Moderating Online Communities - 13 Tips
Some things I know about moderating conversations in virtual space:
Nothing winds me up more than bad moderation - Here's a list of tips from Teresa Nielsen Hayden - some are obvious, some not so, but all in all, it's an interesting read if you run a community or participate in one.
Here's my favorite:
There can be no ongoing discourse without some degree of moderation, if only to kill off the hardcore trolls. It takes rather more moderation than that to create a complex, nuanced, civil discourse. If you want that to happen, you have to give of yourself. Providing the space but not tending the conversation is like expecting that your front yard will automatically turn itself into a garden.
via boingboing
Can Anyone add to that?
I'd love to see an extended list - maybe she'll write one after seeing how popular this effort was - one of the obvious things to build on would be handling moderators - who moderates the moderators? heh..
Seriously, i've met some diabolical moderators in my time doing any number of the following:
- Glory seeking - only turning up in the forum when thiers some glory to be had
- Being their in name only - starting a community out with pre-appointed mods is a bad idea imo, promote from your regulars - those that show an active interest and participate regularly coupled with subject expertise and social skills, not those you think *might* work out. This also applies to those that pitch/audition for the gig but then slack off when they get it..
- Power Seekers - backstabbing and gossiping for personal gain - kicking down members and other mods to get closer to the top
- Public floggings - dressing down a member in public - never a good idea, the occasional in-thread note to all, sure but humiliating a member?
That list could go on and on, as could the list of problem areas that members and owners of forums and other types of communities can cause.
So, add to it and discuss if you're interested in this stuff....
Moderating depends on the forum
Forums, as has been discussed before, tend to follow the "bell shaped curve" in terms of popularity.
As a forum grows in popularity, I would guess the need for more "agressive" moderating is reached, in order to retain the more cerebral end of the market.
I would hazzard a guess that many users of TW, would have been happy continuing at another place offering a "professional" exchange of views , if the "where's my AdSense cheque" and "right on GoogleGuy" type of threads had been as ruthlessly culled, as drive by spammers are culled.
Any moderator has to be aware of the purpose of the forum and try to keep it on track. 500 members here and very little problem, 1000 and I suspect the problems start in earnest. "Less noise, more signal" becomes more diffict to keep on course
But
whilst true, is very much in the eye of the beholder - in other words we all differ as to what actually is bad moderation.
In the end, if the site continues to build and keep on the up part of the bell shaped curve, then one has to assume that overall moderation there is OK.
What is fine for IHU or RZ, is not fine at TW!
[quote]starting a community o
There have to be exceptions to that rule. Look at HR. Jill knew that the place would be busy as soon as she opened it, so she had to have a small team of mods in place on opening day.
Of course, there have since been many additions to that team, most of them from the membership.
All in all a good list
though I think she may have softened a few of her harder-edged points for "general audiences." (I'd like to hear her war stories after, say, five pints.)
#14 - Be prepared to orchestrate threads
Disemvowelling
I had to search the page to find the definition of "disemvowelling":
Doesn't seem like such a great idea to me. Why not just delete the post altogether?
the first draft would have been a great read I bet.
#15 remember just because people are writing apparantly in english doesn't mean they speak the same version of it you do. If in doubt assume they didn't mean to be that rude.
#16 mods shouldn't post after, say, five pints.
why not delete it? because ritual humiliation stops more future spam than a quick delete. And as a bonding exercise spammer-critiqueing is good for members :)
>Doesn't seem like such a gre
Doesn't seem like such a great idea
It would work, yes, but it would also be a lot of work for the moderator. I wouldn't bother, just nuke 'em.
Along that same line of thought, however, a fully tuned swear-words filter can and does have a similar effect --taking the hot air out of some of your more troublesome posts while at the same time making your veterans more circumspect about how they turn a phrase.
For instance, look at the effect it'd have on Nick if someone put "WTF" on their filters. Hell, half of his posts would be wiped out, hhh!
>writing apparantly in englis
writing apparantly in english doesn't mean they speak
Absolutely, Gurtie. Move that one to the top of the list --and put "spelling corrections" in there somewhere, too.