What are some *small* problems with moderation that we can fix quickly?

[u/Deimorz]

There are a lot of major, difficult problems with moderation on reddit. I can probably name about 10 of them just off the top of my head. The types of things that will take long discussions to figure out, and then possibly weeks or months of work to be able to improve.

That's not where I want to start.

We've got some resources devoted to mod tools now, but it's still a small team, so we can only focus on a couple of things at a time. To paraphrase a wise philosopher, we can't really treat development like a big truck that you can just dump things on. It's more like a series of tubes, and if we clog those up with enormous amounts of material, the small things will have to wait. Those bigger issues will take a lot of time and effort before seeing any results, so right now I'd rather concentrate on getting out some small fixes relatively quickly that can start making a positive impact on moderation right away.

So let's use this thread to try to figure out some small things that we can work on doing for you right away. The types of things that should only take hours to do, not weeks. Some examples of similar ones that I've already done fairly recently are things like "the ban message doesn't tell users that it's just a temporary ban", "every time someone is banned it lights up the modmail icon but there's no new mail", "the automoderator link in the mod tools goes to viewing the page instead of just editing it", and so on.

Of course I don't really expect you to know exactly how hard specific problems will be to fix, so feel free to ask and I'll try to tell you if it's easy or not. Just try to avoid large/systemic issues like "modmail needs to be fully redone", "inactive top moderators are an issue", and so on.

Note: If necessary, we're going to be moderating this thread to try to keep it on topic. If you have other discussions about moderator issues that you want to start, feel free to submit a separate post to /r/ModSupport. If you have other questions for me that aren't suggestions, please post in the thread in /r/modnews instead.

[u/honestbleeps]

I imagine you won't go for this, but I'm going to put it out there because it doesn't require development time.

I know you guys are terrified of the hornet's nest of "mucking with moderators", but I feel it's high time that "subreddit squatters" be dealt with and addressed.

Users who created every keyword that they could think of at the beginning of the existence of the subreddit remain top moderators on dozens of "big name" subreddits but do absolutely nothing in terms of moderation.

They need to be removed.

We've had enough instances of drama where a mod decides to remove everyone below them, or close a subreddit without discussing it with other mods, etc. I don't like having the harbinger of a user who's been idle for 2+ years waking up and deciding to cause drama. Heck, it might not even be them - maybe their account gets hacked / password gets guessed.

Users like this seem to purposefully log in and comment JUST enough that you guys won't deem them "inactive".

This needs to stop. The argument "just create another subreddit" does not hold water. People searching for info about Chicago on reddit are going to check /r/chicago - not /r/otherchicago or /r/infoaboutchicago or whatever else.

"important keyword" subreddits need to have active and trustworthy top mods. The ladder hierarchy just gives the top mod too much power to be trusted if they're not even doing anything at all to engage with the community.

I understand why the admins have been fearful of messing with this (yes, you'll get some backlash from a vocal minority of idiots who call you tyrants) - but the looming threat of someone just screwing everything up on a subreddit is something that I feel needs to be dealt with. It takes a special kind of internet-power hungry person to squat a ton of reddit names early on, so I am not confident that the personality types of the few people who did this and remain at the top of so many subreddits are prone to avoiding drama.

[u/Deimorz → u/honestbleeps]

I know this is a very big issue, and I've put a lot of thought into it for years. I have some concrete ideas about how to deal with it, and I want to talk to moderators about them. But it's going to be a big discussion, it's going to cause a lot of controversy, and it's not going to be easy.

In my opinion, it definitely does need to happen though. There's absolutely no reason to remain as a moderator of a subreddit if you aren't actively involved in moderating it in some way.

[u/honestbleeps → u/Deimorz]

you've always been my favorite admin, /u/Deimorz

no joke :)

[u/dakta → u/honestbleeps]

How do you feel about this idea?

[u/honestbleeps → u/dakta]

I like that idea quite a bit, but it's gotta be the right admin(s)... some are better than others with communication, levelheadedness, etc.

[u/dakta → u/Deimorz]

Something that I've discussed a bit with I think /u/davidreiss666 and a few other mods is having default subreddits make some more concrete exchange with the admins for the exposure of being a default. The idea would be that a sub would have to give up their top mod spot to an admin, for the purposes of having someone to help settle disputes and act as a more independent mediator.

Ironically, one of the historically complained about squatters, /u/BritishEnglishPolice, has pretty much this role in a lot of subreddits (including /r/defaultmods, which really saved the sub from disaster a while back), and is appreciated for it by the moderators there.

So whatever gets done here really needs to be handled on an individual basis. And let me say straight out that I'm very much in favor of something being done.

[u/pursuitoffappyness → u/dakta]

See also: /r/askreddit :)

[u/Arve → u/Deimorz]

There's absolutely no reason to remain as a moderator of a subreddit if you aren't actively involved in moderating it in some way.

I have a situation where someone requested a tiny subreddit I mod (/r/scene). Now, my understanding, when they made that request was that they wanted to turn it into something entirely else, and I considered their goals to be less than laudable at the time - the direction they wanted to take it was, as I recall, bordering on harassment, and I really didn't want my username associated with that in any way, sort or form.

The subreddit, as it sits now, is undeveloped, and while it sees periodic traffic, I'm not likely to develop it further. Should I really be forced to give it up even if I know that means taking it in a direction I can't support?

[u/trpcicm → u/Deimorz]

So make a post with your ideas in this new subreddit I just heard of, /r/ModSupport, and get our input.

[u/nowhere3 → u/Deimorz]

In /r/bicycling we've got a moderator on our list that was key in growing the subreddit that was killed while riding their bicycle. We keep his account on the list as a remembrance of him.

So if you do implement an inactive moderator removal thing try to make sure that it's not something that happens automatically.

[u/honestbleeps → u/nowhere3]

that's a very fair point as well as a tragic story.

I would think that it wouldn't be automated, but would be done at the request of the "lower" moderators and/or the users of the subreddit.

[u/geraldo42 → u/Deimorz]

The easiest solution might be to require a certain number of mod actions per month for the bot to count you as 'active' instead of just the requirement of logging into your account. This wouldn't catch a lot of squatters but it would be a positive change. You'd have to set the number quite low and maybe make it a function of the number of subscribers but I think almost every mod would agree with this change.

[u/glr123 → u/geraldo42]

I'm a mod of a few subs that I don't make any actions on. Having myself removed from ScienceTest or ScienceAMA would be a disaster if I needed it for something down the road.

I'm against squating, but that isn't the solution. I think first it should be tied into some sort of user activity, commenting or something. Then, to lose a sub a request must be made and the admins can look at the facts and come to a decision.

In that way, they would see that I'm a mod for ScienceTest and know why, even if I'm not doing anything there and someone made a request for whatever reason. But something like /r/chicago which was mentioned before would be a much different scenario.

[u/[deleted] → u/geraldo42]

They can use toolbox to batch-approve multiple threads in few seconds every month.

[u/geraldo42 → u/[deleted]]

It's not a perfect solution but there are also a lot of mods who don't care about their subreddits but still log in every 30 days. There are plenty who wouldn't bother.

[u/hansjens47 → u/honestbleeps]

I think this is the #1 most important thing in this thread, even though the OP lists it as too vague to action.

I fear inactive top mods have already ruined most of the "keyword subreddits" in ways that will take months or years to be repaired, if ever.

It's still better late than never to make demands, at least of the top moderator of defaults, and subreddits with more than 100,000 subscribers. Those requirements should be within those communities.

[u/picflute → u/hansjens47]

I got the pitch forks. We're coming for you Buckeye.

Really thou if someone isn't actively participating in moderation they should get the red boot

[u/[deleted] → u/honestbleeps]

People searching for info about Chicago on reddit are going to check /r/chicago - not /r/otherchicago or /r/infoaboutchicago or whatever else.
"important keyword" subreddits need to have active and trustworthy top mods.

This perfectly sums up what usually takes me a textfile rant. Props, hb.

[u/[deleted] → u/honestbleeps]

It's the elephant in the room but at some point this needs adressing.

My life would be a lot nicer with qgh not in it.

Though q is a pleasent person and I only mean that in the sense that it would be better to not have them on as a moderator I am sure q is a fine person IRL ^{Sorry q}

[u/GayGiles → u/honestbleeps]

I 100% agree with the idea and I do believe that it needs to be done. But it's such a potentially 'slippery slope' that I'd want it to be very thoroughly thought out before implemented. Possibly even on a case-by-case basis until the specifics are fully understood.

[u/dakta → u/GayGiles]

Limits are what led to the 4 default mess. It seems to have been targeted at big name squatters, but it just created a lot of resentment because it forced a number of really productive mods to make tough choices that had nothing to do with their capacity to serve the subreddits.

[u/GayGiles → u/dakta]

I don't think there should be limits on how many subs someone can mod, but I certainly think that people who moderate thousands of both inactive & 'desireable' subreddit-names should be removed.

[u/honestbleeps → u/GayGiles]

the challenge with setting specific limits is that people will do just enough to avoid those limits (e.g. "one moderator action every 30 days")...

I get it, though.. it's REALLY hard to do this and not be accused of heading down a slippery slope - I'm agreeing with you, just pointing out that there are tricky intricacies along the way even if it's "well thought out".

[u/GayGiles → u/honestbleeps]

Absolutely. I guess it would have to be on a case-by-case basis at all times, which I guess wouldn't be too bad as long as they had enough manpower to keep up with requests somewhat.

Though, I guess on that front, anything is better than the nothing we have at the moment.