I have no idea where to place such a topic, so I am placing it here. It seems more like Board News than some announcement by a member that they may or may not be leaving.
To that end, since people seem disgusted recently by the actions of a few members of late and there has been a thread or two about changing the board, I was wondering about what sort of stats could be used to describe the health of a vibrant board and the efficacy of its administration and moderators. Not as "criticism", but as healthy discourse in which everyone tries to find the best for all parties involved.
While ruminating on this subject and the recent changes and happenings here, I thought:
How has the number of post by moderators versus non-moderators changed? It would seem to me that an increase in that ratio could be seen a problematic for a number of reason.
First, clearly it could be cause by the need for moderators to have to interject themselves into threads due to high rates of abuses of the rules which is something we all should want to minimize.
Second, it could also point to something I've witnessed on my boards, the beginning of a moderator board. A board that functions primarily to serve the communication needs of those members who have become mods. This often happens for real and obvious reasons. Those with the most time to spend on a forum accrue, if they please the proper people, enough clout to be given power. People "know" them as posters and "trust" them. But just cause someone has a lot of time and seems like a good poster doesn't mean they necessarily make for a good moderator. And an active mod often blurs the lines of moderator and poster.
To this point, when I first started posting here there were many active mods who rarely posted. That has changed. I would bet the number of posts by moderator to posts by non-moderator has gradually gone up and likely to rise more in the future.
I wonder what other numbers could represent the health not just "growth" of a board?