matter how much work someone puts into it, I have seen some brilliantly planned sites go down in an excessively fast rate upon opening date. What is something that can kill a site when it seems to have everything going for it?

[VirusZero 176]

There is no way to tell for certain if a site will last these days. As a rule of thumb though, sites that look great visually (and put a lot of emphasis on it) tend to suffer because they're all about the visuals... they're all flash, no substance. But that doesn't mean a great looking site can't survive longer. Conversely a less visually focused site doesn't guarantee longevity because people may feel it's too anti-visual and not join.

 

If a site does make it to a year though that tends to indicate a few important qualities...

- admins are committed. (Most sites die within 3-6 months.)

- admins have experienced a few hardships and have worked through them. (The inevitable honeymoon phase wearing off, people flaking out, slow seasons and excuses, etc...)

 

 

One thing that will kill a site, new or old regardless, is bad staff.

 

Things might look ok at surface level but if the staff has issues either between themselves or with members it will bleed over. I mean there are plenty of people who are really not fit to be staff but yet are.  People who either can't tell others to knock off bad behaviour or, worse yet, incite bad behaviour themselves.

I mean how many times do we see in sections like here on RPG-I where people will say stuff like "a member is misbehaving... what do?" and they almost universally have not even tried talking to them. It's like a foreign concept to them. Very much a "What do you mean I have to talk to them?" kind of reaction. Perhaps this is due to inexperience or social awkwardness or desire to avoid conflict. (Conflict is part and parcel of being an admin though, can't escape it no matter how much you try). 

 

On the more vicious end, with bad admins, the sad truth is that with the prevalence of premade rules and themes even a really bad admin can put together a good looking site and mask the fact they are a terrible person/admin. By the time people realise that the admin is bad they're already invested in the game. Which means they might try to stick it out for a bit (causing the delayed site death when people can't take it any longer and it essentially reaches critical mass and the situation blows up).

[Morrigan 1,826]

There is actually a topic about this:

There are a lot of signs but really no one way to know.

[Verridith 66]

One of the biggest things is admin participation, devotion, and determination. If the site's admin isn't in it, the site will die. If they don't push the envelope, never give up, and show the drive to make the site succeed for years... it will die.

 

Never, ever give up! Can't put that plainly enough. ❤️

[Morrigan 1,826]

I don't agree with that. I've seen sites with super dedicated admins that never stay. I kept a site "alive" for 3 years where I was the only active person and I was dedicated to it but the idea/premise etc was never taken. I had really great reviews of the rules, the layout, the content it was just never a premise that pulled people in which made it mostly just me for the entire time it was open.

 

Dedication is important but certainly not a sign of longevity.

[CovertSphinx 710]

In the end I think it all comes down to Lady Luck: the right prospective member finding the site at the right time. 

[Garmr 106]

Also, longevity isn't necessarily a good thing. I've walked in on some communities that were  years old and found ingrained habits/practices that weren't necessarily healthy and tended to benefit only the founding members/staff. In those places new players tended to revolve in and out because they had the choice either to kowtow to what the core-set wanted or vacate. 

 

I've found its not the site but the people that make for better longevity in writing. Find some writers you gel with and you can forum hop with them for decades.

[Rune 1,099]

1. Active, involved and sane admin
2. Active, involved and sane members
3. Potential
4. Not-too-niche
5. Admin's willingness to let others play

 

 

1. Staff need to be around. They need to be visible. They need to be willing to play the part and play with their members. They need to be willing to stick to their guns.

 

2. Members need to be around. They need to be visible. They need to be willing to participate in events, threads and construct their own paths without waiting for staff to hold their hands. This ranges from understanding why a character won't work in the setting to knowing the information well enough to lend a hand when a new member has a question.

 

3. The site is going to have to have room to grow and change and evolve. If you have a setting with nothing else, eventually things will get stale. You have to have the potential for events, involvement and things to occasionally stir it up, even if its OOC events or a ship you don't expect to sail that does.

 

4. This is a big one that leads to a lot of sites failing and admin frequently don't realize it. If you are making a board based off a TV show that only aired for 1 year in Uganda, you probably aren't going to have many people jumping at the chance to join. If your plot is super specific and limits the kind of people that can join, you're going to have trouble finding people willing to twist themselves into a pretzel to get in.

 

5. A lot of admin refuse to let go. They won't let anyone else run an event or plot, they won't let anyone else contribute to lore or information and they won't let anyone question their almighty decisions. They're heavy handed with the banhammer, quick to snap at anyone that dares to not read every detail or magically know things that aren't written, and generally create an uncomfortable environment. Alongside this, such things like too many rules or overly strict activity requirements fall into play.

 

[eleholly 118]

Collaborative writing should be collaborative.

The first thing that I look for in a site is identifying if the admins are open to listening to member ideas and letting members help develop plot lines. Having an open forum where people feel like their opinions matter is important. Personally, I try to involve my members in developing lore. Right now, I have them involved in completely revamping one of the witch covens and letting them take control of what happens with that branch (even if it completely terrifies me to no end because yes, I am a control freak but I love their excitement). BUT we've been around for *years* because the member base is active in how the site is ran and organized. I really feel like I'm writing with a bunch of friends instead of just admins versus members. I honestly think that making things collaborative like this is exactly how a site lives. 

 

Also, devoted admins are important. If the admins are not in it, the members won't be either. I was the only devoted admin for a really long time and then I met my current co admin and sister from another mister and we've been rolling strong for a few years now. Our excitement over plots bleeds into the forum and I notice that when we're in a writing slump, the site goes into a writing slump.