7 replies to this topic

[S.C.]

I've been wondering this for some time now, but do solo scanlators actually count as a group?

I'm referring to people who don't even have a blog/IRC channel, and/or post their work directly. Example: http://vatoto.com/group/_/e/exas-r3926

Edited by S.C., 30 January 2014 - 01:53 AM.

[OchaMeido❣]

I've been wondering this for some time now, but do solo scanlators actually count as a group?

I'm referring to people who don't even have a blog/IRC channel, and/or post their work directly. Example: http://vatoto.com/group/_/e/exas-r3926

 

As No Group description describes:

 

(Group of 1 is still a group).

 

  And many members who are new doesnt know about No Group name ,so they made an group page for that individual person ~

 

That maybe another reason why~

[S.C.]

Well, I'm basically asking whether we should/can go around creating 'Group Pages' for single individuals that have been mentioned/credited.

 

The

(Group of 1 is still a group).

I'd understand as... well, there are a bunch of "Groups" with a website and everything, but only a single member. So they still deserve a group page.

However, how does it stand with people with no place you could actually refer to (groups with dead websites excluded)? I always figured they'd be 'No Group', but I don't actually know for sure.

Edited by S.C., 30 January 2014 - 03:54 AM.

[Viscoun]

Well, I'm basically asking whether we should/can go around creating 'Group Pages' for single individuals that have been mentioned/credited.

 

The

 

I'd understand as... well, there are a bunch of "Groups" with a website and everything, but only a single member. So they still deserve a group page.

However, how does it stand with people with no place you could actually refer to (groups with dead websites excluded)? I always figured they'd be 'No Group', but I don't actually know for sure.

 

if groups of 1 still count as groups according to batoto's definition, then i think group pages for them should still be made, since they should still be paid due credit (and thus be entitled to a group page), even if there's no way to contact them. that's what batoto group pages are for, anyway - giving "enhanced" forms of credit.

 

some scanlators have probably never heard of batoto and hence never use their group pages on batoto, so should they still get a page? it's that line of logic. it's not really a matter of redundancy or anything, a group page or two won't change much. no group should only be for uncertain / lack of credits on released chapters.

[mhh]

Well, I'm basically asking whether we should/can go around creating 'Group Pages' for single individuals that have been mentioned/credited.

There's nothing wrong with that but I would only add the page if there is some sort of content by them on Batoto. Many groups start out with only one person and after a while others join in. (Grumpy is an example of that.)

 

It's true that the label "group" is misleading. I can't think of any other better and similarily short term, however.

[S.C.]

if groups of 1 still count as groups according to batoto's definition, then i think group pages for them should still be made, since they should still be paid due credit (and thus be entitled to a group page), even if there's no way to contact them. that's what batoto group pages are for, anyway - giving "enhanced" forms of credit.

 

some scanlators have probably never heard of batoto and hence never use their group pages on batoto, so should they still get a page? it's that line of logic. it's not really a matter of redundancy or anything, a group page or two won't change much. no group should only be for uncertain / lack of credits on released chapters.

The complete description would be:

This is a reserved group for identifying any works that were not possible to attribute or anonymous. It may also be used by individuals who are publishing but do not wish to be identified as a "group" (Group of 1 is still a group).

So, to me, it sounds like the "group of 1" is mainly referring to groups like as yours, Vis. Or wait, you have members now, don't you? Another good one would be display; none;.

 

There's nothing wrong with that but I would only add the page if there is some sort of content by them on Batoto. Many groups start out with only one person and after a while others join in. (Grumpy is an example of that.)

 

It's true that the label "group" is misleading. I can't think of any other better and similarily short term, however.

Though I think it's a tad difficult to re-identify those "groups", once a certain amount of time has passed. Well, unless those "groups" do so themselves.

 

Anyway, according to what you said, it's not actually correct (not the original idea, etc.), but it's not really incorrect/bad either.

[Viscoun]

The complete description would be:

 

So, to me, it sounds like the "group of 1" is mainly referring to groups like as yours, Vis. Or wait, you have members now, don't you? Another good one would be display; none;.

 

nope, that's another group i operate.

 

and yes, i know the complete description. hence what i said in the post. i think it wouldn't be incorrect or redundant, it would simply be following guidelines for batoto's most distinctive feature as a reader site,

It's true that the label "group" is misleading. I can't think of any other better and similarily short term, however.

 

team?

[Grumpy]

Little bit late to the party, but when I wrote that, I meant it as something like what the scanlator wants to be identified as. If they don't want to identify themselves, use "No Group". If they want to be identified separately, create a group.

 

(Things I set are open to change... btw)