Groups, group creators and group admin.

I'm redoing talk pages right now. Since everything is connected, I have been forced to redo the page for editing groups too. For example, I'm adding an option whether only the group creator can add images, or whether anyone can. (The options are discussed here.) But instead of "group creator" I'm going to use the word "administrator."

For now, they're going to be the same thing. We're not going to make any big changes until our new "social" person starts work January 3!(1). But I want to open up the question of groups having multiple administrators.

Here is my thinking:

The problem: Many LibraryThing groups have creators who left the site three years ago. Indeed, some of them left on the same day they started the group! And in some cases we've had to anoint new "creators" for that reason.

Strengthening the site: Fortunately, absent creators haven't been as much of a problem as they might on other sites. Right now the only power group creators have is in editing the group description and image. Even so, an absent creator weakens a group. I think having an active one would strengthen it, and having multiple active ones would strengthen them more. Larger groups would have a list of such people, and the groups they administer would be listed on their profile too. This would give admins a sense of recognition, and people coming to the group would get a sense of who was behind it.

For now, we don't have to say much about whey can "do." Obviously admins would all be able to edit the group description and choose the main photo. But I could imagine other powers coming about, like being able to add to a "group" shelf of books, designating a group-wide read or whatever. I'm not currently anticipating any "real" powers, but I could see special spam-fighting powers being available to admins, or the ability to enforce either the TOS or group TOSs.(2)

A plea: I know the idea of "admins" will rub some the wrong way. But I urge you to consider it with an open mind, and try to express yourself fully. Group admins are common feature of social sites—including some of the most free, open and intellectual sites out there. LibraryThing is the outlier here, and I don't think it's gotten us much except groups that nobody can edit the description for! If we care about the site and its success, we have to talk through things like this.

I'm particularly interested in hearing what people have to say about their experience at other sites.

Thank you for your thoughts.

---

1. Identity withheld. S/he's going to be "in charge" socially, with a mandate to propose, discuss and then push through changes that will make the site more engaging and engaged.
2. There are lots of obvious details here. I'm picturing admins to only exist for public groups. We'd need to work out how people become admins. We aren't going to be voting no matter what. I'm picturing rather that a group has members/100 admin spaces. Anyone can put themselves up for it, if they meet some minimum criterion, like being on the site at least a month and posting 50 messages. Selection is random among people who want to do it. I don't think we should get too deeply into this, however.

I have a lot of experience being an admin on Yahoo!Groups (and before that, when it was e-groups), where a group can have multiple admins. I think it's a smart thing.

A plea: I know the idea of "admins" will rub some the wrong way. But I urge you to consider it with an open mind, and try to express yourself fully.

I have a possible solution:

Replace "administrator" with "custodian."

It's semantics, but we're a semantic species.

i spent most of 2007 living in the Knitty.com message board. having admins was one of the reasons it was such a great, strong community.

i think it's a great idea.

>3 brightcopy:

Can we give them a mop icon?

5> I think it'd be fairly descriptive of the position, yes. :D

I think I prefer "admins." (Indeed, over "administrators.") People know what it means. "Custodians" violates "Don't make me think!"

This is LibraryThing. Members think!

Casey—Ravelry headman—writes to me on Twitter:

Read in reverse order:

7> I think I prefer "admins."

Well, let it be on your head when the revolution comes!

The revolution will not be administrated!

The revolution, like most, is short of cash. It is, in fact, in administration!

I've mostly been involved in this sort of thing on lj-like sites. They have "maintainers", which I like. The problem with "administrators", in what you outlined, is that they wouldn't really have the power to administer anything, at least not at first.

Anyway, my experience through LJ (and IJ and DW and JF) is that, much like current LT groups, 90% of the time, you don't need somebody in charge. The other 10% of the time, you really really need them badly.

Also: that whenever you have to pick people for the position, and especially when they then have cooperate to share power, there will be social upsets and kerfuffles and people flouncing off screaming about betrayal, sooner or later. But maybe LT is *just that awesome* that it will be the only site where that never happens...

The way LJ-type sites work with appointing people is that the community's creator gets the first 'admin' position, and among their powers is the ability to add or remove other maintainers - as many as they want; there's no particular reason to put a limit on. They also have the power to pass off their position to somebody else and quit. If an active group has no active maintainers, then much like the current system on LT, the group's members appeal to management and management appoints somebody by fiat. It works fairly well, even with very large sites and very large communities.

See See http://www.librarything.com/topic/104120

>1 timspalding:

I think having an active one would strengthen it, and having multiple active ones would strengthen them more

Absolutely. I agree 100%.

with a mandate to propose, discuss and then push through changes that will make the site more engaging and engaged.

Hooray! That's been a long time coming and most welcome!!

We'd need to work out how people become admins.

The group creator should be able to designate those people with whom he/she wishes to share administrative functions. That has worked without any problem on other groups (MSN groups, Google groups, Yahoo groups) in which I've either been creator or assistant admin.

If spam gets to be a problem, the group should have the option of being moderated. That's what other groups do.

I personally could care less what you call these people (moderators, administrators, custodians). Ultimately, they'll be doing the same thing. All are charged with making a group be the best it can be.

Hurt feelings can be avoided by having the creator simply private message a person they think would be good in sharing the admin responsibilities. That person can either accept or decline. It has always worked without a hitch for me on other groups. I've worked most successfully in groups with about 3 or 4 "assistant admins". I don't think you need to set a numerical limit.

The group page should list the moderator (creator) and "assistant admins" (or whatever you want to call them.

Agree with the general sentiments above. Multiple admins is a great idea, I see no real need for a limit (they tend to come naturally according to what a group needs), I like seeing them able to edit the group description and primary image, and I'd like to see the group creator able to add the first new admin, and then allow other admins to add new admins thereafter.

The only thing that doesn't much appeal to me is Tim's sort of random lottery idea for adding interested admins. I prefer having some control over it in people's hands - people know how invested an individual really is in a group, how they deal with others in the group, etc.

Meh.
I seldom look at any group main page, viewing instead the activity through Talk's Your Groups. Not that bothered over minor changes to Group Main page.

Were Custodians to get 'Mod' rights on talk threads though, careful selection mechanisms would be needed!

The green Dragon group has "its" books listed by Tag, this works well - just need the bookshelf code.

I'm hugely in favor of this.

I'd like to see the admin(s) have the ability to delete images or posts that are spam or violate the TOS. I know that these can be flagged, but some groups are small enough that they may not be able to generate the requisite number of flags to trigger deletion.

Related to this, there should be an ability to block people. Though, fortunately, few and far between, there are people who get abusive and trollish to the point where simply flagging their posts isn't sufficient.

Yes! to multiple admins. If I'm an admin, I want back-up if I'm gone or busy, or want a second (or third) opinion about an issue. Blocking people is a case in point. I think it's a necessary power, but I'd rather have it a shared one to avoid claims of "you just don't like me".

I agree with Aerrin about random choice, though.

How are you going to deal with selecting admins for groups whose creator is long gone? You mention that you've "anointed" people in the past. May we ask what criteria you use, or is that a secret algorithm? ;-)

I'd like to see the admin(s) have the ability to delete images or posts that are spam or violate the TOS.

I agree.

there should be an ability to block people

I agree.

8>

This is LibraryThing. Members think!

You'd like to think so, but you'd be wrong a distressing amount of the time.

I think this is a good idea, that multiple admins are an even better idea, and that the more serious powers contemplated (blocking people, especially) should require multiple admins to agree -- there are always a few people with weird vendettas (we've seen this in abuse of the recommendation thumbs-down, for instance), and you don't want to risk empowering someone in that situation.

@ 18/19

I completely disagree. The power to delete images or posts should be left to the Site Administrators.

Also, why should you or anyone else get to decide who is or is not allowed to be part of a public group? If you want to control membership then make it a private group.

I've been letting sleeping dogs lie but since it seems to be relevant again... - http://www.librarything.com/topic/93572

@ 21

I'm of the same opinion if we have to allow admins that kind of power. And, as suggested by Tim, I do like the idea of using random selection to pick the admins.

Multiple Admins are a good idea.

Right now, admins have the power to edit the group profile and change picture settings. I believe this would also apply to what type of group (public/private), and whether people watching can post. If not, it should.

I think this is sort of backwards, and I don't really like the way the discussion is going.

I'd rather see features developed, and then figure out who has control over them. In the case of photos, for example, it seemed to work well for all members to be able to upload them.

Until admins can do more than edit the group description and primary photo, I don't really think we need more than one. It may turn out that every new feature will work just as well in the hands of the members.

My concern about introducing admins when they don't really have much to do is that it then leads into a discussion of moderation, like lilithcat proposed in #18. I really don't want to give users the ability to delete other users' posts. Maybe I just avoid the most controversial groups (e.g., Pro and Con), but I can't think of any case where this would be necessary, and I can easily see it stirring up lots of bad feelings.

Also, choosing admins by lottery is a terrible idea.

I agree that admins by lottery is a bad idea, but I think multiple admins is sound if for no other reason than to guard against orphaned groups.

Moderation powers are a separate issue, but one that does get raised quickly on the heels of the creation of any kind of "admin" status.

> 24
I really don't want to give users the ability to delete other users' posts. Maybe I just avoid the most controversial groups (e.g., Pro and Con), but I can't think of any case where this would be necessary

Try post #28 in this thread, but only if you aren't at work.

>26 lilithcat: Yeah, I saw that one. But I still think it would be a much bigger problem if someone else just deleted the post, because there was a lot of content there in addition to the potentially-offensive picture. I'd much rather go the member-flagging route.

>25 paradoxosalpha: As for orphaned groups, I don't think there's been a huge problem with that so far; in the rare cases when a group creator has left, they were able to be replaced. I can think of only two instances where this has actually happened.

>27 _Zoe_: Not according to Tim at the top of the thread.

28> Not according to Tim at the top of the thread.

You mean this?

The problem: Many LibraryThing groups have creators who left the site three years ago. Indeed, some of them left on the same day they started the group! And in some cases we've had to anoint new "creators" for that reason.

I'm not sure how any of that conflicts with what Zoe posted.

> 27

I agree that member-flagging is preferable, but some groups are small enough, or quiet enough, that it might take some time for the necessary flags to be gathered.

I suppose one could allow an admin to edit a post, rather than delete it, so that in a case such as that particular one the offensive content could be removed, leaving the rest, but I think that would an extremely dangerous step to take.

> 29

I'm not sure how any of that conflicts with what Zoe posted.

I don't think it does, though it does suggest that groups are orphaned more often than she is aware of. ("Many"/"some" as opposed to "two".)

31> Even if so, would 5 be significantly different than 2? 10? Over the 4+ years of Groups on LT?

ETA: Basically, I think this is a diversion from Zoe's very good points about "this is a real problem that requires a coded solution?"

I think having multiple admins as the group sees fit (or as necessary given group size / creator absence, &c.) is a good idea, although I agree with aerrinn99 in #16 about admin by lottery - choosing multiple admins seems better suited to the group creator or initial admin (I like Squeakychu's idea in #15 about how to do this).

Lilithcat's question in #18 is a good one - should it be whoever steps up first and offers, or should the group deliberate itself and choose an "admin" (who could then add others as necessary)? This is something we've dealt with often (and struggled with, actually) with the Legacy Libraries, since often people start projects and then fade away, so when new volunteers come along, do we just give them the info and let them work away when we can't get in touch with the project originator? I think with groups it's easier in some ways since there are (at least in theory) some folks who can discuss and figure out the best course.

I agree that "moderation" powers are a separate issue, quite apart from admins to deal with group settings/images/profile text, &c.

30>

I suppose one could allow an admin to edit a post, rather than delete it, so that in a case such as that particular one the offensive content could be removed, leaving the rest, but I think that would an extremely dangerous step to take.

I agree that would be extremely dangerous, and I'd far rather have deletion/hiding than editing.

@30

Small groups are probably not ignored (red x-ed) by the everyday talk users which means that a few might see the offensive and TOS violating post and flag it. After all, new spammy and self-promoting groups seem to get flagged to hell in no-time, including edge cases. I think LT-users overall have a well developed sense of cleanliness and the obsessive-compulsive tendency that can only be found in a cataloging environment seems to make flagging rather powerful socially.

I don't want to give anyone except Tim the power to delete other people's posts. But a super-flag may be ok. Basically if an admin flags a post it gets hidden immediately. I'm not sure if an admin flag should be able to be counter-flagged and what those rules should be, but probably not to keep it simple.

>29 brightcopy:, 31, 32

In my book "many" and "two" are contradictory descriptions. (And neither of them is "5.")

The "some" (two, five, whatever) creator replacements are not the only problematic effect of group orphaning. Tim indicates that he's trying to cultivate greater group activity. Having an active creator/admin is one constructive tool toward that end.

Tim gave the "many" orphaned groups as a principal motive for this change. _Zoe_ doesn't think it's many, or that they constitute a problem; I trust Tim's knowledge and assessment of the situation over hers.

37> Trust.

But verify.

;)

>38 brightcopy:

Well, I don't have a view of the db back-end that could query the recent activity of group creators. I suspect _Zoe_ doesn't either.

There may be many groups where the creator is absent, but that's not necessarily a big problem. Given the limited powers of a creator it's only a problem if the groups picture or text needs to be changed or if the group wants to change from public to private or vice versa (and how often does that happen?).

I think there are two different situations here:

1) The group owner leaves and no one even notices/cares, because no changes to the group description or photo are necessary.

2) The group owner leaves and another group owner has to be chosen, because changes to the description or photo are wanted.

The vast majority of cases, I suspect, fall into #1. It's generally just not that important to update the group description/image; even active group owners don't tend to make frequent changes.

I think Tim is proposing that groups would somehow become "better" if group owners/admins were more active in updating descriptions and changing images. Personally, I disagree; the group descriptions and images just aren't that important to me, and changing them regularly wouldn't obviously help. I think there are plenty of other social improvements that would help the site more. Letting group members upload secondary images, for example, is a good social step that doesn't require changes to the admin structure.

Given that admins don't seem particularly necessary at this point, and that the whole idea always leads to discussions of moderation, I'd rather not go this route at all.

As for the issue of posts needing red flags in smaller groups, I think a better solution is just to start a thread in a more active group where people can post links to messages that need flagging. Isn't there a flaggers group already?

39> If only someone else reading this thread could tell us what "many" means...

(especially in terms of groups that are still actually active, and the creator just didn't abandon them along with everyone else)

I agree with Zoe in that I am puzzled by what Tim means when he says that active admins can improve a group. Here's what he says in #1,

Even so, an absent creator weakens a group. I think having an active one would strengthen it, and having multiple active ones would strengthen them more. Larger groups would have a list of such people, and the groups they administer would be listed on their profile too. This would give admins a sense of recognition, and people coming to the group would get a sense of who was behind it.

The only solid thing in there is that knowing who is administering a group would strengthen it. I don't understand how

The group creator should be able to designate those people with whom he/she wishes to share administrative functions. That has worked without any problem on other groups (MSN groups, Google groups, Yahoo groups) in which I've either been creator or assistant admin.

Yes. I'm coming around to this. My original proposal (above) was to randomize it somehow. But I think admins-making-admins is a good way to do it. I see dangers, but I don't think they need manifest themselves. I'm swayed by Casey of Ravelry too. He says that's the way they do it, and they've only had one admin fight in the history of the site.

The only thing that doesn't much appeal to me is Tim's sort of random lottery idea for adding interested admins. I prefer having some control over it in people's hands - people know how invested an individual really is in a group, how they deal with others in the group, etc.

Yeah, I'm coming around. Thanks for helping me to.

I completely disagree. The power to delete images or posts should be left to the Site Administrators.

I'm sympathetic to this. I see two reasons to turn aside from this. I'd appreciate if you could tell me whether you agree or not:

1. I could see having some groups that operated by different rules. That is, members have sometimes asked to be allowed to have a group that's more controlled. So long as this wasn't general and none of the "main" groups were like this, I could see doing it. (Note: I'm not saying we should, but I am open to it.)

2. I could see giving admins the right to "flip" posts into flag territory (ie., add four flags) if they violate a subset of the rules. For example, they would be allowed to instantly kill spam, but not judge personal attacks.

What do you think of that?

And, as suggested by Tim, I do like the idea of using random selection to pick the admins.

Damn. Can you express more thoughts on why this is better? Anti-clique?

As for orphaned groups, I don't think there's been a huge problem with that so far; in the rare cases when a group creator has left, they were able to be replaced. I can think of only two instances where this has actually happened.

I completely disagree. There are lots of mostly-dormant groups that fit this description. If you want to start a new group and put some time into getting people "into" it, you don't, because a group already exists. There are a lot of topics that are effectively dead because the group is clearly dead. If they could be either deleted or change hands, they could revive.

Incidentally, I'm thinking admins would flip a group from dormant to active.

This is something we've dealt with often (and struggled with, actually) with the Legacy Libraries, since often people start projects and then fade away, so when new volunteers come along, do we just give them the info and let them work away when we can't get in touch with the project originator?

An excellent comparandum. Not giving people the power to take over moribund projects produces a stalemate.

allow an admin to edit a post

Yipes. No. Don't worry. No.

I think Tim is proposing that groups would somehow become "better" if group owners/admins were more active in updating descriptions and changing images. Personally, I disagree; the group descriptions and images just aren't that important to me, and changing them regularly wouldn't obviously help. I think there are plenty of other social improvements that would help the site more. Letting group members upload secondary images, for example, is a good social step that doesn't require changes to the admin structure.

No, not quite. First, I think we can give them more to do, and more recognition. But even without that people who create groups feel a sense of "ownership" about them. They want them to succeed and will post little "bait" posts to do it. Others do that too, of course, but I think admins are specially incented to do it.

"I could see giving admins the right to "flip" posts into flag territory (ie., add four flags) if they violate a subset of the rules. For example, they would be allowed to instantly kill spam, but not judge personal attacks. "

I think there is too much disagreement on what constitutes spam for even this to be an acceptable moderation power. There are clearcut examples for sure, but if you give people the power to flag spam they will inevitably flag borderline cases too, of people merely posting in the wrong group and such.

"So long as this wasn't general and none of the "main" groups were like this, I could see doing it."

I think giving people moderation power at all changes the way you talk to that person in general and gives a far more cliquey feel to everything. For instance, in a teacher-student dynamic the assigning of marks is shown to change the entire way students interact with teachers. Being able to 'judge' other people, either in a class or in their posting, makes a uncomfortable power imbalance.

I could see having some groups that operated by different rules. That is, members have sometimes asked to be allowed to have a group that's more controlled. So long as this wasn't general and none of the "main" groups were like this, I could see doing it.

Meh. I like having a certain uniformity between groups. I don't want to have to pay attention to who's in charge of each group, whether they're the sort of people who allow disagreement or just delete it, etc. I'm already very strongly opposed to the private group that doesn't allow flagging of personal attacks. LT has basic standards of decorum that all users can police for, and I don't see the value of changing the rules group-by-group.

If you want to start a new group and put some time into getting people "into" it, you don't, because a group already exists. There are a lot of topics that are effectively dead because the group is clearly dead. If they could be either deleted or change hands, they could revive.

So I'd rather see you allowing the creation of new groups with similar purposes to existing groups. I don't think an active creator is what determines a successful group; there can be subtle nuances in the approach that make a big difference. I remember you once wanted to combine the groups Canada, CanLit, and Canadian Bookworms, for example. The first two were created first and weren't very successful. The third one was successful because it was focused on the readers. If you'd had your way, we'd have been stuck with two dead groups and no active group.

Anyway, I have nothing against letting a new person take over dead groups. What I don't like is the idea that groups should have multiple admins. Besides the problem of creating people with power and nothing to do with it, leading to requests for moderation abilities etc., I think Kira is right that it would give everything a cliquier feel. Currently, groups pretty much belong to the members. I don't like the idea of elevating a group of super-users above everyone else.

First, I think we can give them more to do, and more recognition.

Why not give everyone more to do (e.g., all members uploading group photos), and give everyone recognition for contributing something valuable? Again, I'm not a fan of saying that one group of members is better than the rest.

To continue with the example of group photos: Everyone can upload photos. Let users thumb photos that they think represent a good contribution to the group. Give helper badges for contributing good photos. Why encourage the contributions of administrators while sidelining everyone else? Communities are most successful when everyone feels a sense of ownership and engagement.

It's also worth noting that the 75 Book Challenge group is planning to start up a wiki next year, where threads can be organized and a lot of info that's currently on the main group page can be kept. I'd like to see more of a focus on things like group wikis, where everyone can contribute equally, rather than giving power to a few admins.

Re: Chosing replacement administrator. I can only say that this was not a problem in Name that Book. When the group needed someone to replace the missing creator, I was the only volunteer, and again when after a bit more than a year, I decided I needed out, we also had 1 (one) person offer to take it over.

46> it would give everything a cliquier feel.

Careful, next you'll be making a party analogy. :D

Tim, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you're suggesting that groups would have to have multiple admins, but that they could. Right? And that would be up to the group creator, hopefully with the input of the group at large.

I guess I don't really see how having a few people able to edit group profile text/&c. is worse than only having one person with that capability. True, there isn't that much new admins are going to be "doing" on a regular basis (unless there are changes to the group front page very often, which I can't imagine is too frequently the case). Maybe we could think of it more as a backup?

Kind of brings up the question - how many of these old abandoned groups that you want to repurpose later are going to have added multiple admins to begin with? Will all those admins still be around as well? Won't they just have to mail LT staff and ask them to switch the creator, just as they do today?

I think the abandoned group are where I make the case for having new admins NOT be chosen by the original admin. They're not around...

@ Tim (in response to 44)

1. I have no issue whatsoever with specific groups choosing to have a more controlled environment. I think that the only issue would be to make sure that such a decision is made at the inception of the group or that all (or some acceptably large percentage of) group members agree to the change if it's made at a later date.

2. I'm not sure that it's necessary but I don't see any harm in allowing instant kills of straightforward things like spam.

Yeah, part of it is that random selection reduces cliquishness. More importantly, random selection also increases the perception of fairness and users are more likely to participate in a forum when they feel like everyone is equal.

How about using both forms of selection? All groups (with possible exceptions for really the smallest ones) have to increase the number of admins in increments of two - one selected by the creator and one chosen randomly from a pool of volunteers.

Incidentally, what's the power structure going to be with multiple admins? Are all admins equal or will it be the group creator at the top with the other admins as subordinate?

I'm an absentee creator for at least two groups, Cheeseheads of Wisconsin (COW) and Thing(amabrarian)s That Go Bump in the Night, one of which is mostly dead while the other is gratifyingly undead.

I would be happy to cede some administrative rights (ex. description, changing the main picture, approving members for a private group) to an admin. I want to retain rights over the names, group deletion, etc., and remain in the group description as the creator, which should be distinct from other admins. After all, it was my idea! :)

I do not agree with anyone other than LT staff having the right to delete or super-flag posts.

52> But say a user creates a group today. User leaves a few months later. Never appointed additional admins, or those admins have also left. A year later, you decide you want to restart the dormant group (the reasoning you laid out in post 44 as to why this is a "huge problem") group. What's the process flow? How is that process flow different than today?

I just don't understand the huge problem this solves. If it was being couched as "it's not really much of a problem, but I just want to do it this way because it seems tidier", that I wouldn't disagree with. It's just when it's proposed as a way to solve a problem, I don't really see it as happening.

But I really should stop arguing it. It's not really a big deal to me or anything. I see it as mostly having no effect but I'm probably wrong and it will rejuvenate Groups. It's your site, after all, so ultimately you gotta go with what makes you happy.

46> Meh.

Did you pick that up from Tim?

I like having a certain uniformity between groups. I don't want to have to pay attention to who's in charge of each group,

I think there's a good point there. The way you've structured the Talk tab people don't have to and don't pay much attention to what group a thread is in. So on the one hand you have a mechanism for minimizing the importance of groups and now you want to increase the importance of groups. You're working at cross-purposes here.

I think the abandoned group are where I make the case for having new admins NOT be chosen by the original admin. They're not around...

If feels like you're willing to sacrifice so much of what's currently good about LT's forums for a pretty minimal gain. Again, why not continue appointing new owners manually as necessary, or just encourage people to start new groups? Do you really think you'll see such a dramatic improvement from this that it's worth sacrificing the idea that groups belong to the members? You've always been such a vehement defender of equality for LT members, and I really don't see anything in this proposal that would make it worthwhile to sacrifice that ideal.

I'm not sure that it's necessary but I don't see any harm in allowing instant kills of straightforward things like spam.

The thing is, there's no way to control this. If random lotto winner is allowed to kill spam, they can equally kill any other post that they don't like.

And I'll echo BrightCopy too. This proposal does very little to solve the problem of abandoned groups. If you really think that's a big problem that needs to be solved you need to propose something else.

If feels like you're willing to sacrifice so much of what's currently good about LT's forums for a pretty minimal gain.

What the heck am I sacrificing? How does having multiple admins sacrifice that groups belong to members?

59> What the heck am I sacrificing?

From your post #1.

Right now the only power group creators have is in editing the group description and image. Even so, an absent creator weakens a group. I think having an active one would strengthen it, and having multiple active ones would strengthen them more.

Giving more power to the creator or administrator is going to limit the power of the members. The groups on LT now have a very democratic feel and that strengthens the groups. And I certainly don't buy the argument that having a weak or absent creator weakens a group. How about creating a mechanism where the group members can change the group text and picture?

>60 jjwilson61: Yes, this.

Tim, I think you should start a new thread about what to do about abandoned groups, where everyone can brainstorm from scratch. There may or may not be a good solution, but I don't think this is it.

>60 jjwilson61: - How about creating a mechanism where the group members can change the group text and picture?

Wouldn't that be choosing an admin? Somebody actually has to go in and makes the changes, no?

Giving more power to the creator or administrator is going to limit the power of the members

It's not a fixed pie!

59> It's the orgy all over again.

It's not a fixed pie!

Actually, it is. Any ability (uploading photos, flagging, etc.) can either be open to all members or restricted to a small group of admins. You can't have it both ways.

Then, in a more general sense, the feeling of how much power a member has depends on what percentage of things they can do versus what percentage of things the admins can do (with some consideration given to the importance of different features, of course).

Remember the problems that arose when one creator deleted "his" group? There was talk about removing the deletion option entirely from large groups, because they belonged to the members. How did you get from that to the idea of giving admins more power?

62> Wouldn't that be choosing an admin? Somebody actually has to go in and makes the changes, no?

No. A change could be proposed by someone and voted on by members. There are probably other mechanisms as well that wouldn't be equivalent to choosing an admin.

But somebody still has to have the power to make the changes, no?

67> I told you, we're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting, by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more......

Ha! Thumbs up!

Yet another example of Monty Python's amazing prescience when it comes to all things internet...

I took over a group that was basically created to spam one authors work. He disappeared about two weeks later. We still have occasional conversations, but it's hard to attract new people because his website and novel cover are on the main page. I'd start a new group, but he picked the best name. It could really help the group if someone could get rid of the website and the picture.

Of course none of us look at the main pages. Only people looking for groups to join do that.

71> Did you ever try just asking any LT staff to switch you over as the creator?

More on topic, I'm just thinking that if the group was created to spam one authors work, they probably wouldn't have been all that interested in created other admins.

67> But somebody still has to have the power to make the changes, no?

No again. It could be set up that the system automatically make the changes once the vote is complete. It's not the simplest method but it does get around the problem of having to have an administrator.

Boy, you guys have been busy over(my)night!

About a year ago, when group combination was mooted and dormancy was discussed, it was Tim's line that it would be better to let old, inactive groups die off. If the subject matter became important again, it was felt better that a new group be started.

Has this thinking changed? What has it changed to, and why?

I can see aulsmith's point where the original group had a particularly apt title, but this would be very rare, no?

EDIT: Sorry, I just realised that this should have been over here.
2nd edit: fixed html in 'Tim's line' link.

@ 57

You protect against abusive admin flagging simply by having severe punishments in place for such abuses (which is more than can be said for the current flagging system which you seem to support).

And why do you think that admins chosen randomly would be any more prone to abusing their power than admins choses by group creators?

72: No, I didn't ask LT staff to change the group owner. Until Tim announced the appointment of someone devoted to social issues, it never occurred to me that it would be (or should be) on anyone's list of priorities to do. And the spamming guy was only there a week or two. People who want to twist LT to do things it doesn't want to do, generally don't stick around long.

>75 JGKC: Why can the current system not have severe punishments in place for abuse? I just don't think such punishments are essential right now because the current system already has checks in place (i.e., four flags are generally required before anything happens). In the past, though, I have supported the revocation of flagging privileges for people who flag completely inappropriately, for example by red-flagging a review because they don't like the book in question.

I think group creators would make an effort to choose responsible admins who would be less likely than random users to flag abusively. But I still don't think creator-selected admins would be a good solution, because that would open a whole other can of worms re. favouritism and would still result in two tiers of group members.

No, I didn't ask LT staff to change the group owner. Until Tim announced the appointment of someone devoted to social issues, it never occurred to me that it would be (or should be) on anyone's list of priorities to do.

It would probably be a good idea just to advertise the possibility of changing group ownership, so that people who hadn't even considered it might realize it was an option.

We should start a new thread listing groups that might need a new owner.

Giving groups the option to have more than one admin (who can edit group profile text, upload pictures, &c.) hardly smacks of any radical change to the way things are already done. Groups that find themselves perfectly happy with how things work need change nothing - groups that could use a little help or backup with maintaining group functions could find it useful.

Now, when it comes to powers for moderating talk posts, blocking members, other things like that, that's certainly a different can of worms, but that's also not what's being discussed (except to say that perhaps, somewhere down the line, if a group wanted to have more control over itself, that might be possible). That's a totally different debate from just allowing the possibility of multiple admins, in my view.

78> Seems like it should at the very least be listed on a group that has gone dormant.

>79 jbd1: I just see this leading pretty quickly into moderation, blocking, etc. I still don't see the need for multiple admins as things stand; the group profile text and main picture just don't need to be changed that often. In the case of the 75 Book Challenge group, where the owner was being a bit overworked adding relevant links to the group page, the consensus was to go with a wiki next year instead, which basically lets everyone be an admin and relieves the owner's workload without creating two classes of group members.

And it's already been pointed out that multiple admins wouldn't automatically solve the problem of absentee group owners (it wouldn't help with the people who have already left, for one thing), unless they're assigned randomly, which doesn't seem like a popular option. If the real problem is how to deal with dormant groups, I think there are better solutions. I've started another thread for discussing failed groups in particular.

Re-reading the original post, I think this is the key problem for me:

For now, we don't have to say much about whey can "do." Obviously admins would all be able to edit the group description and choose the main photo. But I could imagine other powers coming about, like being able to add to a "group" shelf of books, designating a group-wide read or whatever. I'm not currently anticipating any "real" powers, but I could see special spam-fighting powers being available to admins, or the ability to enforce either the TOS or group TOSs.

This is backwards. We should be talking about what extra abilities groups need in general, and then figure out who should be able to participate in these abilities. We shouldn't be creating two classes of group members for no particular reason.

I think both of the positive proposals that Tim has mentioned could equally be in the hands of group members. Let anyone propose books for the group shelf and use thumbing to determine which will be most prominent. Let any group member who's been on LT for a minimum amount of time (to reduce spamming) designate a group read. Why not take bold steps and let all members be involved fully in the group?

As for certain members having special TOS-enforcement powers, I really don't want to go there.

Zoe, msg 46:
So I'd rather see you allowing the creation of new groups with similar purposes to existing groups. I don't think an active creator is what determines a successful group

YES. This. Exactly.

I understanding wanting to hand over "creator/admin" status in the event that the creator is gone, but if the big result you want to see is less inactive groups or more talk in general, I don't see this helping at ALL.

One person, whether "admin" status or not, cannot revive a group or keep it going. It takes more then that. It takes members, it takes conversation, it takes *many* people wanting to participate in the group. The "Sweet Valley" group that I am a member of that is dormant... It's not going to suddenly become a successful group if I became the admin. That's simply not possible. I don't understand this line of thinking, here. Giving people "admin powers" doesn't translate into sucessful groups.

About a year ago, when group combination was mooted and dormancy was discussed, it was Tim's line that it would be better to let old, inactive groups die off. If the subject matter became important again, it was felt better that a new group be started.

As I recall the consensus was that they should't die, but go into hypersleep. And that's what we've implemented. I think it fails on the issue of group admins.

So I'd rather see you allowing the creation of new groups with similar purposes to existing groups.

We have more groups now than we can support. We've either got to kill some in a way that their corpse isn't a problem, or allow them to get new live with new admins.

One person, whether "admin" status or not, cannot revive a group or keep it going.

I think they can do the former. Indeed, it's happened before that a group has fallen into disuse and then revived. I think one person can in fact do a lot.

We have more groups now than we can support.

What does this even mean?

If there are too many groups already, then why are you so concerned with dredging up the dead ones?

I just don't understand what's going on here. How are the "corpses" of dead groups a problem right now? How is it harder to support a dead group than a live one?

84> We have more groups now than we can support. We've either got to kill some in a way that their corpse isn't a problem, or allow them to get new live with new admins.

Surely most of these were groups that never got much traffic to begin with? Or are there really a vast number of groups that were lively and vibrant for months and months, but then fell into disuse? Maybe you've already gotten all the low-hanging fruit, though. It just boggles my mind that there was that much action on Talk over the years and now large swathes of it look like small city downtowns.

> 24

I really don't want to give users the ability to delete other users' posts.

I do think the group creator and asst admins should have the right to hide other user's posts. If I were a group creator (and I have had my own groups in the past), I surely do want the right to hide whatever I find offensive or spam.

The picture to which lillithcat pointed may be appropriate to another forum, but if I were running a book discussion forum, that picture would surely not be appropriate. I'd like the ability to hide it without waiting for it to be flagged. To be able to do so quickly maintains the decorum of a group.

> 36

I don't want to give anyone except Tim the power to delete other people's posts,

I think that's a poor use of Tim's time. A group creator knows exactly the kind of content that is acceptable in one's own group. I have no problem with "deleting" merely being "hiding". In that case, the onus is on the person who opens the hidden message.

> 43

I think having an active one would strengthen it, and having multiple active ones would strengthen them more.

As a group becomes very large, it is often difficult to supervise everything. Here's where an active creator and a group of selected assistant admins work well. The job of creating stimulating new threads is passed on to the assistants. They are responsible for keeping the group vibrant. One person is not left doing everything. Should the main person decide to leave, others have already become familiar with running the group. I'd say go for it!

> 44

I could see giving admins the right to "flip" posts into flag territory (ie., add four flags) if they violate a subset of the rules. For example, they would be allowed to instantly kill spam, but not judge personal attacks.

I 100% agree.

> 46

Currently, groups pretty much belong to the members. I don't like the idea of elevating a group of super-users above everyone else.

This does not need to be a "cliquier" thing. When a group grows too large, members can volunteer to help out. The creator then chooses one or two people as assistant admins to help with the goal of the group.

>47 _Zoe_:

where everyone can contribute equally, rather than giving power to a few admins.

It depends what you mean by "power". I've worked a group in the past that had three assistant admins, and it worked superbly. One was an expert in the field. The second was a craftsperson. The third was the friendly, chatty person who engaged with the members most. Each role was different. All strengthened the interactivity of the group. No one wielded their "power' in an inappropriate manner. All three were carefully chosen. In all the years (five), I ran the group, no one complained about too much power by the assistant admins.

one selected by the creator and one chosen randomly from a pool of volunteers.

As a creator I'd *hate* that. I would not want my assistant admins chosen for me.

> 56

Meh.
Did you pick that up from Tim?

LOL!!

> 60

Giving more power to the creator or administrator is going to limit the power of the members.

I disagree. In what way do you see this happening?

>65 _Zoe_:

Actually, it is. Any ability (uploading photos, flagging, etc.) can either be open to all members or restricted to a small group of admins. You can't have it both ways.

Actually, you can. The creator of a group decides whether or not to allow members to upload photos. You know this when you join a group. You decide which group to join based at that knowledge. Members can always flag posts while the creator (and asst admins) can stash them into hiding with one stroke.

>77 _Zoe_:

because that would open a whole other can of worms re. favouritism and would still result in two tiers of group members.

The bottom line is that, in a large group, an active creator should have help to run his group, if desired. Assistant admins are not mandatory.

> 81

the consensus was to go with a wiki next year instead, which basically lets everyone be an admin and relieves the owner's workload without creating two classes of group members.

The wiki is one option, but it should certainly not be the only (or even the main) option.

> 82

We shouldn't be creating two classes of group members for no particular reason.

It's quite feasible that each group will use its assistant admins in different ways. That's the "particular" reason.

(Phew!!)

I'd much rather see features developed when a need for them arises, rather than because a position has been created and we need something for those people to do. I haven't seen any demand in RSI for more powerful flagging abilities to hide inappropriate posts more quickly. That's appeared entirely from the proposal for admins, because they'd need something to do.

Currently, the main things that a creator can do are edit the group description and choose the main photo. I don't think we need more than one person doing this. The main photo just doesn't need to change often, and I prefer the wiki approach for situations like the 75 Book Challenge group where links are constantly being added.

87> If I were a group creator (and I have had my own groups in the past), I surely do want the right to hide whatever I find offensive or spam.

Yeah, this definitely changes the tone of Talk to me. I like that creators aren't owners. They're people who started the conversation, not referees who moderate it. Group images and descriptions - not a big deal to me. But all this other stuff... well, lets just say I've been on the internet long enough to see that it often needlessly cranks up the drama quotient.

The bottom line is that, in a large group, an active creator should have help to run his group, if desired

And he can have help. Any and all members can help by volunteering to take on specific tasks as necessary, or just by naturally doing things like greeting new members. This doesn't have to be enshrined in an official position.

>92 brightcopy: This.

@Tim

What the heck am I sacrificing?

I mostly lurk but I spend a lot of time reading threads on talk and one big reason is that I really like the atmosphere and people's attitudes. One of the reason that LT talk is so great in many ways is that it's like a big family in a way you don't often get to see on the internet. When people nag on you Tim, it's like you're the oldest sibling in the family, not like you're the company owner. This familiar attitude is probably what makes people so eager to participate in important discussions about development. You get to hear that you don't listen to users, mainly because you listen more to users than other site owners. And if you say something without thinking it through first you'll get to hear it quoted ironically for years. (Sometimes it would probably be easier not to be so familiar with the users.) This kind of atmosphere makes people feel at home and since they are at home they are willing to do more for the site because it is after all their own living room.

Adding in another layer of power might not have any effect at all, but in some cases it might actually discourage people and destroy the good atmosphere in some groups. After all, you can't populate all the admin positions with Tim Spaldings and one of the good things about LT is that Tim Spalding is the one (and usually the only one) who can do the power-things.

Look at conflicts for example. Often regular users will get a bit rude with each other and in the end someone might apologize or it seems to be forgotten and slowly disappear. The most complicated instances of conflict I have seen here would regard flagging of photos that might violate copyright. (Before the rules changed.) Power was used according to the rules but in the end the conflicts have discouraged a lot of people to participate and add to the site.

>90 SqueakyChu:

I agree.

For one thing, not everyone is comfortable with wikis. I occasionally pop into WikiThing, but I find it difficult to navigate, and difficult to edit/create, so I don't do it very often.

Besides, a wiki may be fine for "adding relevant links to the group page" but it doesn't do anything for dealing with a lot of the other issues we've been discussing.

> 94

>92 brightcopy: This.

What?

>96 lilithcat: What exactly are the other issues we've been discussing? Group creators don't currently have a lot of power.

>97 lilithcat: It means I agree with everything in #92.

Yes. I completely agree with 92.

87> As a group becomes very large, it is often difficult to supervise everything. Here's where an active creator and a group of selected assistant admins work well. The job of creating stimulating new threads is passed on to the assistants. They are responsible for keeping the group vibrant. One person is not left doing everything. Should the main person decide to leave, others have already become familiar with running the group. I'd say go for it!

Sorry, but I don't want anyone running my groups, they run fine by themselves. If some members want to take an active role in starting threads, great, but they don't need any special powers for it.

Exactly! My dad was a big fan of the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" phrase, and I think it applies perfectly here. 99% of groups seem to do just fine on their own, with no one policing or "running" the group. For those few instances where it's needed, fine, but do we really want every single group to be governed and policed by random "group admin"?

I think the abandoned group are where I make the case for having new admins NOT be chosen by the original admin.

Why not do it both ways? The group admin can name 2 or 3 people that would be their first choice to take over a group if they don't log in for a month (or however you decide to determine inactivity). If the individuals they name also haven't logged in for a month, or if they didn't name any individuals, the administratorship goes to the first individual who posts in the group after LT 'marks' the admin inactive.

For instance, I start a group, but get swamped with school and stop logging in, I didn't name any admin-heirs. 30 days after my last log-in, someone else logs in, sees something in the group they want to reply to, or they start a new thread, and the admin duties transfer to them. They can do what they want with them, whether it be keep them, or offer them to someone else. If no one does post in the group it stays without an admin, but if someone wants to try to revive it, they'll be able to, and they'll be able to as an admin.

That way the group first goes to someone that the group admin wanted, and if they are unwilling or unable to take up the job, it goes to someone who's at least posting in the group.

101> Which is why allowing the group creator (or new owner, if the creator has disappeared) to choose _or_not_choose_ assistant admins works.

As MarthaJeanne mentioned somewhere back there, the Name That Book group has gone through three 'owners', with two of the switches relatively recent. It worked nicely, but the switch from MarthaJeanne to the current owner required Tim (or someone) to step in. If we had had the admin position, MarthaJeanne could have simply made her volunteer replacement (I know who it is when I'm in that group, honest!) an admin and stepped out of the way; and when that person gets tired, the same process could happen.

For a small group that doesn't need anyone checking it, there needn't be any assistant admins. That's why I prefer the appointment rather than the random method (random, sort of by definition, would appoint admins in any group where someone entered their name as a possible admin).

I'm ambivalent about the extra powers - but if it's just to flag a post or image into hiding, it's not going to be terrible. If an admin or group of admins start abusing their powers, the members can appeal to TPTB, after all. They (TPTB) just wouldn't have to step in in every single case...

I'm not too worried about the stratification of Talk, either. It's already stratified - each group has a set of core members who do probably 90% of the posting, a bunch of fringies who post now and then, and (for those groups that allow it) some drive-by posters. I doubt that anyone but the core members would volunteer anyway (if there's actual work and expectations involved, at least). There probably will be some wah-wah about who gets picked and who gets left out - but again, if there's a real problem TPTB can step in, and if it's just complaining - well, there's plenty of that in Talk already, and it hasn't damaged the structure.

I just don't think this is a big enough change for all the worries about it.

>103 jjmcgaffey: I would have nothing against an automated process for transferring ownership to another person, so that MarthaJeanne could have given over control without getting the PTB involved (though I think it's probably not worth the coding time given how rarely it happens). I just don't think we need an extra layer of "special" members in each group. I would also hate to see something like #102, where control is given away arbitrarily.

I'm for the creation of group 'admins'.

Two groups where I am most "active" are BookMooching & Combiners.

The BookMooching creator is gone... probably long gone, but that's moot.

We have a moderator from BookMooch who can handle tech & admin problems, accolades, etc. and while markwp is very nice, I don't think he should be the only admin/moderator for the group. Especially in this group, there should be a small core group of active international moochers from LT.

In general, I think that since groups consist of LTers who gather together, the moderators/admins should be first & foremost LTers, not representatives of another site or group. (can't serve two masters & all of that)

In the Combiner's group, there already is a core group of combiners who do most of the heavy work & fixing necessary to keep that group 'honest'. Determining the number of admins & who they are would be a challenge and to do so without hard feelings would also be difficult. There have already been problems when solutions to problems weren't freely shared because they could cause more problems than they would solve.

I think the biggest challenge of having admins &/or moderators would be that some people would feel that they should be the admins & may not be the best person for that position. Then there will be the members who don't agree with the new admin/moderator & will go off & sulk.

That's the result of having multiple personalities in groups... they are human & full of contradictions & personality quirks.

Tim, Good Luck!!!

What does the Name the Book admin/creator do that causes them to burn out?

105> ...moderator...moderator...moderators...moderators...moderator...

This is why a lot of us are really starting to get our hackles up over this whole proposal.

Posting photos and editing the description are the most obvious and least important things an (insert title here) should do.

In order to have an active group it is important to keep the members interested. Good group leaders do this by starting interesting threads and encouraging the members to express themselves.

That is where the responsibility of being (insert title here) would benefit from sharing the job.

But starting interesting threads is what all active members do in an active group. If you need someone to actively keep prodding the conversation than that sounds like an almost moribund group to me.

108>

In order to have an active group it is important to keep the members interested. Good group leaders do this by starting interesting threads and encouraging the members to express themselves.

I disagree. Thriving groups have members who will do this on their own. They don't need special dispensation or powers to do so.

You are both correct. I should have said "when activity slows down they should..."

It happens even in the best groups.

One thing was simply that I got tired of having all the Name the Book threads in 'Your Groups'. It was overwhelming all the other threads, and yet I did want to keep track of what was going on there. When I took over the group had recently found be a book and a poem I had wanted to find for years. I owed them. Now I have helped find several books for others, and there are other parts of LT that interest me more.

Another was that the whole thing came up because the group wanted the group to work in a certain way. I spent a lot of time getting the group page and wiki the way we wanted them. Then had special threads to try to catch the eye of newcomers in case they missed the group page. For a while I was getting nasty notes every time I bumped that. Then a whole lot of people totally ignored the way the group was set up at once. I repeat: I wasn't doing these things because I wanted it that way (although I agree with it). This was the result of a long discussion within the group. But I felt a personal failure/target when things didn't work right.

In a sense, having a somewhat active leader worked. The group is much more active than it was when I took it over. But that also means that even keeping a quiet eye on it was a lot more than I had reckoned with. Did I do a lot - probably not after the begining, but I did keep an eye on things. I saw that the beginners' thread got bumped when it went off the first page. And every now and again I calmed people down behind the scenes when tempers flarred.

But also my health varies a lot. There are days when I can let hassles flow off me; there are also days when I can't. Too many of the hassles were hitting me on days when even sitting at the computer at all was very painful. My son has gone off to college, and I miss him as a person a lot - but I also miss his physical help. It was only going to be a matter of time when I would have hit submit on a message that was my pain speaking. I wanted to pass things on before that happened.

I suppose the next question is whether or not a second administator would have helped. Maybe. Or it could have hastened the end. I owe a lot to Sonya's support when I first realized that I couldn't do it much longer. That put it off for several months. I also owe a lot to the members of the group who made sure that I wasn't the only one trying to point people to the way things were supposed to work. In general I think that at present a lot of experienced members do this kind of support on the bigger groups. I'd hate to see designated moderators lessen the amount of this happening.

In the end, the final 'blow' was probably trying to get the garden ready for winter without Steven's help.

112> That all sounds worthwhile but, except for updating the group page, I don't see how being the group owner helped. All the rest of it could have been done by anyone. In fact the owner could just take on a role of secretary, just updating the group page when instructed to. The only thing that I see that might be useful for Tim to add would be a way for the old owner to pass ownership to another member without having to have Tim do it.

I personally have created several groups - one is larger than I ever expected it to be and one is smaller than I visualized at creation. Others were just a place to discuss one book in a group read without trying to squeeze it into one thread. So I see different aspects of the "dead" groups.
If Tim says that there are too many groups to administer, is there a way to archive the old 2008,2009 groups so that no admistration is necessary? Can creators mark old groups as "expired" so that Tim and the other powers that be can archive those as well?

One of the reasons that I rarely look at the GROUPS TAB (even after it has been revamped) is because there are so many duplicate groups as well as groups that have expired that just clutter up the system. Maybe I'm a neat freak, but I'd like to see some way to get rid of the old, old groups that have been dormant for more than a year. Maybe cleanup is what is needed, not more administation.

I think we are having two very different discussions here.

The discussion about whether group admins should have 'moderation' powers seems to me to be overwhelming whether or not having multiple /administrators/ is a good idea. While I agree that both discussions are worthwhile, I think we need to keep in mind that they are in fact /separate/ discussions.

I am not in favor of most of the 'moderator' type powers that have been floated. I too like the sense of equality on LT and feel that members moderate pretty well most of the time. I agree with the comments that different groups should not get different rules.

However. I also strongly agree with Tim that active group creators or admins do something for the health of a group. While the ideal world allows members to do things like actively stimulate discussion, remind others of procedures, etc, the fact is that in many, many cases, people /will not/ if they do not feel that they are /allowed/ to. Clearly they /are/ allowed to, but people often won't /feel/ that they are.

It's the case of a sense of 'ownership'. Faculty I work with talk about creating this sense of ownership in students doing research - students are doing the research either way, but if they feel a sense of ownership, they go above and beyond, they start thinking creatively, they're stimulated and excited, and they often bring that excitement to classmates.

A formal setting for those willing to be movers and shakers can help create this sense of ownership. I'm not using the term to mean 'power' or 'control'. I'm using it to mean 'investment' and 'responsibility'. Ownership is what allows someone to feel comfortable bumping a procedures thread. It's what makes someone feel comfortable setting up a poll for group reads.

Anyone can do these things - technically. But many members are shy about these things when they feel that it is someone else's 'territory'. I've watched SciFi group reads all but disappear because the person who felt that ownership stepped back, and no one else stepped up. If that person had had an admin status, they may have felt that they had the 'right' to 'formally' ask someone else to step into the role, and we might still be doing group reads.

Instead what we get are a lot of threads where a lot of people say they're interested but no one feels like they can get it started.

I think that Tim is RIGHT that having people in formal positions is good for the health of groups and discussion. In every online community I have been involved in, this has been the case.

I do NOT think that those formal positions are required to include things like banning, deleting, moderating. They /can/, but they do not /have/ to.

And I agree that Tim's proposal - adding multiple administrators - hurts absolutely nothing. Some of the other things might, in the long run. But a few more people who are formally invested in the group's well-being, who can update group text and images-- that is, in my opinion, nothing but a positive.

he fact is that in many, many cases, people /will not/ if they do not feel that they are /allowed/ to. Clearly they /are/ allowed to, but people often won't /feel/ that they are.

I'd rather see some sort of campaign to change this perspective, then. The problem with giving a few people a formal "ownership" position is that it will make other members feel even less like they're allowed to do anything. I don't think that's good for the long-term health of the communities.

I know admins don't automatically need to have moderation powers, but the creation of admins leads very easily to requests for such powers, as demonstrated by the discussions over the past couple of days. I don't think we need to go there.

There must be positive ways to encourage all group members to feel a sense of ownership in their groups. Letting them post pictures, for example, may help. I'd like to at least explore more options in this direction before concluding that special admins are needed. What are some ideas for getting regular group members more engaged? Is it feasible for all members to "own" a group together?

If you feel that being an admin empowers people to do things for the group, and many of us also feel that anyone should be so empowered, the obvious answer is that anyone should be able to make themselves and administrator for any group they want.

116> I'd rather see some sort of campaign to change this perspective, then. The problem with giving a few people a formal "ownership" position is that it will make other members feel even less like they're allowed to do anything. I don't think that's good for the long-term health of the communities.

You read my mind.

It's mainly a difference of opinion and expectations. Both sides really want the same things, we just different on what we think the proposed solutions will result in and whether they will meet those goals. We also care deeply enough to view with trepidation steps that are already bringing users out of the woodwork asking for more of a "moderator" type approach to groups.

ETA: Ditto what jjwilson61 said in 117.

> 116

The problem with giving a few people a formal "ownership" position is that it will make other members feel even less like they're allowed to do anything.

I won't say that I have never seen this be the case, but I have very rarely seen it. It is almost always entirely the opposite.

I know admins don't automatically need to have moderation powers, but the creation of admins leads very easily to requests for such powers, as demonstrated by the discussions over the past couple of days. I don't think we need to go there.

Requests are just requests. Like I said, I think it's a useful conversation - but it's not the same conversation.

Is it feasible for all members to "own" a group together?

No, I don't think so. I think the 'bystander' effect mentioned in your other threat is pretty observable in many, many, many instances. Some of which they have done studies on! ;)

> 117

If you feel that being an admin empowers people to do things for the group, and many of us also feel that anyone should be so empowered, the obvious answer is that anyone should be able to make themselves and administrator for any group they want.

Again, if anyone can do it, it is very often the case that no one will. There is something about being asked to step up.

>119 Aerrin99: Well, I don't think LT is the same as other forums. I've personally never come across another forum that I consider so successful, for a variety of reasons. I've certainly never come across another forum where I feel so engaged. I think the fact that LT's forums are so grounded in the community is a key factor here.

There is something about being asked to step up.

But surely this can be done already. If you want SciFi group reads, look at the people who were active in the last ones and ask one of them if they'd like to keep it going. Throw in a couple of reasons why you think they'd be good at it, and I think there's a decent chance they'd agree. That's what they always say in first aid training, anyway: make eye contact with one person and instruct them to call 911. It doesn't have to be a formalized process for it to work.

120> Well, I don't think LT is the same as other forums. I've personally never come across another forum that I consider so successful, for a variety of reasons. I've certainly never come across another forum where I feel so engaged. I think the fact that LT's forums are so grounded in the community is a key factor here.

Though we may disagree on other points (these parallel threads are killing me! Thread merge! Thread merge!), once again you've read my mind. The LT forums are like a breath of fresh air to me. Basically, you only have the LT staff (which a large percentage of time means Tim, though that might change with the new social person) and then you have everybody else. And the LT staff are very hands off, to the degree that Tim almost always lets the community procedures like flagging run their course rather than step in. Sometimes this can be annoying (*cough*constancelee*cough*), but all in all I think it's a key reason why I like the place so much. It was a bit intimidating at first coming into a well established community where I could easily feel like an outsider. But to me, the fact that there weren't "admins" made it feel more like the users had to step up to the place and elevate their participation. It's made it feel like a community made up of members, rather than a service that I accessed along with the other members. This has been far more of the case than any other group I've ever been on, and I've been on a lot of them.

>121 brightcopy: Oh, and here I was thinking it was time for some more threads.... both archiving threads and giving trial periods to new groups should probably get their own RSI discussions.

115>

I agree with _Zoe_; in a healthy group, everyone feels that sense of ownership. A group where only a handful of people with additional powers feel comfortable doing really basic things like starting a thread or even bumping one is an unhealthy group.

I agree with Aerrin99 in 115 very strongly. There's little I can add to it. I think creators or admins with extremely modest powers (and not moderation powers to speak of) can only help. They'll feel some ownership and responsibility, and nobody else is adversely affected. Heck, we could make it like Athenian government and be random for all I care.

I see what you're saying brightcopy, but I don't really agree. LT's democratic spirit comes from a common culture of intelligent, reasoned discussion—or, at worst, dumb discussion with people who are intelligent. It comes from the lack of any rules about what can be said too, although that has both ups and downs. I don't think it is enhanced by groups with long-gone creators. (Think of the new users who click on the creators and see they have no books, or their account is clearly cobwebbed!)

Now, look, I think it is very dangerous to tinker with social software. You have to do it very slowly, like moving furniture around. If you do it too fast, the dog doesn't know where to lie down and grandma refuses to sit in the parlor anymore. But we have some group problems that are, I think, attributable in part to a system that inflexibly appoints only one person to having a special group role, and doesn't care if they do it or not.

125>

I originally liked the idea of multiple admins, when it was about basic group curation. But saying "admins are encouraged to start threads" implies that "ordinary members are not encouraged to start threads", and I can't believe you think that's a good thing.

>126 lorax:

When a new group pops up, the creator almost always starts a thread or two. They feel they ought to, and they want to reach out to people who might join the group. The group bootstraps on those initial posts, or fails on them.

What pray-tell is the difference? Shall we make sure group creators understand they aren't encouraged to post, because it will make others feel bad?

127>

When a new group pops up, the creator almost always starts a thread or two. They feel they ought to, and they want to reach out to people who might join the group. The group bootstraps on those initial posts, or fails on them.

Sure, but you're talking about retrofitting the structure onto existing groups, where other members have been happily starting threads for months or years. You're also talking about a fundamental change in perception; currently, the understanding is that everyone can start a thread. If the groups page says "_Zoe_, brightcopy, and lorax are the admins. They can start threads, change pictures, post polls, etc.", don't you think it's reasonable for new members to conclude that they aren't expected or encouraged to do these things?

What pray-tell is the difference? Shall we make sure group creators understand they aren't encouraged to post, because it will make others feel bad?


There's a difference between encouraging admins to do something, and having it formally stated as a privilege or expectation of adminship. If the group rules said "Admins can post", then yes, I think it would discourage others from posting.

Well, it's clear where the lines are drawn; I agree with lorax and don't need to repeat everything she's said. I'd just like to address one point you keep making:

But we have some group problems that are, I think, attributable in part to a system that inflexibly appoints only one person to having a special group role, and doesn't care if they do it or not.

Aren't most of the problems with groups that have already been created and died? Group creation has slowed down a lot. Someone said that there are 7000 groups, and I think a large proportion of those are dormant. The issue is not what to do about groups that are active, but what to do about groups that have more or less "failed".

In order for your admin idea to help with this, the admins would have to be assigned randomly or in some way not connected with the group creator. I don't think this is an option that you want to implement; even the people who support multiple admins generally seem to think that those admins should be selected by the owner. Arbitrarily assigning admins to currently-active groups would have a lot of negative consequences, and it wouldn't be worth harming the successful groups in the hopes of improving the lot of the unsuccessful groups.

I prefer the suggestions for dealing with unsuccessful groups that have been proposed elsewhere: archive certain groups, and maybe even give newly-created groups a trial period in which they're required to demonstrate a certain level of activity or else be deleted.

Basically, the solution should be directed at the problem; don't change the things that are working fine right now.

>129 _Zoe_:

I'm not imagining we say "admins can post." I'm not sure why we'd say that.

>130 timspalding: Well, what are you imagining admins can do? I really don't see the need for multiple people to edit the group description and main photo.

In the OP, you said: But I could imagine other powers coming about, like being able to add to a "group" shelf of books, designating a group-wide read or whatever.

Again, why not let all members do these things?

I think you're going about it backwards: coming up with the idea of admins and then figuring out what the heck they would do. Instead, look at what features you might add to make groups better (multiple images added by members are a good first step, though apparently not working yet). For each added group feature, consider whether it could work for all members to participate in it, or just the creator. Only when it gets to the point where the creator actually has a lot to do should you revisit the issue of multiple admins.

Yes, exactly. What Zoe and lorax said (in 128/129)

Really, group-admins might be needed in some instances, and even helpful in some instances. I'm *very* concerned about what "rights" group-admins will/won't have, and how that will look to regular group members... Basically, what lorax said.

And I mentioned before, like Zoe said, it seems like you are trying to create this whole new thing that only indirectly addresses the problem you say you want to address. What "problems" with groups are you specifically wanting to address? So-called dormant/failed groups aren't going to be magically fixed by given admin-type powers to someone, because hello, no one in the group is active!

I'd really like to see Tim put forth a list of exactly what he wants to achieve here, because we all seem to be in flux (?) about what is supposidly being helped here, and how to help that thing.

>132 Heather19: Funny, I just now started a new thread about what's wrong with Talk and Groups. It would help to clarify the problem before starting in on the solutions.

Also: what's right with Talk and Groups. You might not know it to hear Tim speak, but there are a lot of good things here.

Can we start a thread on "what's so-so" too, for balance?

>135 timspalding: Knock yourself out ;)

I think the Green Dragon is a good example of what really works well. clamairy and JPB are the founders. They do start threads very frequently, but the members start lots of threads too. They "run" the thread, if you can say that, with a very light hand - quips and good will go a long way - and only step in politely when tempers start to flare. It's a good place.

"and only step in politely when tempers start to flare"

That's terrible. They have no right. Insert Hitler reference here.

clam would look ridiculous with a mustache.

Is the problem the number of dead groups. I agree that's kind of embarrassing. Perhaps you could start by clearing out the dead wood by declaring that any group that hasn't had a post in a year (that's the dormant groups, right?) will be deleted in a week unless someone posts in them. At that point you could make whoever posted the owner (assuming the owner is gone which may not be true) and see where it does from there.

Yeah, I tried that. And combining them in, which is more productive. People screamed.

Why not go with archiving instead? Posting is no longer possible, they don't show up in search, but content is still preserved.

I would like dead groups with content to be preserved. My reading history for the past year is recorded in a couple of soon to be moribund threads, and that is only one example. Making me wait for them to come up from a hard disk is not to heavy a burden, however.

Robert

And members who've been gone for a while now belong to zombies.

144: Only if they come back later.

But that is a common pattern. LibraryThing is fairly interesting among sites for having a large population of infrequent visitors and visitors who have only a toe in the site. We have a core and a long, long tail, mostly made up of cataloging-only people who update infrequently but still consider the site important to them. A lot of our growth isn't from "new" members, but from flipping low-volume members to high-volume ones.

> 137

Here's the thing, though. Green Dragon is basically a chat group. It's for people who want to talk. Look at the list of threads: it's games, it's "what are you doing this weekend", etc. People use it to maintain their reading journals and talk about their reading with others.

But there are a lot of groups with a very different zeitgeist, that have no interest in chatting. Take, for example, Book Care and Repair. It's got nearly 400 members, but people tend to join, and post, only when they have specific book care issues on which they want advice. A lot of my groups are like that. They are quiet until someone posts on a specific issue, then there are responses, and then they're quiet again.

I think the needs of the first type of group are likely different from those of the second.

> 120

Well, I don't think LT is the same as other forums. I've personally never come across another forum that I consider so successful, for a variety of reasons. I've certainly never come across another forum where I feel so engaged. I think the fact that LT's forums are so grounded in the community is a key factor here.

I realize that this is not everyone's experience, but I /have/ been in other forums that I consider as, or more, successful, with intelligent conversation and a strong sense of community. They do exist other places!

> 126 saying "admins are encouraged to start threads" implies that "ordinary members are not encouraged to start threads", and I can't believe you think that's a good thing.

No, I don't think it implies that at all. The two are not exclusionary. Does anyone really think that Zoe is going to stop posting threads if she is not admin of a group? ;) (I say that with love - I enjoy most of the threads Zoe starts and I'm happy she does it!)

>128 lorax: If the groups page says "_Zoe_, brightcopy, and lorax are the admins. They can start threads, change pictures, post polls, etc.",

Well, I certainly wouldn't have the page say that! I'd have it say 'Admins: Zoe_, brightcopy, and lorax.' The end. At /best/ I'd also have it say 'if you have any questions or need help, feel free to contact them.'

Good admins encourage other people to start and participate in threads. That is part of what makes them powerful motivators for healthy discussion.

They do exist other places!

Well, don't stop there! What other forums would you recommend?

Does anyone really think that Zoe is going to stop posting threads if she is not admin of a group? ;)

Heh, I guess I wouldn't stop posting threads entirely. But the more we emphasized that the group "belonged" to a certain subset of users, the less likely I'd be to start discussions myself.

At the same time, I don't know that I'd want to be an admin. If it became my official "job" to start an interesting poll thread each week, for example, I think my desire to do it would decrease. This seems to happen with lists of books to read, anyway.

But _Zoe_, absolutely no one has suggested that the group would "'belong' to a certain subset of users," nor has it been stated anywhere that any admin would have to do anything, including starting posts. They (or anyone else) could, but they certainly won't be forced to.

I suspect in 90% of cases even if multiple admins were allowed (and picked, for that matter), no one would see any difference in how the group functions. And in the other 10% of cases, it's difficult to see how this creates catastrophic harm, and easily to see how it might help.

Regarding the admin names, as Aerrinn99 says in #149, I think there's no need to say anything beyond the admin names and an invite to contact them.

> 150

I have been involved in a wide variety of livejournal communities that you might think of as 'groups' here - some academic, some based on television shows, some based on books. I've seen a lot of different moderating practices within their set of rules, with varying degrees of success (they can have one admin, or multiple, and have powers of banning and deleting, although in most communities it is not typically used save for blatant spam).

In some of these, admin keep an eye out for spam and keep rules updated and do very little else. In others, they make sure weekly discussion threads are started (after an episode airs, for example) or post interesting polls. It varies according to what the community is and what it needs.

I've also been a part of some more private communities that also had an admin structure that I'm not going to share, sorry. ;)

I think that you're envisioning something more formal than what I (and I /suspect/ Tim, although I cannot speak for him) am talking about - the idea is not that 'starting posts' and 'welcoming members' becomes a job, spelled out and codified. It's that when people feel a sense of ownership, they tend to just /step up/ and /do/ these things. In most cases, their desire to do it increases. They feel like they want the community to be successful.

You feel that anyway - that's why you go out of your way to do these things. But a lot of people don't. And I suspect that if you were to become an admin, that desire wouldn't go away.

Agreed that other worthy forums exist. I belong to a quite successful, polite and well-spoken heavy metal forum. We talk about music of course - great bands, crap bands, news about bands etc. as well as silly and serious non-music topics. It's not as active as some, but we have a good time. We throw the F-word and the C-word around a lot (well the Brits do anyway) and hackles are not easily raised. Same with a few photography forums I frequent, but with less use of the C-word. ;)

>151 jbd1: Well, it's been suggested that admins would have a greater sense of "ownership" of the group.

147> Can you just answer a simple question? What percentage of dormant groups haven't had a post in over a year?

I believe the definition of a dormant group is one that hasn't had a new post in a year. If you post to it then it isn't dormant anymore (even if its to say something like "is anyone here!").

Why can't the owner of a group just edit the group description to say "Aerrin99 and jbd1 are admins of this group. Please contact them if you experience any trouble." Why does there have to be LT coding changes at all?

Maybe instead some of these ideas should be put into help text "How to start a successful group" that gets displayed when someone starts a new group. Or better yet, automatically enroll them in a group for group owners where best practices can be discussed.

You feel that anyway - that's why you go out of your way to do these things. But a lot of people don't. And I suspect that if you were to become an admin, that desire wouldn't go away.

Yeah, I expect that the chore aspect of becoming an admin wouldn't be as much of an issue as the situation where people with conflicting viewpoints become admins in groups that I currently participate in. I just wanted to put out that possibility as a counter to the idea that admin powers are automatically really amazing and inspiring.

For the second case, consider an example: If klarusu became an admin of Talk About LibraryThing, for example, maybe she would be able to use her influence to reduce the number of polls. At the very least, when she said that she hated polls and was listed as an admin, people would take that opinion more seriously.

I just wish there were something that could be done to make more regular members want their communities to be successful.

> 154

Yes, but as the person who brought that word into the discussion, let me remind you of how I'm (and everyone else, from what I have seen) using it:

155 - I'm not using the term to mean 'power' or 'control'. I'm using it to mean 'investment' and 'responsibility'.

>154 _Zoe_: I think that's meant in the sense of "investment" as compared to "possession" :-) (which is not to say that non-admin users can't be "invested" in a group, since they obviously are and will continue to be). I think we're talking about a very small range of helpful activities that multiple admins could assist with, not anything more than that.

I added a paragraph to 156 that later posters may have missed.

> 157

I would personally prefer not to see official LT groups - RSI, Talk About LibraryThing, Bug Collectors, Book Talk - have admin outside of LT staff. For the reason you suggest, although I think you overestimate how much value people will give to that (look at how much they argue with /Tim/ ;).

I agree that admin powers are not automatically inspiring and amazing - just that they /trend/ toward the positive. Certainly not every group with new fresh admins will take off. There are always failures.

I just wish there were something that could be done to make more regular members want their communities to be successful.

I have kind of ignored this in favor of arguing for why I agree with Tim's notion of active admins. But. Let me say that I absolutely agree. I think the two ideas go hand in hand.

I just don't think that you can escape the bystander effect by and large.

>158 Aerrin99: Right, but I think there's still a tricky balance. If someone else is "responsible" for starting threads, for example, that means it's less important and possibly even less wanted for me to start threads.

>161 Aerrin99: Well, I think it's getting to the point where we've made our positions clear and are mostly going in circles, but I'd just like to add one idea: I'd rather see a concerted effort made first to get regular members more engaged. It seems like various changes are in the air right now; I'd like to see Tim implement some community-based Groups/Talk improvements and then revisit the situation six months from now to assess what's working and what's not. At that point it might be appropriate to appoint admins (though I suspect I'd still be against it), but I'd at least like to try more democratic approaches first.

I think some period of evaluation and assessment is not a bad idea (and there are some good discussions going on in the good/bad threads right now that I'd definitely want to see fleshed out and continued, too).

Which is not to say that I'm opposed to allowing multiple admins, now or in future :-)

>157 _Zoe_:

I just wish there were something that could be done to make more regular members want their communities to be successful.

As someone who has been an organizer in various contexts on--and more importantly off--the 'net, I agree! Social capital is hard to generate, and in increasingly short supply. But my experience suggests that insisting on an egalitarian hard line is not the best way to make this happen. People come to groups with varying levels of motivation and competence, and it is often useful and encouraging to "regular members" if there are functional roles to reflect those differences.

155> I believe the definition of a dormant group is one that hasn't had a new post in a year. If you post to it then it isn't dormant anymore (even if its to say something like "is anyone here!").

Yeah, dumb question, apparently. :D

Okay, better question would be: what % of the LT groups are dormant groups?

I hadn't realized it had to be a whole year before they went dormant. Do people really think those groups are ones that fit the "well, people just post infrequently, but that doesn't mean the group is dead" mold? A whole year?

Organize functional roles all you want. Have the group creator make the roles and the appointments and put that information in the group description. I still don't see the need to have any of it formalized in LT code.

166> Realized it was pretty easy to answer my own question by searching
http://www.librarything.com/groups/all

Total groups: 6,991
Active groups: 4,011
Dormant groups: 2,980

also
Groups with only 1 member: 1,952
Dormant groups with only 1 member: 584

ETA: I changed the total number of groups. I had been using the Zeitgeist number of 7,078. But only 6,991 show up on the list of all groups. I'm wondering if the gap isn't due to ones being hidden as spam.

ETA:
Groups with 5 or fewer members: 4,095
Groups with more than 5 members: 2,896

OK, someone made the comment about why not let the creator change the main posting?

Because the creator may no longer be a part of LT??

One group where I am fairly active is BookMooching.

The creator of the group is AWOL. maybe to return, maybe not.

We are in discussion there as to what/who/why/how we want for admins/mods/superusers/whatevers of the group. Not that we need them, we've done well without them....

... but if there are going to be changes, we need to be proactive & discuss & COMMUNICATE what we want &/or need AS A GROUP. Some people don't care & won't comment. Some people are afraid to comment (which always happens in any group). Some people comment just to stir up the discussion, good &/or bad.

For the BookMooching group, I don't think it will be any formal hierarchy... just informal checks & balances when needed... if needed.

Each group works a little differently and if someone doesn't like how a group is run, they can go start another group.... just as it is now.

169> I don't have a problem with Tim coming up with a new way of changing owners when an owner goes AWOL and I don't have a problem with him changing the title to admin instead of owner. What I do have a problem with is creating a method where a small clique of users get special status over the rest of the group.

>168 brightcopy: I think this really gets at the heart of the problem. Almost 2000 of 7000 groups have only one member? This isn't about people struggling to find groups of interest, or about once-successful groups that died when the creator left. These one-member groups should just go away (into an archive, where they don't appear in search or in any group list).

>170 jjwilson61: Agreed.

171> And before someone else says it - no, you don't have to be a member to post/read to many groups. But I think membership DOES give you a good barometer of interest level.

BTW, I added a bit at the end of that previous post about how many have more or less than 5 members.

ETA: And maybe what needs to happen is that those micro-groups just get moved to a different area. They're not really "groups" in the same way a lot of the other groups are.

>172 brightcopy: I'd like to say that groups with fewer than 5 members should be concealed as well, but it's a bit irritating that Tim constantly emphasizes tiny personal groups as one of the main group features. From the create-a-group page:

Who might use a group?
Couples can keep their libraries under separate accounts, linked through a group.

I can't believe that's still the #1 suggested usage.

>168 brightcopy:, 171 - agreed, we definitely need to find a way to deal with one-member/non-active groups (but - and JUST out of curiosity - what's the argument for "archiving" them as compared to just ditching them, if they don't appear in search or in any lists?).

>170 jjwilson61: - I really have a hard seeing envisioning an instance where "cliques" are going to take over groups and edit their profile text and images against the interest of the membership. Remember, we're not talking about heavy-handed super-powers here, we're discussing the potential capability to edit some html and upload a picture.

>174 jbd1: The people who made the group might still have content that they want to refer to. For example, the 75 Book Challenge in 2009 group doesn't need new posts or advertising, but I still want to be able to refer back to the list of books I read and the comments people made about them. Deleting is a much more controversial step and I don't think it would have much real benefit.

Cool. Makes sense, just checking (and I didn't necessarily mean large dormant groups with lots of content, but rather the one-member/non-active groups that may have no content at all).

>173 _Zoe_:

If you conceal groups with fewer than 5 members, how are they ever supposed to get bigger than that?

177> Fair enough. Hey, I've got this great idea. How about a trial period?

:D

How many of those groups are private groups? I think Tim, finally, hid private groups from the All Groups page (and from search?) so they really aren't a problem for using up mindspace.

ETA: Or maybe private groups are the difference between the zeitgeist number of groups and the all groups page number of groups.

178> The problem I have with your trial period is that you've been saying that if the groups fail the trail that they'd be deleted. But there may be content in them that people want to preserve anyway.

180> So you support a trial period, just with the caveat that they be moved to Siberia. Fair enough.

Yes. But we still need a way to deal with the current glut of dead groups.

182> Siberia, or deletion. So far Tim hasn't recognized either option, so we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves I suppose.

I voted yes, but I think there ought to be a search option for the archived groups (but it could well be a separate search archives option) otherwise you might as well just delete them.

I notice 6 people have voted no. What are your reasons?

@ 185

Well, how long would the trial period be? How many members do you need before you're off probationary status?

Is archival permanent? If not, how do you return the group to active status?

Quite frankly, I think it's easier to just allow groups to have multiple admins and see if that improves the situation (I also think that the supergroup idea would be beneficial in terms of getting more traffic to the newer and/or smaller groups).

186> Well, how long would the trial period be? How many members do you need before you're off probationary status?

Whatever values make you vote yes. The question isn't about a specific trial period conditions, just about trial periods as a concept. Asking it this way determines if there's any consensus at all, rather than fragmenting it into a thousand questions and never being able to determine where the community actually stands.

186> Also, this proposal addresses groups that are dead because the failed to gather a following, not because their creators left. So the multiple admin suggestion won't help with those groups at all.

184: Voted undecided. How long would this "trial period" be, and what criteria would be used to determine which ones failed the "trail period"? A new group that has a thread posted the very first day but then no one else responds to it for, say, five months, but then someone does post...

Until there's a specific plan/criteria set up, I vote undecided.

But back to the original topic here... People (seemingly people who are in favor of group admins?) keep saying that it wouldn't change the group dynamic, no one would be taking away anything from members, etc etc... But:

"I could imagine other powers coming about, like being able to add to a "group" shelf of books, designating a group-wide read or whatever. I'm not currently anticipating any "real" powers, but I could see special spam-fighting powers being available to admins, or the ability to enforce either the TOS or group TOSs."

Look at this. It's a slippery slope, I think. If members know that group-admins start group-wide reads, the *logical* reaction is going to be that members themselves probably shouldn't start group-wide reads, because the admins do that.

"Spam-fighting powers" can be way too easily abused... Quickly hiding a true commercial spam post is one thing, but it's just a tiny step away from hiding "spam" that they feel simply doesn't fit in with their group or posts they don't like. Giving multiple admins all over this site that power is... scary, I think.

"Admins" to change group pictures/descriptions could be okay, and benificial, but when it comes to giving them over "powers", it could snowball really fast and could very easily turn into a tight censored little forum that I would quickly walk away from. One of the best things about LT Talk is that we are all free to start threads, to say what we feel, etc. Why give random "admins" the power to change that?

@ 187

Conceptually I have no problem with trial periods. It's the details, or lack thereof, that I have problems with. And the vote is definitely asking about trial periods as an actual proposal (specifically as a counter to what Tim proposed) rather than a conceptual idea.

@ 188

But maybe they failed to gather a following because the group creator left and nobody else felt like they had the 'authority' to create topics in a relatively new or small group.

189/190> I think both of you should just vote No already. ;)

190> Now it just seems like your making things up just to be contrary. How many group creators really just leave LT soon after creating their group? And if they did do you *really* think they would have appointed a second admin?

@ 189

Personally, I'm in favour of having admins but I would limit their powers to editing the group description, group pictures, and certain janitorial tasks such as getting rid of spam.

I think that the giving out such powers is hardly a slippery slope, especially if you ensure that there are punishments for abuse of power (there could also be a special group for admins where they could other admins their opinion about whether or not a post is spam; although I think that most admins would only use spam powers in really obvious cases and leave the rest to normal flagging).

And the admins really wouldn't be random at all. The creator obviously has a stake in how the group does and I would guess that anyone else who volunteers to be an admin (not exactly the most glorious job) would have some sort of real attachment to the group as well.

193: There are, currently, "punishments" in place for spammers and author-spam, but that doesn't exactly stop it from happening, does it? Maybe "slippery slope" isn't the right word, but I just see way too much changing and way too many posibilities for abuse if this happens.

@ 192

Most of this topic has been about admins and whether they would beneficial for groups. I happen to agree with Tim and I've been consistent with that viewpoint the whole time, so how exactly am I making things up just to being contrary?

Look, I'd rather stick to the topic at hand but it seems that you really should think a little more before you type (re: post 192 here and post 95 in "Bigger tents: Tim's "Interest Group" proposal").

@ 194

Yeah, but the punishments are pretty inconsequential. I think I mentioned this in one of my previous posts but I'd like to see severe punishments for any admins who abuse their powers. If you make the choice to take on admin powers (either by creating a group or volunteering to be an admin) then you better be prepared to face the music if you abuse those powers (like how cops are supposed to be held to a higher standard of conduct because they are entrusted with certain extraordinary powers).

195> I mean this post of yours:

But maybe they failed to gather a following because the group creator left and nobody else felt like they had the 'authority' to create topics in a relatively new or small

I'm sorry if my ad hominem distracted you, but could address the rest of my point:

How many group creators really just leave LT soon after creating their group? And if they did do you *really* think they would have appointed a second admin?

186> Quite frankly, I think it's easier to just allow groups to have multiple admins and see if that improves the situation

Part of the whole problem is that "the situation" has been so vaguely defined and subjective as to be unmeasurable. The only real definition of "the problem" was in post #1: Many LibraryThing groups have creators who left the site three years ago. Indeed, some of them left on the same day they started the group! And in some cases we've had to anoint new "creators" for that reason.

And to which people have rightly said: "Um, can't you just put up something that says 'if the creator of this group has left or if you are the creator and wish to transfer that to another person, email socialmediaperson@librarything.com and we will switch it for you.'?"

So far, the only other thing we've seen that any of all this proposition would change is that certain people other than the creator could manipulate group descriptions and photos. That's really it. There is absolutely ZERO other stuff that couldn't already be handled by the creator or any interested member. Other than those two features, what else is accomplished by creating "admin" positions than wouldn't be equally accomplished by the creator posting "User so-and-so is now one of my official helpers"?

So really, the entire question is "Is there some massive need for users other than the creator to change the description and group images?" I've been here since February, following RSI on a daily basis, and I can't remember even ONE request for that. Seriously, have I missed them all? We get multiple recurring requests for even the only moderately useful suggestions. The idea here seems to be Build the Feature and It Will Create the Need. Yet that seems completely backwards of the way things normally operate around here (especially in the Talk portion), If There is a Need, Build the Feature.

ETA: Apropos:
http://www.librarything.com/search.php?search=creator&searchtype=4&searc...
http://www.librarything.com/search.php?search=group+image&searchtype=4&s...
http://www.librarything.com/search.php?search=group+description&searchtype=4...

I think the only problem is with the large number of dead groups. There also seems to be a concern about the large number of under utilized groups and, I think, the difficulty new members, anyone, has in finding groups that fit their interest.

My earlier suggestion to allow active groups to adopt and absorb defunct groups only touches on the first.

The second could be helped by the tent idea but you would have to look around the tent to find them. I belong to a group set up to discuss historical counterfactuals called "History, Revised". It was started 18 months ago and has 12 members and one thread with three posts. Other history groups I am in have had several threads on counterfactuals and I know more than 12 people participated. Maybe making that group more visible would encourage participation. Maybe not.

I have the notion that talk is a popular feature on social networking sites and we need to keep LT's Talk welcoming and intuitive in order to increase participation.

I know that being a member of a large group (75 book challenge) I would not want to be the "owner" because of the tremendous amount of 'housework' that is required to keep all the 'children' clean and fed. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't be willing to do my part in helping 'mom' keep it clean or cooking a meal (starting a thread). And I think this is what Tim is talking about - just giving 'mom' a little bit of help with the 'housework' related to the group.

Maybe in this instance, OWNER and ADMIN are not the titles or designations that we want (since so many seem to think that having multiple "Admins" would discourage others participating) - maybe we need Team Captains and Cheerleaders so that all members of the group realize that they are members of the TEAM that keeps the group healthy and happy.

200> I already tried other suggestions for names. None have stuck.

Curator was a suggestion that I liked. Like a museum curator the position would be to maintain the threads, valuable knowledge to be preserved for future visitors.

200> Again, the owners of the groups can appoint admins, team captains, or cheerleaders to their hearts content. They don't need any coding on Tim's part to do so.

200>

maybe we need Team Captains and Cheerleaders

I can't be the only person here who wasn't a jock in high school, and for whom this nomenclature would be a huge turn-off; it's a book site, after all, not a football fan site! I was the one wishing they would let me bring a book into the pep rallies, not someone who was or wanted to be a "captain" or a "cheerleader".

202> Merging groups was tried about a year or so ago. As I recall the effort petered out over a lot of objections from people to having their groups subsumed by another group.

> 185

My reason was exactly the concern you expressed. I do not want to lose the ability to search all posts, archived or not.

206> What if you could, but that it wasn't the default?

> 207

That would be better, but I'm also concerned about no new posts. How would such a group ever get revived?

If they've been dead that long perhaps they shouldn't be revived. Instead someone could start up a new group with the same subject that doesn't have the baggage of the dead group. The danger of allowing them to be revived is that they become zombie groups, neither dead nor alive, making it hard to search for groups that actually are alive and by their presence just discouraging the idea that a group on such a topic is possible.

209/210> Yeah, I can see that. There's something intangible about the feeling of a "new" group as opposed to a previous one that failed and still has the remnants in public view for all to see. Perhaps this is what Tim was trying to refer to with the "corpse" comment.

210> I want to emphasize that archived groups could still be found and their threads read, they just couldn't be revived.

> 210

Not sure what you mean by "that long". The poll just said "trial period", with nothing about any specific length of time.

Sorry, I was talking about defunct groups that had been dead over a year. I'd forgotten that the subject was a trial period. Still it would be better if groups didn't have to be dead a year before something was done about them. I'll have to think about it some more.

> 212

I agree. Let the dead groups rest in peace (yet we can still visit their "memorial pages").

I would say to archive any group that has not had a post in one year.

A former groups website gave me, as group leader, a warning when no post had been made to my group in a month. I then had the option of continuing to keep my group "live" or not. I had to do this simply by making one post. This was a great option for my group (which had to do with searching for other participants on a volunteer program which took place in the 70's). Often a year or more would go by in which we didn't find a new person. By simply posting one sentence monthly (if no one else did so), I had the option of keeping this group alive for years (until MSN groups became defunct, that is!).

Could we do something similar here? This required the presence of a person who was actively tending the group. I think it's important that someone always be present in this role (unless that person suddenly becomes ill, dies, or loses computer access - but I do support asst admins for this reason).

#215 -- That sounds like a great idea to me.

The reason that I like the term "Curator" for the position we have been discussing is because I see value in the corpses of many dead groups. Not the ones with a single thread with three entries where people introduce themselves but the ones with even a few threads that were once deemed interesting and contain ideas that might someday be revived. Unless someone can find them that is never going to happen. How often does an old thread pop back to life in a busy group? One group I am in, The Black Orchid, has a thread titled "Is this group dead" that keeps popping back up. The first post to that thread is dated December 18 2007.

That is not the best example for the point I want to make but it is the oldest thread I can think of. If that group ever really dies, goes six months without a post, there is a lot of good information that would be lost. However, if another group, one also interested in mysteries, was willing to adopt that corpus and provide a parking spot for the threads in their own well watched group some of then threads might be born again.

"Handler"

I'm not sure why one-person groups got into this. For my part I think they're pretty irrelevant. They're not showing up. I'm not trying to revivify them.

Nor do I see what trial periods have to do with it. We effectively have one. Groups are marked as dormant if they don't get new messages. I don't remember what the period is—probably 6 months.

I think, again, there is a truly unhealthy fixation on "features" in an atmosphere that isn't actually based on them. Even if we don't add new things for admins to do, they would still be "down" as admins, giving them a sense of ownership, and others a sense that the group had someone behind it who cared. The Bookmooch group, for all its success, has a long-departed admin. What made it work? It sounds to me like a critical component has been the involvement of someone who's an admin on Bookmooch itself!

Team Captains and Cheerleaders

Good. Let's think along those lines. I don't like sports words, but we're talking about something like a "street team"—people who put themselves out there for the group in some way without any remarkable powers. What that would mean would, I think, vary from group to group, but the core would be putting yourself up as having the group first and foremost in your mind on LibraryThing, and doing what the group needs to keep it happy and healthy. I think it would be nothing but healthy to allow groups to have admins--without power but with an expectation of involvement, and with that some slight recognition.

I think we err in making these conversations about "features." That not how most social interaction usually works. As given above, when someone's hurt it does a world of good to make eye contact with someone else and say "Go call 9-1-1." No "power" is really at stake there. In the Legacy Library group it's helpful that Jeremy has some amorphous leading role and can say "That's awesome!" to someone wavering in their choice of a new project, even though there is no "feature" attached to that.

I think that's what Zoe and I have been saying all along. This doesn't need to be a feature. It just needs the owner to name some admins if he needs them and put that info on the group page.

219> I'm not sure why one-person groups got into this
Nor do I see what trial periods have to do with it.

This was all in the response to your statement:
We have more groups now than we can support. We've either got to kill some in a way that their corpse isn't a problem, or allow them to get new live with new admins.

Perhaps you'd like to clarify it a bit more since we seem to be suggesting solutions for a problem that apparently doesn't exist.

Role name: 'Mentor'?

I do like the proposal a lot more now that you've stated explicitly that admins would be "without power". I still think the feature isn't necessary, though, as jjwilson has pointed out. If you do want some sort of recognition feature, I'd prefer a more inclusive one (e.g., something like barnstars).

In the Legacy Library group it's helpful that Jeremy has some amorphous leading role and can say "That's awesome!" to someone wavering in their choice of a new project, even though there is no "feature" attached to that.

Encouragement can come from any members, and does, in the most successful groups.

222>

Absolutely not. Just because I'm not an admin doesn't mean I need "mentoring" on how to be a group member.

>224 lorax:

How about "nanny"? I think we should go with that.

225> Augh! So the "nanny" thing gets official comment, but not the #221 which was about the actual substance of the thread? Aye carumba! ;)

> 225

"Au pair" is classier, though, no?

>225 timspalding:, 227
And both are classier than "babysitter"!

I think we can rank the terms by how reprehensible it is to have sex with one. Jude Law, for example, is always said to have had sex with the "nanny." Having sex with the babysitter is a much less serious offense.

>229 timspalding: Really? I thought babysitters tended to be young teens.

I don't think the Jude Law exemplum can be countered. He is the worst man on earth.

>224 lorax: Twas a brainfart... I meant "docent".