I'd happily take over the videogames channel and give up my (still unused) right to create a new channel, as long as I get to re-customise it etc.

It looks like the channel owner @Oatmeal hasn't been around for months.

yes. YES ! a Festivus of ideas. A Festivus for the RESTovus !

you would be surprised at who is here but appears not to be.

I am all for adoption, I want to contribute.

Feed ideas into the funnel.

I've said it before, but viral is a channel in pretty desperate need of having an active owner, as it's ambiguously named thus tends to be improperly invoked -- it's just supposed to be for viral ads, but many people assume it's for any video that has gone viral. It's a pretty big mess in there.

So long as you don't add apostrophe-s to words that don't need them, you can run all the channels you like.

he-he-he haa-haa <think Woody woodpecker>

I'm still around, but currently living in the forest with limited access to the internet. That said I would happily give up control of my channel to a loving new owner.

Cool, thanks for replying @Oatmeal.

@dag, what are your thoughts on changing channel ownership?

@lucky760, are there any technical reasons why I couldn't take over an existing channel and give up my channel creation right? Would I be able to fully re-customise it to my liking, as if I was creating a channel for the first time?

No problem at all. Yep, you'd have full control as the new channel owner. Just let us know.

I'd volunteer, and I believe the old system was allowing 100-gold star members to create and run a channel, but I know the new system is against it.

That being said, Should there be need of someone to take over a channel, there are those sloths among us who likely wouldn't object.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

If we do this- I think it would be part of a grand restructure of the way channels work. Like you guys - I'm not entirely happy with the structure. It's something that still needs discussion.

I don't think you need any big restructuring to change ownership of a couple of channels. I agree that the system should be reworked, but a few absent channel owners isn't the reason to do it.

If you are considering a big restructure, I think you need to look back to what you had in the early days with collectives. Each 'channel' should be a narrowly defined category of videos. Ultimately, every channel name (in any system) is just a predefined tag. With very broadly defined channels, there's not much more to them than that tag, but with collectives, there's more to it. I have no idea what kind of work it would take, but I'd like to see a system with a set of predefined tags, like comedy, music, news, cute, pain, joy, etc., and then let users create channels that are really specific like electronica, economics, healthcare, atheism (I can't believe no one has created that channel yet!).
>> ^dag:
If we do this- I think it would be part of a grand restructure of the way channels work. Like you guys - I'm not entirely happy with the structure. It's something that still needs discussion.

this is a *quality post. I feel I deserve this *quality point.

If anyone wants Sci-Fi you're welcome to it. I'm not here nearly as often as I used to.
You can even rename it SyFy if you want to. (well maybe not)

Anytime you change/tweak/adjust the taxonomy of an existing group of things it should be done with much planning and consideration. That being said, the Sift has evolved since plans for what is now the current channel structure was introduced. I suspect that the few absent owners is a symptom of the problem that Dag speaks of when he mentioned a restructure.

>> ^jonny:

I don't think you need any big restructuring to change ownership of a couple of channels. I agree that the system should be reworked, but a few absent channel owners isn't the reason to do it.
If you are considering a big restructure, I think you need to look back to what you had in the early days with collectives. Each 'channel' should be a narrowly defined category of videos. Ultimately, every channel name (in any system) is just a predefined tag. With very broadly defined channels, there's not much more to them than that tag, but with collectives, there's more to it. I have no idea what kind of work it would take, but I'd like to see a system with a set of predefined tags, like comedy, music, news, cute, pain, joy, etc., and then let users create channels that are really specific like electronica, economics, healthcare, atheism (I can't believe no one has created that channel yet!).
>> ^dag:
If we do this- I think it would be part of a grand restructure of the way channels work. Like you guys - I'm not entirely happy with the structure. It's something that still needs discussion.

*discard

Discarding this post - discard requested by original submitter BoneRemake.