(101 to 165 of 165 replies)
@petra 12:09am, 9 May 2008
Sorry, I am brazilian and English is not good

Too many threads and I really don´t know if it was taken into consideration before.
Flickr needs to provide a feature that allows us to DEMOTE an Admin from a group, when he/she causes trouble.
As it is now, the Admin can only demote HIMSELF. So...if he doesn´t want to, things get worse for everyone.
Today I wrote to Flickr about this issue and they gave me the link to this group.
Something must be done about this.
Thank you.
(101 to 165 of 165 replies)
Rippie: Contra Censura! PRO Posted 9 years ago. Edited by Rippie: Contra Censura! (member) 9 years ago
which as we've all seen time and again for years, can come back to bite the shadier parts of the anatomy with shark's teeth...

and yes, we need mods, too, but we need the uber/super/founder role.

plus, i agree with Prora's most recent retort. we are in complete accord about that issue.
DrgnMastr PRO Posted 9 years ago. Edited by DrgnMastr (member) 9 years ago
Personally, setting it up the way you suggest works out much worse in the long run. I've done it your way, and basically people keep contacting you until it opens fully. It just would have been nice to have the design down pat first, test it a bit with a select few, and then open the doors.

Then there is the problem of making adjustments that should have been done before opening the doors.

Think of it as alpha and beta testing the product, before going golden. :)
πρώρα (Prora) PRO 9 years ago
It seems to me that this issue of the initial setting up is a side issue and is something that occurs only once in the life of a group. It remains much more important that the way in which the group is changed in later life should be controlled to prevent hostile changes, of which the worst remains changing a group (permanently in the current regime) from public to private. What we need in this is regime change - Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld where are you?
OMG! Democratization of Flickr?
Never gonna happen!!

We'll never find those WMD's πρώρα (Prora)!
Villa Sams 9 years ago
If you agree with most of the points made in this thread, then this group is for you:

Please join and sign he petition! :-)
Wooble 9 years ago
[2 messages deleted]

Again, I'd like to remind people that this group is for discussing ideas for improving Flickr, and is not a forum for attacking other Flickr users.
Thank you Villa Sams this petition is to improve flickr not to attack flickr!!
Jinxy966 [deleted] 8 years ago
The founder of a group should have the ability to remove any person from the group including another admin.

I created a group and someone contacted me and asked to be made an admin. to help me out. I didn't know I would be stuck with him forever when I made him an admin. in my group.

Since I founded the group I should have the ability to demote him, remove him, or ban him. I consider this a flaw in the groups policy. Thanks.
ColleenM 8 years ago

Have you asked him to demote himself?
JMBower PRO 8 years ago
I have run into this issue with several groups. Even the most rational choice of admins can often go astray.

They were able to allow owners to demote admins to moderators during the time they were adding the moderator fuctionality.

Why make it a limited time offer only? It seems a handy tool. Groups a are great part of the flickr experience. I COMPLETELY agree with Flickr's decision to let groups police themselves rather than getting involved in group affairs.

HOWEVER....in order to do that, shouldn't you give them the tools they need for the job? It seems to me if you want groups to resolve their own issues (as theu should), you need to give the owner the ability to do so, by letting them demote problem admins if necessary.

It would keep one bad person from spoling an entire group's experience. Given the size of the groups, this could affect a LOT of people. Seems like bringing back functionality that was already implemented could offset a lot of potential negative experiences for users!
g@n3 [deleted] 8 years ago
I fully agree with you and all the supporters of this idea. I would, however, add one additional thought....

I believe that some administrative controls in a group (such as the deadly 'set group to private button & safety level switch) should be accessed only by the group founder. If a malicious administrator sets a public group to private, there is no going back. Demoting that administrator would be virtually pointless as the group will be forever changed.

I believe that if Flickr leaves these controls in the group founder's hands, a huge portion of the 'malicious administrator' problem would be resolved.
FlyButtafly PRO 8 years ago
JMBower - they did that so that you could then re-promote the previous admin to moderator if you wanted. The Mod. position was supposed to prevent the issue of rogue admins doing things such as turning a group private, etc.

Just don't promote the person to admin; promote them to moderator instead.
JMBower PRO 8 years ago
Fly: we're referring to people who are already admins....the problem is they cannot be demoted to mods anymore. That ability should still reside with the group owner, as a failsafe against a rogue admin, but it does not.

It should be an ongoing ability, not just for the intro period when the mod position was first implemented.
Wooble 8 years ago
This all assumes that the person who created the group "owns" it. Staff have been clear that this isn't the case.
JMBower PRO 8 years ago
still, the issue remains. Even if we hold the creator isn't the "owner". we can be certain that an admin they appoint who goes rogue certainly isn't the owner either.

Say you have a group of 5 admins, including the owner, from a group the preceeded the moderator addition. They have an admin go nuts, or even, an admin become inactive. Even if you don't see the creator as the owner, certainly the will of the group is clear..if 4 admins and the rest of the users experiences are being hampered by a single person, there needs to be a way for the group to deal with that.

Google has wisely opted out of those politics, but left groups unable to deal with them decisively on their own. all I'm saying is there needs to be some mechanism to bridge that gap.
frankhound05 PRO 8 years ago
how about democracy - all admins to stand for reelection once a year? any group member free to stand for election, one vote for each member who has posted a minimum number of photos. would solve inactive admins and crazy admins.
zyrcster PRO 8 years ago
frankhound05 Any group that wants to can choose to hold elections for its admins now. Flickr should not get involved in it, though, if you're suggesting that they somehow oversee this process.
πρώρα (Prora) PRO 8 years ago
One issue that has not been discussed (unless I missed the comment) is what happens if the founder of a group leaves Flickr, lapses his/her membership, or dies. As far as I can tell that could leave the group in limbo on any issue where the founder is responsible.
iansand PRO 8 years ago
πρώρα (Prora) The earliest joining member becomes the new admin (not, as would make sense, necessarily a moderator). I am surprised you have not seen the seventy gazillion times this has been mentioned.
πρώρα (Prora) PRO Posted 8 years ago. Edited by πρώρα (Prora) (member) 8 years ago
My mere two eyes and maybe a failing memory just didn't cope with "seventy gazillion times".

But your reply assumes knowledge of the fate of the founder, unfortunately dead admins are even worst communicators than some of their live comrades. And departed ones likewise. In the both cases they can appear to be still available to run the group when they can't.

Frequently the only indication of their departure is the lack of response to queries etc - and as I indicated above, some admins might be dead for all the reactions one gets from them.

One group which I admin was founded by another who is still shown as an admin of the group but for two years or more he has left running the group 100% to me and doesn't respond to any of my e-mails. But he appears still to be a member of Flickr though his photostream was last updated in Dec 2007.
πρώρα (Prora) PRO 8 years ago
I contacted Flickr on the admin who seems to have deserted "his" group and maybe Flickr, too. I got a boilerplate reply telling me nothing new and saying that Flickr didn't intervene. It just didn't address the problem at all, so I am pursuing the issue with them. Watch this space but don't hold your breath (don't want any more dead members :-) )
Scoutress PRO 8 years ago
I have the same problem. I have written to the current admin and to a moderator. The admin hasn't been active on flickr since 2007. The group is now a waste, because it's not maintained and everybody in it knows this. It was a fun group based on a cool premise and had a lot of participation. There was a lot of work done setting up the group and it can't be duplicated.

So sad that flickr doesn't care....it wouldn't get them any profit to worry about these things, after all.

Flickr is a business like all others.
zyrcster PRO 8 years ago
Why can't it be duplicated? It's quite easy to set up a new group. Then, you can leave lots of announcements in the old group telling people about the new group.
ColleenM Posted 8 years ago. Edited by ColleenM (member) 8 years ago

There are only four settings that an Admin needs to decide on to set up a group

1) Public or Private
2) Whether or not to review images before they are posted
3) Whether or not there are posting limits, and if there are what the limit is.
4) What image settings will be allowed in the pool (media type, content type, safety levels, geodata).

And all those settings are on a single administrative page.
πρώρα (Prora) PRO 8 years ago
zyrcster Pro User says:

"Why can't it be duplicated? It's quite easy to set up a new group. Then, you can leave lots of announcements in the old group telling people about the new group. "

Yes, it's easy to set up a group (I sometimes think it's too easy) but it involves a lot of work transferring all the members and, worse still, the discussions and pool photos - all because an admin has gone into hibernation or whatever. I think you over-simplify the task.
zyrcster PRO 8 years ago
No, I get it, I just think of groups as being more ephemeral than you, perhaps. I don't think it's a good idea for Flickr to get into the middle of groups, trying to play referee and sorting out who should be the admin and who should be removed as an admin.

I point to the implosion of DMU as an example (or TBG). Both groups were quite well established and had a robust number of discussion threads and photos in the pool (well, TBG anyway).

Yet both groups resurrected after their implosions and there are now even more robust groups in their places, with more skilled admins who have learned lessons from the implosions. Great.

I even closed down a group I ran recently that had 3,000 members and 50,000 discussion topics and 60,000+ photos in the pool. It was an orderly closure and many people were bummed at first (it had to happen, though, for complex reasons). But now, 3 months later, a few new groups have popped up in its place and people are thriving with both old and new relationships.

So, I think you might underestimate your group members. ;-)

These are free groups on a free service after all (free accounts can do everything with groups that Pro accounts can, so there is no need to factor in any cost). It's not a gutted museum in Baghdad in which true treasures were lost. ;-)

My belief is that it's just easier to move on and create a new group than to sit and stress about a group whose leadership has gone AWOL. A little healthy evolution. And that keeps the politics and emotions off staff's plate.
πρώρα (Prora) PRO 8 years ago
The group I am referring to had, when I joined, about 12 members and was pretty static. I was made co-admin with the founder and put in a lot of effort to recruit. It now has 278 members. It is still running with me doing all the work but my fear is that should I be unable to continue (and I am being treated for a form of cancer of the bone marrow and am 81 years old) the group will be effectively headless, which would be a pity. But because there would be a nominal head the automatic promotion of the most senior (in service) member would not take place. While Flickr may not want to intervene in the running of a group they should, at least, look at the weakness of the mechanisms they created and rectify them rather than sitting on their hands (or bottoms).
iansand PRO 8 years ago
I suspect they are well aware of the "weaknesses" and have decided that the angst of dipping a toe into group politics far outweighs that inconvenience.
ColleenM 8 years ago
πρώρα (Prora) "I was made co-admin"

I suggest you find a new admin as soon as possible and start coaching them about how to run the group. If you care about what happens to the group when you can no longer run it, then why not choose a successor and start working on continuity for the group.
πρώρα (Prora) PRO 8 years ago
That happens to be my intention.
The Wiccan 8 years ago
I have to add my voice to this.
As a Founder of several groups, one of which I "lost" to the admins, I feel that Flickr NEEDS to institute a "Founder" or "Uber" Admin role.
A current group that I founded has several admins that have vanished off the face of the Earth. And there they sit, inactive.
I cannot even demote THEM!
We desperately need this position!
The Emperor Penguin 8 years ago
I just want to say that simply giving moderators more authority would solve this and other problems. I don't promote anyone to administrator, but I often wish that others could, for instance, invite photos. There's no need to have a special administrator status--the admin is special in the first place, if you see what I'm saying--just make only moderators for your group, reserving fellow admin status for a group that you made with someone else.

AS for Jan's Cat...I think that a good way to avoid that would be to keep them as moderators, demote them if they don't do anything, and if they never contribute anything at all, give them the boot.
Scoutress PRO 8 years ago
I don't want to admin the group I want to save. I don't care who admins it, as long as SOMEBODY does!
I agree a very helpful feature would be for the Group Founder to have the ability to downgrade a Group Administrator.
frankhound05 PRO 8 years ago
if admins are unreasonable surely the solution is to leave the group and found a new group?
if a significent part of the membership of a group decamp is not that a solution?
Novitius 8 years ago
In my opinion feature that gives ability to downgrade a Group Administrator for the Group Founder is a very great idea.
The Ewan PRO 8 years ago
The trouble with making the group founder a special position is that it makes it impossible for a founder that wants to move on to hand the group over to someone else.
the key is that it be assignable to whomever the founder selects to take the role.

i'd do that with a couple groups if that were possible and then become a less active admin.

otherwise, in the demise of the uber or founder admin, the role should default to the oldest existing admin. if there is none, then to the oldest existing mod. if there is none, THEN to the oldest existing member.
Novitius 8 years ago
Maybe the new role: Founder can be created.
1. Founder can be only one and must be one.
2. Founder = Administrator + ability to downgrade admins and upgrade admin to a new Founder.
3. If Founder (old) upgrades other Admin to the Founder (new) he (founder old) will be automaticaly downgrade to an Admin.
jakerome PRO 8 years ago
What said, and reserve the following powers for Founder:

1) Promote & demote admins
2) Make a group private

That's it for current capabilities. Maybe see a log of admin actions if that ever gets introduced. The limited abilities of a founder would help ensure a group could keep functioning if the sole founder went MIA.
adameros PRO 8 years ago
How about a voting system where 51%of the admins (or more) must agree the admin should be demoted?

that can be done by groups if they choose now, and all admins agree to abide such votes.

some admin collectives operate on votes and some on a line of power. some do both depending the situation.

there's no need to enforce that technically, as the idea of voting is cooperative at its core, isn't it?

the Uber role and associated abilities are needed because of problems of NON cooperative admins, in large part.
jakerome PRO 8 years ago
Since admins can promote other people to admin, a voting system for admins would just end up letting any one admin demote the rest.
this needs to be done allow the oldest admins or founding admins to do this flickr needs to fix this problem
sandswimmer 7 years ago
I totally agree - I am also the founder of a group and would like the facility of demoting additional administrators in place instead of relying on the self demotion process. There is a lot of hard work put in to getting a group of the ground (especially if you are looking for high standards) and you should be able to have the last say on how the group is run. This is a definite flaw in the group layering system and should be changed.
Carol Con Carne 7 years ago
I totally agree. I have never seen a response from Flickr about this.
Lú_ PRO 7 years ago
Staff generally don't respond to indicate if something will or will not be developed, though there are exceptions -- usually to do with repeating flat-out "no's" where there is a privacy or technical issue. You can read more about why here:

Again i am watching a group die because of admins fighting, there needs to be a way for the original admins ( creator ) ( or the oldest amdins in line ) to remove trollish behaving amdins
i think the founding amins should have that option to demote someone they make admins
Viejito Posted 6 years ago. Edited by Viejito (member) 6 years ago
But as long as they don't have that option, they better be very careful about coopting moderators as admin...
Hedi-Alana PRO 5 years ago
It really is very difficult, to deal with all of this...I was put into a position, where the founder of groups, just dropped them into my lap....I had to recode, and basically start all over again...but the groups were saved...

There should be a place, where awards/invites etc. are put, and will be save, even though the person, who has all the info stored on his/her stream, should leave, or delete them all.
Hedi-Alana PRO Posted 5 years ago. Edited by Hedi-Alana (member) 5 years ago
There also is that problem about admins....I most definitely agree with the founder of a group having that, chance to remove other admin or admins...

I have co founded a group, where the one who started the group trusted somebody, to take in as additional admin, this person added one additional admin after another....now there are still 18 (at first there were 26 new admins, which he promoted, without asking) left....Not to say we hadn't planned on any of this....

We had to restart a group, to have some sanity...(the other admins were only 'silent' partners, doing nothing but having the title)
Ibrahim Thomas Posted 5 years ago. Edited by Ibrahim Thomas (member) 5 years ago
GROUP OWNER is good idea ...
group owner can control everything and all admins that he/she made them admins ....
sometimes i make somebody an admin by mistake !!!!
i cannot do anything to correct that ..even that i am the owner ...
if iam not a friend with my co-admin anymore what i have to do ??!!!
block him/her ..??!!!! isee thats queer .!!!!...
so the group owner is good idea ....
Ibrahim Thomas 5 years ago
asking co-admin to demote himself / herself is another queer thing ...
THE GROUP OWNER will solve all problems , the owner who made the group and made admins ....
admins cannot demote each other , ok , but the group owner has control over all that ...can demote or remove any admin..
in this case admins will help the owner , but now , in this system , the owner needs help sometimes .....!!!!
Patrick Costello PRO 5 years ago
Currently when you make someone an admin, you make them an owner of the group. So think carefully before pressing that promote button.
ernstkers PRO 5 years ago
By making somebody admin, you make him co-owner of the group. When making somebody moderator, you give him some rights to control the group, but not full admin (owner) rights. In fact the feature you request already exists, but you made yourself the mistake to use it in the wrong way.
yes this topic exist and yes we have beenasking for this for a long while, its one of if not the most needed feature, the ability for the creating admins to remove an admin, ban him etc, or the oldest admins, because sometimes the original admins leaves, etc . its one of the most distructive things that happens on flickr.
ernstkers PRO 5 years ago
On this moment there is the situation:
- Admin with full control included the control to give others the same full control.
- Moderator with limited control.
- Member with no control.

Thats quit simple, but it seems to be too complex for some people. So they ask for:
- Group owner with full control excluded the control to give others the same full control. So in fact less control than the current admin.
- Admin with high level limited control.
- Moderator with low level limited control.
- Member with no control.

Thats already more complex. Should Flickr implement this, than there will be a request in this group to give the group owner the possibility to make co-group owners. That will result in the following situation:
- Group owner with full control included the control to give others the same full control. So in fact the current admin has.
- Admin with high level limited control.
- Moderator with low level limited control.
- Member with no control.

This is more complicated than the current situation, but basically not different. So we can wait for a duplicate of the current thread to make super owners to make the situation:
- Super owner with full control excluded the control to give others the same full control. So in fact less control than the current admin.
- Group owner with high level limited control.
- Admin with medium level limited control.
- Moderator with low level limited control.
- Member with no control.

Than we will get here the request to make it possible to make co-super owners. etc. etc. etc.
Wil C. Fry PRO 5 years ago

ern I disagree sense this has been asked for from the thrid or fourth month 2005-2006 . it a request that prevents admins from distructive abuse of other members and groups, its also a function flickr allowed for a shor tperiod of time , so its not someting hard to do
ernstkers PRO 5 years ago
It is choosing between two possibilities:
1) The group creator has full control included the control to give this full control to others. This is the current situation.
2) The group creator has full control excluded the control to give this full control to others. Asking for this option is asking Flickr to be a good nanny and protect people against their own mistakes.
mngl 4 years ago
i need this option. my group has too many admins and someone is deleting posts. some is promoting admins. and many of the older admins are inactive now. why cant i demote the other admins? please assist me!?
ColleenM 4 years ago
why cant i demote the other admins?

Because that is not a feature available on Flickr.
Lú_ PRO 4 years ago

You might also be interested in this topic, about one admin having more powers than others: www.flickr.com/groups/flickrideas/discuss/72157603819343130
teh resa PRO 4 years ago
If the founding admin could always demote the other admins that he/she had promoted, there would be no way to have a group with a team of admins that share the power equally. Obviously, if you don't want that sort of power structure in the groups you create then you should only promote mods and not admins.
(101 to 165 of 165 replies)
Groups Beta