Removing 3/4 people a good idea?
Hey everyone,
I am building a community that creates side projects together.
I was so excited about adding my first couple of community members, I was talking to them a lot and everything was wonderful. Then when it was actually time to create projects a lot fewer people ever did anything. I was watching the number of users increase while I was seeing no creation. So this week i decided to remove 3/4 users and to work with the people who create naturally.
That is not to cast blame on the 3/4 people because I further found out again that it's emotionally difficult to create things.
Thinking of the tasks, validating project ideas, setting goals, and staying committed is difficult work. So this week I focused on how I can make it an easier process to create. There are a lot of people who are new to creating projects and so I took a major role in defining the possible work. Adding co-creator contracts. I hope that this is a temporary role as people learn more about what is important.
TLDR: I reduced from 16 people down to 4 and I prefer the feel of the community! new measures to make it easier to integrate into the platform.
Do you think it was a good idea to remove the majority of my users?
removing people from community looks like a bad move to me. No matter your intention it would always antagonize some people. In this case i would have created new community with active members and let old community die in time.
Interesting perspective, I see your point. Will think about it some more :)
I think it's the right decision in your case. Usually less engaged users don't hurt. But in such a special community I can see how it is different.
From my personal experience, I feel that 3-4 people is the sweet spot where a team can be efficient and supportive without managing the team. Larger teams need managers. In the absence of full-time managers that will be you as being the frontman.
On a side note, I second your opinion that creating and marketing projects is a challenging task. I really feel the urge to deliver each day in order to succeed as a startup. That's not something we can reasonably expect from anyone.
I am still trying to find the right balance for what the right level of expectation is. We are currently testing co-creator contracts that define the most basic commitment to the project without trying to force 100% constant commitment.
When it comes to communities, I am a firm believer in a less is more approach. And in my experience, the smaller the community, the more engagement.
Was it a good idea? Well, it depends -- mainly on what is the endgame for this community. But probably not.
Why? Because generally removing members from a community (unless they did something against ground rules, code of conduct or illegal) is bad form. It creates a reputational issue around the community. So it is generally better to filter before admitting rather than kicking out afterwards.
If you are just focusing on the actual building part, yes, these members are not the best members. BUT obviously, these people have the intention of building something yet there are some blockers on their way. Helping them (or letting them help each other) is also an option. Maybe via smaller groupings in the same community (idea generation phase, validation phase, building phase, etc).