SharedAdmin

From Dar

"Shared Admin" groups

• Andyrob asks :

I wonder if I can pick the brains and collective experience of all concerned who know anything about "shared admin" groups. This is a phrase I have come across to describe the practice of promoting large numbers, or everybody, in a group to admin status. Such groups may well have also existed without being called shared admin, but with the same philosophy. I'm not so much looking for hypothetical conjecture as to how this might work out, but actual experience with real groups. Research, if you like. Have there been many of these? Do they prosper in the short medium or long term? What problems do they face and how are they overcome? Are there any fatal pitfalls? Thanks for any help.

• shhexycorin says:

The only fatal pitfall I can think of is making everyone an admin.

Although "fatal" might be an exaggeration

• Andyrob says:

I'm not so much looking for hypothetical conjecture as to how this might work out, but actual experience with real groups.

• Yolise says:

yes, there have been cases of groups where everyone is an admin causing havok in the group. I think it was a Flickr Central or Deleteme clone, if I recall (which clearly I don't). Top Ten groups, on the other hand, have all members as admins and it generally works fine - at least I've not heard of many problems. It depends, I assume, on the raison d'etre of the group. If it's a havok-causing group, it's bound to go wrong.

• peggy. says:

I don't like the idea -- and even had to quit one group because of this. They had set up the group as "invite only" then made EVERYONE an admin! I was really getting tired of getting those invites when it was not "my group" so to speak... and I had NO idea what was the criteria for an invitation.

this probably doesn't answer your question, because I don't have an answer as to why this is done. Anyone could join one of these groups and essentially close it down by kicking everyone else out -- right?

• Andyrob says:

Thanks Yolise and Peggy.

I'd like to know more about the havok if possible, as in whether it was actually destructive or just disconcerting, and how long did it last.

Does it still exist in some form?

Not sure I understand about the nuisance invitations. Do requests to join get sent to all admins or something? I think an invite only group can be made open again, but not a private group.

It's not so that anybody could join and kick others out since admins can't be kicked out.

Thanks for any more help.

• Yolise says:

I seem to recall that an admin deleted all the images in one group and made the group private in another (can't recall if that was a malicious thing or a mistake, but it's irreversible).

• Canopus Archives Pro User says:

Just use your imagination. Everyone has the same power...true anarchy. Whether it works totally depends on the members. At the very least it is an interesting social experiment, but, don't be surprised if it moves from anarchistic to nihilistic.

• shhexycorin says:

it's irreversible

Unless you're "The Biggest Group", in which case it's not quite as irreversible as for smaller, less mouthy groups.

• Yolise Pro User says:

Oh, that was the one I was thinking of. They got that reversed in the end did they? God knows it was a squeaky bloody wheel.

• PhotoGraham says:

Andyrob, I can invite you to join a couple if you like.

• shhexycorin says:

My actual experience is that it's fatal to make everyone an admin. Not to mention foolish.

Unless you like groups where havoc and mayhem reign. Which I do. I'd still not do it for any group I run though.

It was the original FlickrCentral Uncensored, Yolise... but that was run by troublemakers. Version 2 was set up by much more respectable and trustworthy Flickr members.

• Zadignose says:

I've been a member of several such groups, including one which I created, but it spun out of control when I essentially turned over control to another admin, and the promotions spread like wildfire.

I like the idea, and even the chaotic, heavily troubled ones have managed to thrive and be fun despite the havoc. But there are definite pitfalls, and they piss people off.

Real life problems I've encountered:

For a group to thrive, it needs a reason to exist. Something thematic, or some particular thread or topic is often the glue that holds the group together. Some groups lack this.

A malicious troll who is persistent, unidentifiable, and can't be shaken out, is the most serious problem. Such people might suddently set a group to private, or delete all the photos, or some or all of the discussion threads... I recently saw this happen in a group that had survived for well over a year, and a thread with 1700+ comments was suddenly deleted.

Edititing one another's comments for comic effect can be fun, but this can also be taken too far... not maliciously, but it can just get to the point that no one wants to comment when they know that their post won't last long without deletion, editing, or change of context.

The strength of a group is its membership, but we're members of multiple communities. So, when a group goes bad, it's not practical to port the whole community over to another group. You lose members along the way, or else you bring the problems with you, or else people resent the lack of admin status, so they go off and form multiple splinters, and splinters of splinters, etc.

Still, it's highly recommended, and lots of fun! Yay!

• wirehead Pro User says:

I it is an inevitable effect of any social software medium that people experiment with full-egalitarian leadership. I remember IRC channels with all-ops, for example and similar patterns in every other spot where you could actually create groups without admin intervention.

It doesn't scale once the community gets sufficently large to attract large numbers of trolls. And it's awful hard to "wind down" such a group once you've started one.

Very few of the social phenomena of Flickr surprise me in the slightest. Web 2.0 hype aside, just about every way for a community to flame out and die happened between 1985 and 1995.

• cough*

Kids these days.

• cmiper Pro User says:

The "Top20" groups seem to do fine with everyone as an admin. Once in a while there were the folks who came in and wiped out the pool, but they get over it and move on eventually. I belong to a handful of the Top20s and rarely if ever is there a problem.

The "top20" groups I refer to usually have no more than a few hundred people total, it's not like there are 30k+ users...this probably helps.

• gert_van_dermeersch Pro User says:

I'm in two groups like his (Cinemas and Booksniffers) and no problems to report. But then, I suppose they are what Zadignose mentioned before:

"For a group to thrive, it needs a reason to exist. Something thematic, or some particular thread or topic is often the glue that holds the group together."

• Andyrob Pro User says:

Great discussion, thanks everybody. There's been some valuable experience related with anecdotes, examples and recipes for sucess and disaster as well as the usual opinion.

@wirehead are you referring to usenet?

@shexycorin So there might be a mechanism to change a group back from private if you act quickly enough and have enough clout.

I can see how the irreversible change to private might be problematic not just for shared admin groups, but for any group with multiple admins which carries an inherent risk of one of them turning rogue.

Perhaps there should be an option to irreversibly turn the option to go private off.

• shhexycorin says:

@shexycorin So there might be a mechanism to change a group back from private if you act quickly enough and have enough clout.

That's it, exactly.

• Andreas Helke Pro User says:

A shared admin group has a pretty high probability to become a private group. The original censure group became unusable for its intended purpose after a day or two of its existence. At that time it had about 600 members and a lot of invitations. One of the members turned it into a private group and repeatedly deleted all discussion threads and pictures in the group. It still has 1000 members, changes its name every few days and pictures are still disappearing but not all of them at once.

• Yolise Pro User says:

So there might be a mechanism to change a group back from private if you act quickly enough and have enough clout.

Or are so annoying that staff just want to shut you up.

• Brock is a group administrator Brock Pro User says:

Heh.

• shhexycorin says:

She's a braver woman than I am...

• nathamlin says:

I've always fancied Benevolent Dictatorships.

• dictates benevolently*

• 'SeraphimC Pro User says:

Yes

• PhotoGraham Pro User says:

Power to the People!

• `Pacdog Pro User says:

I set up a no-rules / all admin group about 7 months ago with 364 members / admins and I have had not one problem.. I must admit when I started the group I expected it would crash and I'm amazed it has thrived..

Not a large group helps I assume.. It is plublic soo anyone can join.. Guess it depends on who you invite and so forth..

• `Pacdog Pro User says:

Think about it to have a all admin group with rules is in itself foolish!

=o)

hence the no-rules group motto! working like a charm!

• Andyrob Pro User says:

I've had a look at the TOP20 groups and I notice that they are highly systematised with a kind of genetic code of rules which is replicated from group to group, especially as new groups are created within the system. Presumably the rules which produce a sucessful group are the most likely to survive and spread the meme. I expect the "No rules" rule is a pretty strong one too. It should also be noted that the central organising group for the TOP20 system is not a shared admin group itself, it only has 2 Admins.