Some people get upset if you suggest removing members that aren't a good fit, especially if they haven't broken any rules.
Online communities aren't inclusive, they're exclusive. They welcome the people that share the same interest, have the same strength of passion, and are a good personality fit. They exclude the others.
Communities are based around a strong common interest. You need outsiders to have insiders. The insiders are people that have crossed a boundary. That boundary is a depth of passion for the topic, skills acquired, experiences gained etc...
Your role is to ensure the strength of this boundary. This boundary is essential to having a strong sense of community. When that boundary weakens, the sense of community declines.
The stronger the boundary, the stronger the sense of community.
If a newcomer doesn't share the same interest in your topic, or don't have the right personality fit, the boundary is weakened, the quality of discussions declines. The sense of community decreases followed steadily by activity and growth. We've all been in communities where this has happened.
These ill-suited members might never break a rule, but you still need to do what's best for the community. You can remove/tweak their posts, but that's time consuming. It's simply easier to be honest and tell the member this community isn't for them.
The counter-argument is you should try to change their behaviour. You should reason with them. You should explain the personality of the community. That's hard, if not impossible to achieve. When was the last time you changed your behaviour?
And is spending an out-sized amount of time changing the behaviour of one member the best use of your time? You could spend that time organizing an exciting event that members will love and will attract newcomers, or optimizing the newcomer to regular conversion ratio, or initiating/highlighting engaging discussions.
It's tough to change someones interest in the topic, or their personality. If someone is degrading the quality of discussion, I wouldn't hesitate to ask them to leave.
This isn't customer service, it's community development. There are rules to the game that seem cold but benefit the community as a whole. Your goal isn't to please every person that drifts in, it's to develop a strong sense of community amongst a specific group of people.
You have to do what's best for the community. Or, to use a more familiar expression, you have to be cruel to be kind.
Hi Richard,
Nice to see you've turned our discussion into a post. And perhaps this is a better place to respond anyhow - more characters ;)
First off, personally, I was not 'upset' at your suggestion. I just simply disagree. We clearly focus on different types of communities, and I don't believe there's a one-size-fits-all solution. So, when you say 'it's not customer service', well for me it actually is. Like many Community Managers, I run a community on behalf of a brand, so it very important that I take a customer service approach to community building. If I 'kick out a member' I run the risk of losing a customer or creating negative word of mouth. These aren't things I want as a brand community manager.
I understand your point of view, I just think it seems a bit curt. How would you propose 'kicking someone out'? Do you block them from the community? When you tell them they're not welcome, how do they tend to respond?
Again, this all depends on the type of community you're managing. Not all communities are 'exclusive' as you put it. In my case, I want it to be inclusive - I want it to grow with a many members as possible who share a common interest. But if someone doesn't share that common interest, I believe general human behaviour would dictate that they simply wouldn't want to participate anyway. And if they do, I'm happy to let them continue. What harm are they doing? Isn't that why we often have 'social lounges' for off-topic discussions?
Again, I'm not at all upset. Just offering a different point of view.
^KB
Posted by: Kerri Birtch | Monday, 11 June 2012 at 16:24
Hey Kerri,
The post wasn't about you, but more about a few messages I got via e-mail.
Your argument is well constructed, but I disagree.
This post was targeted for community managers on behalf of brand. It's not customer service. The customer service perspective is the same approach that leads to a limited sense of community.
So let's follow through on your example. You don't kick out the member. The boundary in the community weakens. Members lose that sense of identification with one another. The level of activity drops. The level of growth declines. The overall value of the community plummets as members go elsewhere or simply stop participating.
The cost of not kicking out that member is far higher than losing a single customer. You could end up losing all the value that the community was meant to generate.
If you're running a customer service channel like those on Lithium/GetSatisfaction then that's perfectly fine. You just need to respond the questions members have. If you're trying to build a strong sense of community amongst people (and it's this that generates increase value), then it's not.
Posted by: Richard Millington | Tuesday, 12 June 2012 at 14:38
Again, disagree. I think you're making a lot of grand assumptions that users who don't fit will affect the sense of identification with one another, cause activity to drop, growth to decline etc. Sounds very 'armageddon-ish' to me. And if a community is already strong, they'll welcome other users and attempt to educate them. Outside of the T&C's, it should really be up to the community who stays and who goes.
But, it seems we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
As always, I do enjoy your posts - definitely food for thought.
Cheers,
^KB
Posted by: Kerri Birtch | Wednesday, 13 June 2012 at 21:16