The group started with formalities of introductions - a variety of individuals with different interests in community either through hyperlocal publishing, regional press or student projects.

Lots of people were interested in how to get users to interact instead of just publishing content that nobody comments on. ‘If the conversation is going on elsewhere then you need to go there and talk,’ suggested one person. ‘Don’t expect the conversation to happen on your site or blog.’

Adam Tinworth talked about how the final article is just a part of the process, ‘it’s an ongoing conversation with tweeting and blogging on the way to the final piece.’ In discussing community building and encouraging interaction, it was suggested that talking to people directly (e.g. face-to-face) is as important as all the online communication.

One of the group members explained the problems faced by the site he runs; issues surrounding online behaviour and the way people talk to one another about certain issues. He said that a lot of the comments posted on the site revolve around social issues and ‘divides’ within the local community (e.g. “well nothing good ever comes out of xxxxxxx anyway”). How can gaps be bridged in terms of behaviour online?

Someone raised the thought that avatars are really important for connecting visually - putting a face to the name and being able to ‘trust’ someone in terms of community engagement. Adam said how recently changing his avatar had increased his followers - ‘maybe because he looks more approachable on the new one.’ Someone else added that they think personal avatars defeat the object of community and maybe alienate people in terms of interaction.

Moving on to hyperlocal and community based sites, a few people were interested in how others ‘get the word out there’. Dave Harte, who runs the Bournville Village blog, said that he has gone down the flyering/poster route - targeting local businesses that may want to advertise on the site but also connecting with local schools who have published info in their newsletter. He also talked about linking up with schools in terms of encouraging students to contribute to the site.

Incentivising community involvement was also a key discussion with various suggestions and points raised. One person described their experience of ‘hiring’ community reporters; ‘you start off with like 100 people who want to do it, then after a few weeks you’re down to 20 and then eventually it’s 2 or 3 who are really committed and see the point of doing it.’ Keeping volunteers engaged is something which people seem to struggle with.

A late-comer to the group, who’s a journalist on local papers in the east of England, asked whether anyone had any experience of using gaming apps to incentivise e.g. the badges in Foursquare. An interesting idea that no-one really seemed to have come across themselves, although some talked about how users can be ‘rated’ in terms of contributions.

Social capital and ‘status-driven’ incentives were discussed both positively and not so - one concern raised was about hierarchies within local sites and whether that detracts from the notion of community.

A few also raised the question whether it would be better to engage several local bloggers to collaborate on a ‘bigger’ site than individuals posting their own blogs with smaller user numbers. Adam argued that communities ‘smear out’, they’re not restricted to one or two sites so they will move around and engage wherever they choose to online. It was also debated whether or not individuals would ‘forfeit’ their own ‘egos/online status’ to contribute to something which was a joint effort.