|
|
|
|
|
by rossdavidh
2999 days ago
|
|
It says in that article that their limit was 500, which might explain why there wasn't as much benefit from it as one might have hoped. Dunbar's Number is around 150; 500 is way past the point where we can effectively manage relationships. |
|
> ...which might explain why there wasn't as much benefit from it as one might have hoped.
I think you've got this the wrong way around. The users probably didn't like being constrained to an arbitrary number. My main point was that any service that tries to impose such limits is going to feel pressure to raise/abolish them.