Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 157 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

As I've noted here, I think MSO could use a little more moderation. The SO mods are extremely busy as we all know, and currently they have to deal with SO plus SO's meta questions plus all of SE's meta questions. The SE employees obviously help out a lot here but I think it would be beneficial for SO if the SO mods didn't have to do quite so much for "MSE", and beneficial for MSO if the SE mods were able to do more here.

This is all moot if MSO is eventually split, but until and unless that happens I think this would be a useful measure. A nice side effect would be seeing the diamonds next to the names of mods from other SE sites — that way I know when someone's position on an issue might reflect how things are actually being done on the network, without them needing to say so explicitly every single time. Unfortunately I don't have the list of all 200+ mods memorized :P

share|improve this question
Do we have an stats on time to resolve flags to see how MSO compares to other sites? Is it particularly high? I agree it would be nice to know if someone is a mod on another SE site, regardless of whether or not they have mod perms on MSO. – Servy Jun 27 '12 at 19:13
"seeing the diamonds next to the names of mods from other SE sites" Area 51 displays a gray diamond next to the name of a user who doesn't mod Area 51 but is a moderator on at least one other SE site. – BoltClock's a Unicorn Jun 27 '12 at 19:18
@BoltClock'saUnicorn That's really cool, must be newish? Or maybe I am just blind. – Matthew Read Jun 27 '12 at 19:21
We don't need all mods to have diamonds here... we just need to give one to Tim Stone. He answers most of the bug questions and closes all the things at the moment anyway, so... – The Unhandled Exception Jun 27 '12 at 19:22
@TheUnhandledException Lol, I would totally support that. – Matthew Read Jun 27 '12 at 19:23
We should start a campaign @Matthew! – The Unhandled Exception Jun 27 '12 at 19:24
Meta Stack Overflow already has 37 people who are eligible to moderate it, more than any other SE site. I think we're pretty well covered. – Robert Harvey Jun 27 '12 at 19:29
@RobertHarvey I should perhaps have been clearer that my goal is more moderation of Meta, not more moderators; I just thought the latter might help with the former. Certainly personally, I'm fairly invested in MSO and would like to assume my MSE moderator role :P. The other post I linked goes into more detail about "more moderation" so I won't do so here. – Matthew Read Jun 27 '12 at 19:32
Does MSO really need more moderation? What is slipping through the cracks that the current 19 moderators + SE staff haven't caught within, like, minutes? – user149432 Jun 27 '12 at 19:46
possible duplicate of The future of meta.stackoverflow and meta.stackexchange – jcolebrand Jun 27 '12 at 19:59
You're suggesting giving me noisiness privileges on another site? How could I say no? On the other hand how could anyone else say yes? – dmckee Jun 27 '12 at 20:02
Are you saying not enough questions are being closed as duplicates? – random Jun 27 '12 at 20:07
No sir.​​​​​​​​ – Matthew Read Jun 27 '12 at 20:11
Oh hells no.. – casperOne Jun 27 '12 at 20:48
Please don't put a diamond next to my MSO name, there won't be any place left for me to troll in peace. – Yannis Jun 27 '12 at 21:23
up vote 4 down vote accepted

Not until they finally get a chance to realize "" separate from "" (which I thought was supposed to have happened by now, but I can see it hasn't). That site, in my opinion, could use all the moderators just as chat does. Plus, it indicates that we have some responsibility on other sites, so that the "grand central meta" has input from all moderators (and all users, but so that people realize "oh this guy IS a moderator"). Seeing input from moderators and calling out their contributions to the network, to me, is recognizing what they do to help.

Until then, they should retain moderator status here as it is on every other site on the network (which means revoking some diamond status here until then)

idk, just my $0.05

FWIW: The future of meta.stackoverflow and meta.stackexchange

share|improve this answer
The MSE is still planned but delayed best I can tell – Ben Brocka Jun 27 '12 at 19:40
Yeah, I know, still a pisser that it hasn't been done. – jcolebrand Jun 27 '12 at 19:40
+1 -- The more fundamental problem is that Stack Overflow does not have its own meta. The network-wide meta should be moderated network-wide. Stack Overflow's meta should be just for Stack Overflow. – voretaq7 Jun 27 '12 at 19:42
Re: meta.SE -- at this point I'm of the opinion that mSO should just be cloned into mSE and then both sites mods can clean up the irrelevant junk. It would probably be faster, though dear god the database bloat! :-) – voretaq7 Jun 27 '12 at 19:43
@voretaq7 I don't think any amount of mods can effectively clean up two copies of 37,000 questions at once – Ben Brocka Jun 27 '12 at 19:52
@voretaq7 you missed the original discussion on this didn't you? Might wanna go trawl meta and find it. That is the plan, so to speak. (here it is, btw:…) – jcolebrand Jun 27 '12 at 19:55
"which I thought was supposed to have happened by now, but I can see it hasn't" Six to eight weeks. Obviously. – dmckee Jun 27 '12 at 20:03
@jcolebrand The last discussion I saw was the one you linked, which implied there would be mass tagging and a migration of the tagged stuff, but that seems to be stalled, or at least not moving as quickly as I'd personally like. A clone-and-clean-it-later approach means more initial cruft (won't someone think of the database!), but an instant split :-) – voretaq7 Jun 27 '12 at 20:21
@BenBrocka Quite possibly true, but there's no need to clean it up at that point because the (relative) crap stops accumulating: The instant split gives both meta communities their own litterbox, and mods can scoop and sweep the clumps at their leisure. Right now everyone's still scratching in the same sand which means the job keeps growing. – voretaq7 Jun 27 '12 at 20:23

There is something like having too many moderators. Let's take Chat.SE moderation, where all 200+ moderators have moderating powers. It might be exaggerated by the realtime nature of chat, but the high number of moderators pretty much breaks the moderation in cases that are not clear-cut. Only the fastest moderator gets to decide, anybody who thinks a bit about the issue is too late, someone else will have acted first. To a lesser extent something like this would also happen here on Meta with 200+ moderators.

In the best case, this just wastes the time of moderators that investigate flags that are already handled by another moderator. But it can also lead to conflicting actions on the same flag, which is just annoying. Unleashing 200+ moderators on a very short (I suspect) (50 flags per day, a bit larger than I thought) flag queue doesn't look like a good idea to me.

Another important aspect is that not all moderators are active on meta, you would be giving users moderating powers that are not familiar with this site, something SE intentionally avoids with the per-site reputation.

Disclaimer: I'm a moderator on Skeptics and Biology

share|improve this answer
The problem with chat is context, plus I think chat is a very different beast generally. Do you have any specific concerns about what would happen with more mods on MSO? I also have to disagree strongly with your second point -- mods don't have to participate here, true, but they do need to be familiar with how the network works overall. SO mods are no more qualified to handle SE network issues than SE mods. – Matthew Read Jun 27 '12 at 19:22
If you have too many users acting on the same flag at the same time, that is always problematic. The chance of collisions increases drastically with the number of moderators, for a site with few flags. It'll mostly be a waste of time for a lot of moderators who start to investigate a flag, only to notice a bit later that someone else already acted on it. – Mad Scientist Jun 27 '12 at 19:24
Moderators anywhere that are active on Meta are certainly qualified, but not all moderators are active here and we certainly don't need all 200+ of them. – Mad Scientist Jun 27 '12 at 19:25
OK, that's an interesting thought. Grant diamond status automatically to any SE mod who reaches 10k rep here, maybe? :P – Matthew Read Jun 27 '12 at 19:26
fwiw trilogy mods used to be grandfathered into MSO mods.. though this hasn't been so since the past year and half or so // @MatthewRead – Sathya Jun 27 '12 at 19:28
@Sathya Except the SO mods who still become MSO mods. – Adam Jun 27 '12 at 19:36
@AnnaLear yes, of course. – Sathya Jun 27 '12 at 19:38
50 flags a day is still pretty small. At least as of March 2012, Programmers got that and it was handled by 2 full time moderators. Even now they only have 4 full time moderators. – user149432 Jun 27 '12 at 19:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .