Wenn eine Gruppe ein bestimmtes Thema hat, und dies auch genau beschrieben ist, sollte es auch einen Administrator geben, der darauf achtet, dass die dort abgelegten Fotos dem Thema entsprechen und der andere Fotos aussortiert. Und dann ist auch die Meinung dessen der die Gruppe eingerichtet hat und admistriert die Ausschlaggebende.
So handhabe ich das z.B. bei meinen Gruppen "ToGo: bequem&vermüllend" und "Türen und Tore - originell und alt". Fotos von denen ich meine, dass sie nicht zum Thema passen fliegen raus.
In dem Zusammenhang ist mir der Unterschied zwischen Administrator und Moderator nicht klar.
Es gibt einige Gruppen, die zwar ein Thema habe, wo aber Fotos zu finden sind, die am Thema vorbei gehen.

I think this is a great idea, Markus. Concerning the themed groups, I agree with you completely.

I can only give the example of groups I participate in. One of them is the HFF group. When I joined, the group rules called for posting a maximum of 3 photos on Friday, but it was ok to post also "late" on Thursday night. Then, one time that I took advantage of this flexibility and posted at 10 p.m. on Thursday because I knew I would be busy the next day, I received a stern email reminding me that I was allowed to post only on Friday (my time zone). Some time after that, I started to get "reprimanded" if I posted more than one picture and discovered the "maximum 3" had become "no more than one".

Frankly, my opinion is that there is no need for such stringent rules. The logic behind this seems to be that the group is so successful, that we risk having "too many pictures to look at". This would make sense if pictures were memos and group members were workers at a work place who need to be able to look at all the memos. But IP is not work and looking at pictures is not a chore. It's something we do for fun. And that we can stop doing the minute we stop having fun. So what if one Friday I don't have time (or the desire) to look at all the HFF postings? I'll look at them on Saturday morning (if I feel like it) or not look at them at all and nobody will die from it and no injustice will have been committed.

Lately, the strict rule of "no more than 1 per member per Friday" caused problems because the algorithm prevented even the rule-abiding members from posting on Friday in their time zone, so the rule now changed again and we have a new limit of "no more than 5 postings per month". I know of people, even long standing group participants, who finally said "forget it!" and left the group. If we keep this up, it seems to me that pretty soon we will no longer have the problem of having "too many pictures to look at"... :(

Regarding the showcase groups, I have no personal experience, but the episode that prompted this discussion proves that there is a need to think through, and discuss with members, how and what kind of rules would need to be applied, especially if a major change is introduced.

That's my 2 bits (ok, more than 2 ... I don't have the gift of brevity ...)

Unterschreib ich Bro...ohne viele Worte...ich wünsche mir, man würde manches weniger ernst nehmen und vor allem mehr Spaß erlauben!!!! Das ist, was wir wollen und verdammt nochmal brauchen!!!!

Nur meine Meinung:
1) Allgemein: Gruppen sollten einen spezifischen Inhalt oder Zweck haben und sie sollten häufig besucht werden. Gruppen, in die nur gepostet wird, die aber nicht einmal von den Gruppenmitgliedern besucht werden, sind ziemlich sinnlos. Wer schaut z.B. in eine Gruppe wie "+9999 photos no limits, no restrictions, no conditions".
2) Gruppen mit spezifischem Inhalt z.B. "monochrome", oder geographischer Region wie z.B. "Bretagne" brauchen einen Admin. Der/die Admin kann und soll einzelne Bilder löschen, die eindeutig nicht zum Gruppentitel passen. Zu streng sollte das natürlich nicht gehandhabt werden, sonst sinkt der Spassfaktor bald. Tatsache ist aber, dass viel in Gruppen gepostet wird, was dort nicht hingehört, weil manche einfach ein Bild generell ohne zu überlegen in möglichst viele Gruppen schicken, was eine Unsitte ist.
3) Ein Admin sollte eine gewisse Leidenschaft für die Art Bilder haben, die in der Gruppe repräsentiert werden. Es ist ziemlich sinnfrei, wenn ein Admin eine Gruppe wie "Monochrome" administriert, selbst aber noch nie ein monochromes Bild hochgeladen hat.
4) Ein Problem ist der Administratoren-Wechsel. Oft verlassen Administratoren Ipernity ohne für einen Nachfolger zu sorgen. Wenn sie die einzigen waren, ist die Gruppe tot. Wenn Sie vorher jemand zum Nachfolger bestimmen, ohne ihn zu fragen, kann die Gruppe auch tot sein (ist auch mir schon passiert),
5) Keywords versus Gruppen: Gruppen haben ja auch, wenn nicht vor allem, den Sinn, bestimmte Themen zu finden. Das kann man auch mit keywords, die leider von den Usern viel zu wenig genutzt werden. Keywords erhöhen den Wert eines Bildes für sich selbst und andere.
6) Ändern von Gruppenregeln: Häufiges Ändern stiftet Verwirrung. Aber natürlich kann es sein, dass eine Gruppe sich so entwickelt, dass eine Anpassung erforderlich ist. Eine radikale Änderung sollte vorher diskutiert werden.
7) Löschen von Bildern durch Administratoren: Wie bereits geschrieben, soll und kann ein Administrator einzelne Bilder löschen, wenn sie nicht in die Gruppe passen. Das Löschen aller Bilder eines Users aus einer Gruppe sollte nur diesem selbst vorbehalten sein.
8) Es sollte vorteilhaft immer mehr als einen Administrator geben. Eine Ausnahme können Gruppen sein, die ein Mitglied selbst mit ganz bestimmten Zielen gegründet hat.
9) Gruppe "Hall of Fame": Die Gruppe hatte ursprünglich die einzige Regel, Bilder mit mehr als 50 Favoriten oder mehr als 500 Besuchen zuzulassen. Natürlich sammeln sich dann Bilder von Langzeitmitgliedern an. Es gibt hier bei ca. 4000 Bildern mehrere Mitglieder mit ca. 400 Beiträgen, d.h., jedes 10. Bild ist von einem dieser Mitglieder. Wenn man in den Gruppenpool schaut, fällt dies eigentlich kaum auf. Trotzdem kann man sagen, der Titel "Hall of Fame" bedeutet, dass von jedem Mitglied nur eine sehr beschränkte Anzahl zugelassen werden sollte. Ich teile diese Meinung von Bergfex dazu (natürlich nicht die andere Meinung "dass wir Pensionisten den Berufstätigen den Speicherplatz wegnehmen". Dann sollte man eine Regeländerung auf max. 10, 20 oder 50 Bilder pro User durchführen, ich wäre dafür gewesen, nach vorheriger allgemeiner Diskussion.
10) Das Löschen aller Bilder eines Ipernity-Users aus einer Gruppe durch den Administrator sollte nicht sein. Man sollte (ich sollte) das aber auch nicht zu ernst nehmen.

Da gäbe es noch mehr, alles wie gesagt nur meine persönliche Meinung.
Allen eine schöne Osterzeit und Spass beim Fotografieren!

Erst vor wenigen Wochen erhielt ich die Mitteilung, nun Admin der Gruppe "Best photo of the month" zu sein. Meine Verblüffung war groß, war ich mir doch nicht mal bewußt, jemals dieser Gruppe beigetreten zu sein. Nun ja ... ich hab mir mal die Zeit genommen: diese Gruppe war vor 12 Jahren als Wettbewerbsgruppe gegründet worden (was beim Gruppenthema auch Sinn macht). Die Gründer, Admins, Mods sind allesamt seit Jahren auf und davon. Verblieben sind Massen von Fotos unterschiedlichster Qualität und >300 Mitglieder. Ich hab mir mal die Mühe gemacht und aussortiert: Alle, die schon seit >3 Jahren nicht mehr auf IP aktiv sind; und alle, die NULL Fotos in der Gruppe haben. Übriggeblieben sind 24 !
Ich überlege nun, diese 24 Mitglieder demnächst anzuschreiben, und zu fragen, ob sie mit der Auflösung dieser Gruppe einverstanden sind. Imo gibt's reichlich AKTIVE Wettbewerbsgruppen bei IP, und insgesamt immer noch viel zu viele Gruppen mit sich z.T. überlappenden Themenkomplexen - da kann ein bißchen Frühjahrsputz nicht schaden.

Zum obigen Kommentar von Berny, speziell Pkt. 2+3:
Ich selbst habe hier 3 Gruppen gegründet: "Enchanted trees", "Chairs" und "Pareidolia".
Diese Themen liegen mir persönlich sehr am Herzen, deshalb habe ich mich bemüht, in den jeweiligen Gruppenregeln sehr präzise zu formulieren WELCHE ART Bilder in diesen Gruppen willkommen sind. Nach vielen Jahren Betreuung dieser Gruppen ist das Ergebnis ernüchternd bis ermüdend: die Gruppenregeln werden offensichtlich gar nicht gelesen. Am auffälligsten ist das bei "Pareidolia", offenbar wissen viele Leute gar nicht, was das ist und laden alles mögliche in diese Gruppe. Auch am Verständnis, daß nicht JEDER BAUM ein "verzauberter Baum" ist, hapert es. Und nicht jeder Stuhl der irgendwo am Rand eines Landschafts- oder Architekturfotos versehentlich rumsteht, gehört in meine Stühle-Gruppe. Also behalte ich mir vor, Bilder die nicht den Gruppenregeln entsprechen, kommentarlos zu löschen. Ich erwarte einfach, daß jemand, der Mitglied in irgendeiner Gruppe wird, sich die Zeit nimmt, vorher die geltenden Gruppenregeln zu beachten.

Hi !
I have read twice all that was said.
My own opinion is now rather limted, I only speak four of the IPER languages.
So lets be clear and simple.
Who ?
I suppose he/she pays his/her annual fees.
Why this immense silence around the name of the "artist" who started it all ?
Sorry, I still do not understand the factual reasons for your demise.
Or is there another word for it ?
You were simply banned,IMHO.
Who is affraid of Virginia Wolfe ?
Let me know if "us" has become an "elastic meaning.
Wish you a nice day and better advice than mine for I do not like the way this thing goes on.
J. Gafarot

Hi,

for one simple reason: It's not about any artist who started anything.

It's about ipernity and it'spurpose and evolution.

This is not a complaining-thread but (hopefully) a constructive one. What are people's expectations towards groups? It seems to me a bit of moderated discussion might be helpful.... especially to prevent things from going on in an unliked way.

regards
Markus

José, I think the discussion here is constructive, as Boarische Krautmo said. What "way this thing goes on" in detail do you not like? In my opinion this "thing" is past and we are now discussing about groups in general. In the best case some ideas will be born, which could help Ipernity in the future to be even more attractive.......Happy Easter, Berny

Problems are most likely to arise when a group in the former sense is transformed into a group in the latter sense.
And that's part of the problem with Ipernity in general. An undercurrent tendency, that never seems to go away, towards the authoritarian with touches of "holier-than-thou" attitude. They are right/you are wrong. End of. Not good. Ip. need to revise this and change course.

Heidiho has thankfully taken the trouble with a group for which she became an involuntary administrator that I have taken for all the formerly orphaned and totally neglected groups entrusted to me, groups that were overflowing with inactive members and their posts, posts that were often far older than three years, posts that did not correspond to the group theme, etc. Of the previous panelists, therefore, she can probably best understand the emphatically negative effect such groups must have, at least on visitors from the web.

Administrators and moderators of public groups have a special responsibility according to ipernity group guidelines.
The management of public groups, whether managed by their founders or by appointed administrators/moderators, requires maximum attention, care and diligence if groups are not to harm the overall welfare of ipernity as well as its public image, as unfortunately happens with countless neglected public groups.
Furthermore, groups that, as a result of negligent, derelict and/or overburdened (issue: number of "own" public groups) administrators, are more like a neglected graveyard, riddled with content from inactive and/or resigned members and out-of-date member lists, are anything but attractive. Even if the contributions posted there are of high quality, they cannot increase the value and attractiveness of such groups.

That orphaned groups run also without administrators, conscientious observations and searches do not confirm. One may be able to post images there, but the necessary internal maintenance of those groups is logically absent. Instead of suggesting images for such groups, I would recommend reporting them to the ima team. For those who really care about ipernity and its continued existence, this comparatively small effort should be worth it.

With or without words... Joining and leaving are declarations of will.

A member joining a group makes a statement.
A resignation, for whatever reason, sends an equally clear signal and should therefore be well considered, because, like joining, it is a clear declaration of intent, may in any case be legitimately understood as such, even if a member does not remove its contents from the group when resigning.

Because
If a member does not remove his/her content when leaving a public group, administrators and/or moderators are entitled, if not even obliged, to delete the content left behind for the welfare of the group, as well as the overall welfare of ipernity as it makes no sense to leave groups but not delete one's own content/s. Everyone may see this differently for themselves, but for me personally, the welfare of the groups and especially the overall welfare of ipernity has the highest priority.

Last but not least, the fact is that ipernity is an international community of photography and art lovers. To reduce the platform to the level of "I just want to have fun" does not do justice to its true purpose and would mean its certain demise.

Happy Easter, everyone.

I agree that this should be a general discussion regarding how groups are managed, but inevitably specific examples, or even specific incidents might have a bearing on the discussion.

I appreciate and value the work of administrators. I think a good admin is probably one of the key ingredients of a successful group and administering a group obviously takes quite a bit of time and dedication. I am grateful to those that take on this service to the community and I have myself benefited from their efforts on many occasions. I have the greatest respect for an admin who takes care of several groups and does so actively, being present, providing moderation, leaving invitations for images that can enrich the groups and taking action when he/she believes the group needs change. I might not always agree (as I have mentioned in the case of what I believe are overly strict rules for the HFF group), but I am still grateful that they take the time to think of better ways to run the group.

Having said that, certainly members who are not admins are still entitled to offer feedback and present arguments either in support or against a change of rules? I can see where they would not be very much appreciated if they disagreed merely on the basis of their limited self-interest, but if they offered meaningful criticism based on fairness, logic and the interest of the group and of the community at large, they ought to be given the possibility to express their views and have them taken into account. Not only out of simple respect for them, but also because Ipernity, as a community, has come so far, and has not floundered under difficulties that could have overwhelmed it, precisely because it is remarkably and unusually open to participation, suggestions, and constructive criticism.

I had read the group guidelines when I joined Ipernity, but, having as yet very little idea of how groups worked because the platform I came from didn't have them, I realize that I had not fully appreciated the Guidelines content. Now, I find it an interesting read and a well thought out and clearly written document. It invites members who join a group to respect its rules, obviously, but it also sets out guidelines for the administrators that are quite relevant in this discussion.

Admins are indeed invited to "always keep in mind to serve the overall welfare of ipernity", but they are also instructed to:
- "Give the group members space, respect their views, mediate."
- " Always act politely and appropriately. Never banish a participant without warning beforehand. Give him/her ample opportunity to comment."
They state that: "This increases the quality, relevance and popularity of your groups."

Guidelines also point out that rules should be clearly stated and "appropriate" to the object and life of the group and the community in general. Generally speaking, one might assume that group participants, if they are active and take an interest in the group, would share the admin's goal of promoting the activity and the "health" of the group.

In my opinion, it always pays for admins to discuss proposed rules changes with group members beforehand. Maybe some members will just grumble without offering any useful contribution to the discussion, but most will probably think it through, try to keep fairness in mind and might at times even have better suggestions to offer. Also, a new rule that has been "canvassed" with group members beforehand will most likely prove much easier to enforce. If members have already discussed the pros and cons and seen that the new rule has the support of the group, they will be that much more likely to adhere to it and do their best to make it work. discussing proposed rule changes might take up a bit of the admin's time, but in the end, in my opinion, will make his her job easier and the group life healthier.

Dear Annalia,

• Involve others
Group guidelines recommend that an administrator coordinate internally with, if available, the co-administrator(s) and/or moderator(s) as needed, not with group members "Confer with them (co-administrator/s and/or moderator/s) regularly."

• Moderate
"Give group members space, respect their views, mediate."
Simply informing group members of a change in group rule(s) gives them opportunity - space - to provide feedback. However, feedback should be given in an appropriate and never in a top-down manner. Practical example: If a group member calls a rule change nonsense and lowers the status and authority of an administrator because the latter is not also the founder of the group he/she administers, the group member is undoubtedly overstepping his/her rights, powers, authority, etc.
If a group member continues to exceed the limits of decency despite the Guide of good conduct (Be polite and respectful of other users), the ipernity Group guidelines and clear notices and attempts at mediation, the group administrator is ultimately entitled to exclude such a member and has the choice between temporary or permanent exclusion of the member in question.

Without being obliged to do so, I personally would like to involve group members in an exchange of ideas, for example in the case of a rule change that seems necessary. However, experience has shown that the vast majority of group members do not seem to be interested in such an exchange. In this respect, Markus aka Boarischa Krautmo's question seems more than justified: "What are groups for?"

Dear Markus, please allow a final word.

"What are groups for?"
It is undeniable that countless groups are in sheer chaos (neglect) and therefore do more harm than good to ipernity's public image as well as its overall welfare.
But is it really the "latest incidents regarding groups" that "allow us to rethink the function and meaning of groups"? Wasn't and isn't the "recent incidents" causally about something else entirely?
ipernity's group guidelines are as clearly defined as its guide of good conduct. And both are well elaborated.
Just as clearly and unambiguously defined is generally applicable law, which does not consider hatred and hate fomenting to be a peccadillo.

Thank you - for all.

to be continued here

First question, Markus:
Why do members confirm that they have read and agree to ipernity's terms of use when they sign up, even if they haven't read them at all?

Next question:
(a) Who is responsible for the smooth running of ipernity?
(b) Who is held responsible for malfunctions when members request and enforce changes/"tweaks" to their own liking?

Last question:
(a) Why are people and things measured with double standards?
(b) Why are some allowed to do what others are not - and vice versa?

Final correction:
I am not criticizing top-down "communication" and am not asking for a change in communication between "function owners and simple members," as you put it.
Rather, I legitimately, and for the sake of universal peace, expect everyone to abide by ipernity's rules and its recommendations for appropriate interaction, and not just with me.
Is that really too much to ask?