@patricksweeney I can't. I have no idea, how is being a mod anywhere. This is why I asked this question - this hypothetical effect may play an important role in the community management.

@Ramhound Welcome my old friend! :-) The current two close votes are about opinionated, and not about off-topic. It seems, you are representing a minority view in this community.

@AdamLear What a mod of a small site would more likely do.

@Ramhound It is a good question - but an entirely different one.

I think the general tendencies (for example, number of flags to handle / day) are enough objective to challenge the opinionated-ness of this question, particularly considering Won't very useful comment.

@Won't This is a very good answer! Exactly this is what I wanted to know. Thank you very much! So sad that this post will be deleted :-(

@fbueckert The goal is to have a little bit more clarity in this, possibly very important effect of the mods to the growth (i.e. time derivative) of their sites. I think it is a very important topic, maybe even too important for a single, public question. I think it depends mainly on the communities, however the communities are lead ideally by the mods. And being everybody (mods and community members) free contributor here, all is determined by their motivations.

As a mod of various sites from very small to medium (I don't mod any of the huge ones) I can say your question makes no sense and your assumption regarding keeping sites small is so far off the mark I can't understand how you even came up with it. There is no "better" - everyone likes different things. Toy have had sufficient conversations with mods over the years that you cannot honestly expect this to be a valid question.

@RoryAlsop I find your answer very informative, particularly that it matches also Won't's, despite that I can't understand your last sentence.

Apologies - I blame using a small phone screen to write it while walking. "Toy" should read "You"

@RoryAlsop No, I can't understand a lot, not in the mods and not in the communities. For example, the most trivial thing would be, in the life of all the websites, overall on the world, that it want to become bigger, better known, with larger user base and so on. Contrary that, the site stats are somehow a non-issue for the mods and also for the more influental users, for everybody. It is a non-issue!!! Check, for example, this. This stat is the kiss of death!

@RoryAlsop But check also this. Do you know what shows it? It shows a community working actively to avoid its growth by expelling its users. WTF? How is it possible? If I try to talk about it, that mass of bullshitting what they gave to me, you couldn't imagine! Why? How?

@RoryAlsop This is, for example, what I don't understand. It is totally surreal for me. Why the heck they have to harm their own site?

@RoryAlsop And, why the SE doesn't do anything?

How on Earth do you get that? Your problem seems to be that you don't analyse data correctly, or you make weird assumptions that are just wrong - and you tend to not listen to the folks on each site who try to guide you.

Why do you think there is harm being done there? Why do you think mods/community want to harm their site? Why do you think bigger is the main target? The reason I have so much difficulty with a lot of your posts on meta is that they are just so completely wrong.

Remember Occam's Razor, and think about which is most likely - hundreds of other people are wrong, or you are wrong...

@peterh even the graph you have grabbed from Data Explorer doesn't show that

not even slightly

@RoryAlsop Occam Razor says, they are simply ignoring the long-term goals of the site, they have a zero interest or knowledge of their own group interests

@peterh nope.

They are actively improving the site, through helping moderate content

@RoryAlsop And that the SE ignores this whole problem because the Stack Exchange site network doesn't make for them money. Only the job SE makes money for them.

They have a lot of interest, same as mods on all the other sites

@peterh no - once again you are completely wrong.

SE does not ignore "the problem" - you are the only person who thinks this is a problem

The rest of us are a bit baffled by why you continue to think this way about so much of what mods do

I personally cannot tell whether you are just very misguided, or actively trolling

Literally everything you post about mods is wrong

@RoryAlsop Wait. A site whose question count increase 3x in a 2 year period, but it kills so many questions, that its makes its stat stagnating, and it is not a problem??

@peterh number of questions is not the top goal!

@RoryAlsop Because I don't understand them and don't get answers, what remains are the suspictions. Using Occam's razor

You have been pointed at meta sites on this before

@peterh You get loadss of answers and every time you disagree or ignore them

hence why I tend towards thinking you actively troll

Quality questions and answers is the goal. Way above number of questions. So we are encouraged to close and delete low quality posts

It's very explicit

You need to rethink what you see as drivers - for SE, for mods, for sites

Because you seem to get it very wrong

@RoryAlsop Yes, this is a strong a argument. Improving quality, attracting high level content and high level users, making the site well-known and well reputated with it. To get yet more, this time already HQ content. This would be an understable and maybe useful strategy, but no one says this!!! They are bullshitting!

Practically all of them!

@peterh Everyone says this

You don't seem to accept it. We all seem to manage this fine, and it isn't BS

No. They are producing false stats, and they don't talk about anything like their longterm goals, about their concepts, visions, ideas, NOTHING

If you are so convinced everyone but you has this wrong, what keeps you here?

@peterh hashahahahahahahahahaha

@peterh SE is the most open company I have ever seen in terms of what they are trying to do, what is being implemented etc.

@RoryAlsop Check, for example, this a*e: chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4254/7008

And us mods - we aren't SE. We don't get paid. Or rewarded (if you exlude th eodd t-shirt)

I see stats both generated by SE, and by external statistical tools - and they match up very well

You sir are beset with a strange and unfounded paranoia

@RoryAlsop He became so angry from my stats (probably he also called it on his own site, showing that they are on the best way to the collective site-suicide), that he generated false stats and a bullshit argumentation

@RoryAlsop Yes, this is why the non-financial motivations are crucial

@peterh dude - listen. You are very wrong. I don't know why you have this mindset, but you are very wrong

@peterh no - they aren't

It literally doesn't matter at all

If mods do something wrong, so many eyes can see that it cannot be hidden

But it doesn't mater why a mod wants to mod

I like to give back in areas where I have far too many years of experience

@RoryAlsop The motivations of the mods? Well, their power is actually not so big, the SE holds them on a short leash. Sometimes a little debatable deletions, suspensions are okay but they actually don't have too much power to change a site.

Same thing I do outside SE - I coach and mentor various folks

I have a strong paternal instinct

@RoryAlsop You are the only mod who actually talks with me. Most of them ignore my posts (and probably vote them down)

@peterh Well - I am very patient. Like I said, I'm mostly of the opinion you are a troll, but the small possibility you are just very misguided or confused gives me hope I can help you

@RoryAlsop No. On the sites, no one communicates clearly long-term goals. It is somehow a taboo.

@RoryAlsop Practically no one communicates concepts and strategy. Btw, in a free voting system, where everybody has its own ideas and strategy, a collective strategy can't really exist.

@peterh No - they are written down very plainly - seriously. They have always been there. SE is very straightforward about this.

@peterh Alternatively, nobody voting does it because of a strategy

There is no need

Votes are to show what you personally think of the value of a particular post.

That is it

nothing more, nothing less

If you are feeling helpful and want to improve a post, great, but it isn't required

nobody needs to have any long terms goals in regard to a site

So they are bored, the professionals are bored on the beginner questions and close them all. Then the site stat start to decrease, and anybody complaining about it, gets the "troll" label

A huge proportion of people only visit a site once

@peterh Yeah, nope. That also does not happen - a) there are tools which pick it up if even just one person tries that, and b) why on earth would anyone do that

@peterh you get the troll label because you ignore everything people have told you countless times

Why do you think you know better? Do you honestly think everyone else lies to you?

@RoryAlsop Because they are simply bored, and they await from the beginners to communicate in the form what would be possible only after a long SE experience.

That is not a healthy mindset

@peterh If people are bored they leave

The really good thing about moderation and automated tools here is the control of griefers and trolls

@RoryAlsop Not obviously, it is not always so.

@peterh yep - we get odd blips, but we deal with them.

@RoryAlsop The SE could have warned me that I am near a network-wide ban, or they could have banned me without a warning. They didn't do, why? I have no idea.

So - you have found one of the few mods who will speak to you. Please use this opportunity to listen, then.

@peterh We always try to help people first

It's the nice thing to do

We could just block folks straight away (which is what we do if people are really offensive, spammers etc)

@RoryAlsop Maybe they think, that I am in fact not troll. Or I am not so important. Or I am not so annoying which would it deserve. Or I am, but they think I had numerous useful contributions network-wide

But if you aren't a troll then you are just very confused

@peterh any of those may be true too

@RoryAlsop Yes, because I see the many good content closed with b*t reasons

But if you become too much hard work, then a suspension may just happen to help the rest of the community enjoy being here

@peterh you think that

@RoryAlsop My paternal instincts start to wine and get angry, if I see a good post closed with a b*t reason.

@peterh so if you think it is a bad reason (and remember you may be wrong, or right) then use the tools available.

@RoryAlsop This way my only reason to start to fight, because it was a fight, for my first 3k account. Since then I collected many other.

There are reopen queues

@RoryAlsop Oh yeah, I do. :-) And I make many enemies with it

@peterh It's not a fight. And rep is not a thing. It's a mostly meaningless number which says you post things other people think deserve an upvote

@RoryAlsop Of course, mainly I am voted down, but I produce a continuous pressure and I can make the sites a little bit lesser evil

@peterh use the queues properly. Don't make everything a fight. If I think a post should be reopened, I click that link. If enough other people agree, it gets opened. If not, it doesn't. That's it

@peterh honestly - to me it looks like you make it a little more evil, by being divisive, argumentative, paranoid andoften not nice to others

@RoryAlsop Yes, it was. If you, as an ordinary commoner, wants to get answers to your questions, and help others with your answers, that is ok. But if you start to work on to get some privilege... for example, 3k.... people somehow start to feel it and you will be in a strong downwind. It is site-dependent, how strong, but always.

@peterh that - literally makes no sense

@RoryAlsop No, I don't vote always "reopen/leave open", which is obvious crap, also I vote to close/leave closed... but probably I am the most active most lenient VtC/VtR voter on the network.

@RoryAlsop And I also tend to help the beginners on the meta sites.

@peterh based on what I know of you from sites I mod, nope - not even close

@peterh that's good

Also try helping the community as a whole by cutting back on the "OMG mods and SE are evil, and everything they do is bad"

@peterh having read through that post. His stats are good. And the numbers stack up well.

@RoryAlsop No, I long don't think that the mods would be evil. 1) it doesn't matter how evil they would be, because they are on a much shorter leash as the commoners. Their practical impact is not much higher as any 20k+ users 2) they have a strong behavior to represent some tiype of a "community consent" which makes them typically peaceful

@peterh so now I'm even more confused by your behaviour

Most of your posts are very anti SE, anti-mods and anti-community

@RoryAlsop And 3) I fighted a lot on the MSE and on different site metas, and in the chat, and I think the mods are far from being the worst. I think the worst are the people who want to become mods

@RoryAlsop Yes, on the metas. My activity on the main sites are, imho: 1) strong positive contributions network-wide 2) lenient moderation, beginner helper

@peterh most people don't want to become mods. And those of us who are mods once wanted to become mods (except a couple of my sites where I was asked, I guess)

@peterh excellent - that is a good set of behaviours

so maybe it's just the metas where you cause more pain for folks

3) often active fight to save questions

maybe if you laid off the metas you'd be happier, and folks would be happier with you?

I do the meta activity to make the sites better.

I risk a lot with it. The SE can think any time that it was enough and give me a 10 year long network-wide ban, for example, for "trolling"

There are at least 2 sites, where the mods continuously, carefully watch everything what I do, and if they can suspend me, they do.

On any reason.

@peterh there is a difference between good meta activity (eg "this question got closed, I have edited to improve it, can anyone else help so it can be reopened") and bad meta activity (eg "Chemistry is deliberatley evicting users and closing questions" - slightly paraphrasing)

It also happened once, that one of the mods called me "passive agressive" in a mod message. And later, another mod (of a site where I am not registered) called me similarly "passive agressive" in a meta SE fight.

@peterh No - you make yourself very obvious to mods. I can't help noticing your posts because they are so inflammatory in many cases.

@peterh That is because you really really are

You are incredibly passive aggressive

You almost perfectly fit a certain kind of troll profile

So I'm not surprised you are close to a suspension or ban

And you know this, yet you keep on with the same behaviours

No. Against the content destruction and the expelling of the good-standing newbies, I am actively agressive

Which is what puzzles me

In other aspects, I am not agressive, I am lenient.

I don't think that I would be "passive agressive" in any sense.

I actually risk a lot to help and save others.

@peterh I disagree. You do not support those who help improve content here. You do not work to build a more supportive community - despite obviously wanting to, and perhaps trying to. Instead you help widen the gap between high rep folks and new folks

@peterh You do it an a way which works against you and the community, and you don't even see it

You are divisive

Because a large partof high rep folks are actively working on to expel the new ones.

ALmost as if you actively try to foment revolution

@peterh No they aren't

I say what others don't say in the fear of the downs and the reactions.

They try to remove poor quality questions

@peterh Nope - you say what you think. And I think you are very misguided, sadly, and you do more damage than good

Uhm, if you would know, how many good posts had been long killed if I don't intervene... and how many good posts were killed because I couldn't do anything

...because bored old site members are clicking "close", "close", "del" brainlessly.

@peterh Weirdly, as a mod, I would have a good handle on that type of thing. And I see people who do a much better job at it, because they don't cause fights. Instead they work with the communities they are in, not against them.

@peterh No site actively works to remove new users. We all work to remove poor quality questions. A smaller number work to improve poor quality questions and make new folks welcome. Which is as you'd expect. It takes more time and effort.

Yes, they vote always with the majority and if they say anything, it is always what the majority say. I am curious, if they have an own opinion...

And as everyone here is a volunteer, we cannot demand they spend a particular amount of time on tasks

@peterh you have that backwards, dude - that majority is simply the collection of all the individual opinions

We always have disagreements, but they don't matter - voting evens out to the majority

It is a very comfortable behavior, zero risk, we only see silently as others are being harmed... sometimes we help the destructors, with silent close / down /delete votes

Exceptions are handled through reopen votes, edits that automatically put a post back into the reopen queue etc

@peterh nobody is being harmed!

this is a bunch of posts on the internet

Sometimes I am thinking about, where would I be now, if also I do this. Maybe I would be a well-known and popular network-wide contributor

@peterh all votes can be silent

that is by design

@peterh dude, your perception of SE is rather messed up

Killing others posts does not harm them? Hm.

nope

I felt it always harmful

somehow

I have had various of mine downvoted, especially when I was new

They were not good posts

But they were just some writing I put online

They are not important in any way

Clearly bad posts should be killed, first as protection of the site and the community, and second, because the OP needs a lesson

This is what also I do

If you feel posts should not be downvoted or deleted, then help edit them, and help guide newbies to the guidance

Check my voting stats, I give much more ups than downs, but also I give a lot of downs, too.

But don't get hung up on this

@peterh Good

I see various posts hit HNQ that don't deserve the upvotes, but in reality it doesn't matter

For example, on the SO, I gave around 10000 ups and maybe 2000 downs until now. I created 100000 rep. :-)

I see posts that have died but I think they are good. That too doesn't matter. I place my upvote, or edit improvements, but if the community doesn't agree with me, it doesn't matter

@peterh and that's fine

that's what everyone does

And, I am the few ones who got the steward badge in all the 8 review queues. The gratitude of the community? 1 year review ban, because I failed some review audits

@peterh that isn't because of lack of gratitude. And a 1 year ban is not because of failing audits - unless you failed a hell of a lot

But to be fair, if you are failing a lot of audits, then you are doing reviews wrong so should stop

I failed hell a lot. But from a hell a lot of reviews I did.

@peterh Loads of other folks do loads of reviews and don't fail audits

The mod has seen the lot of failed audits, and ignored the lot of reviews I did. So, he punished me. Again evil.

Paying attention and doing them right is far more important than doing many

@peterh it doesn't matter how many you did if you fail loads - you should not be failing loads. The fact you did makes us concerned about all the others you did.

1) Many of the review audits are false, it is a regular topic on the meta SO 2) I often knew, that the majority of the voters would vote to close, but I intentionally tried to save the post. I did not vote with the majority.

This is the ultimate sin. Killing many salvagable posts from pure boredness and hostility, it is not a problem.

Voting and saying anything against the majority, it is the ultimate sin.

@peterh you think that. I beg to differ. People who think they are false are almost always just butthurt about failing.

Anyway, I'm not sure if you are taking any of this in - I feel like it is always the same conversation. You have your own agenda and aren't listening to someone patient enough to try and help you understand why and where you are wrong.

I'm going to go and do other things with my time now

Please re-read this whole conversation, and the others we have had, and try to open your mind to the fact that you are misguided.

Bye

I have a different opinion, and I have the spine to communicate it.

Sad, but so is it.

I think, the site strongly requires people like me.

Good work!

@RoryAlsop Btw, this is what makes us different: "I place my upvote, or edit improvements, but if the community doesn't agree with me, it doesn't matter" <- I think, in such a situation, also the community needs a fix. Or at least a clear sense, that their views are not the only possible.

This is what I give them. :-)

@peterh False stats, huh?

@fbueckert OMG, please find a way to avoid me...

Well, I think I'm with @RoryAlsop on this one. Arguing with you isn't constructive; you push your agenda and ignore all evidence to the contrary. So, I'm just going to go with, "You're wrong, and I vehemently disagree with you."

@peterh Dude, you're the one who wanted to talk in chat.

@fbueckert I typically don't ignore people, but this time I make you exception.

I had walked away.

@fbueckert Bye.

@RoryAlsop Btw, a healthy site should works like a pyramid. Professionals should care the lesser professionals, lesser professional people should care the enthusiasts, enthusiasts the absolute beginners. If professionals, vehement, power-hungry professionals are rampaging becase they feel the site overflown with crap, the result won't be a "clean" site, but a dead site.

@peterh true. But luckily that isn't what is happening. In fact it's mostly the opposite, with professionals supporting everyone, all the way down to brand new users. In fact the greatest support comes from that very high rep group on most sites I see.

@RoryAlsop And also they kill the most content.

@RoryAlsop Which could be much better handled by the intermediate levels.