DSLRUsers.com

Not taking anything away from previous contributions to this forum over the years and reasons for moving away from the forum, is it time to change the guard viz the moderators? Of those listed, only 1-2 is/are active. There are many other forum members who are immeasurably more active who perhaps should take over? I am not nominating myself.

I hasten to add that this forum doesn't have a significant need for moderation.

Thoughts?

We serve at Gary's pleasure.

Any changes he would want to make are OK by me.

Reschsmooth wrote:I hasten to add that this forum doesn't have a significant need for moderation.

Thoughts?

I'm wondering what the problem is that you're trying to solve?

photohiker wrote:

Reschsmooth wrote:I hasten to add that this forum doesn't have a significant need for moderation.

Thoughts?

I'm wondering what the problem is that you're trying to solve?

i don't really understand that comment.

In my opinion (and I also am certainly not putting my hand up to be one) moderators are more than a few names on the top of the forums, they should be active participating members, leaders in the community for lack of better term.

While I'm open to comments and suggestions, and I appreciate Gerry's concern, here's my feelings on this matter.

First of all, and as Gerry has acknowledged, there is little need for moderation.

But more importantly, I fully appreciate that - and this applies to each and every one of us - our lives change from day to day, week to week, year to year ... certainly mine has undertaken several different paths since the forum was formed. That has happened to a number of members, many of whom still visit, even though they may not actively post.

On the one hand, removal of moderator privileges might seem to be seen by some as a form of punishment for non-participation (or whatever) and while I don't take from Gerry's post that this would be the intent, that is certainly how it might appear to some. That is not a path I'm prepared to go down.

Moreover, and as I've already stated, our lives go through different phases, and I fully expect that at some future point those who may currently be unable to visit or post, for whatever reason, will return; I've already seen that happen with many members.

In summary, yes, I'd like to see them more active, but I think that principle also applies generally to the other members who have taken their (temporary) leave.

Consequently, I'm reticent to do anything, and especially given the fact that, really, there isn't a problem that needs to be solved. That's really the crux of Michael's comment, I believe: even though they're absent, their moderation efforts are not being missed, because of the limited need for any moderation.

Certainly, their absence is noticed, and sadly we all lose because of all of those members who currently do not post; not just those mods.

gstark wrote:While I'm open to comments and suggestions, and I appreciate Gerry's concern, here's my feelings on this matter.

Just to be clear, I did not start the thread and I am certainly not concerned - merely participating in the discussion.

gstark wrote:Certainly, their absence is noticed, and sadly we all lose because of all of those members who currently do not post; not just those mods.

True, with the exception that mods are really the 'face' of a forum, hence when the majority of mods do not participate (or visit?) it gives a outward appearance of stagnation - imo.

Again, I emphasis that this does not bother me personally, mainly since this has been almost been the status since I joined here.

gstark wrote:On the one hand, removal of moderator privileges might seem to be seen by some as a form of punishment for non-participation (or whatever) and while I don't take from Gerry's post that this would be the intent,

are you referring to me or Patrick? In any case that would not be my intent.

Note I like the fact you can come and go from this site, plenty of other forums require a minimum post count per time period to ensure your membership remains active.

I belong to many forums and in each one I have no idea who the mods are, or care.

Mods are there to do a job, nothing more, and as such can be as hidden as they wish.

Normally when issues of this nature are raised it is only because someone is after a job

sirhc55 wrote:Normally when issues of this nature are raised it is only because someone is after a job

That is certainly not my intent.

I appreciate Gary's explanation.

I am primarily on two forums, both of which are relatively small. The need for moderation is low. My initial post was simply an observation based on the moderator list at the top of the page.

biggerry wrote:Just to be clear, I did not start the thread and I am certainly not concerned - merely participating in the discussion.

My apologies. All references to Gerry in my initial post actually refer to Patrick.

Reschsmooth wrote: My initial post was simply an observation based on the moderator list at the top of the page.

In which case, it's a simple job for me to remove the actual mods' names from there, and just leave it as the group. Thanks.

gstark wrote:

Reschsmooth wrote: My initial post was simply an observation based on the moderator list at the top of the page.

In which case, it's a simple job for me to remove the actual mods' names from there, and just leave it as the group. Thanks.

Or I would if I could find where I need to do this.

Reschsmooth wrote:

sirhc55 wrote:Normally when issues of this nature are raised it is only because someone is after a job

That is certainly not my intent.

Nudge, nudge, wink, wink - only said it because it was you Patrick

gstark wrote:

gstark wrote:

Reschsmooth wrote: My initial post was simply an observation based on the moderator list at the top of the page.

In which case, it's a simple job for me to remove the actual mods' names from there, and just leave it as the group. Thanks.

Or I would if I could find where I need to do this.

Found it.

sirhc55 wrote:I belong to many forums and in each one I have no idea who the mods are, or care.

x2.
Mods only really matter on much larger forums where moderation by intervention is required. This group is too small and intelligent to require anything other than self moderation. I don't know what these privileges are of which Gary speaks...if it involves a leggy blonde swede, I'm interested.

It's a non issue for me. Have no moderators, have 100 moderators. Makes no difference.

Rooz wrote:I don't know what these privileges are of which Gary speaks.

I think he means being able to put smilies in the POTW thread. If it was a lanky white turnip you would be the only one to apply

Two other points

I don't think the list showed all moderators, rather it listed the "first round" moderators by name and all subsequent mods (myself included) subsumed under a single anonymous entry of "moderators" (I think I just outed myself there)

There is also an additional group of Key Members who participate in a number of forum activities (eg POTW selection) and we recently added 3 new people to that list. so we are mindful of having "fresh blood" involved in forum management. You don't see the Key Members listed anywhere.

I didn't even know there was a list or even "key members". lol

stubbsy wrote:Two other points

I don't think the list showed all moderators, rather it listed the "first round" moderators by name and all subsequent mods (myself included) subsumed under a single anonymous entry of "moderators" (I think I just outed myself there)

There is also an additional group of Key Members who participate in a number of forum activities (eg POTW selection) and we recently added 3 new people to that list. so we are mindful of having "fresh blood" involved in forum management. You don't see the Key Members listed anywhere.

Peter, look under my avatar

stubbsy wrote:Two other points

I don't think the list showed all moderators, rather it listed the "first round" moderators by name and all subsequent mods (myself included) subsumed under a single anonymous entry of "moderators" (I think I just outed myself there.

Peter, that partly explains my thought process - with all due respect to you both, I had come rely forgotten that you and Trevor are moderators.

As mentioned, I don't believe we have even a low need for moderation in this community and if it ain't broke, etcetera.

sirhc55 wrote:

stubbsy wrote:You don't see the Key Members listed anywhere.

Peter, look under my avatar

Correct, and I actually thought about that when writing my post. I guess my wording sucks. My point was that there is a pool of people behind the scenes that are not identified in a simple list. So looking at a list (such as that referred to by Patrick originally) was reductive.

Reschsmooth wrote:with all due respect to you both, I had come rely forgotten that you and Trevor are moderators.

Can I quote Chris on this "look under my avatar"

Bottom line is I suspect we all agree.

This is a an interesting point, I have often wondered where there was a list of Key Members.....and have only just realised that you can pull up a full list of moderators. The only time when we have needed a moderator is when we have an unwelcome visitor of the canned ham type....and Trevor and Gary usually are on the case very quickly!

I must apologise for my lack of activity lately, I am actually overseas at the moment...

90% of the time i post using tapatalk so alot of this is lost on me.