SOLVED Concerning Moderators

[davehc]

This thread is not intended to develop into a flaming war. I am not pointing fingers at individuals or other sites. In fact, in the context of this thread, this site, whilst still in comparitive infancy, rates high in my opinion. But I am very interested, purely as an academic exercise, in hearing the views of others. Throughout my forum roamings, I have found that forum moderators are, wrongly, chosen from frequent (not necessarily in help) posters. Their moderating role takes a very low priority. In the case of one site, supposedly a Windows help, there are, for example, in a period of 24 hours, possibly as many as 200, or more, quite useless posts in a "free" section of the site. These posts average about 85% of the total. It would not be possible for even a dedicated moderator to keep abreast of these. Rarely is the site in fact "moderated", in its true definition. Whilst it is absolutely a requirement that a moderator should have knowledge of what is being discussed, what do you think of this trend? is it a status quo now, or is there a better solution.
For info, before commenting (if you wish!)
definitions: Free online dict: a person who monitors the conversations in an on-line chatroom for bad language, inappropriate content, etc
answers.com: a person given special powers to enforce the rules on an Internet forum or newsgroup
Oxford dic: One who keeps things in order.

 

[Thrax]

In my opinion: If the site's moderators aren't taking an active role in pruning, banning and managing the content on the forum, then the forum isn't worth going to. A community needs to be a haven for its members away from spam, gibberish and childish behavior.

Also, I have no respect for sites which choose its moderation staff from its top posters. Post counts mean nothing when it comes to a person's ability to contribute help, knowledge, and the more abstract necessary qualities like oversight and interpersonal skills.

 

[Coco]

How are moderators chosen?

 

[catilley1092]

In my opinion: If the site's moderators aren't taking an active role in pruning, banning and managing the content on the forum, then the forum isn't worth going to. A community needs to be a haven for its members away from spam, gibberish and childish behavior.

Also, I have no respect for sites which choose its moderation staff from its top posters. Post counts mean nothing when it comes to a person's ability to contribute help, knowledge, and the more abstract necessary qualities like oversight and interpersonal skills.

This is a very real problem on Linux forums, you get 20 or more answers to a simple question, and very seldom does a real moderator who knows what they're talking about comes in and helps, except to run spammers away.

 

[RonHornung]

Potential problem cause

A moderator, based upon the included definitions would have to review each post prior to it going public in the forum. This setup would have to be a 24/7 job for a group of well trained moderators. But there can and perhaps should be a difference between a moderator's task and the technical guys who have the answers. So when I see a VIP member, I figure that person might have some knowledge - but that person might also get upset with a newbie! In steps the moderator to remind techie that not everyone is at the same level of knowledge. Setting up a good forum, as you can see, is not a simple task. I participate in tax forums as an expert so I know how easy it is to become frustrated with people who maybe flunked ESL or don't spell right or just don't seem to get it. Good discussion but it's not helping me eliminsate the OEM partition on my laptop!

This thread is not intended to develop into a flaming war. I am not pointing fingers at individuals or other sites. In fact, in the context of this thread, this site, whilst still in comparitive infancy, rates high in my opinion. But I am very interested, purely as an academic exercise, in hearing the views of others. Throughout my forum roamings, I have found that forum moderators are, wrongly, chosen from frequent (not necessarily in help) posters. Their moderating role takes a very low priority. In the case of one site, supposedly a Windows help, there are, for example, in a period of 24 hours, possibly as many as 200, or more, quite useless posts in a "free" section of the site. These posts average about 85% of the total. It would not be possible for even a dedicated moderator to keep abreast of these. Rarely is the site in fact "moderated", in its true definition. Whilst it is absolutely a requirement that a moderator should have knowledge of what is being discussed, what do you think of this trend? is it a status quo now, or is there a better solution.
For info, before commenting (if you wish!)
definitions: Free online dict: a person who monitors the conversations in an on-line chatroom for bad language, inappropriate content, etc
answers.com: a person given special powers to enforce the rules on an Internet forum or newsgroup
Oxford dic: One who keeps things in order.

 

[davehc]

Hi Ron.
Thank you for your contribution to the thread. (That goes for all) Of course, there are always several moderators on any single site. But even so, I agree the task can get over their heads.
On your last sentence. Accepting the internation environment of forums, I have never taken a great deal of notice of bad spelling or grammar. Really par for the course. But I can understand , in your particular role, that it may be more important.
I feel that in the moderators daily operations goals would be to prevent too much bad language, step in to the beginning of "flame" wars and, much more difficult, watch for enthusiastic helpers who sometimes glaringly get it wrong, or misunderstand the posed problem. To move and generally prune contents would be axiomatic.

 

[Ian]

Getting the correct balance of moderation is one of the major challanges when it comes to running a forum. I think we're very lucky indeed having Thrax, Kougar and Clifford - all of them are knowledgable, helpful and have exceptional judgement.

Most moderation that happens on this site is perhaps unnoticed, as it involves removing spam posts, banning spammers and discussion of behind the scenes things. We've been fortunate in that the members here are a sensible bunch, so it's not too often we have to step in and lock threads or steer things back on topic.

 

[catilley1092]

Getting the correct balance of moderation is one of the major challanges when it comes to running a forum. I think we're very lucky indeed having Thrax, Kougar and Clifford - all of them are knowledgable, helpful and have exceptional judgement.

Most moderation that happens on this site is perhaps unnoticed, as it involves removing spam posts, banning spammers and discussion of behind the scenes things. We've been fortunate in that the members here are a sensible bunch, so it's not too often we have to step in and lock threads or steer things back on topic.

Thanks Ian, for making this fine forum available to us. It is a decent one, and has more than met my expectations since the first day that I clicked onto it by mistake, quite honestly. There's a much larger one who shares a similar name, and I was a member of it. That's one mistaken click that I'm glad to have made. And thanks too, to Thrax, Kougar and Clifford, the three of them truly know their business. I've only seen a few threads locked down since I've been here. That's necessary only when the members get of hand, which seldom happens here, as most of our members most likely are mature minded people, and speak as such. Hopefully, as we grow larger by the day, these kind of members are the ones that we'll attract.

 

[Nibiru2012]

The only thing I have noticed is that there is a plethora of postings entitled:
Windows 7 Freeze problem
Windows 7 freezing up
Windows 7 Freezes on restart
ad infinitum ad nauseum

My only suggestion to the admins and mods has been to combine all the posts into one thread. I am simply amazed at all the "freeze" problems that some people are having with Windows 7.

One last thing. Why don't we have "stickys" for some of the more common issues with Windows 7?

Kudos and hats off to the admins and mods here. They have a tough job and attempt to keep everything on an even keel.

Thanks to All of You!

 

[clifford_cooley]

My only suggestion to the admins and mods has been to combine all the posts into one thread.

While this seems to be a good idea. If all the threads were combined, the conversations would be mixed and the thread would be confusing to follow.

 

[Thrax]

The only thing I have noticed is that there is a plethora of postings entitled:
Windows 7 Freeze problem
Windows 7 freezing up
Windows 7 Freezes on restart
ad infinitum ad nauseum

My only suggestion to the admins and mods has been to combine all the posts into one thread. I am simply amazed at all the "freeze" problems that some people are having with Windows 7.

One last thing. Why don't we have "stickys" for some of the more common issues with Windows 7?

Kudos and hats off to the admins and mods here. They have a tough job and attempt to keep everything on an even keel.

Thanks to All of You!

Combining everything into one thread makes it incredibly difficult to provide each person the individual help they need. Everyone's problem is unique, even if the symptoms aren't.

 

[catilley1092]

Yes, I remember a thread that turned that way. The original thread started as "Windows 7 Sucks" and the thread turned into a string of threads within one, and it began to be turned into Windows bashing, and some posts were removed. Thankfully, it ended when a member really became sarcastic with his posts. There's a line for the moderators to draw, and it was delivered way before it totally got out of hand. I'm glad to be a member of this forum, and hope to be here many years.