2 Ways of Managing your forums. Which is better?

**michael_gersitz** · 08-18-2004, 11:34 AM

Okay Now that I have your attention.

I remember Chris saying in a previous post that he will only appoint moderaters when he cannot moderate the whole forums by himself. I have the excact opposite theory. I believe that you should have a good team of moderators to help make the forum big. I figure, if you have a good set of moderators, they all post in the general forums, they all visit the forums daily, they all make good solid posts. This way, when your forums get big enough that you cannot moderate them, you will already have a good set of moderators, you will not have to get members jealous by only apointing certian members to moderators. They can also input tips and such to make the forum grow. Once they have been on the forums long euough they will feel part of it and start posting the link in other forums. What do you guys think on this topic? Wait to it gets big to apoint moderators? or Make moderators when it is small?

**mobilebadboy** · 08-18-2004, 12:24 PM

In the past when I ran forums I went the way Chris goes by. I never saw a need for moderators if there was no one there to moderate. It's like owning a company and having a bunch of laborers and secretaries with no active business and no phone calls. There's no sense to bring people on until there is a demand for them, IMO.

I always let members join, and I watched who did what and how they conducted themselves. Once the member base started to grow and I felt I needed some extra help, I would look to those established members for positions to help moderate the forums.

That's just my 2 cents. I know the business analogy was bad, but it was relatable.

**intelliot** · 08-18-2004, 12:29 PM

Wait until it gets big -- that's pretty much my system for Google Community.com and it works fine. Why have moderators when you can handle the forums yourself? As for contributing, every member can do so. Every member helps to make the forum big (if that is the goal) and every member posts in the general forums. Why do you need some special title such as "Moderator" to do so? These types of greedy moderators can cause as much harm as help.

When the forums get big, certainly, moderators will be required. By this time you will have seen which members are responsible enough to uphold the principles of the forums, so you can make an informed decision when choosing moderators.

I invite all members to input tips to make the forum grow, and instead of having a team of moderators that are more important than the other members, I'd like to have every member be a part of it.

**michael_gersitz** · 08-18-2004, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by intelliot

When the forums get big, certainly, moderators will be required. By this time you will have seen which members are responsible enough to uphold the principles of the forums, so you can make an informed decision when choosing moderators.

How do you decide who gets to become a moderater?

What if there is a member who signed up the first day you opened and has a gizallion posts. Every day he sends you a im asking if he can become a moderator. However, all his posts are garbage... only like 10 words long or "hi","smiley" etc.

Do you make him a mod, or the smarter member who makes educated posts?

**Bojhan** · 08-19-2004, 02:29 AM

Ofcourse a smarter member who makes educated posts. I always first start with a Launch Team they post on a daily basis in the forums and they have general discussions. When the activity on the forums grow i start to point moderators but only the one who where in the Launch Team.

I requit only the best of the best for the Launch Team so it will become a board that attracks more educated members who dont need to spam or make un intrested posts to feel special.

**James** · 08-19-2004, 03:50 AM

The best members on your forum who are there the most frequently, post the best posts, and won't abuse the power.

I believe that too many moderators for too few members is a bad thing.

**Chris** · 08-19-2004, 10:58 AM

There is no rule you have to pick the longest member or the highest poster. You pick someone right for the job.

**r2d2** · 08-19-2004, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by tntcheats

I believe that too many moderators for too few members is a bad thing.

AKA too many chiefs not enough indians...

**mobilebadboy** · 08-19-2004, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by r2d2

AKA too many chiefs not enough indians...

Yeah! That's better than my business analogy. I just couldn't think of anything else at the time.

**James** · 08-19-2004, 04:52 PM

Too many teachers not enough students.

Too many daycares not enough children...

**michael_gersitz** · 08-19-2004, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by r2d2

AKA too many chiefs not enough indians...

AKA The Ultimate Super Indian Tribe

**chrispian** · 08-19-2004, 06:19 PM

I don't pick moderators until there are more members than I can handle. Usually when issues start popping up. If you think members are hard to manage, wait until you have staff conflicts. My god. Or when one of the more dominant posters on your site gets into it with a staff member or you find your staff abusing their powers. I think I'd rather do most of it myslef if I can. Be very, very careful selecting staff. It can be difficult, for sure.

**MarkB** · 08-29-2004, 02:52 AM

It's important to select your moderators correctly. All you need is one person with a slight personality defect (ie, thinks he's God's gift to the forum

) to get out of control and cause problems with your members.

**Mike** · 08-29-2004, 09:27 AM

Also, if you appoint moderators straight away, you can run the risk of your forum actually looking quiet. For example, say you start off a forum with five mods, they're the only ones who will post to start with.

It's like having "Admin" posting everything on a forum - it makes it look very quiet and unheard of.