Overstaffing
- Thread starter Thomasss
- Start date
Reverse Flash
Paragon
A real issue? Is it really, though?
I think overstaffing can be an issue for your forum in the long run. Too many active staff members and not enough active 'regular' members can make a difference. No one likes to see just staff posting around, it takes the entire community to come together to really complete a forum.Reverse Flash said:
Also overstaffing is dealing with however many different opinions. This can cause drama, stress, issues. Though - the good thing is there may always be a staff member online, but the thing is they may answer to a higher up and can't do much and just say to wait til so and so comes on. So it can just look bad overall.
I try to staff to what I think we'll need for the next month, and what the forum is about. So for example, I've had 11 members of staff including myself, but they all had their duties, but as time went by they were retired. Now we have a smaller staff team and it's easier to communicate with one another and easier for everyone to split up duties equally in my opinion.
I've seen staff teams for a forum of only 50 members and no growth really coming - and they had about 20 staff members. So only 30 regular members, and usually then they had like 5 elites already too. When majority of people online are staff/elite it just becomes silly in my opinion.
I don't think I've ever had an issue with overstaffing whether if it's me as the administrator hiring them or even as just a regular member of another forum.
I suppose overstaffing would be if there are more staff members than members themselves but I haven't really seen that except for when a forum is first starting out but even then I don't see it as a problem personally.
I suppose overstaffing would be if there are more staff members than members themselves but I haven't really seen that except for when a forum is first starting out but even then I don't see it as a problem personally.
I think people hire lots of staff as a cheap way to gain activity for their forum. As people in authority are more likely to come back and visit the forum than none staff.
Sure it might be good for the activity but it's not worth it in the end. Start off with just yourself and maybe one or two more staff members until your site gets bigger I'd say. Then let the true dedicated members of your forum earn the higher rank.
Sure it might be good for the activity but it's not worth it in the end. Start off with just yourself and maybe one or two more staff members until your site gets bigger I'd say. Then let the true dedicated members of your forum earn the higher rank.
THF_Martin
Addicted
I wrote an article about this on the FP blog recently. To summarize: too much staff can be off putting for potential members who feel they won't have the freedom to post what they want and will often deter them to a lesser staffed community. Additionally, too much staff can be demotivating to them as a fair proportion of those members will have no work to do and thus become inactive and not help with posting and other things.
Overstaffing for me is when you have to many staff for the demand. If you have only a certain amount of members, and a bunch of staff that kind of sit there, I consider it being overstaffed. You only need staff when you cannot meet the demand for something, whether that be moderation or something else.
[user]Reverse Flash[/user] I would consider it to be a real issue yes, maybe not for some forums but many of these newer forums have to much staff for the member base they have. 😛
[user]Reverse Flash[/user] I would consider it to be a real issue yes, maybe not for some forums but many of these newer forums have to much staff for the member base they have. 😛
My definition of overstaffing is having like 2-3 administrators and more than 2 moderators on a forum that has literally just started and barely has any posts. I don't see why you would need any more than 1 administrator on the forum as there is literally nothing much the others can do.
I see this on a lot of new forums and I agree it's an issue. For a small/new forum I don't think there should be more than 1-2 admins and 2-3 mods-3 at the most. Some new forums could probably run well with only one mod until they grow larger as well.
As someone who has ran online communities since 2004, I can say this from experience.
You do not need more than one staff member unless you hit over thirty members (perhaps even more than just thirty). Over-staffing is cluttered, looks unprofessional, and a lot of people take that power to their head and abuse it.
You do not need more than one staff member unless you hit over thirty members (perhaps even more than just thirty). Over-staffing is cluttered, looks unprofessional, and a lot of people take that power to their head and abuse it.
If your forum has 1 staff member that is basically there and just posting not having anything else to do, you are overstaffing. Even if that is the only staff member you have (besides yourself) you are overstaffing if that staff member does nothing but post on your forum.
I always went with the "Hire a staff member only if you can't do it alone anymore" .
I always went with the "Hire a staff member only if you can't do it alone anymore" .
Most of you are all right about this. When I had SMF and a total of 32 members, I only had me (admin) and one mod. Then when I moved to IPS and as I type I only have 11 members and only one person running the full site, yep just me.
It's good to have staff when your forum is very big, Like I can spend 24 hours for 365 days, that's to much. Having staff is sometimes a big risk or you have to trust them. I know one site that has over 180,806 total members and they have around 30 or so staff members.
It's good to have staff when your forum is very big, Like I can spend 24 hours for 365 days, that's to much. Having staff is sometimes a big risk or you have to trust them. I know one site that has over 180,806 total members and they have around 30 or so staff members.
Many new forum owners are giving out staff badges like candy, thinking this will entice those people to be more active. Which is clearly not a great idea, since an active member or an editor is one thing and a moderator / admin is another story. Back in the day I did have few issues with my mods (back in 2005-2006) and I decided to keep my team as 'short' as possible.
I think people over staff their forums so they don't have to be on all of the time. The more staff you have, the less included you are with the members it seems from what I've noticed how the owners are never on and they have an administrator and a ton of moderators scouting on their forum daily.
Affiliates
