According to my question from a few hours ago we're potentially replacing our current moderators, which is fine, but it does make me wonder why we are only electing 3 moderators to replace the 4 that we currently have? (@chills42, @Guffa, @jrista, and @Rowland Shaw) Wouldn't it make more sense to at least try to maintain a consistent number of mods moving forward?

  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ Has any thought been given to spreading them around the time zones? \$\endgroup\$
    – labnut
    Commented Feb 9, 2011 at 12:30
  • \$\begingroup\$ @labnut Well, I'm in Europe, if that helps my case :) \$\endgroup\$ Commented Feb 10, 2011 at 21:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Rowland, Yes! In principle I think we need moderators in each of the three major zones, 1) American, 2) Europe, Middle East and Africa, 3) Asia. This would allow for timely actions and be more culturally inclusive. But I don't know what our user base is or their geographic distribution so this might be premature. I am sure though, that this will become necessary when our base becomes large and widespread. \$\endgroup\$
    – labnut
    Commented Feb 13, 2011 at 12:39

1 Answer 1


Three is the standard number of moderators for a graduated site.

There will be more elections in the future, generally yearly.

  • 10
    \$\begingroup\$ That's somewhat of a "because I said so" answer, isn't it? ;-) I'm just curious because it seems weird to have 4 Moderators Pro Tem and then have the 'official' elections where 3 mods will now be elected to do the work done previously by 4. I'm not running this time around so I'm not asking because I will have a "dog in the fight," per se, I'm just asking because it doesn't make a lot of sense to me and surely there must be a better reason why its being done this way than "that's just the way it's done, so get used to it." \$\endgroup\$ Commented Feb 8, 2011 at 5:23
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Jay I'd suggest that pro tempore mods are unproven and not self nominated, so you might need more just in case one doesn't carry through with the commitment involved. It does mean of course that at least one of the mods will no longer be... \$\endgroup\$ Commented Feb 8, 2011 at 19:02
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Why is it 'standard'? \$\endgroup\$
    – labnut
    Commented Feb 9, 2011 at 12:29
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ I actually think that having more moderators in the early stages makes sense, because there were less people with high enough reputation to manage the site properly. As more people have earned the ability to vote to close (3000 rep) and acquired access to the mod tools (10000 rep) there is less need for intervention be the moderators for normal activities. \$\endgroup\$
    – chills42
    Commented Feb 9, 2011 at 15:16

You must log in to answer this question.

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