Do you agree with MDMarra's linked assessment here, and do you think that anything can or should be done about it? If so, what?
I don't think it's an unreasonable conclusion to come to, but I don't feel like I have good enough data to really say one way or another. There seems to be some kind of natural ebb and flow to the question quality and content. We certainly have the weekly changes, there seem to be very few good questions over the weekend. More likely the quantity of less desirable questions remains consistent, but the more desirable questions drop off making the noise floor more visible. Over a longer time frame we'll see specific topics ebb and flow. I recall a time period where a significant number of, largely low quality, web server questions related to mod_rewrite seemed to be taking over. This resulted in Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mod_Rewrite Rules but Were Afraid to Ask?. Before that a long series of networking questions that were all answered by How does IPv4 Subnetting Work?.
Granted, those are cycles specifically related to topics, as opposed to overall quality. At this time, lacking good data, my gut is telling me something more cyclical is at play. To really be convinced I would need to see historic trends and some fancy graphs involving datapoints such as questions per day, close rates, close reasons, and overall voting trends. My hope is that the quantitative, for some definition of quantitative, analysis demonstrates that the overall quality has remained consistent. Given that the site appears to be increasing in volume that would definitely result in a larger amount of low quality posts, which are poor broken primate brains are more likely to remember.
If there does exist a problem fixing it is, without question, the hard part. Internally we can try to identify those users who have potential then guide and nurture them. In theory this could operate similarly to a mentorship, though in practice I'm not entirely sure on how to go about accomplishing it. What we definitely don't want to do is VtC, pile on the downvotes, and have a snarkgasm in the comments. I'm all for VtCing bad content, I am after all 3rd place in the Close Votes reviewer rankings. I just find that closing a question is generally insulting enough, there's typically no reason to spew vitriol in the comments as well.
The other option is to recruit contributors. Whether from your circle of friends, workplace, or other professional organizations. This way we can hand pick the community by selecting people who can type a novel from memory, such as EvanAnderson, or the junior members of our team who have the raw talent to do well. Personally I have learned a significant amount from from this site. Hell, I have quite frequently seen a question that I thought looked interesting, spent an hour or more researching it, testing/validating my answer, and then writing it up. All too often it seems like we get stuck in the "Oh, I know this!" mentality and forget that this site can be an excellent research project self-study program.
How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?
This is definitely a difficult question to address. Since if they actually are providing good content we want to keep them around, but if the overall culture of the community diminishes, or they are pushing away members, then something must be done. At the end of the day this is, after all, about communities not individuals.
The first step has to be to let the user know that while they are making a valuable contribution they are also generating a reasonable amount of tension within the community. If, after a discussion, and a warning or two, then temporary bans seem to be the most reasonable next step.
How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?
Talk it out with the moderator in question. I don't think we need to present a unified Wall of Mod front, but I do think we need to generally be in agreement on how to handle situations.
How would you deal with each of the following cases: A new user who is posting many off-topic questions (good quality, just not on-topic) | A new user who is posting many poor-quality questions (poorly researched, "do my work for me", or generally not up to the minimum standard of professionalism) | A user (new or established) arguing about a moderation decision | A user (new or established) harassing other users
- If the user is posting good quality questions then they're clearly someone the site should try to keep. If the issue presents as a pattern then we should probably discuss with the user about the FAQ and what other sites exist. It may be as simple as a misunderstanding on the nature of the StackExchange network, VtC Migrating the user as it were. Or discovering that the specific questions they want to ask are simply a poor fit for our format. In that case we should encourage them to stick around, maybe as an answerer, but it is better that someone leave here for Quora with a handshake rather than a kick.
- The question as asked implies that this person doesn't fit into the audience we want to attract. This is without question an appropriate time to pull out the closes and comments. If they don't respond to that then short bans would be the next step.
- Moderators are only human, and as such, make mistakes. Every moderator, or every user for that matter, should be willing to accept that any decision they make could be called into question and be found wanting. As such I would welcome any user to call me on an action. Just like at the office my only requirement is that any conversations start from a position of mutual respect. Alternatively, if the complaints were found in comment threads or similar on the site, and not directed to me, then I would ask another moderator to review it. Since it would be about me specifically then it would leave me in a conflict of interest so I would have to recuse myself. I may break that stricture if it was painfully obviously offensive.
What can we do to keep people like MDMarra engaged in the main site and not just chat? It seems like after a certain point, Q&A isn't enough for expert-level people. There needs to be design and architecture discussions to keep people at a high-level interested, but we all know that discussion is not allowed on main. Is chat part of the natural "evolution" here, or can something be done to the main site to bring people like me back to it?
I think of chat as an extension of the main site. ServerFault, chat.SE, and mSF are all separate but related. There have been times where a discussion in chat started out as a design or architectural review and resulted in a concrete on-topic question. I also recall several times where a new user asked a question on main that was closed as off-topic and somehow found themselves in chat to get a clarification on why. These then turn into the discussion that answers their original question.
Server Fault has long held itself to be "a site for professionals" - our FAQ specifically calls this out: "Server Fault is for Information Technology Professionals needing expert answers related to managing computer systems in a professional capacity." How do you define "in a professional capacity" in the context of this site? What minimum standards of effort/professionalism do you intend to encourage as a moderator?
The "in a professional capacity" line in there is definitely an interesting one. The last time the Great FAQ Rewrite came up there was significant discussion on how to restrict our audience based on job classification. I was quite interested in how that turned out because I am not a professional systems administrator, nor have I been one for nearly 10 years. I was, quite frankly, interested in that phrasing because I didn't want to find myself excluded from ServerFault because I am a full time Information Security Analyst and not a Systems or Network professional.
As it stands the language allows for non-professional administrators to ask questions so long as the environment their asking about would be relevant to a profesional administrator. I feel as though that accomplishes the goal quite nicely because it focuses on the content and not the contributor.
The other half is demonstrating professionalism. To me this really boils down to respecting your audience (in this case other contributors). Recognize that they're here for a whole smattering of personal reasons. They're not being paid to provide support and they're not being paid to spend their time on the site. As such we need to be respectful of their time and whatever effort gets expended. So don't ask questions that are clearly against the FAQ. Do some basic research on your own before asking, demonstrate that you're willing to expend your own effort answering your question. You are not entitled to an answer and you should appreciate the efforts other people are putting in on your behalf.
Similarly the other users need to be respectful of the person asking questions. If we assume they are here to be polite and have demonstrated willingness to learn, and this really should be our base assumption, then we should treat them as a colleague. No matter how matter how many times somebody stops by my office to ask the same question I will not tell them, "Go read the gorram documentation you fucking n00b!". While I am probably being paid to answer those questions, it is also a level of condescension and bile that is inappropriate in the workplace and makes you look like an unreasonable grumpus. We all laugh while reading the BOFH journals, but honestly he's a world class dick that deserve to be fired.
In the nominations, every candidate has focused on what would make him a good moderator, but one thing I'd really like to know is: Where do you want ServerFault to go and how do you plan to help make it go there?
ServerFault has already situated itself as a fantastic resource for information and, by way of chat, a wonderful place to network with other professionals. At this point getting the word out and attracting other bright contributors is the way to go. I encourage people that I know to visit the StackExchange family of sites as a resource for what ails them. I also tend to include references to ServerFault, and Security.SE, in talks that I give. It's all about the evangelism at this point.
Moderators have the ability to close questions without the concurring votes of other community members. In light of this, how (if at all) will you change the way you evaluate questions that might need to be closed?
I've been an extremely active close voter so I definitely feel like I have a reasonable feel for when things should get closed. As a mod, I would probably hang back a little further. In most situations, I think a mod's close vote should be at least 3rd. I know some users will throw a flag on a question, if they don't have close vote privs, so I also thing that should be taken into account. Definitely a hard hypothetical to answer, but very important to think about.
One thing I really like about this site is that a lot of the moderators tend to hang out in the Comms Room. This sort of "live support" is a lot more receptive in today's "instant" world versus email. While doing so is not explicitly required and nobody can expect a moderator to be available 24x7... Do you (as a potential moderator) think that this is a valuable way for a moderator to participate on the site, and why?
The chat environment is the only way, that I've seen, for users to actually talk to each other. While conversations do sometimes happen in comment threads it is strongly discouraged and just doesn't feel as fulfilling as an actual chat room. Chat also allows for users to ask for clarification, or dispute, an action in a much conducive manner than writing a mSF question. This is important for any community member that participates in moderation activities, but most important for election mods as they are the final arbiters.
What is not well known is that Moderators also have final authority in the /review queues. Once a moderator has picked something, it's out of the queue one way or the other. The vasty closed-queue was emptied in large part because our existing mod-staff stepped in and helped muck out the stables; otherwise it would have taken a lot longer. Now that the glut is passed, what is your policy for delving into the /review queues as a moderator?
I didn't realize, or don't remember learning, that this was the case. Lately I have been spending the majority of my involvement on /review so it will definitely change the way I monitor the site. I'll have to think about how I would go about modifying my workflow. This is definitely a good piece of information I'll have to consider.
