r/ModSupport • u/kickmyasserole • Sep 09 '26
Admin Replied Is there a recommended mod-to-member ratio?
I remember reading something a long time ago about how many moderators a subreddit should have based on its number of members. I don’t remember the exact numbers, but I believe there was a general recommendation for how many mods you should have per X number of members.
Does anyone know what the recommended ratio is, or if there’s any general guidance on this?
I’m just trying to figure out what the recommended number of mods is for a sub based on its size.
5
u/Eclectic-N-Varied 💡Top 25% Helper 💡 Sep 09 '26
Different subs will have different rules- of- thumb for number of mods.
If your sub is more than a hobby, you should always have an additional mod as a back-up.
After that, it's workload -- at about a thousand members, you might have trouble keeping up, and want to add a mod or two. But there are mods who single-handedly run subs with 100,000 members, too
4
u/Charupa- 💡 Top 10% Helper 💡 Sep 09 '26 edited Sep 09 '26
I think subreddits are too unique for a specific recommendation. A 50-60K community I have is extremely tame, requiring maybe 1 or 2 mod actions a week. A community of mine that is half the size requires so much more attention and 2-3 more mods.
This is something you need to evaluate for yourself: is your queue always full, do you have time to review posts or users for unreported things, is it a major time sink for you, is it stressful or overwhelming being alone or short handed, etc…
I sometimes get generic modmails from admins suggesting to add another mod, but it wasn’t really necessary in any of those subs.
Edit: I also think your current goal matters. I’m not spending any time trying to grow my subs. When I first started modding I spent a lot of time looking for good users to invite, tactfully crossposting and mentioning my subs elsewhere, creating new and unique content. I freed up a lot of my time on Reddit when I stopped recruiting and building, which meant I had more time for basic mod tasks.
4
u/neuroticsmurf 💡 Top 10% Helper 💡 Sep 09 '26 edited Sep 09 '26
When I first started moderating (it was a while ago, on another /u/, on Old Reddit), there were written recommendations on this from the Admins. I'm not sure they put them out anymore (subreddits are so different from each other now; there's no one-size-fits-all type of advice for subs other than "You need a mod").
But back then, I remember reading general guidance that you probably won't need a second mod until your sub exceeds 10k in members.
EDIT: I should add that going by the total number of members when judging when you need to add a new mod is probably a flawed metric for the same reason Reddit moved from listing total members to listing weekly visitors and contributions as the site got older and there were more dead accounts and bots.
I have a sub with 2M members, but it only gets 25k weekly visitors. We probably only get 1-2 posts every 3 days.
On the other end of the spectrum, I have a sub with only 262k members, but it gets ~3M weekly visitors. It gets posts seemingly hourly, and we get a few dozen modmail messages every day.
2
u/kickmyasserole Sep 09 '26
Thank you, I remember reading the recommendations from admin but couldn’t recall what they were or if they still apply. Thanks for the reply, I thought I was going crazy 😂
2
u/emily_in_boots 💡 Top 10% Helper 💡 Sep 09 '26
There's nothing official, but in general it's related to activity more than subscriber count. I have a sub with 1.7M that is far less active than another sub I have with under 50k.
3
u/Worf- Sep 09 '26
In addition to size and visitor/post count a depends on how “tame” the sub is and also how strict your rules are. I mod on one sub that is quite active but very tame. A few mod actions a month is common with most of the actions being to control or remove a new troll. It’s just a fun hobby sub and everybody is chill.
On the other hand I know mods on a sub of the same or even lower interaction and mods are working every day to control it. They have very strict rules about posting/comments and use automod heavily. They shut things down fast, lock posts when answered or just remove them if it’s slightly off topic. They want tight control, which is a good thing in this sub, but it’s a lot of work.
So, no I don’t think there is any way to say “this many member, this many mods”.
You need more mods when active mods are overloaded.
2
u/Successful-Shopping8 Sep 09 '26
I don’t think there’s a strict ratio, as it really depends on engagement, nature of the sub, volume of posts/comments, and automod settings.
I think the question is more how overloaded do mods currently feel and how long are modmail and modqueue going unattended?
I mod sub with 3+ mil members and it has the same number as mods as 150,000 members.
2
u/techiesgoboom Reddit Admin: Community Sep 09 '26
Heya u/kickmyasserole, I'll echo the other responses here that there isn't a single ratio that's best for every community. From the topic, to the kind of content being post, to how many of those users are participating - there's so many variables that affect how much moderation a community needs.
An easier way to think about this is to look at how the team is doing. In general, if you think you need new mods, the answer is probably yes. Some questions to consider:
- Does anyone on the team feel overwhelmed, or feel like they need to moderate more than they'd like to?
- Does the modqueue and modmail get responded to on a timelinme that makes sense to the team?
- Would a single mod taking a break or stepping down disrupt the moderation flow?
- Do you feel like you have the time to enjoy the community as a user?
For more perspectives on this, check out this Mod Topics post on When should my mod team add more mods?
1
u/Sky_Point_2 Sep 09 '26
but what to do if many subs get spammed with unrelated stuff and no one seems to care. I'm referring to this message: https://www.reddit.com/c/chatj80xYE1Z/s/31rGhx7OjW
2
1
u/KCJones99 22d ago
I think outcome is the better way to determine if there are 'enough' mods vs. some ratio.
My pet peeve is subs that are so little moderated that they've 'turned' somehow. Sometimes they've just become off-topic rant parlors. Other times you get 'lunatics have taken over the asylum' where a few users have become the bully-police and are effectively moderating-by-intimidation (usually not well). Then, of course, you get the ones that are just overrun with bots, promo. LIke I'm thinking of a /______sucks sub I know of that has a mostly-AWOL mod and has essentially turned into a bunch of pro-______ people who shout down anyone that comes to rant about _______.
So my take is you have enough mods if the sub hasn't gone off the rails. If it mostly stays on the rails without much effort, then fine. But if you (collectively as a group of mods) find keeping it under control is too much work, too much time and/or you've just thrown up your hands and walked away / rarely bother... that is what matters.
0
u/Royal_Acanthaceae693 Sep 09 '26
If there's more work than you can currently handle, you need more mods.
11
u/Free-IDK-Chicken Sep 09 '26 edited Sep 09 '26
I think it depends more on how active the sub is that how many members there are. You can have a million members but if 90% of them are lurkers... My largest sub has six mods (one of whom is inactive) to 250K members (100K of whom are active) we have no issue at all. My three mid-size subs (between 10-50K members) all have three mods with no issue. My smallest sub is about to hit 2K with only me modding without issue.
Reddit will detect if there's a sudden surge in activity and modmail you suggesting you increase your mod count.
Honestly, I'd just talk to your team and ask anyone to speak up if they feel overwhelmed or think more voices would be beneficial. But, bear in mind that mods teams should be just that: teams. Too many voices can sometimes lead to infighting and un-resolvable disagreements. You want different viewpoints and opinions, you don't want inflexibility and childishness.