The hardest part is the fact that you can get so caught up and engrossed in the game you are playing that you can forget you can change what game you’re playing. “Without concious and deliberate effort, inertia always wins.”

Something to think about.

Some interesting observations and facts about whether Texas would be able to secede from the Union:

During the civil war, Texas was actually winning. It was the Confederacy that surrendered. If Texas had declared independence, as Sam Houston urged, instead of joining the Confederacy, Texas may have won, even though the Confederacy lost. Texas actually won the last battle of the civil war against the union, after the Confederacy surrendered, because it did not know the war was over.

Every state has a military (or state militia), and retains its military powers, even to this day. After WWI, the federal government offered a deal to the states. The federal government would help fund the state militias in exchange for being able to call the state militias into service when needed, in addition to the state being able to call it into service when needed. The National Guard system you see today is actually state militias operated under this arrangement. Like another poster mentioned, they are technically and legally state military forces, not federal. If Texas would secede from the union, they would no doubt keep their state military, the Texas National Guard, and the Texas State Guard, which already exist.

If Texas were an independent country, it would rank economically somewhere around Canada and India in GDP (Gross Domestic Product), and ranks higher than Mexico, Russia and Australia. Texas is an economic powerhouse, so it definitely can survive independently economically.

Speaking of economics, more tax money flows out Texas to support other states, than is returned to Texas. Essentially Texas is subsidizing other states. So Texas would actually benefit from leaving the union, since more tax dollars would stay in Texas.

Texas pretty much does what it wants anyway, since it does not depend on federal funds like many other states do. It’s glad to take federal funds, of course, but it does not need it to survive. Even if it stays in the union, it can and will assert its will when it needs to.

Also, most people have forgotten what was taught in U.S. History class. The United States is a union of sovereign states, with most domestic laws being state laws, not federal laws. And that is by design. The federal government was designed to deal with international and interstate issues, but not issues within the states themselves. The original states (former colonies) were all independent states with their own military, currencies, laws and customs. This is so the California Republic and all the other states can pass laws that are appropriate for their own citizens.

The fact that there is a division of power between the states and federal government is probably one of the only things keeping this country a democracy. If the states get out of line, the federal government will step in and protect people’s rights, just as they did when states violated people’s civil rights. On the other hand, the states will also step in and prevent the federal government from getting out of line as well, by refusing to implement draconian laws. Federalism works because the states and federal government are in a constant power struggle, which helps prevent one or the other from becoming a dictatorship. If you don’t think that can happen, remember, Hitler was elected.

Just some things to think about.

“The study suggests people who have spent money on things they perceive to benefit society as a whole may feel they have “done their good deed for the day” and thus are more likely to choose less altruistically when presented with other ethical quandaries.” – BC Upham

I think it depends on the individual. Some people aspire to live a life of values & high standards because they themselves chose that path. These people will have a higher capacity to give in areas aligned with their values.

On the other hand, there are tons of people who feel social pressure to act in certain ways. They don’t really believe in sustainability. They don’t really believe races are equal. They don’t really believe in the organic & whole foods movement. They don’t really believe in many things parts of society are currently promoting. But they feel outnumbered, or don’t want to look bad, or they simply don’t want the hassle of arguing with someone over whether the burger they just ate will give them a heart attack and that they just slaughtered some cow. Or that their 20 page document they printed is destroying the rain forest.

These people often take an action they can use to justify to others that they are a good person. But the hidden message is “shut up.” Examples I have seen in other people include: “I buy green products, so shut up about the fact I don’t practice sustainability.” “My insurance agent is black, so shut up about the fact that I call black people from the ghetto racist names.” “I’ve done my good deed for the day, so leave me alone.” They say the first part, but the real message is the part after “so.” They can use their good deed to justify to themselves and others that they are indeed a “good person” while still keeping their original beliefs. It’s not really surprising that once the good deed is done, they are done. They never did the deed because they thought it was good. They did it to justify themselves.

There are also tons of people emotionally exhausted from giving all they could give, and at some point, they simply stop giving. Their cup is empty. They are already maxed out, giving to their family, friends, company, society, etc. So they buy some green products, smile knowing that they have saved the planet, and move on. Now they can focus on putting food on the table, or helping a sick friend or relative, or dealing with the drama that is their friends & family and/or co-workers. They already help people before they help themselves. They need to somehow recharge, which will help them regain their capacity to give, before they get burned out.

Then you have people living paycheck to paycheck, barely surviving. Perhaps battling with big issues both internally & externally. They are in survival mode, and instincts demand survival first, altruism second. Getting these people out of survival mode is what will expand their capacity to give.

Given the different people out there and the different “worlds” they live in, I am not surprised that people have a limited capacity to give. In reality there is no limit, but in their “world” there is. Handling peoples needs, whether that be changing their mindset, or helping them get beyond survival, or helping replenish a giver by being supportive so they don’t burn out or get overwhelmed, will be what increases people’s capacity to give.

Their move appears to be an attempt to get really big, YouTube or Facebook big, as hinted by some posts by their founder Scott Heiferman, who hopes the changes will dramatically increase the number of groups on the site, as well as the success of the existing groups.  Why not a million Meetup groups, he says.

I’ve been doing a lot of comparing between the old and new views. I agree that the old view is not optimal in encouraging activity, but the new view is a poor implementation of a fix.

I will go through some of the major items and why they will work or not work as intended.

Activity Feed

I agree that for some types of groups, the new activity feed will be a boom to the group, both online and offline, because it will become a central location for people to congregate, and therefore be exposed to upcoming events more, and therefore be more likely to come. But you will also get a lot of lurkers too.

But notice that I said for some groups. Less tech savvy groups, or groups that don’t like Facebook style interaction will not benefit, in fact may even suffer because of the new format. Once size does not fit all. You have to look at the demographics of the individual group.

Events on Front Page

I also agree with everyone else that the events themselves need to be more central, and more events with more details needs to be on the front page. Fees are collected by the group from people attending events, not for coming to the website, so that should be up front. Also, if a group is busy, the front page does not give enough information about upcoming events.

Think about this: a group that meets once a month can have up to 5 months of events listed on the home page, but a group that meets 2 or 3 times a week would only have 2 weeks of events listed on the home page. Now that sounds ok, unless, the big featured event is 30 days away and should be featured, and also causes problems is you have the same event on different dates at different venues more than a couple weeks away.

Perhaps what would be more useful is an option to show the next 10 events, or even events for the next 30 days. More information about the event should also be shown as well, such as time and venue, which seems to be missing in the new view.

Calendar

There needs to be easy access to the calendar. You guys seems to have a split personality about it. Before when the list view was default, you forced everybody to the calendar view. Now suddenly you are forcing us back to the lists view.

In reality, in some situations one is better than the other, and some people also prefer one over the other. So I would recommend giving people access to all three views (past events list, upcoming events list, and calendar) right from the front page, in an easy to access and obvious way.

For groups that meet once a month, the list view is much easier to read. For groups that have multiple events a month or even multiple events per week, the calendar view is usually more useful. And then you have visual people who simply prefer the calendar view because they are visual people, and the list view does not allow them to “visualize” the data.

Forums Posts Listed in Feed

This is a good change for those of us who want to use Meetup for both online and offline collaboration.

I still have to chuckle that at one time you tried to force everyone to switch to mailing lists and were trying to push people off the website by trying to shut down the message boards. I’m glad you finally realize that message boards are the way to go because they generate activity on the site.

All or Nothing Approach (Arrogance from Above)

I have been following your changes to Meetup for sometime. One issue that I see is that you seem to have a “my way or the highway” approach to change. This is not good.

I know you actually do listen to your users and listen to the data, because you have backtracked on many of the decisions you have made in the past that didn’t work as planned. You may not see it that way, but to me it is apparent if you look at the longer view of Meetup’s past (i.e. calendar view vs. list view, and mailing lists vs. message boards).

It is this perceived arrogance that upsets people more than the changes. I say perceived arrogance, because I have actually met you guys in New York a few years back and visited your offices thanks to American Express OPEN.

I think that you really do want to make the best site for your users, and I do know you are passionate about what you do. Just the way you implement changes on the site is a public relations disaster, and comes across as arrogant to your paying users who do not understand what you are doing or why and how it benefits them.

More Choices Equals More Groups & More Members

(Or How to become a Facebook or YouTube)

Right now you have several demographics on your site. Basically, you are saying that your site is not appealing enough to go YouTube or Facebook big. And you are right. People meeting face to face is a niche market. There are less people who want to meet in person than want to participate online.

Facebook is huge because of the flexibility it has in how people use it.  They don’t force you to use it to meet classmates, they don’t force you to use it to socialize with friends, they don’t force you to use it to organize meetings, they don’t force you to play Farmvilele and Mafia Wars and Cafe World.  They don’t force you to give and accept hugs.  They don’t force you to promote your business on Facebook.

What Facebook does that makes them huge is they give flexibility, allowing people to use Facebook how they want to use Facebook, not forcing them to use Facebook how the founders originally envisioned.

There is a way to get big without alienating your core existing audience:

If you want to grow exponentially, what I would suggest is giving us choices. Go ahead an change the default to the new view so they can try it out, but give people the option of continuing to use the old view.

Giving people choices means you will have MORE people use your service, since it can be customized and tailored for each specific group.

By giving choices, groups that only meet in person, who do not like doing all that online stuff will love your view that caters to them. And the people who interact online and off will love the view that gives them interactivity and allows them to be a part of the group online and off. But you can only cater to both audiences if you give us choices.

Different Views for Different Types of Groups

I would recommend building three views and letting organizers decide what is most appropriate.

1. Current / Old View – perfect for groups that only use Meetup for the events and have little interest in online activity. Meetings are central, activity is minimized.

2. New View (Activity Dominant) – Great for groups that want as much activity as possible, both online and off. Groups that are more active online will benefit greatly from this view. You can attract a whole new audience with this view, groups that rarely meet but participate online, while at the same time encouraging them to do so.

3. Compromise View (Meetups Dominant with Activity Highlighted) – This view would be a compromise between the old and new, with the Meetups in the central wider column, and the Activity in the narrower right column. This would be great for groups that want to foster online activity, but want their events to be the primary focus.

Give people a choice, and you will attract more people. You will keep the meeting only crowd, which is most vocal against the change and you will embrace the new social networking crowd that wants more ways to interact with each other. Giving choices will give you (and us) the best of both worlds. And most importantly it will allow you to attract more diverse audiences than you can with a one size fits all approach. Choices & flexibility is what is going to make you grow exponentially.

Online / Offline Community Replacement

I really like your approach to making Meetup a way to meet online and off, but that is not appropriate for all groups, or event wanted in some cases.

If you give people more ways to interact, and give us more choices on how we want to interact, you will see an explosion of users, since Meetup will be flexible enough to cater to offline groups, online groups and groups that participate online and off. But flexibility is what will give you new users in new markets, not a rigid one size fits all approach.

If you want to embrace new markets, go ahead and do so, just don’t dump your old market for the new, instead give options so the new market comes, and the old market stays.

Since this is an Open Message to Meetup:

I want to say to Meetup, thank you for your time. I hope you consider some of the things I have mentioned.

You guys have great ideas. You just need to realize that one size does not fit all, and giving us choices is a much better model.