I occasionally moderate QF. I do not admit to being consistent. Sometimes I give people the benefit of the doubt and leave their question open, other-times I internally chastise them and vote close without a second thought, and I occasionally form a coherent thought process and make a decision. I only detail this since I suspect other moderators are on the whole more or less similar.

Coupled with a potentially small pool of active moderators is the requirement of 5 votes to close a high bar? Indeed, I have no statistics at all and might be wholly mistaken, but I suspect if someone were to produce a (should have been closed / actually closed) ratio it may be quite low whereas an (almost closed/ actually closed) might be significantly better.

I suppose it raises a second point, which is if the goal of the site is to attract more high quality Q&A, should be doing a better job of separating the wheat from the chaff? I don't know the psychology of social network aggregation so I can't help out with this one either.

  • $\begingroup$ I should probably go through the review queue to wield my veto power (just did) more often but since the change in design it's never obvious to me that there is exactly anything in there :( For now, I don't think it's possible to change it. $\endgroup$
    – Bob Jansen Mod
    Jul 23 '18 at 17:56
  • $\begingroup$ @BobJansen with that comment in mind, and having just read up on the role of moderators should the list of moderators be expanded? I can see there are only 3 currently and 1 of those hasn't even logged on since mid June $\endgroup$
    – Attack68 Mod
    Jul 24 '18 at 17:14

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .