Interview with Patrick O'Keefe on Managing Online Forums

No problem - thank you for having me.

From the perspective of a community administrator, I think it's natural to see a shift from where you do less stimulating of activity and more managing of the actual discussions and contributions.

As you grow, you'll have more to deal with, moderation wise. That's just the way it is. That's not to say you will no longer post or that you will no longer be trying to bring people in... but, once your community reaches that self sustaining level of activity, there is more for you to manage, more times where you will need to enforce your guidelines or policies, and the time needed to do those things has to come from somewhere.

No problem, thanks for asking them! :)

I'm not sure if this is from the perspective of the people who run LinkedIn (in that example) or the people who use LinkedIn. I'm thinking the former, but I'll tackle both.

No matter what type of community it is, chances are there are some standards for interaction, even if they be loose. Things like racist, sexual or other inappropriate comments don't have a place on a site like LinkedIn. Nor does copyright infringement, direct linking of images and the like. So, you have these policies and someone has to enforce them. Whether or not they have the title of moderator... there needs to be someone who is responsible for dealing with these matters.

You want to encourage users of the site to help by making it easy for them to report these things when they come up. And then you need to have someone who is reading these reports soon after they are submitted and is taking action.

So, "moderators" of some stripe definitely have a role, even if they don't play the same traditional role as a forums moderator.

That's hard for me to say because NNTP (and Usenet and similar) came a bit before my time and I haven't really had the experience with it.

I would like to think that this question relates to something else I've been asked a few times, which is "what is the future of forums?"

My answer to that is that... I don't know. If I could tell the future, I'd be rich. :) But, it makes sense that as more and more bandwidth into the home (and office) becomes available, video and audio will become more and more a part of our internet experience. And that will trickle down to forums. It already has through the use of embeddable YouTube clips and similar things.

But, at the core of online forums, it's hard for me to envision a time where people will not want to communicate, learn from, help and laugh with one another through a text based discussion, where they don't have to look the person in the eye or listen to them.

That was the draw of Usenet, that was and is the draw of online forums and, again, it's hard for me to see a time when it won't be a fundamental part of the experience.

So, is "community" different? Yes and no. Community is always changing and it's always staying the same. No, in that it's still built around those interactions. Yes, in that it's easier to associate yourself with people online through the advent of member profiles, social networking and all of those great things. Innovation improves it, but the foundation remains the interaction that has always been there.

There's something that some people don't consider "promotional" that is actually tied to any promotional endeavor you undertake.

And that is activity itself. Activity breeds activity. Not only that, but if you spend money on an ad campaign, but your site has no activity, you are doing yourself a disservice because you will not be realizing the full potential of your dollar by sending people to a dead site.

On forums, you get many more replies than new topics. There are obvious reasons for this, but there is also the fact that it's easier to reply than to start a new discussion. Some people feel timid or uncomfortable - at least at first. If you are paying to bring people to your site and your site doesn't have anything going on... a lot of people are just going to leave.

So, activity is important. Create a good product, make sure there is some activity and that search engines can find you. Unfortunately, there aren't any amazing, unthinkable tips for this sort of thing.

Interesting question. There are personality traits that can make or break a moderator. I've had moderators who simply did not like upsetting people and did not ever want to be the bad guy. That just doesn't fly.

I don't want to be the bad guy. I treat people with respect, I let them know what they did that got their post removed. But, I realize that my role as the administrator, as the leader, is to make decisions that, at times, will make me lonely. And my moderators have to understand this, as well. I want to be friends with my members, but I am not there to be their friends. There is a subtle, but important difference.

I'd like to think that they can be made with experience. I didn't wake up one day and think "Hey, I want to receive e-mails from people referring to me as the most evil dictator in history." :) I started managing forums when I was 15 and I found out, over time, that it was a part of my job.

Training wise, we do have a number of things in place because I don't believe in allowing moderators to simply remove whatever they want. I don't think that makes sense. The community has goals and it's important that everything that you do put you in a better position to realize them.

I actually just wrote an article for SitePoint on this (http://www.sitepoint.com/article/develop-forum-leadership). More or less (this answer is already long, I know! :)), it revolves around the following:

- Create staff guidelines that detail what their responsibilities are, how they must act, etc. Before you allow someone on board, show them these.

- Develop what I call a "situations guide" that outlines typical situations they may encounter on your forums and how to deal with them.

- Document all violations to your forums in a private forum I call a "problem users" forum. Every time a post is removed, every time a member sends me a slightly nasty PM, I document it here. I also document any replies to those same PMs as well as any and all action taken. This allows your moderators to see how things are handled and also provides you with an incredible, very important reference point should you need to make any decisions regarding a member's ability to participate on your site.

- Establish an environment of respect where your staff where moderators are comfortable asking questions. It should be a friendly atmosphere, not one where staffers critique each other.

- Don't be afraid to correct your moderators when they remove a post they shouldn't have removed. Be kind, tactful and understanding, but don't let things like this slide.

And, as well as maybe a couple of other small things, that is what I do.

Decisions like this are made based upon what a user has done on the community. To do this, we have a system of documentation that I referenced in the last answer (and in an article I wrote for SitePoint a few years ago - http://www.sitepoint.com/article/manage-guideline-violations). Basically, it consists of two forums.

Problem Users: A forum where every member we have ever had to take any action, of any kind with, has a thread. The thread is titled with their username. We list everything from username changes and removed posts to PMs they have sent members of staff they were questionable and the replies to those PMs.

So, for example, if Member X sends me a PM where they act disrespectfully, I post that PM in the thread along with my reply, if there was one. This way, staff members see exactly what they are doing. This leads to everyone being on the same page when a member is banned and staff members being supportive of the decision.

Trash Bin: Where all post we remove go. We never edit posts as it creates sloppy documentation, harder mistakes to correct and leads to staffers being looked at as proofreaders.

When it becomes clear to me that, based upon the information in their problem users thread, they need to go, I make that call. I handle bans on my sites. I feel it's best to limit banning "powers" to as few people as humanly possible.

The process by which my moderators handle a violation is as follows (and is outlined in the article I mentioned above):

1. Recognition of violation.
2. Removal of violation to Trash Bin.
3. Documentation of violation (in Problem Users: link to the removed post, violation committed, quote of violation and action taken, such as "PM Sent").
4. Action (sending a PM, etc.).

So, that's how we do it.

By the way, thank you to everyone who has submitted questions! :) Great stuff.

Book wise, besides my own (:)), I'm not sure. I haven't done a lot of book reading in the category to be honest.

Website wise, I enjoy the following:

http://www.onlinecommunityreport.com (not just because you are having me on for a chat!)
http://www.chrispian.com
http://www.commoncraft.com/blog
http://www.problogger.net
http://www.communityguy.com
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com
http://lifehacker.com
http://www.communityspark.com
http://www.communityanswers.com
http://www.sitepoint.com

I run a few resources as well:

http://www.managingonlineforums.com
http://www.managingcommunities.com
http://www.communityadmins.com

Thanks for the question.

I don't know if I want to say the three biggest, but here are a few that jump out to me:

1. Not having a focus. Don't try to be a community for everyone - that doesn't work. You need to know who your community is, what you want it to be, who you want to attract. Everything you do, from your infrastructure to your guidelines and how they are enforced should put you in a better position to accomplish these goals.

2. Worrying about numbers or quota. Just because you have X members doesn't mean you need X moderators. Don't try to rationalize discretionary decisions by enforcing statistics based on restrictions that you don't need to have. (I don't usually use that many long words in a sentence).

3. Let's go with thinking your moderators and staff (and you) don't have to like one another. "It's just business." But, it could just destroy you. Having differing opinions is fine - but, creating a culture of second guessing and constant criticism and flare ups is something you don't want or need. You want productivity.

Thanks for the question.

Sure, I think that's natural. Some topics are more conducive to discussions, as well. Say, for example, a pro sports discussion versus a forum on some sort of non-widespread disease. Does that mean the latter will be any less useful or important? Absolutely not.

Audiences that tend to be more computer capable will be more likely to participate in forums. I know that's nothing revolutionary! :) But, computer know-how plus a topic that's always buzzing generally equals more potential. Size wise, anyway.

Thanks for the question.

Hey Mr. Moore, thanks for the question.

No. Actually, I don't believe in those ratios. I believe in promoting and keeping good people when you have them. Of course, if this is a pay position, it's different because of the budgetary restraints, but for most forums with volunteer moderators, I don't like to enforce any sort of staff member ratios or formulas.

If I had 5 good moderators and we had good coverage, but there was a 6th person who was awesome, I'd bring them on. On the flip side, if I had 0 moderators and there was no one on the community that I felt would likely be capable, I'd go it alone. George Washington said (I may be paraphrasing) that it's best to be alone than in bad company. I believe that.

At a higher level, community manager role, I don't really know if I'd go with any ratios, either. I've seen huge communities effectively managed by one administrator. So, I think that should be dictated by need. No matter how many administrators or community managers you have, there should always be one that has the final say, if it's needed.

Yes, absolutely. Moderators must lead by example.

For most, your volunteer moderators come from your community. When I look to promote people, I want the ideal members. I want members who have not repeatedly violated our guidelines in a recent span and are a good example that all members can follow.

My moderators become leaders by showing other members how to positively contribute in the community.

This is a role that I take on myself, as well, to both members and staff. To staff, for example, I handle moderator duties when I see them. I never see a violation and say "Hey moderator, take care of this." I take care of it, just like a moderator would and should.

I think it's very important for moderators to set a good example for members.

Thanks for the question.

I think that if the moderator role is a part time job, then it makes sense. Most moderator roles are not - they have minimum requirements, and then the time the moderator spends at the site beyond that, is of their own choosing and enjoyment.

As far as specific rates, I don't have any experience there, unfortunately. Sorry.

Thanks for the question.

Well, for most forums, you have the basic Moderator > Administrator structure and that will generally work great. That's the place to start, for most.

When you reach a certain size as a community where you have so many members, you may want to look at creating a new level that is essentially powerless from a community software perspective. Besides posting and welcoming members, their main responsibility is to spot violations on your forums and report them so that moderators and/or administrators can take care of them.

As far as number of moderators, etc., it kind of goes back to what I said to an earlier question. At the start, I may bring on people I know. But, as the community grows, I'd look to bring people from the actual community, onto the staff. The ideal members would be invited to become moderators. If there weren't any ideal members that had spent enough time at the site, I'd take a pass on promoting anyone, however.

Thanks for the question.

Hey Rebecca. :) Thanks for the question.

It's hard for me to say. Much of it is the same. People interacting online. We have all of the cool new buzz words, terms and types of communities now... blog, social networking, and on and on.

The differences are in the innovation, but it'll always just be you and me interacting online, having a conversation. That's the basis.

Besides moderating mercilessly? :)

I haven't spent much time working on forums specifically for kids under 13, though I have had some on my forums and they are always welcome (with COPPA compliance, of course).

I think it's clear that with a forum dedicated to people of that age, you should feel a sense of responsibility to be highly proactive in discussions to where you want to err on the side of caution on everything, rather than allowing things to play out in situations that may not be immediately clear.

Of course, parents are still the one's that are ultimately accountable for their kids. So, you don't want to be the parent, but you want to give your best effort to be aware of what's happening in your neighborhood.

Thanks for the question.

Hey Jake. :) Thanks for the question.

This would differ from what I talked about before, as far as a powerless level of staff who reports posts, etc.

I don't know if I really like that position - where you are specifically telling people "you are the leader of members." Part of me likes to see people just be people and allow the good people to simply be the good example, rather than christening them in any sort of way.

I can see some value in it, but it is something I've steered clear from in my own forums because I like to see members just be members, while encouraging them to come to me if they have any thoughts.

No problem. It was a lot of fun. Thanks again for having me!