2 "Please consider putting your name at the top of your post..." Certainly
source | link



source | link

  1. One of the most delicate situations is flags and issues with long time members. Some more than others feel a sense of entitlement which they have valid reasons for. At the same time, we need to recognize the delicate line between respecting all that they've done for the community and acknowledging when they're perpetuating issues or putting off potential new members. How will you handle having to approach a member that may have been a part of this community much longer than the other person in question, and quite possibly longer than you?

We should appreciate and listen to long time members—they have put a lot in to growing this site and making it what it is today. How much a user has contributed to the site shouldn't give them any more entitlement than any other user though. Site policy, scope etc. should be decided through community consensus and not decided by any specific users based on their rep or anything else. Disruptive behaviour shouldn't be any more acceptable from long time users than new users either...

So while long time users will by their very nature have more influence in the community and may be given the benefit of the doubt in any disputes; they aren't necessarily any more "entitled" than any other user.

  1. This site has always seen a significant influx of low quality questions, especially tech support. This is unlikely to ever change, because it seems for a lot of beginners graphic design equals design software. Recent initiatives have sought to alleviate this issue. Although these are a good start, they alone will not stop the torrent of low quality and tech support questions. As I understood from recent discussions, there are two approaches to this issue: bear down on low quality posts with downvotes and close votes, or incite better questions to set an example and 'drown out' low quality posts. What would be your strategy to help alleviate this issue? How would you go about raising the question standard? Do you see other approaches aside from those two?

If we aren't happy with the quality of questions then encouraging users to ask the types of questions we would rather see is a complete no brainer to me. That in itself isn't going to stop the low quality questions but it will increase the number of "good" questions.

Downvotes and close votes are an important part of filtering out low quality content... that's exactly what they're there for. For clearly off-topic questions that works fine; for some of the more edge cases where the questions aren't off-topic but do see a lot of low quality questions I would much prefer the community come to a consensus via meta on what exactly a "good" question would be, we can then use that to guide users on exactly what is wrong with their question and how to improve it (much as we've done with e.g. font-id and critique questions)... rather than just piling on the downvotes, which isn't a nice experience for a new user who doesn't necessarily know what they've done wrong. That helps us improve question quality and be more welcoming to new users at the same time. Win-win.

  1. GDSE has a few sister sites on the SE network that can be seen as close to our core theme, or at least affiliated. These include UX (e.g. UI design, usability), Blender (e.g. 3D design), Arts & Crafts (e.g. print & physical media), Photo (e.g. post-production), Computer Graphics (e.g. image processing). Even the Project Management stack or Stackoverflow can be said to have something to do with graphic design. What is your view on the interaction between our stack and other stacks? Do you think cooperation is necessary, or even viable? How would you approach members of those communities into our community? Would you encourage our members to become active in those communities also?

I'd encourage everyone to be active in any and all communities that they're interested in.

There is a definite overlap of disciplines and interests with a few other sites and encouraging users active on other sites to participate here is a great idea. Community ads and meta posts on other sites are probably the easiest and most obvious ways to attract users from those sites but I'd like some input and advice from active users on those sites first. Engaging with those sites in chat first is probably a good idea (any users active both here and on related sites would be in a good position to liaise or advise on how to approach the subject too).

  1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?

Contact the user in private to try and diffuse the situation and deal with any issues. If the user's behaviour doesn't show any willingness or effort to improve over time then a day in the penalty box...

Positive contributions are more than welcome and appreciated but they don't excuse any ongoing disruptive behaviour.

  1. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?

Discuss it in private with the mod. Hopefully we can come to an agreement, either way. If we can't come to an agreement then I may ask another mod or another user for an opinion, depending on the situation... I certainly wouldn't reverse the action publicly without discussing the issue first and I'd prefer to leave it as-is if we don't come to an agreement.

  1. Most actions you take as a moderator; flagging, close voting, deleting etc. are now binding and will take effect immediately, without input from other users... Will you (and if so; how) adapt your current flagging and voting to accommodate this?

Where the post is clearly off-topic or otherwise inappropriate then I have no problem in unilaterally closing (or flagging/deleting/etc). I'd prefer to seek a consensus through meta on how to handle certain posts if there is none.

More generally and for posts that aren't so clearly off-topic I'd prefer to leave the voting to the community. If mine is the last vote (e.g. there are already 4 close votes) I'd be more willing as my vote would weigh no more than any other user's.

  1. In your opinion, what do moderators do?

Moderators are human exception handlers.

Ideally, moderators do as little moderating (and I'd hope as much non-moderating stuff) as possible. The community can moderate most things without the need to call in extra help. There are of course situations which can't be dealt with so easily and there are things that (as a site with a relatively small number of high-rep users) take a long time to be handled by regular users...

So, mostly...

  • Dealing with inappropriate content (spam, rude/offensive etc.)
  • Moderating content (editing, closing clearly off-topic questions, deleting non-answers etc.)
  • Diffusing disputes, disagreements and other disruptive behaviour
  • Guiding, encouraging and engaging with the community (e.g. through meta and chat)
  • Reviewing lots of flags...


  • Asking and answering questions (I think moderators continuing to be active in the community is important)

Moderators should also be able to respond to support issues and liaise with the Stack Exchange team if needs be.

...and cook a mean Chilli. That's important.

  1. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. How do you feel about that?

I look forward to it!

I always try to be professional and respectful and I can't think of any contribution I've made that I wouldn't be happy to have my name against. Being a moderator means being a representative of the community and being held to a higher standard—which I am more than happy with.

  1. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?

Being able to instantly deal with inappropriate content. As a 20k+ user, it's frustrating to see spam, offensive or otherwise inappropriate content sitting there after I've cast my delete vote just because there's no one else around to see it.