I would argue that the accessibility is both perhaps a statement about the quality of the site and about its users.
That’s not to say it’s a bad site or platform. But to say that if your platform is invite based only and you straight up ignore new users requests (even a form response sent out by bot saying they aren’t taking new signups or that the application has been reviewed and denied would be better (suggest that the team in charge of facilitating it aren’t up to keeping up with the rigors of running it. Their attention is apparently elsewhere, or their system is overrun with signups and there’s a significant backlog.
So suggesting it to people who cannot access it doesn’t do much good.
Additionally if the invite strategy has shifted to users providing invites and the place is slow because of the small user base it’s not likely to get many new users that way.
The point of user-based invite is that the user vets the new signups they’ve invited. But the actuality is very often there’s not a lot of getting involved because people will offer an invite to "people who are interested* that they don’t know outside that interaction.
Yes, check out tildes.net.
I requested an invite and literally never heard back so. No.
Maybe you’re just not quality content.
I don’t really do content. If that’s the criteria then it’s obviously not for me. But I do interact with content. Shrug
That’s unfortunate but that’s not really a statement about the quality of Tildes.
My anecdotal experience has been that Tildes is slower paced but offers the highest quality interactions of all the online communities I’m a part of.
I am happy to invite you if you’re interested.
I would argue that the accessibility is both perhaps a statement about the quality of the site and about its users.
That’s not to say it’s a bad site or platform. But to say that if your platform is invite based only and you straight up ignore new users requests (even a form response sent out by bot saying they aren’t taking new signups or that the application has been reviewed and denied would be better (suggest that the team in charge of facilitating it aren’t up to keeping up with the rigors of running it. Their attention is apparently elsewhere, or their system is overrun with signups and there’s a significant backlog.
So suggesting it to people who cannot access it doesn’t do much good.
Additionally if the invite strategy has shifted to users providing invites and the place is slow because of the small user base it’s not likely to get many new users that way.
The point of user-based invite is that the user vets the new signups they’ve invited. But the actuality is very often there’s not a lot of getting involved because people will offer an invite to "people who are interested* that they don’t know outside that interaction.