Moderator Reviews

There was a recent thread started in YJCC entitled "Mods Approval Rating- Don't Be Afraid" which was started as a quasi-joke/quasi-serious attempt to get people to rate the performance of ALL Mods at once on a scale of 1 to 10.

This brought to mind something I'd been pondering ("Pinky... are you pondering what I'm pondering?") which is the concept of Moderator Reviews.

Remember (or young'uns -- anticipate!) in college you took a course and then had the chance to evaluate the professor? You always vowed that you would "destroy" the professor when it came time but, for some rason, you always ended up actually objectively evaluating him/her?

I think that would be good here. Where Forum denizens can (roughly every six month? A year?) evaluate their Forum mods. I'm fairly sure we can count the number of posts a user has in a particular Forum. Say you require a 200 post count in that Forum in the particular timeframe in order to evaluate the Mods from that Forum.

Reviews like this could help the Administration determine which Mods might be needing help learning their duties (or simply aren't up for the task). It could even be used as a barometer for promotion from Manager to Administrator (assuming the administration wants respected Mods in that position).

Someone mentioned that the AC had discussed (is discussing?) this, but I'd heard nothing about this. So I don't know if it was an AC Forum topic (which, obviously, I and others couldn't read) or what but I figured it could be discussed here...

Thoughts?

 

The Third AC completed several moderator reviews, and AC4 (The Phantom AC?) is on track to do several more.

I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't do it too, I'm just giving you the facts about the AC-end of it.

¤Night

 

I've never been too fond of a formal moderator review process by forum users. Forum users aren't the ones that choose the moderators. Moderators are chosen by the Administration, and therefore are beholden only to them.

And most people around here who complain about one moderator or another can hardly ever be bothered to actually post evidence of their gripes. Until that starts, then no one should expect the Administration to act too decisively.

And a public process would cave in under the weight of DRAMA! And remember, it doesn't really matter too much what the members think of the mods. We don't like to admit that, and the Administration doesn't either, but that's the truth of the matter. As long as the mods are maintaining order in a forum and there isn't mass outrage over everything they do, then the evaluation is pointless anyway.

My advice would be to take up specific issues with a moderator privately and/or with an Administrator. I know that's the company line, but there is legitimate merit to a polite and respectful private interaction between users and mods. Too many people around here try too hard to be noticed and cause a stir when the discussion turns to moderators. I just get the feeling that a public evaluation process would eventually become a fiasco.

AYBABTU?

 

The Third AC completed several moderator reviews, and AC4 (The Phantom AC?) is on track to do several more.

I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't do it too, I'm just giving you the facts about the AC-end of it.

Why are we limiting it to an "ivory tower" group of regular users? Why don't we want as many Forum users reviewing their Mods as possible to get a true aggregate sense of things?

I think there should definitely be a discussion on whether this is a good plan for everyone to participate in and how things would work rather than just "have the AC do it."

 

"ivory tower"

Hahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahaha!

AYBABTU?

 

And a public process would cave in under the weight of DRAMA! And remember, it doesn't really matter too much what the members think of the mods. We don't like to admit that, and the Administration doesn't either, but that's the truth of the matter. As long as the mods are maintaining order in a forum and there isn't mass outrage over everything they do, then the evaluation is pointless anyway.

My advice would be to take up specific issues with a moderator privately and/or with an Administrator. I know that's the company line, but there is legitimate merit to a polite and respectful private interaction between users and mods. Too many people around here try too hard to be noticed and cause a stir when the discussion turns to moderators. I just get the feeling that a public evaluation process would eventually become a fiasco.

Yes, I know that the Mods choose the Mods and normal users have no say in the matter -- but if the mass general consensus is "Hey, we may like the guy but he does an awful job." I think the administration should know that rather than seeing one or two threads in Comms (or wherever) getting a biased POV.

From my personal standpoint, I have no problem with the Mods in the Forums I frequent. But others do (and the majority of them have actual constructive criticism rather than "darma!1!!")

As for "public" reviews -- I would advocate nothing of the sort. I would suggest that we do it like you do it in college (albeit non-anonymously) where you submit via PM your review (based upon a criteria form of some sort) and only the AGGREGATE results are made public while the Mods for the Forum themselves can see comments submitted (if any).

"ivory tower"

Hahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahaha!

It was only meant in the sense that we don't pick the AC either.

Plus you know that we worship you, AYBABTU!

 

Why are we limiting it to an "ivory tower" group of regular users

Part of the idea behind the AC is to avoid just that "ivory tower" problem. They are intended to be in touch with the general populace, and I believe that is the case with this group (and certainly was with AC3).

While people's opinions are certainly valid and should be listened to (about moderator's performance), there's also the fact that moderating seems easy until you actually get there. There's two sides to the coin, and going with just one is unwise.

 

I would have to agree with AYBABTU on this issue.

 

Agreeing with AYBABTU makes me feel dirty. That's why I only agree with him privately, never in the public eye.

 

A good part of the administration now is "new blood" replacing the tired old guard and they are doing a fine job to me, i.e. not being too dictatorial while keeping the boards "clean".

GO JC!

 

I have to agree with Gandolf The Gray on this issue.

 

Who would you categorize as old guard?

 

I wouldn't label as you as old guard Sapient and even if you were, your doin a good job to me, for whatever that is worth.

 

I have to agree with Gandolf The Gray on this issue.

What did he have to say on the issue?

While people's opinions are certainly valid and should be listened to (about moderator's performance), there's also the fact that moderating seems easy until you actually get there. There's two sides to the coin, and going with just one is unwise.

Right -- but right now we only have one side of the coin, the Moderating. With the Mod Squad having the information given to them by the Mods ("Oy, you wouldn't BELIEVE the week I've had!"), complimenting that with reports from the users ("I think Mod X does a very good job with the Forum but needs to show more initiative with <insert favorite topic>.") could lead to a) better moderating (if people feel that it's not up to snuff), b) a more involved userbase if they feel they're being represented (however slightly).

Clearly there are two sides to a coin. But why get stuck looking only at "heads" all the time?

 

With the Mod Squad having the information given to them by the Mods

I'd say most moderators are observant people and get information from regular forum users already and not just other moderators.

Some moderator reviews would be good (from regular users). Some would not be. Everyone can judge, but that doesn't mean they are aware of what's good and what's not good. What comes across as too harsh to one person might be seen as good forum leadership by another.

As I said, I think moderators are already at least somewhat in touch with what people in their respective forums think.

 

If you think that a certain mod is doing a good job, you can always send them a PM letting them know. It only takes a few minutes and, trust me, it really can brighten someone's day.

If you have a suggestion related to improving a certain forum (as in suggestions on what the mods could do differently), there are a couple options. Again, you could PM one or all of the mods in that forum, or, some of the forums have some sort of "How are we doing" type thread, where you can discuss what you like, dislike, and would like to see changed in that forum.

I'm not necessarily against "moderator reviews", but some people definately hold grudges against certain moderators for silly reasons.

Edit:
For example, this thread in the AOTC forum was one way that I received comments and suggestions from the regular forum members.

 

What did he have to say on the issue?

"My Emperor, we can reduce the post to two meters and line the trench with an additional 500 cannons. We can also ray-shield the exhaust port to prevent any incursion. You would have to fly down this trench like a Mynock out of hell, evade one thousand cannons, and hit a target that?s no bigger than a Womp rat! Trust me, there is no one in the galaxy who could make such a shot."

[shrugs] I thought that my position was quite clear. ?

 

Dealing with Mods via PM has always been pretty successful for me. A little respect and tact can go a long way in resolving a conflict.

 

I'm sort of kind of in favor of moderator reviews, within reason. For example I wouldn?t go so far as to advocate starting a new forum called ?Moderators?, giving each moderator a poll, and letting everyone vote and comment on what kind of job they were doing. But neither do I really like the idea of a very small group of people (like the AC, no offense intended) doing everything.

Some organizing force, preferably an organizing force that isn?t directly connected to the moderators, would be needed. And they?d have to be fairly neutral and fair minded (here?s where the AC can be useful). Have this group PM 30-40 people in a given forum, asking them what they think of the moderators in that specific forum. Try to get both the old veterans who have been in the forum from day one and the new people who have only been around for a few weeks. Get a wide variety of opinions. Then collate the opinions into one thread, with comments rendered anonymous. Post the comments publicly, probably here in Communications, so everyone can see the general opinions on a given moderator.

With 11 AC members (3 permanent, 8 rotating), you could get each member to PM three or four people from a given forum, greatly reducing the work load. The only problem would be making sure that no one got two such PM?s, and that wouldn?t take a great deal of planning to avoid. Just list off 40 people who are currently contributing, send the PM?s, post the answers, and then put all the answers together. You could rate the moderators in an entirely different forum every week. Start on Community for week 1, do 3SA in week 2, move on to Literature in week 3, etc. And then maybe the AC themselves could rate how much effort the moderator puts into behind the scenes work and in Communications (they can?t see the Mod Squad, but they can rate how the moderators do in the AC, right?).

I suppose it can be asked, ?What are the benefits?? One, it puts the AC to work. Maybe not quite as originally intended, but it?s a purpose that they can do fairly well. Secondly, feedback from the people of a forum can help a moderator do his (or her) job better. If people are against fluff, then the moderator should crack down on it. If they?re for it, the moderator should loosen up. If the moderator is seen as distant and remote, they should do more to stay involved. Thirdly, because it leads to moderators doing their job better, that means that the forum itself gets better.

So, this can help the forums, help the moderators themselves, and it puts the AC to work. If properly done, moderator reviews can be a good thing.

 

This was recently done on the fanforce side. Surveys were sent out to all the City Reps to fill out and PM back to the admin. Some City Reps filled them out themselves, others asked for input from the rest of their members. Basically they were "RSA Report Cards" and a general "Fanforce Report Card." All the responses are still being compiled. It has helped those of us in Fanforce find areas where we could improve, so I think something similar on the JC side would be beneficial.

Edit: Spelling

 

Well, the whole issue of Moderator Reviews sort of died down after the tremendous job that AC2 did in laying the groundwork ( face_cool ). Alright, slight exaggeration. However, I think there would be really good initial interest. People would put a lot of time in the first few and it would be a good quality process. Then, after the novelty has died off, and people realize it's actually work to carry out such an undertaking, things will sort of die off.

I think the following would both be more fair and exciting.

We set it up sort of like Groundhog Day. Every December 27th, we have "Moderator Review Day," which entails the following:

We give everyone a whiffle bat.
We line up the Modsquad and have them march past this line of users.
Each person has the option of either hitting the moderator in the genitals with his whiffle bat or ignoring the person.

Those people merely getting a hit with the bat and/or are able to dodge the few swings at them remain Moderators. Those people who are vigorously beaten become Managers. Those people who are sent to the hospital either become Administrators or Supreme Chancellor depending on the severity of their injuries.

Those people who are ignored are most likely doing their job satisfactorily and remain at whatever position they're at.

 

please refrain from beating me with a hot mop if i'm being repeatative in any way, but...

Moderators are chosen by the Administration, and therefore are beholden only to them.

And remember, it doesn't really matter too much what the members think of the mods. We don't like to admit that, and the Administration doesn't either, but that's the truth of the matter. As long as the mods are maintaining order in a forum and there isn't mass outrage over everything they do, then the evaluation is pointless anyway.

the moderators have a responsibility to the people they are moderating. when you have power over people, you are responsible for how you weild that power. it doesn't really matter too much what the members think of the mods? so, if the members are not happy with how the people with power over them weild that power then that doesn't really matter too much? you sure about that?

My advice would be to take up specific issues with a moderator privately and/or with an Administrator.

you know that pride and personal differences often make this futile.


i think the best way to have any kind of moderator reviews would be to hold it in private. as in, members pm their reviews to admins rather than posting it publicly. this eliminates the potential public drama, public attention seekers, and ballbusters (to a certain degree). and i think the admins are smart enough to know when someone is bs'ing or just making personal attacks. the reviews would most definitely require sufficient substance and/or evidence to backup certain comments that people might make.

and when the admins go over these reviews with the individual mods, the person who gave the review should remain unknown to the mod, for the purpose of objectivity on the part of the mod.

 

Correct me if I'm incorrect here, but this website survives because it sells advertising space, no? Ergo, the more users frequently logging in and using the forum, the more people reading the ads(Such as the one for IGN Insider for example), and the attractive a prospect this site becomes for those wishing to advertise here.

Essentially, that makes us users the consumer-base. For this reason, the Admins need to know that we are happy with the service they provide, and that we are tempted to remain here. It is not unprecedented for users to have left this site because they feel(however justly or unjustly) that certain mods have mistreated them and made their stay here unpleasant.

De facto, it is in the admins' best interests to know that their staff(ie the mods) are doing a job which satisfies the users, just as a hotel would wish to know that its guests have been treated well by the bellboys etc. and that those customers will return. Take away the customers and you take away the revenue.

So if the mods do a bad job and we all leave in droves, who's gonna want to advertise here? If they do a good job and we remain, the opposite is the case.

Yes, I think feedback on mods' performance is a good idea.

For the record, I myself have no complaints about any of 'em.

 

Agreeing with AYBABTU makes me feel dirty. That's why I only agree with him privately, never in the public eye


's @ DS.

That was classic....can we archive that post right away?

 

Mod reviews? Couldn't hurt, but it would only make sense to do it in a forum by forum basis. For example, I haven't posted in the senate for a while, so how can I rate Knight Writer? However, I spend time in the TPM Forum, so I could rate Quix.

Actually, now that I mention Quix, he did something akin to this. He started a thread asking about the status of the TPM Forum and requesting ideas for improvements, this opened an opporunity for people to give him feedback.