Plan for New Admins

Se habla deTalk about LibraryThing

Únase a LibraryThing para publicar.

Plan for New Admins

Editado: Ene 15, 4:39pm

As I've mentioned, LibraryThing has a number of active groups without admins. The group was create in 2006 or 2012, but the admin isn't active on the site. (Indeed, some active groups were created by members who practically never used the site!)

As a sample, we will need new admins for: Name that Book, Science Fiction Fans, Needle Arts, Let's Talk Religion and Canadian Bookworms.

I've also intimated that admins are getting more power and responsibility. We've recently added simple notifications, so admins can keep track of new members and say hi to them. We will also be getting some sort of "pinned topic" feature. And a links section. So admins will have more to do.

After some debate, here's my tentative plan for getting new admins:

1. Groups will be selected as needing a new admin. Not ever absent-administrator group will be picked, but only those that are decently active. "Absent" will be defined fairly generously--something like not having logged in within the last six months, or even a year, or not having posted in the group within a year.
2. We'll send the previous administrators a heads up. Maybe we will give them two weeks to log in and say "Hey, I'm back and I still want to run this!"
3. Once a group has no admin, we'll post a message on the group that it's lacking an admin, and the same message will appear on the group page itself.
4. The message will link to a page to apply to be an admin.
5. The application page will ask them for a very short paragraph about why they should be an admin, and (maybe) how many admins they think the group should have.
6. We considered a voting process, but this seems fiddly and potentially alienating. So…
7. Meg, who is socially intelligent, kind and also has no enemies we know of, picks the admin or admins, based on the brief sentence as well as metrics we have about how engaged people are with the site and the group.
8. Admins get a link that confirms they want it.
9. The new admin(s) are crowned at a star-stugged galla at Buckingham palace or, if the virus is still raging, welcomed with a simple message on Talk.

What do people think?

Ene 15, 4:48pm

Name that Book needs more than one admin. Been there, done that. The currently listed admin is at least the third that group has had.

Ene 15, 4:50pm

My immediate thought is that this sounds like a generally good idea. Can't think of anything I disagree with.

I do think *all* groups should have at least two admins, even if it's a small group, and large ones should probably have more than two.

I will have to check my wardrobe to make sure I have something appropriate to wear to that gala, in case we have the virus under control by then. I do have a gold dress...

Ene 15, 4:58pm

>2 MarthaJeanne: Yes, I agree.

>3 PawsforThought: Yes, I think that if admins are willing to work together, we should pick more than one.

Ene 15, 5:00pm

I do think *all* groups should have at least two admins

I agree with this. There will be times when an admin is ill, swamped by real life, or off climbing Everest. Someone needs to be available to run things.

The new admin(s) are crowned at a star-stugged {sic} galla {sic!} at Buckingham palace

Who are the stars? Do we get tiaras? Will the Queen be there?

Ene 15, 5:04pm

I agree that all groups should have more than one admin.

I do think there should be some way (e.g. voting) for active members of the group to express their opinion about who should be admin, though I don't think that should be the only deciding metric.

Ene 15, 5:16pm

I want to go to the star studded ball but I will not go to Buckingham palace.

All sounds good otherwise.

Ene 15, 5:18pm

I have the tiara (not diamonds alas, just rhinestones), but we're in Tier 4 lockdown and the hairdresser is closed for the time being.

Ene 15, 5:19pm

>7 dianeham:

How about Versailles instead?

Ene 15, 5:57pm

How many groups could a user be an admin for? I'd hate to be automatically selected for even a quarter of the groups I'm a member of (100+) - fortunately most are defunct, but I'm sure there are users with more groupiness than I have.

Ene 15, 6:10pm

>10 reading_fox: You'd have to apply first. So just don't apply for the groups you don't want to be admin for.

Ene 15, 6:23pm

So the user has to apply to be an admin, they can't be nominated by members of the group?

Ene 15, 6:24pm

What is the term of office? Life? Until the putsch? Four years with only one re-election allowed? Can one be impeached?

We need to know more.

Ene 15, 6:35pm

>12 gilroy:

See >1 timspalding::

3. Once a group has no admin, we'll post a message on the group that it's lacking an admin, and the same message will appear on the group page itself.
4. The message will link to a page to apply to be an admin.
5. The application page will ask them for a very short paragraph about why they should be an admin

Ene 15, 6:42pm

I think this is a good idea. I've been concerned that one of the groups I'm in lacks an active administrator. It's not all that active of a group, but I occasionally have tried to get people chatting.

Ene 15, 8:20pm

>14 lilithcat: That doesn't mean someone can't nominate someone else to the position. It's why I asked for clarification

Ene 15, 8:30pm

I volunteer to be admin for Needle Arts. It is about creative application of intravenous drugs, right?

Ene 15, 9:02pm

This looks good to me so far.

Ene 16, 6:25am

In Reading Globally, we've got a long-standing workaround using the dummy account ReadingGloballyAdmin so that we can hand over the admin role from time to time by passing on the account credentials. Currently, I'm the one holding the baby.

Will we be able to change from that to assigning the admin role directly to our own accounts?

Ene 16, 9:06am

I second >2 MarthaJeanne: and >3 PawsforThought: - All groups should have more than one admin, and especially larger ones must.

(and no, I don't volunteer for any group :-) )

Ene 16, 12:58pm

Pinned topic is going to be a lifesaver for Name That Book.

Editado: Ene 18, 4:03pm

>21 lorax: So, my worry is that, if we allowed pinned topics people will complain by all the space it eats up. So I think we may allow only one pinned tweet. What do you think?

Ene 18, 12:12pm

I prefer pinned topics to pinned tweets.

In most cases one is probably enough, but some groups might want two or three. The important thing is that it has to be done by the admins. It would make life easier if the running spam thread and the Is this spam? thread are both easy to find. And if the current combining thread stays above the one that has been continued. Two or three lines is not a lot of space.

Ene 18, 1:48pm

I agree with >23 MarthaJeanne: that you should be able to have two or three pinned topics/threads. Especially in the big groups where topics can easily disappear off the first page when there's a lot of activity, it'd be good to have the info thread up top where people can easily find them.

It might also be a good idea to encourage admins to link to other threads/topics that might be interesting or important in the group info at the top of the page. Topics that don't need to be pinned but would be useful for members.

Ene 18, 2:17pm

I'm not sure how I understand the value of pinned topics when the admins can link to important threads in the group description.

Ene 18, 2:21pm

Because people at least skim topic subjects, but totally ignore group descriptions. Currently you have to click on see more to even see the full group descriptions.

Ene 18, 3:27pm

>22 timspalding: I agree with >23 MarthaJeanne:. Pinned topics, not pinned tweets.
Also agree, 3 to 4 max pins would be better than one. Unless you are planning to reduce the number of visible threads on a group page to 5 at which point only having 1 makes more sense.

Ene 18, 5:15pm

Let me just say I have no idea what pinned tweets are

Ene 18, 5:51pm

How can I apply to be Queen of a group?

Also, please don't kill Lizzie by injecting her with intravenous drugs or by swarming her with huffing puffing admins. We've done so well in getting through 2020 with both her and David Attenborough still intact. Admittedly, TL;DR - this course of action was mentioned somewhere further up this thread, right?

Ene 18, 11:52pm

>28 SandraArdnas: Like a Victorian butterfly collection but with small birds?

Ene 19, 12:45am

>30 Maddz: Pinned ornithology in less colloquial speech? My cat can make contributions, alas

Ene 19, 2:10am

> 31 It was the pinned tweets...

We spend a lot of time shooing the neighbourhood cats out of our garden - both neighbours have dogs, and the cats view our garden as a safe haven and prime bird watching spot (and mouse hunting - there's field mice under our shed).

Ene 19, 11:32am

Pinned threads don't really help with users who primarily use the Talk tab.

Ene 19, 12:05pm

>33 jjwilson61:

True, but just because it doesn't help with all users doesn't mean it's not beneficial for others.

Ene 19, 12:08pm

Even for those of us who use the talk tab, it would be nice to know that certain topics can be found easily if we want them.

Ene 19, 12:14pm

There could be a new "Your World" category for pinned threads -- Pinned Threads in Your Groups. Like the "Favorited Messages" category.

Ene 19, 1:51pm

>36 lesmel: I think Pinned is more relevant to specific group pages, whereas relevant to you can be accomplished with Starred Topics. I don't think we need another category in Your World for this.

Ene 19, 3:19pm

Pinned topics are now live:

Ene 19, 4:12pm

Editado: Abr 4, 1:32pm

Minor issue, so I don't want to create a new thread and this seems the most relevant place to post it:

I looked at a new-to-me group to see if I wanted to join it (BBC Radio 3 Listeners) but you can only see the topics list if you join first. I'd like to see the topics list to know if I want to join.

Would it be possible to see topics (but not post) for groups you're not a member of?

Abr 4, 1:58pm

>40 humouress: I'm wondering if it was a private group? Most private groups hide the topic list.
(Also, I'm not seeing the BBC Radio 3 listeners group. I see BBC 4, which does have a topic list.)

Was this problem of not seeing on your phone, tablet, or computer?

Abr 4, 2:03pm

I've had people invite me to join private groups.

a) I won't even join join to post groups that I read regularly, so the chance that I would join a private group is very small.

b) When I can't see the topics or the current members and don't recognize the name of the inviter? Not a chance in 100 million.

Editado: Abr 4, 2:13pm

>42 MarthaJeanne: Quite so.

>41 gilroy: This is the address:

I would think (from what I can see that they would encourage people to join. It could be a private group (but I didn't spot the banner).

I'm on my computer (Safari/ Mac os Big Sur 11.2.3) but it was just this group that I couldn't see.

Abr 4, 3:08pm

If it's set up as a join to post group can you see the topics before joining?

Abr 4, 3:20pm

>44 jjwilson61: Yes, and can even read the messages. You just can't post.

Abr 4, 3:25pm

>43 humouress: When I go to that page, the message I see is:

You must be a member of this group to see discussion topics.

Abr 4, 3:34pm

>40 humouress:

I'm testing something. Would you please go to this group: and tell me if you can see the topics?

Abr 4, 4:18pm

>47 lilithcat: Nope, no visible topics.

Abr 4, 4:55pm


Here's what's going on.

As an admin, I have the option of choosing that "Only Group Members can see group discussions". That hides the topics whether or not the group is "Join to Post".

(I've just changed that group back to allow anyone to see the discussions.)

> 40

Would it be possible to see topics (but not post) for groups you're not a member of?

You would need to ask the admin of the group to change the settings.

Abr 4, 7:29pm

>43 humouress: Weird that group doesn't come up in a search of either the group page or using the site search bar...

Abr 5, 3:03am

>49 lilithcat: Ah, thanks.

>50 gilroy: Maybe that’s a side effect of the ‘only group members ...’?

I was looking at someone’s profile and it was listed in their groups, so I clicked on the link.

Abr 5, 6:09am

I can see the topics of the BBC Radio 3 group, so perhaps the setting was just changed?

It seems to be a weird and (IMO) slightly pointless group, the founder and admin simply copies the BBCRadio 3 concert programme from their website (it looks like) into the forum. That's all there is.

Abr 5, 6:12am

>52 anglemark: It won't be pointless if people join and discuss the concerts :)

Abr 5, 6:26am

>53 AnnieMod: It's got 2,595 members, and the discussions are not happening. It's quite a sizeable group, I recall the founder spamming huge numbers of members with invitations.

Abr 5, 6:32am

>54 anglemark: Ah, that may explain the number of users I guess. Oh well - it CAN be not pointless I guess - but apparently nothing interesting is happening in there :)

Abr 5, 7:19am

>52 anglemark: So can I, now. I dropped them a message, as suggested.

Abr 26, 9:51pm

Admin question...

I see how to hide or delete a specific post but is there a way to hide or delete an entire thread at once? or do I have to go post by post?

Abr 27, 12:19pm

Great question, it's just per message/post right now, but I'll ask about seeing if we can do it for admin options on an entire thread.

Abr 27, 1:08pm

Abr 27, 2:35pm

Looks like it probably won't change at the moment, because as it stands even the individual post hides/removals aren't getting used much, but if there's a strong use case for entire threads please let me know!

Abr 27, 9:04pm

>60 kristilabrie:

OK, thanks. It's just that in scrubbing the Globe (Shakespeare) group of anti-Shakespearean posts I'll have dozens, probably hundreds, of posts to hide, and some of them are on threads of nothing but.

But I'll live!

Abr 28, 6:19am

A pox on thee, anti-Shakespeareans! Thou are naught but Bacon's lickspittle!

Abr 28, 6:46am

>62 MrAndrew: Tsk, thou and thee are singular forms, not plural. I'm ashamed of thee, Mr!

Abr 28, 7:03am

Hoist with thine own petard, methinks.

Abr 28, 8:50am

Hast thou seen my petard? It is exceedingly petarded, forsooth.

Abr 28, 8:59am

Gadzooks, thou art most astoundingly petarded. Odds bodkins, 'tis a calamitous day.

Abr 28, 9:34am

>57 Crypto-Willobie:
>58 kristilabrie:
>59 Crypto-Willobie:
>60 kristilabrie:
>61 Crypto-Willobie:
>62 MrAndrew:

As I predicted was going to happen.

As I wrote in reply to the notification of whole threads in The Globe group to be summarily removed at the end of June 2021:

By the way, it is HERE, in an open-forum, rather than in my own LT-member pages' personal messages space-- where, yes, you're (i.e. Crypto-Willobie) blocked, for cause, from messaging use--- that your arbitrarily and selectively proposed act of censorship ought to, by right, have been placed.

What's evident from your comment above is that you sought, by preference, to simply announce this to me as a privately-issued fait-accompli.

Abr 30, 6:09pm

>60 kristilabrie:
As the adminstrator of the Hobnob With Authors group, I would like to have the ability to remove entire threads.

In the Hobnob Group, promotional posts are allowed. But we ask that they be made only in the threads that have been created for that purpose. This makes them easily findable by those who want to see them, and easily avoided by those who don't want to see them.

When an author posts a new thread with a promotional post to this particular group, flagging it out of existence is not really appropriate. Since the post itself is allowed. It would be better if I could engage with them in private conversation, get them to repost in the proper place, and then remove the unwanted thread.

Otherwise the promo threads tend to come in flurries, because if one person posts a new thread about their book, obviously the next person will think they can/should post one about their book, and so on. None of these people actually READ each other's promotional posts, so posting a reply to please don't do that just prolongs the visibility of the unwanted threads, without actually helping anything. (I currently go to the poster's profile to direct them to post in the proper place, rather than replying to and prolonging the unwanted threads. But just being able to get rid of these threads would be an improvement.)

I will say, however, that being able to "sticky" posting instructions seems to already be helping a lot. :)

Abr 30, 8:33pm

Would it be enough to get rid of topics that have no non-removed messages?

Editado: Mayo 3, 11:59am

When a group's admin, intending to remove posts (he/she) deems unfit to remain, writes,

... "We're trying to free this group from this kind of blather...

how is that term "blather" to be interpreted by the group's members?


On the other hand, no "ambiguity" here:

Yesterday (02 May 2021), 1:03pm

'Just calm the fuck down. I'm busy just now. I'll get back to you soon.'

Let's what "soon" turns out to be.

I've already been informed that, to use a familiar expression, "the clock is ticking" on the time I'm allowed to get whatever I wish to save from oblivion safely copied and saved.


Why is, why should the onus be on the group-member to "figure out" which of his or her group posts a moderator (Who isn't above addressing the comment "...Calm the fuck down. I'm busy..." in response to a query) is going to remove?

If a group moderator indicates to a member of the group that a post or, potentially, many posts are at risk of removal by a date certain and that (if wanted) they had better be saved by the member before that date, I believe the proper place for responsibility is on the moderator to indicate clearly and in advance of removal any posts or threads he (or she) intends to strike off.

As I see it, this responsibility should be formally codified in the site's operating procedures. That it has not already been so stated is, for me, a troubling indication of how little thought has been devoted to these new arrangements prior to their enactment.

Mayo 2, 1:14pm

>52 anglemark:
>55 AnnieMod:

You are, of course, entitled to your opinions but I think you might be a bit less dismissive. I post only rarely on the BBC Radio 3 listeners threads - the last occasion was to thank antimusak for his noble efforts in looking through lists of upcoming programmes and posting the more interesting.

I never get around to poring over each week's Radio Times so antimusak's prompts are invaluable for me. I don't at all miss discussions of the concerts. "Nothing interesting happening..."? I don't agree.

Mayo 3, 3:16am

>71 abbottthomas: Good for you! (Meant honestly, not sarcastically.)

Mayo 3, 7:48am

>72 anglemark: Thank you kindly :-)

Mayo 5, 6:32am

I'd like a response to my >70 proximity1:

Mayo 6, 10:01pm

>70 proximity1: >74 proximity1:

As you've found out by now none of your old posts will be removed. Group members have decided it's best to let the record stand. Instead the problematic threads will be closed -- no new posts of similar nature will be allowed.

Mayo 8, 8:37am

>69 timspalding: "Would it be enough to get rid of topics that have no non-removed messages?"

Yes this would work just fine. :)