General Can a forum have too many staff members? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Bawse
- Start date
For discussions that don't fit other prefixes.
Cedric
Life’s better without a plan.
Yes, a forum can have too many staff members. I find it’s intimidating to members when the staff-to-member ratio feels off. When a forum has an overwhelming number of staff compared to its regular user base, it can give off the vibe that the community is overly policed or that members’ every move is being scrutinized. This discourages engagement and makes the space feel less welcoming.
A bloated staff team might also lead to confusion or unnecessary conflicts among staff themselves, as too many cooks in the kitchen can create overlapping responsibilities or power struggles. Where one does a lot, and the other is not motivated to do anything. It’s important for each staff member to have a clear role and purpose within the community. Otherwise, you risk having inactive or redundant staff positions that don’t contribute to the forum's growth or atmosphere.
But the fault here often lies with the admins. Not being able to give out fair responsibilities to their team. Not taking control themselves. Or to a point where admins themselves don't do anything at all, and leave it up to the staff. It's bound to go wrong.
On the flip side, an active, engaged staff team that matches the needs of the community can do wonders. It’s all about the balance. A smaller, well-aligned staff team with clear communication and direction will almost always be more effective than a large, disorganized one.
A bloated staff team might also lead to confusion or unnecessary conflicts among staff themselves, as too many cooks in the kitchen can create overlapping responsibilities or power struggles. Where one does a lot, and the other is not motivated to do anything. It’s important for each staff member to have a clear role and purpose within the community. Otherwise, you risk having inactive or redundant staff positions that don’t contribute to the forum's growth or atmosphere.
But the fault here often lies with the admins. Not being able to give out fair responsibilities to their team. Not taking control themselves. Or to a point where admins themselves don't do anything at all, and leave it up to the staff. It's bound to go wrong.
On the flip side, an active, engaged staff team that matches the needs of the community can do wonders. It’s all about the balance. A smaller, well-aligned staff team with clear communication and direction will almost always be more effective than a large, disorganized one.
Sometimes.
If you have more staff than members, yeah, that's not appealing.
But if you have a lot of staff doing different parts (like here) or you have a very active forum with a lot of members, I think more staff can be beneficial as long as they're all active.
A forum full of stuff that looks inactive is an inactive-looking forum.
If you have more staff than members, yeah, that's not appealing.
But if you have a lot of staff doing different parts (like here) or you have a very active forum with a lot of members, I think more staff can be beneficial as long as they're all active.
A forum full of stuff that looks inactive is an inactive-looking forum.
Khantastic
Rookie Contributor
Yes, of course a forum can have too many staff members, like having more lifeguards than swimmers in a pool!
But I would say If there are too many staff members, it can create confusion, overlap responsibilities, and even intimidate regular users from engaging. Plus, with everyone trying to "help," it might feel more like a staff meeting than a lively community.
The key is to have just enough active, reliable staff to manage the forum's needs without turning it into an all-staff convention.
But I would say If there are too many staff members, it can create confusion, overlap responsibilities, and even intimidate regular users from engaging. Plus, with everyone trying to "help," it might feel more like a staff meeting than a lively community.
The key is to have just enough active, reliable staff to manage the forum's needs without turning it into an all-staff convention.
Nomad
Community Explorer
I do not want to name it but once I was a staff on the forum with too many staff. The forum allowed staff to earn from posts and topics and also gave staff bonus. Since there were too many staff and there was not much work to do, most staff member started posting to earn credits. This created a financial strain in the community. I am not a fan of having too many staff, you should try to limit staff number and if you have staff make it paid position so that the staff is committed to the forum.
InMyOpinion
Community Explorer
Indeed you can have too many staff members just like you can have too many cooks in the kitchen. It's good to have staff but too much staff can hinder your forum's activity. Members may not be as comfortable posting if the majority of the threads/posts are from staff (Unless it's a new forum) but too much staff can make the forum look dead.
Currently on the forum I am co-founder of there is just me and the founder and we like it that way. We are doing a huge re-launch in December and though we are hoping for great activity we don't really want too many staff. Plus him & I basically got things covered. No need for too much staff and for it to be overwhelming.
Currently on the forum I am co-founder of there is just me and the founder and we like it that way. We are doing a huge re-launch in December and though we are hoping for great activity we don't really want too many staff. Plus him & I basically got things covered. No need for too much staff and for it to be overwhelming.
Cory
Engaged Member
Considering I've been flying solo for years and I have 2,000+ members and almost 18,000 posts, I think a forum can certainly have too many staff members. When the board is mostly staff posting and not many members, you may as well make a private forum for you and your buddies. That's not to say forums are useless with little posting activity. As the owner of a forum resources board, I know I receive little posting activity from time to time because most people want to get their hands on the resources and don't have much use for the board in terms of posting around. I think there should be a staff-to-member ratio depending on the type of niche you run, where you possibly have X staff members for every X members, but you still don't want to go beyond a limit that seems too much. There are multiple factors involved in how many staff members you should have.
I don't think staff-to-member ratio makes sense unless posting activity is also similarly proportional.
I can think of a site, for example, with 14 proper team members, several moderators that only moderate individual boards, but the site as a whole has 456k members. This isn't a drama because despite having a total of 3.9 million posts, that team is easily capable of keeping on top of the posting given that so far in November the peak posting rate was 76 posts in a day, and on one day this month it only got 2 posts.
Staff to posting rate (i.e. the stuff that needs moderating) is probably a better metric, and you don't really need 14+ staff to moderate 30-40 posts on a typical day, though I will add some of these aren't English (but still, copy/paste to Google Translate isn't exactly a huge job)
I can think of a site, for example, with 14 proper team members, several moderators that only moderate individual boards, but the site as a whole has 456k members. This isn't a drama because despite having a total of 3.9 million posts, that team is easily capable of keeping on top of the posting given that so far in November the peak posting rate was 76 posts in a day, and on one day this month it only got 2 posts.
Staff to posting rate (i.e. the stuff that needs moderating) is probably a better metric, and you don't really need 14+ staff to moderate 30-40 posts on a typical day, though I will add some of these aren't English (but still, copy/paste to Google Translate isn't exactly a huge job)
Cory
Engaged Member
Given that I said I have 2,000+ members and I'm flying solo, I think you are 100% correct that the posting rate is a much better metric than the member rate.
Similar threads
