Looking at the current nominations, I am struggling to decide who to vote for, since at least 5 of the candidates in my honest opinion deserve to become moderators.

Considering that we have to currently replace 3 inactive moderators, should we increase the number of moderators positions to be filled to maybe 4 or 5?

  • 2
    Given you indicate there are three inactive mods that are being replaced, we can assume that after the election of three new ones we will be back to seven moderators (since looking at the about page, it currently shows seven)? So is this question more "is seven moderators enough?" or is it more "should we reward more than 3 users by making them mods?"?
    – DMA57361
    Commented Jan 19, 2011 at 13:15

3 Answers 3


We will always favor having regular elections over electing dozens of people in one "go".

You can expect yearly elections for the forseeable future, once sites reach adequate size to support them.


If we get three fresh mods in, I'm sure they will moderate with a fiery passion, only to burn out after half a year ;-) So perhaps it's more appropriate to have more regular elections instead!

However, I'd rather not see people get burned out, so having a superfluous amount of mods might make the work easier on everyone. Especially with a nice overlap in time, we should be able to keep the site clean 24-hours a day and have mod flags taken care of nearly as soon as they pop up, reducing the load on everyone.

That way mods can even spend some time on... well non-moderating stuff! Like answering questions, editing awesome community-faqs and such. Because there's a reason the rep of the current mods has been nearly stagnant ever since becoming a mod!

While I know Jeff prefers to have a limited amount of captains on board, I have a feeling that most of the nominees are (still) here, because everyone agrees on how this site should function! And as long as there's a benevolent dictator to make final decisions, I think we'll be fine!

So yes, get us even more support!

  • 1
    I agree with @IvoFlipse in that more regular elections may be a better solution... that way it's still done in a "competitive" spirit to bring out the best of the best. However there NEEDS to be more moderation as there is a greater volume of new users, questions and answers. Commented Jan 19, 2011 at 14:39
  • +1 I would also love to see more nominees given a chance to see if they got what it takes, rather pick 5 mods and drop 2 and be left with 3 than pick 3 mods and drop 2 and be left with 1. But it should be competetive as KronoS mentions as too many new mods at once might not be good for the site either... Commented Jan 19, 2011 at 15:53

There have to be losers in everything.

Throwing the doors to a flood of moderators without the necessary burning out of said fuses tilts the power too much in those diamonds.

We're not handing out awards for participation. We're condemning the excellence of these human exception handlers and spreading the load gently. If you can't spot a top tier from those running, they're not standing out as best as they could.

Three new moderators sounds like the right number.

  • If you can't spot a top tier from those running, they're not standing out as best as they could. While I agree completely, how should those who don't see the moderator dashboard judge this?
    – Ivo Flipse
    Commented Jan 19, 2011 at 22:49
  • For lack of standout visibility, isn't that where the endorsements and rallies come in? @ivo
    – random Mod
    Commented Jan 19, 2011 at 23:23

You must log in to answer this question.

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