Moreover, I think no matter what day it is and what happens, you will always have users who are willing to moderate.
What you should be discussing (not in public :D) is who will manage the website? The server? The updates? The upgrades? The bug fixes? The money / finance, hosting? Software renewals? Who will bring the website up when it goes down?
Gupshup should be seeking those invdividuals and not moderators... moderators will come and go and picking them is not that of a big deal.
I think that is what I am asking..but ahow we will and should select who is making the engine run. I know financial is the biggest problem, but lets say that is resolved then what. but I am thinking all inclusive..maybe te answer is that the mechanism is to make sure that the behind teh scenes team , thats where the baton is passed and appointment or volunteer directors to then manage day to day running
This may be overthinking it but i dunno maybe really set up as a co-op entity or as a mutual company or something or a corp...with revenue strems and charter, etc and then no matter who runs it, they ahve to abide by it..etc..
Trust me, allowing users to pick moderators is a bad idea. Allowing users to pick admins is a very bad idea.
Communities fail like that... search on google for building community website, at least 3 4 years ago, the suggestions were very different than today but users should not have any say in management and day to day backend activity of the website.
I run over 5 websites, have two transaction going on right now for two more domains (acquisition, worth $8,500) in next few days and I can tell you for sure, you never allow users to meddle in management affairs.
I think that is what I am asking..but ahow we will and should select who is making the engine run. I know financial is the biggest problem, but lets say that is resolved then what. but I am thinking all inclusive..maybe te answer is that the mechanism is to make sure that the behind teh scenes team , thats where the baton is passed and appointment or volunteer directors to then manage day to day running
This may be overthinking it but i dunno maybe really set up as a co-op entity or as a mutual company or something or a corp...with revenue strems and charter, etc and then no matter who runs it, they ahve to abide by it..etc..
not quite sure yet..
Unfortunately, you can't really pick such users from the regular members... but maybe in some rare cases. But you have to look in your own circle, someone who can manage and run the website, and take care of all its needs.
It would be nice if you get one server and host the site on it forever, but that rarely happens. As the website grows, you need to grow with it and move... server moves are painful enough when done by a professional and a nightmare when some newbie does it. Then there are host of other issues that need to be dealt with, such as:
Unfortunately, you can't really pick such users from the regular members... but maybe in some rare cases. But you have to look in your own circle, someone who can manage and run the website, and take care of all its needs.
It would be nice if you get one server and host the site on it forever, but that rarely happens. As the website grows, you need to grow with it and move... server moves are painful enough when done by a professional and a nightmare when some newbie does it. Then there are host of other issues that need to be dealt with, such as:
hosting;
day to day backend management;
patches;
software updates;
bug ID and fixes;
upgrades;
new features / new theme;
etc.
understood, but u can always hire a company to do it for you.
as long as financials are taken care of, and there is a strategic leader..with a good team, they dont have to be best techies...they can hire the help. right?
ps- I am enjoying the discussion so when i question, cross question and adsk for elaborations ..dontthink I am dicounting anything u have to say
anyways so does anyone know of any successful self managed community. trying to find examples.
we get questions on pixking mods based on tenure with site, circle of friends, etc or who ppl want as mod. and conseqiuently admins and director. is there a successful working model of that anywhere, if so who, if not, how successful were those who tried it, how long did it work for and what was the events that led to failure.
I can understand back end running of the site, but why cant there be either a user picked op team, or a mix ?
and dont models evolve, if we have a second life version of paklinks..oh crap i gave away our big surprise...that could have an entire set up.
I differntiate tctical daily operation from strategic business and mgmt work. the focus is on both though, how to have succession planning.
sites that u are running, if you want them to continue beyond u, how would u do that?
You can hire a company to manage the backend as well as the frontend but first revenue needs to be taken care of and from that point it must be given to those who do website work. If website as diverse as gupshup is fortunate enough to have good, honest people who can do chores here an there then there is no need to hire a company but that is not a solid, long term solution.
I would have loved to express my feelings but I will refrain from doing it. I will rather read and learn from you good people.
One thing I just want to add, there is a sher of Iqbal which tells us that democracy is something where we "count" the people's head and not "weigh" them...
Weighing is something that would make democracy a fair process but there is NO procedure to do that in the current definition of democracy.
maybe I can pull Umar in this discussion because i think part of PhD work was on online communities.
I remember being part of that project as one of the participants. I think it was couple of years back or last year somewhere. I do not even remember what were the questions and what I had answered. Good idea, May be he can tell us the overall democratic view of on-line users.
its so honest and nice of you guyz that you didnt sell it to some other org completely. little mergers are good as they defines growth.
JL is also right it is not appropriate to ask members to choose mod for them (before reading his POV i was also in favor of elections) cuz no matter using cyber space as a channel to express democracy is load different than physical world (i mean you cant judge any from the way they post).
but if you need some one for the long run then it should be some one who is if not best, at least should be good in every field, friendly and tie everyone-everything together. and so far X2, you are the best option.
baki zindagi mout ALLAH SWT k haath main hain. the least we can do is pray
i was discussing this mod idea with Shikra bhai and i also appreciates his idea that “they can do is keep one experienced mod and then keep bring new ACTIVE people that learn from the experienced .”
moreover, you need to bring back old members. i have talk to many old members on chat and all the do is whine about how bad GS is turned into, and old layout was good, and how “good” the current mods are
i personally believe that i exist here so it is a good place, therefore i try to convinced them.
rest up to GS authority to sense the need of old members.
thank you for your kind words I will send yoi teh $5 check :)
the idea of mod/admin rotation is not new, but definitely worthwhile. It simply can not be expected for someone to have the same level of availability excitement etc to keep things going, so rotating people out and bringing some new people in to balance the team with new ideas as well as experience is the way to go. and if someone has rotated out does not mean theya re done, maybe someone who was mod for cafe later comes back and runs business section.
as far as old members who have left due to how bad GS has turned into, there are 2 simple things. one is that there is some change which they will have to get used to unless it does not work out and we change it e.g. the layout. for some of the other factors, well lets just say its the beginning of the end for that. That is a diff topic and I am more than happy to discuss it with anyone but I would like to keep it seperate from this discussion.
lol. even in chat yesterday ppls were thinking GS hired me as their marketing manager
well instead of sending me $5 cheque, send me certificate, at least i can put it in my resume
but if you really wana send me cheque, please leave some space beside the digit 5
leaders are designers, and designers don’t consider anything irrelevant. it is your failure who cant make positive use of something and call it irrelevant instead.
for the past 60 yearz pakistan is waiting for “ghaibi” change, but what has happened..“nothing”.
instead ppl drained their iman, and picked up weapons.
cuz they never take responsibility, and cuz no one ever made them realize that they are responsible for so many thing (morally)
i usually dont follow the conventions, or at least i always try to show hyper-dimensions of specific aspect, so my experieces reveal that you should be looking for Revolutionary leader than Reforming one.
…but only God knows where you gonna find that one. hum quaid-e-azam k baad phiclay 60 saal say us ka intezar ker rahain hain
Determining leaders for gupshup based on # of posts is useless. This way we would have every little monkey and their cohorts as mods and admins. Bad idea.
There is a huge problem with group-bazi *and *tola-bazi *on gupshup... who are those individuals (*even some adults resort to such stupid practices), we've come to find out in past week or so.
Therefore, system where users pick moderators would cause more problems than solve any.
Moderators should be picked based on these things and not if they have more posts or if they are liked by other members:
Experience in their field / career
What they know about the subject
Their conduct
Resolve disputes objectively
Can they determine the difference between right and wrong?
Do they have the courage to call something wrong when it is wrong and even against their friends and personal interest?
Do they bend and flex based on what is good for themselves and their group of people (whom they agree with or share same interests)?
Users / members should not have any say in who the administration picks for moderating their website. The users are here to discuss and enjoy their time, not deal with administrative aspects and running the day to day activity/management.
Admins need to realize that mods can also make mistakes and often they do, therefore, the mod is always right and admin must take their side idea needs to be thrown out. The problem should not get to the admin but when it does, admins must look at the mod as well as the user through the same lens.
Failure of any online community starts when public polling is held where administration/management allows regular users and no bodys (often it would be those with multiple nick names here on GS) to pick who should moderate their website.
leaders are designers, and designers innovate..we are saying the same thing. if yoiu dont innovate then what you have will become irrelevent because someone else will innovate.
Inhabitants of status quo dont like revolutionary change
This is too long, can someone summarise what we are being asked to give our opinion on?
That if choosing of moderators be in the hands of regular members/users via some kind of election/Poll process... further if Admins can be chosen the same way...
What's your take on it, arshad ... I would like to read your thoughts on this :)
This is too long, can someone summarise what we are being asked to give our opinion on?
financial sustainability aside,
if the founders of the site were unable to run it
how would this site be run, could a democratic model work, and if so, how, if no, why not?
That if choosing of moderators be in the hands of regular members/users via some kind of election/Poll process... further if Admins can be chosen the same way...
What's your take on it, arshad ... I would like to read your thoughts on this :)
My personal opinion is choosing of a moderator is probably best decided by an appointed panel. There is a lot of politics on gs, and people on the panel needed to be selected based on their skills or maturity or impartiality. Also having more than one person make a decision will neutralise any biases.
Admins should be appointed based on their ability to contribute towards GS, either in terms of technical matters or management skills.
There is a lot of politics on gs, and people on the panel needed to be selected based on their skills or maturity or impartiality.
If we assume the part about politics is true, how can we appoint a panel without getting affected from politics? What route would you take assuming such a situation?
