When groups were first released on the Vine all that time back I was not terribly taken with the idea, and for a long time simply did not bother with them. However, as time progressed I joined a few and realised that they are a great way to avoid topics that are not interesting to me, as well as to find articles on topics that I enjoy reading and discussing.
Somewhat surprisingly this is not through browsing the group home page - I don't do that very much except for those groups that I moderate (more on that below). I found that as I seeded and wrote articles and brought them to the groups I had joined I found people with similar interests to mine. Over time we friended one another, and now articles that are of interest to me end up in my comment tracker. Hence, the simple act of joining a group and populating it with relevant articles has increased the relevancy of articles in my comment tracker. I don't think this effect was part of the design process of the people who conceived of groups, but it is a tremendous result. Groups have improved the Vine for me even though I rarely visit them directly!
There is a caveat to this, of course. In order for groups to be useful to their members then the articles brought to the group must be relevant. If your interest is in pearl stitch knitting, and you join Pearl Stitch Viners* to gain insight into the technique, find patterns, and interact with other Pearlers, then you don't want articles on dog grooming or politics in the group. You also don't want (and this is important to understand) articles on moss, garter rib or diagonal stitches, or knitting needles. Those topics are related to knitting, yes, but they are not related to pearl stitches, which is what the group is about.
Why do I bring up this rather silly hypothetical example? I moderate a small number of groups, one of which gets a fair amount of traffic. As a moderator part of my job is to ensure that the articles that are published to the group are relevant to it. This is not because I am a power-hungry internetter, or because I enjoy being the boss and am a stickler for rules, but because the people who joined the group did so for the simple reason that they have interests that are served by the group's description. In order to give them what they signed up for, and hence for the group to be beneficial to the members, it is my duty to remove articles that are not relevant. And when the same member has brought three or four irrelevant (to the group) articles over a short period of time, I send them a short friendly email reminding them of the group description, with an example of a recent article that did not fit into that description.
Boy, do some people take issue with this! They complain the the focus of group is too narrow, that I am naive to think that the articles they've been bringing to the group don't affect issues that the group is interested in, that we're stupid, and more besides. Sometimes they are not nearly that restrained. All too often the points they raise are true in and of themselves, but this does not change the fact that the articles do not belong in the group.
Is a group on pearl stitches too narrowly focussed? Quite possibly. Is it foolish to exclude other stitches? Almost certainly. Does it make sense to discuss a single stitch without allowing articles that concentrate on the needles that are required to produce the stitches? Perhaps. However, none of this changes the fact that the group existed before the member joined it, the group's description was as narrowly focussed before and after they joined, and they joined the group regardless. You shouldn't join groups or clubs in real life that do not interest you, and then try to change their focus to something that does, so why do it online?
The thrust here is two-fold: For members, when you join a group make sure that you have read the heading and description of the group, and that the information that appears there suggests that you will find the articles in the group interesting, and that you able to comply; For moderators and owners, ensure that your group has a concise yet unambiguous description, and do your job by ensuring that members get what they signed up for. Only when both sides play the game sufficiently are groups truly useful to their members.
There are a few other rules of engagement relating to groups, but most fall under the simple paragraph above. If you bear that in mind, and act accordingly, then as a member you shouldn't ever hear from a moderator and as owners and moderators your groups should remain relevant and useful, rather than just being article-spam-generators.
* Hypothetical example! I doubt there is such a group, although I haven't actually checked...