[COMM] How active should moderators be in their respective forums?

Generally speaking, how active should moderators be in the forums they're directly responsible for?

Each forum has its own level of regular activity, and it would be difficult to pin a specific number of posts for each day, week or month that a moderator should be responsible for. However, I think most of us can tell when a moderator is starting to fade from regular view in a forum, initially going a day or two without posting in their forum and then turning into stretches of several days with just a few posts in all.

I think it's important for a moderator to be an active, visible presence in their forum. For regulars (and relative newcomers) to feel comfortable going to their forum moderator(s), they've got to feel like the moderator is part of the community and knows what's going on. It's hard to be a part of the community if you're only posting a few times a week and/or in just a few threads on a regular basis. Is it acceptable for a moderator to allow themselves to post only in a few threads or on an inconsistent basis if they regularly moderate? Is it possible to truly moderate a forum if you're not around nearly much as the majority of forum regulars?

These are some questions I'd like to discuss the answers to here.

In closing, remember that moderators have traditionally been promoted because of their familiarity with a community and regular posting (among other positive attributes) in that community. If this ceases to apply to a moderator, should they still be moderating?

 

Moderators should be posting in their forums daily. They don't need to make 20 posts per day, but they should enough have activity to establish their participation in the forum which includes posting in diverse threads.

I think it's inexcusable that we have mods that show up when it's convenient for them. If a mod can't be a part of the forum - including participation as well as mod actions - then they shouldn't be a mod.

Heck, when I left, I was handling three forums and I managed to post each day.

 

I'm not asking mods to post prodigiously, like 40-50+ times a day, but since one of the reasons they were even selected to moderate in the first place was that they spent a fair amount of time in their particular forum(s) then there's no reason that they should slow down, or at least significantly. If they post 5-6 times a day, that should be enough to show that they have at least some enthusiasm in their moderating duties.

I think what's also poor moderating behavior is when a moderator spends significantly more time behind the scenes than in their forum. I can see the need if they're an administrator but if you're a JCC or 3SA mod, I think your own forum's needs comes first, mod talk comes second.

 

as stated in the three statements above, I agree with everything that has been said. We're not looking for someone who will post 10 + a day but enough in their forums to help the users be comfortable around the mods, so its easier to approach them when something needs to be brought to attention or if they have any questions on how something is run. It also helps the newbies become familiar with the mods. If they're only making a few posts every third day to a week or more, I find it unacceptable especially when it comes to the more active boards like the JCC and 3NS.

 

I think they should be pretty active in there forums.IMHO,I think they should try to make at least 3 posts in that forum per day.

 

Such a thought was something i was thinking about for the last week or so. In the EUC, we were short one moderator for a good 7 days, wihtout them even signing on, and not posting for 4 days prioir. Supposedly, no one was aware of why the moderator left, or its purpose for leaving. Such lack of posting or moderating seemed to worry me a tad....shouldnt something of this magnitude be looked into?

 

Moderators should be active in their forums, a visible presence. 10ish posts a day isn't much, and if posting isn't at or near that level, then it surely means the mod isn't involved in the community they're supposed to be in charge of? I know you can't ask a person to post for the sake of posting just to reach a 'target', but surely it should be no trouble for a member who was deemed active enough to moderate the forum to reach that 'target' anyway? Ideally there should be no need to pose the mod activity question and start thinking about minimum activity levels if indeed, the mods are involved in the community - because they post in it anyway, as a member. (maybe that's a bit convoluted!)

I know you could also say that a mod may not post much, but they are there watching. I don't like that, because the mod isn't 'there' are they? Posts are the only currency available on an Internet message board. The JCC (for example) is a social forum, which (supposedly ) thrives on it's constant activity and variety. And on a pacy forum like that, there's a difference between watching and being involved. If you are involved, then you are also made more aware of the communities heartbeat, because you are helping it beat. Better than sticking a stethoscope to it's chest and judging it that way (if you just 'watch'). The heart knows how it beats, the doctor can only diagnose. I always reckoned mods should be somewhere near the heart. JCC mods should be part of the person, not the doctor who the person goes to see. (Same goes for the 3SA, which is excellent, I always see it's mods about. The 3SA is such an active forum it almost generates a social side for itself just because it is so active). (Clarification: Every forum has a community, but few are social.)

So... Whether or not a mod should be actively socialising in the forum depends wholly upon whether the forum is a social one or not.

Forums with less activity don't necessarily require constant mod activity as posters, because such forums tend not to be social as a priority (although of course, the mods in those forums are there because they were active and aware of the forum's brief as a regular user), they are generally devoted to a specific theme (SSSW, Classic Trilogy etc...) and so that theme is their lifeblood. When something about that theme is up for discussion then they have activity, and discussion. The JCC is always active, even if there's nothing of any importance to discuss! That's being social, moving beyond 'community'. Modding on the JCC is (I would imagine) a fairly ephemeral thing, obviously it's always appropriate to moderate rude behaviour, but it's also much more reliant on judgement and trends and fads and friendships between members - judging the mood of the members. It's the socialising that you're moderating, not forum boundaries like whether Lando can be discussed in the PT forums or not! YOU are a member of that socialising, you were not there when Lucas put Lando in the OT and not the PT. (I'm not sure if that makes sense either!)

So... having spouted all of that... the crux of it is surely during the appointment:

Member's activity is surely a factor in their appointment. Before accepting the position members are surely asked if they thought they would be able to continue to post frequently and carry out their moderating duties? (which i imagine are detailed beforehand so that it doesn't come as a surprise) - or is it mentioned during appointments that social posting levels always initially see a decline as new moderators settle in? If so, is this expected to improve over time?

But... I don't know... maybe I'm talking hogwash, maybe mod duties do peg back posting to a low level? If so, then everything's fine isn't it.

 

I'd like to add that just posting in a social thread, or "Club" thread isn't enough. Most posters aren't members of a club or clique, and shouldn't have to join to see the mods talk.

 

I agree with what has been said by the people above me. I'd like to add this:

Usually a good way for a mod to tell if they're effective or not is by listening to the most active members in the community. If the most active members are telling you that spam in the forum has grown out of control and that something needs to be done about it (say, like a new mod, for instance), the best thing to do is to maybe listen to them. Especially if they have many more posts in a forum daily than you do.

The thing not to do is to denounce such posters as "vying for the modship of said forum". They very well may be, but some of them may just be genuinely concerned about the state of the forum. It doesn't help anyone to brush aside members opinions when the members are the ones who make this site. Members may not leave (although many of my friends have left the JC or resigned since the Philip Wise incident ) but the environment of the forum you moderate will certainly not improve and such an approach limits the amount of trust your forum members have in you.

Oh, and by the way . . . we haven't seen very much modding in Beyond the Saga fanfic since Ams left. Just thought I'd point this out . . .

Jae Angel

 

The 3SA mods are wonderful examples of how mods could/should interact with the general populace.

 

I think that it can be universally recognized that moderators:
1) Need to maintain a presence their home forums.
2) Need to be seen to be approachable.
3) Need to be seen to be effective.

 

I know you could also say that a mod may not post much, but they are there watching. I don't like that, because the mod isn't 'there' are they? Posts are the only currency available on an Internet message board. The JCC (for example) is a social forum, which (supposedly ) thrives on it's constant activity and variety. And on a pacy forum like that, there's a difference between watching and being involved. If you are involved, then you are also made more aware of the communities heartbeat, because you are helping it beat. Better than sticking a stethoscope to it's chest and judging it that way (if you just 'watch'). The heart knows how it beats, the doctor can only diagnose. I always reckoned mods should be somewhere near the heart. JCC mods should be part of the person, not the doctor who the person goes to see.

Exactly. A mod has to post on a frequent basis in order to remain in touch with their forum. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with lurking, anyone can lurk to gain new perspectives on various issues and better understand the denizens of YJCC or whatever forum, while silently agreeing or disagreeing with whatever people have to say. I think it helps develop online communication skills (Netiquette, if you will) but little else.

In essence, posting's what got the mod to his/her position in the first place. They were rewarded for their ability to lead discussions and convey their thoughts in a logical and presentable manner (well, that's not *always* the case ) but as a mod they're supposed to continue these good posting habits. It's kinda hard to lead by example if they don't post where people can plainly see. And those that do alienate themselves from their community tend to be out-of-touch and not as effective as they should be.

Also, I'm strongly in favor of questioning a moderator if they haven't been as active or effective as they could be. By this, I mean if a moderator habitually logs in maybe a couple of times a week and posts sporadically, an administrator should ask him/her why he/she hasn't been doing the duty that's been expected of him/her. Is he/she willing to continue to moderate? And if so, let them know that there had better be a significant increase in activity over a certain period of time or the plug will be pulled.

 

I think that it can be universally recognized that moderators:
1) Need to maintain a presence their home forums.
2) Need to be seen to be approachable.
3) Need to be seen to be effective.

I agree 100% with that. Honestly, I have a life. That means I might not be able to log in at all on Saturday for example. However, that is why my two forums have a co-moderator. Chances are smaller that he and I will both be gone the same day.

However, I DO maintain a presence in both forums, I do post in threads that catch my interest (just as I did before I was a mod) and I do think I am an effective mod. This is what it takes. Some arbitrary number of posts required each day is not any sort of way of gauging an effective mod. I could post three times a day every day and still not be doing a damn thing.

I think this sort of thing is something that must by nature be more subjective. Is this moderator effective? Why? Why not? What can be done to improve things?

 

I agree with everything that's been said so far. If a moderator isn't active with members of their forums, they should be replaced with someone who is.

I realize the mods have lifes outside the forums, but if daily life never prevented them from posting often before they took on the new responsibility, that should be telling the mods something. Perhaps the position is too much applied with everything else.

I believe an inactive mod should be given the chance to improve themselves before ever losing their position though. They may not realize that they're less active than before.

 

You can't always judge a mod's activity by their posts.

For example, I remain very active in the Senate, but I didn't post there yesterday or the day before. I am also extremely aware of what's happening in Comms, but I don't post here every day either.

Each forum is different, and it can take a different style/level of activity to maintain a proper presence in the forum.

Kimball Kinnison

 

You can't always judge a mod's activity by their posts.

How else can regular members judge a moderator's overall activity in a community except by observing how often they post and are involved in a variety of threads. If members see that a moderator posts only in a few threads and only posts a few times during a stretch of several days or even a week (on more than an isolated basis), what else can a member conclude?

Each forum is different, and it can take a different style/level of activity to maintain a proper presence in the forum.

Of course, but I think some current problem areas exist in forums that garner a lot of posts each day.

 

Just come out and say it. Which mods and which forums? Or perhaps talk to an admin about it. I am sure they will listen to you KW.

 

I'd rather discuss the general issue at the moment. Thank you, though.

 

Well I for one agree that mods should be active in their home forums. I also think they should be active in MS as well. I think I only disagree with some here on HOW "active in their forums" should be defined or measured.

 

Umm, common sense maybe?

Of course you can't judge a mod's activity solely by counting posts. If the mod's forum is relatively quiet of course it's unfair to accuse them of not being active by posting only twice a day. I wouldn't be one bit surprised if those mods have less than a thousand posts total.

On the flip-side you don't need ten thousand posts to be YJCC mods. Aside from jedi-mind-trick, I don't think any other mod there has anywhere near 5,000 posts, a relatively modest amount compared to many YJCC regulars. But post count has little to do with actual activity, so I guess I'd better stop there.

Anyway. Each forum has a different style and different pace. YJCC and 3SA are two very fast forums. 3NS and most of the film forums are middle-of-the-road. Fan Films and Collecting are slow-paced forums where everyone is probably quite familiar with each other. So yeah, it's impossible to make every mod post X amount of times a day in their appointed forum.

I guess one way to check a mod's activity is to compare their posting activity to a group of regular members. Do they post more frequently than average? Less? About right? If their posting activity is significantly less than the average of the members', then there may be a problem.

Another way, although perhaps rather difficult to implement, is to have a survey to be administered every six months or so. I don't know who would be involved in it, maybe a sticky in their particular forum could be made saying that a survey is available for all the mods of the forum, and to PM an administrator if interested. Like I said, it may be difficult, but if successful, anonymous surveys could really speak volumes on how a mod performs. It'd be so much more in-depth than just checking a mod's profile to compare them to everyone else. (I'm sure most people in the particular forum that are interested are mature enough to be constructively critical without being overly harsh).

 

You can't always judge a mod's activity by their posts.

How else can regular members judge a moderator's overall activity in a community except by observing how often they post and are involved in a variety of threads. If members see that a moderator posts only in a few threads and only posts a few times during a stretch of several days or even a week (on more than an isolated basis), what else can a member conclude?

Also, aside from the numbers game and these proposed daily "quotas" for posts we're throwing around, it's important for mods to make quality posts. This doesn't even necessarily mean they need to make brilliant posts, KK, but rather posts that will be seen by the members and will keep them from thinking of their moderator as aloof and separated from the community.

You're bringing up a logical point, that a mod's effectiveness or "activity" (whatever that is) isn't observable to the average member because the secret stuff going on behind closed doors is supposed to matter most. However, most members will either develop or not develop a rapport with a mod based on gut feelings from what they've seen of the mod as a person and the way the mod is doing their actual job out in the trenches.

 

Also, aside from the numbers game and these proposed daily "quotas" for posts we're throwing around, it's important for mods to make quality posts. This doesn't even necessarily mean they need to make brilliant posts, KK, but rather posts that will be seen by the members and will keep them from thinking of their moderator as aloof and separated from the community.

Again, it depends on the nature of the forum.

I'm not going to post in the Senate just to post. I'll only post for one of two reasons: 1) to contribute something worthwhile to the discussion, or 2) to warn the thread as a whole.

If that means I only post every other day or so, then I only post every other day. In a forum like the Senate, many users post on about the same basis, posting only when they have something to add. It can also go in cycles. The Senate is a place that often encourages more reading than posting.

However, for a forum like the JCC, the regularity of posting could be quite different. Again, it depends on the specific forum.

You're bringing up a logical point, that a mod's effectiveness or "activity" (whatever that is) isn't observable to the average member because the secret stuff going on behind closed doors is supposed to matter most. However, most members will either develop or not develop a rapport with a mod based on gut feelings from what they've seen of the mod as a person and the way the mod is doing their actual job out in the trenches.

But again, that rapport is not just measured in posts. It is a balance between the quality and quantity. That balance varies greatly from forum to forum. In some it leans more towards quantity and in others it leans more to quality.

Kimball Kinnison

 

If that means I only post every other day or so, then I only post every other day. In a forum like the Senate, many users post on about the same basis, posting only when they have something to add

That's certainly a valid point. However, what happens when a moderator increasingly feels like they don't have something to contribute to the majority of threads and discussion they see?


However, for a forum like the JCC, the regularity of posting could be quite different.

What would you consider a reasonable amount of posting for a JCC moderator, and/or another comparably active forum?

But again, that rapport is not just measured in posts. It is a balance between the quality and quantity. That balance varies greatly from forum to forum. In some it leans more towards quantity and in others it leans more to quality.

Of course, but at the same time, there's got to be some posts made in the first place in order for there to be a healthy balance. If there's few to no posts as often as not, what then?

 

most of the mods I've seen who are less active in their forums are ones who have way below 5000 posts, now I know what its like to balance responsibilities and try and be a regular presense in the lightside thread.

I help run the academy, perform background checks, run classes, keep the list updated on MIAs and still be able to get into hot conversations and be a regular user presence in the lightside thread. not an easy task.

just gotta know how to space your time out properly, can't do everything at once, its litterally impossible, so you break down your responsibilities and do certain things on certain days that way your work load isn't so heavy and you can post on the JC and stay in lurk mode while you cruise the JC.

 

I'll go with the 'forum to forum' deal.

When I was in the JCC, there was a need for me to be out there. To be seen in diverse threads. I posted occasionally in a number of social threads, and a fair bit more in general discussion threads. Posting a lot isnt my style, but I felt that I needed to be seen in the JCC.

As for Saga. Well, I didnt post as much there. The forum ran smoothly, and there wasnt often a need for a mod, other than simple threadlocking. I read the threads, I knew the forum like the back of my hand, but I didnt feel that I needed to post away in order to do my job effectively.

But...some forums demand a higher profile. If you're modding one of them, then its in the best interests of both the forum and the mod, to step up to the plate, and be seen.