New or more resilient moderators needed

[bens]

I appreciate and join in Louis' and Carl's question, which I take to be a question to Brian about what can be done to improve/increase critiquing. But I also think the question is something each of us can also ask ourselves, rather than wait for the site to change its "system" somehow to improve things. The site provides tremendous access to each other. While system incentives and changes that encourage more critiquing would be great, nothing prevents each of us from critiquing and encouraging dialogues more ourselves in the meantime.

[bens]

I should also point out that Brian has allowed the "Five" experiment to proceed, and I thank him very much for that. I hope you all will excuse me for pointing to it as one example of what we can do for ourselves. Such things may make a modest difference, but perhaps such modest efforts repeated by different people over time can have a qualitative impact felt among wider circles than just those participating in them. Regardless, they're fun to try.

[._._z]

I'm less disappointed with moderators who give harsh opinions than those who

moderate immoderately. How about one moderator who repeatedly moderated posts

that aimed at one end of the political spectrum while letting a certain other class of

political commentary remain? Or the moderator of one forum who takes his grudges

into another forum? Or one forum moderator who becomes incensed when someone

asks him to support claims he makes about one camera's alleged superiority -- to the

extent that merely asking the question a second time resulted in a ban?

 

I was the subject of that last one, and I even discussed it with the former owner of

this website. (I wanted to discuss it with Brian but he'd changed his email address.)

Phil looked at the email thread and basically shrugged, saying that "The guys running

it don't listen to me."

[bens]

As the person with the <a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/4062848>Five</a> page in my portfolio, I feel compelled to respond to David a little, but I do not want to detour this thread much further and prefer to discuss the Five experiment after its run its month's course with whoever is interested in it, so to be brief:

<br><br>

-- I can't speak for others, but I did not intend Five to change things as much as to have some fun with others encouraging critiques and dialogues. If its been valuable to one person for that reason, its served its purpose as far as I am concerned. So I think your characterization of it as "futile" presumes too much about it.

<br><br>

-- Langage may be a limitation, as it is with almost any communication, but it is not a barrier. As a result of your similar comment in another thread, the page now has a statement about it posted in four different languages, including two volunteered by people besides myself. I invite you to provide translations for any language you feel should be expressed.

[jayme]

Hey fellows, I don't mean to sound sanctimonious but, let's get back on track.

 

Z- I find your statements intriguing. I can't really imagine you were banned just for mentioning a brand of camera different than what the moderator preferred. I've been around for a while & you're pretty famous for short, opinionated critique & comments. Are you sure your communication techniques might have been more of the reason for the ban? I'm just thinking out loud. I don't mean to hurt your feelings or anything, it's just you are pretty famous to those that have been around for a while :)

[bens]

David, others, I meant to post my comments in another thread (and thought I did, actually), but mistakenly put it here, where it doesn't belong. Moderator, please if you could delete it and this here, I would greatly appreciate it. Very sorry!

[bens]

I mean specifically the entry "Re: David's Comments About Five" a few above this. Thanks.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> I can't really imagine you were banned just for mentioning a brand

of camera different than what the moderator preferred

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

That's not what I said. What actually happened was that a moderator said that a

specific model from a brand he favored was at least as comparable as Canon's top-

line, full-frame model. I asked what he meant by comparable and the post was

deleted, so I reposted the question and fleshed it out -- asking if he meant that

image quality was at least as good at large print sizes, and if it wasn't, what was he

specifically referring to. That reposting of the question resulted in the ban, for what

the moderator absurdly called 'asking for a dictionary definition' <p>

 

Since you asked.

[jayme]

Z- thanks for stating your side of the story. But as you know, there are 2 sides to every story, I'm wondering what the other side's story (rational) was? I agree, if this is all there was to it, you have been treated miserably.

[lex_jenkins]

Michael, BD ... wow. Thanks, seriously. After getting my butt chewed on for a misinterpreted comment a few days ago I needed a pat on the back.

 

As a moderator of the b&w forums and co-moderator-on-hiatus from the Nikon forum, I can try to offer one limited perspective. I don't pretend to speak for other moderators.

 

I'm not an expert. There's one theory that moderators should be experts in the forums they oversee. That might be possible in some forums but it's impractical for b&w photography. The field is so diverse very few people could claim expertise in every area. Anyone who does have such expertise is probably too busy to moderate - the handful of folks I can think of who have such wide ranging knowledge spend their time writing for publication. I'm knowledgeable about a few things that interest me and try not to B.S. my way through the stuff I don't know. Instead I try to cultivate real experts who will participate regularly and keep things informative, interesting and even lively. Mostly I do that by respecting their expertise and not interfering with the flow of discussions, as long as reasonable decorum is observed. Even that isn't always easy.

 

For various reasons I don't actually participate on the b&w forums as often as I used to. For one thing, I can't sit comfortably at the computer for more than 30 minutes at a time most days due to back and neck pain. For another, we have enough members eager to participate that I don't think it's necessary to "seed" the forum to keep things going. And I'm concerned that if I participate too much it gives the appearance that I'm trying to dominate the forum.

 

As a Nikonista I'm strictly a dilettante. My practical experience is limited to the four bodies and relative handful of good lenses I own. All I know about other models I got from handling them for 15 minutes in various shops. It's embarrassing how often I'm wrong about features on models I don't own. So I tend to engage in exchanges of opinions more than I do on the b&w forums. If I happen to know the answer to a technical question that can't be handled better by 10 other folks, I'll pitch in. If I've discovered a trick that might help someone else, I'll mention it. But I'm just an enthusiastic user, not an expert.

 

I participate in some other forums, mostly because I'm there to learn, not teach. I find it easier to learn when there's some give and take so I don't just lurk. But I do a lot of Googling first.

 

However, I'll admit, this is risky. Because I'm a moderator on a few forums I sometimes get the impression that others think I should be an expert on every forum on which I participate. So if I make some boneheaded remark out of innocent ignorance I occasionally receive prickly replies from some folks. I get a regular taste of the same stew as everyone else here.

 

If anyone thinks they'd like to take a shot at moderating (and not just take shots at the moderators), try this first: Engage in every thread in which there is any controversy. Reply to every comment with which you disagree. And do it all without ever once making an offensive remark, whether deliberately or intentionally - especially after someone else has said something that offended you. If you can do this consistently for six months and make no more than 5% offensive comments, you might be ready to tackle moderating. But it's tougher than it seems. You have to be willing to occasionally swallow your pride and try to ignore hurtful remarks made by others for the sake of preserving the general peace. And you must be aware that even when you don't intend to offend anyone, someone will invariably take umbrage at seemingly harmless remarks you've made.

 

Also, you should question your motives. If you want the job because you think you'd make a good leader or good moderator, you've probably already lost. However if you're willing to tackle the job because you enjoy the place but *somebody* has to sweep up the cigarette butts and beer cans after the daily parties, maybe you could tolerate the job without going nuts. But if you're like Eric Cartman and go around hollering "Respect mah authoritah!" you'll probably receive frequent wedgies from forum members.

[jayme]

Lex- the requirements you have stated sound about like any general requirements of a "Supervisor" in just about any job field. And just like any supervisor, some are good at it some are not. That's the job of their supervisor to teach them how to handle situations such as you described. If after a reasonable period of time they do not improve & the complaints continue by the workers, the "supervisor" is removed. Some people were meant to supervise, some never were.

 

Having been both a middle supervisor & an upper level supervisor, I saw it all the time. Continuing knowledge & really enjoying your job are the keys!