Thoughts on G/B's

[Gregers]

Just been musing over builds I have done, failed at or not been happy with (smer Spitfire V! for instance) or has turned out better than I expected. I was not thinking about G/B's at first but that got me thinking (dangerous I know). What makes a good G/B? Participation is of course a pre-requisit, feedback/critique naturally likewise, good results/builds? Long or short lead in times? What MAKES a good G/B?. Is it the theme? subject? timescale?. The G/B Leader? (admittedly I certainly am not the best there). There are things that will always be favorite subjects (Spitfires, Mustangs, DC3/C47s Phantoms etc) but what esoteric subjects would be popular?. What themes too? (NASA springs to mind here as one that seems a good idea, was mentioned but never materialised).
Over to you good folks. What are your thoughts?

All the best.

Greg

[SJPONeill]

For me, a high degree of participant engagement is what makes a good GB, whether I am participating of just following...the theme isn't really a biggie for me as, if the theme doesn't float my boat, then I don't bother engaging. I do really like it when people push the edges of their modelling envelopes as this encourages me to push myself..?

[fredk]

A good subject runs itself. Good interaction from the players helps it to flow. A good GB leader helps, with input, encouragement, sympathy and regular postings to keep the subject on the leader board to be read.
Flexibility on end times is most useful. I'm not advocating changing the format. It doesn't matter when the GB ends we all sometimes need an extra day or two grace to finish up.
I do think the requisite number of 8 bodies should go back to 6 as this is a small forum with the same number of about 15 people regularly posting. I'd rather see 6 playing than a good subject idea dying with only 7 takers.

[Dazzled]

I think what makes a good GB is going to be personally subjective.

What I like to see in a GB is an involved GB leader who is there every day making comments and encouraging participants. Not pointing fingers but some are better than others at this.

Subjects are naturally subjective . With a lot of other modelling commitments these days I tend to think a lot harder about which GBs to participate in. If I can't find any interest in a subject then I'm much less likely to take part. To this end I feel that the GBs with broader scope have the best chance of attracting more participants. Fred's "Lesser Known Forces" GB is a good example of this and I can, in such cases, usually find something that I can adapt to a SIG related model. Single type or single kit GBs perhaps less so. We are only a small group on this forum so perhaps being too specialised isn't going to work too well for us.

Timescales, for me, are something of a bugbear with the way GBs are run on UAMF. I am, by no stretch of the imagination, a fast builder. I can manage multiple builds but like to do the best job I can with each kit, and that usually means lots of drying/setting time and fitting in modelling around unexpected events in life (and ain't life just brilliant at that ). God forbid I'd try and blitz a kit . I'd probably have a meltdown !. Frankly, from my own perspective as a "slow burner", I'd prefer to see longer duration GBs, perhaps two or three months. GBs seem to be my biggest source of unfinished kits.

I don't really have any thoughts on lead-in times although it does seem that when the initial interest in a GB has worn off people tend to lose interest so maybe having a shorter time would be better.

What makes the best GB?
For me, actually finishing the model I start at the beginning.

[iggie]

For my part, I'm pretty happy with GBs as they are. As I tend to stick to one build at a time, the 4 week typical time-scale is fine for me, even I suspect for the forthcoming Large scale planes GB.
Possibly the only thing that comes to mind is the length of time between suggestion and a subsequent GB starting; understandable for anniversary GB themes (such as the Suez 60th GB later this year; shameless plug there folks, don't forget your yellow and black stripes ) but sometimes frustrating with other subjects for which dates are irrelevant.
Perhaps some guidelines on this to shorten the process would be good?

[Purplethistle]

I agree with Fred about the required numbers going back to 6. There have been several propositions that I would have been 100% up for that withered on the vine. I personally love the ones that encourage imaginative builds, like the CD GB, One thing into another etc. sometimes I even see it as a challenge to do a subject that fits the letter if not exactly the spirit of the guidelines of more restricted subjects
I have read and applied a lot of good tips from others here and hope that I may have given something back in some way, broad remit GBs are an excellent marketplace for ideas and 'Out of comfort zone' projects and I'm all for more of them.

[jssel]

I am happy with the GB's as they are. But change is good. What makes a good group build? Members who offer each other support and encouragement. A group build leader that is engaged with the builders and not just a welcome or thanks for participating statements. Finally a subject that is open enough to offer many build options.

[VickersVandal]

Possibly the only thing that comes to mind is the length of time between suggestion and a subsequent GB starting; understandable for anniversary GB themes (such as the Suez 60th GB later this year; shameless plug there folks, don't forget your yellow and black stripes ) but sometimes frustrating with other subjects for which dates are irrelevant.
Perhaps some guidelines on this to shorten the process would be good?

I agree with this! The long waits can easily mean a loss of interest and people who were originally interested dropping off the radar.
If it's a good idea and has the required numbers, then why muck around? Just get into it as long as the calendar isn't chockers.

[MarkyM607]

I also have to agree with the long wait to get started, the Eric Brown GB is something really worth doing IMHO, but we are waiting until November to go!. Of course we could do something ourselves in the meantime, and a longer lead time allows more people to sign up as they can clear the desk and be ready, rather than put aside something they are working on now.
If the GB's were longer it would be good for getting the models done but I think the four-six week idea also works because it seems better to get the mojo going, if we had months then we'd probably suffer from fading mojo which often affects us already. A time limit can sometimes help fire us up a little.

[Gadfly]

Hi,
I think you have it about right. I'd personally like to see say a bit longer on the build time allotted as that would mean it would be possible to build some nice stuff. I think 8 weeks would be maximum needed.

Subject wise there always seems to be plenty of choice.

HTH
Gadfly