Trial Period for mods Options

[*tripvertigo*]

in addition to the regular hiring process, i think that there should be some kind of trial modding period for the best candidates...

because obviously you could mod someone and they could do a freaking horrible job. what are you going to do? demod them two weeks later? or just bear with it for the next couple of months? that's sort of f**ked up.

[*SayBloodyMary*]

A defined period probably wouldn't be a bad idea.

Actually, come to think of it, I like this idea, because it means we could be more open to hiring people about whom we have specific, albeit maybe minor concerns. Then we see if they are justified.

Or, we could hire a bigger group, and then retain the best after the trial period.

This deifinitely merits discussion.

[*Michelle*]

Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. Maybe to go through with one candidate at a time (or two)... having EVERY candidate at the same time would be ridiculous, though; there wouldn't be enough to do.

Though, if they were doing a completely shitty job, I don't see why the rest of the staff would have a problem with firing them. shrug*

[*IVIike*]

I'm torn on this. i think maybe say they needed 5 new mods they give their top 7 choices "mod trial" or whatever and the 5 that do the best job get to be mods. I dk I'm just thinking out loud

[*IVIike*]

I am saying though make a decision of the top first don't just let everyone who applies have it... that might mess stuff up

I think 90 days is way too long maybe a week

[*IVIike*]

actually Suzzette i agree with you i don't necessarily think an announced trial period would be good because as she said they might just slack off once they are hired. I dk as i said i'm torn

[*IVIike*]

oh my bad lol i had a phone call so i didn't even notice

[*Steven*]

I think the idea of a mass mod then pick the good ones will be kinda lame. Everyone will be acting differently knowing that they'll be picked if they stand out as one of the better ones. Then everyone will try to mod things, when quite often things are better left untouched, and mods should only get involved when things get terribly out of hand to the point where people are no longer poking fun or are getting very angered etc.

[*souperstition*]

I'd just like to point out that we shouldn't have a SET number of people who are gonna get cut. That's why we don't have "slots" to fill during hiring sessions, we just hire when necessary. I wouldn't mind seeing a preliminary period of like two weeks after someone is hired where they can be up for review and it's sort of a pass/fail thing.

Again, it should be discussed more to figure out the details, but it's not a bad idea. We'd have to be serious about it, though - the way it is now, if someone messes up on staff more than what should be allowed, the tendency is to shy away from actually doing more about it than sending them a couple of PMs.

Adding onto what Steven said, we should have the same method of hiring - choosing someone on the basis of, "Well if they mess up we can just kick them off.." is pretty unprofessional. We should still be pretty sure about it before we decide to give them a shot.

[*SayBloodyMary*]

I think the idea of a mass mod then pick the good ones will be kinda lame. Everyone will be acting differently knowing that they'll be picked if they stand out as one of the better ones. Then everyone will try to mod things, when quite often things are better left untouched, and mods should only get involved when things get terribly out of hand to the point where people are no longer poking fun or are getting very angered etc.

That occured to me, too. i was kind of just throwing the idea as a suggestion, because it came to me as I was typing my original response.

I do think that just a basic period (90 days is WAY long, though, I agree with that) where the newbies can get a hang of things, and we can see how well they may or may not be doing is a good plan.

[*superstitious*]

I'm going to respond to a few things -

90 days is too long for a moderator position. True, that is the general standard in the workforce, but it shouldn't be for an internet site that people are essentially volunteering their time for.

2 weeks should suffice, but how would the "performance" (for lack of a better word) be measured? Moderating actions just isn't a good way, in my opinion. Just because a staff member doesn't close the most topics or create the most new versions of topics doesn't mean that they aren't doing a decent job. So how one would be evaluated needs to be looked at.

And yes (to Dani and Steven), hiring shouldn't be looked at in the sense of those hiring having the mentality of "well, if we f**k up we can just let them go" nor should people hired be doomed from the beginning or paranoid about staying on board.

[*SayBloodyMary*]

Rebs does bring up a good point in that there is a difficulty in finding a way to measure success that would be concrete...

Does anyone have any strong suggestions about how best to go about that?

[*karmakiller*]

This was talked about on another forum that I used to go to. I think it's a good idea, but there's also the fact that if they're on the trial period they might just work really hard until they get hired and then slack. There's still ways to monitor how involved a member is with helping the site without them being on a mod trial period. There's obviously those who don't become very active until around a hiring time. I'm not too sure whether to think this is a good idea...

[*tripvertigo*]

maybe a better idea would be for there to be some kind of moderator review after a random amount of time (not too long after the mod is hired).

then he/she wouldnt know they were being watched, and would act normally.

So like maybe the admins/headstaff could make up a schedule (hidden from the rest of the moderating staff) where they pick a day where they get together and discuss a particular mod's activity. these reviews shouldnt be scheduled too closely together, and should be kind of random.. yknow what i mean?

[*souperstition*]

That's not a bad idea. I wouldn't mind discussing things like this in the boardroom, as long as everyone agreed not to get huffy or freaked out over the whole "am I under review?!" thing. Obviously, this is something that wouldn't be shared with them, and they would have to be okay with that. Anyway, with some discussion it really wouldn't hurt to give it a shot.

On the other hand, I'm still sort of with the mentality that if we hire someone and realize they're not cut out for it, we shouldn't be afraid to actually just DO something about it.

Oh, and so nobody thinks I'm on a power trip or going all DANI SMASH on people, I'm using the general "we", y'all, I realize I'm just here to give advice. ;)

[*tripvertigo*]

On the other hand, I'm still sort of with the mentality that if we hire someone and realize they're not cut out for it, we shouldn't be afraid to actually just DO something about it.

well doesnt this kind of ensure that if you dont like the job theyre doing, you CAN do something about it?

[demolished]

How about this?

Only old member who were active can try out?

[*souperstition*]

Are you saying, then, that people who might not be considered "veterans" wouldn't be considered for staff? I can see requiring that they've been around for a while, but we already do that. We also already have a pretty tough policy on activity. I definitely don't think activity is the biggest concern.

However, what Trish is suggesting is not a bad idea if you apply it to things such as attitude, decision-making, etc., although if activity did show up as an issue during the trial period, of course it would be addressed.