Who wants to be on my team? Part II | Bloggers Lair | Yakezie Forums

I say groups of 12 or 15, as long as everyone will be able to participate at those levels. The more blogs that are in a group, the harder it gets to meet the guidelines, so beyond 15 would be tougher (not that you suggested that anyway, but just saying..) 

Last month worked out well with 15 in my view, by the way. I'd be curious what others think.

I think 12 is ok. 15 has been a little hard for me personally to keep up with my schedule. I think 10 would be a little too small. There's definitely a benefit to having a larger group, providing you can keep up with it.

I would rather have smaller groups, but will go with what the majority wants. I'm into quality relationships, not quantity of blogs visited.

I would prefer 10 with 12 as a maximum.  15 is a little hard to leave enough comments!

I just signed up! Looking forward to meeting my new group members. I'm fine with whatever the majority decides on this too. I think 12 might be easier for everyone to keep up with…

I'm with Amanda regarding quality.  Sometimes, I just don't have anything real important to say on some people's blogs so I forego leaving a comment just for the sake of having my name and site seen.  That's how I view this whole thing including social media; I would rather have people become steady followers and communicate with me (and vice versa) than a ton of people who just jump onto the site and leave again or follow on twitter then never say word 1 to me.

I am fine with 12-15 per group. I was thinking though, instead of having the groups completely random this time, maybe like sites should be grouped with similar sites where possible (so investor blogs with investor blogs, deal blogs with deal blogs, general pf with general pf, debt with debt, etc.)  That way we might have more to say on the topics.

Jackie said:

I am fine with 12-15 per group. I was thinking though, instead of having the groups completely random this time, maybe like sites should be grouped with similar sites where possible (so investor blogs with investor blogs, deal blogs with deal blogs, general pf with general pf, debt with debt, etc.)  That way we might have more to say on the topics.

I disagree. I think one of the best benefits of these groups is to link with blogs we normally don't- to get out of our comfort zone. I think we should keep them random like before.

Eric J. Nisall said:

I'm with Amanda regarding quality.  Sometimes, I just don't have anything real important to say on some people's blogs so I forego leaving a comment just for the sake of having my name and site seen.  That's how I view this whole thing including social media; I would rather have people become steady followers and communicate with me (and vice versa) than a ton of people who just jump onto the site and leave again or follow on twitter then never say word 1 to me.

Good Point Eric (and Amanda).