Amy Jo Kim’s book Community Building on the Web made me realise the host role I had developed at the BBC to facilitate the message boards was going to be a useful one. It seemed it had similarities to a radio presenter, someone who was not seen (text only) yet who was highly visible (engaging with the members on a daily basis). The difference between the radio or television presenter and the community host was the relationship was ongoing, rather than something episodic; it was not tied to a broadcast.
As I have said already, the better hosted groups seemed happier and they posted better quality posts. I asked the members why they thought the hosts were important. They told me they were ‘vital’, crucial to their ongoing enjoyment of the shared space, that these people ‘held the culture of the group’, and organised it both geographically and across time. The hosts were the social glue. As the well-hosted communities matured some of the members began to do some of the hosting themselves.
A host, I believe, is very different from a moderator – why? Moderators are the (rather more cerebral) street cleaners of the virtual world. It is possible to moderate an online community or digital social space of whatever kind, using a set of rules. The hosts become important when there is a borderline situation over a member, post, piece of content or activity. Only someone who has a deep understanding of the culture of a group, and of the behaviours of the members within that group, would be able to make a judgement on what to do, how to deal with that content.
I believe we need to move from a position of control, censorship and moderation to one of facilitation, hosting, and education towards self-organisation. The editing of content by a producer is the stuff of old media, showcasing good stuff and encouraging good standards i.e. facilitating and mediating is the new editorialising. There may always need to be some moderation (children’s content for example) but the less there is of it, the better.
The BBC operates an ‘escalation chain’ - if there is a need moderators ‘refer upwards’ to hosts, hosts can refer upwards to the community manager, who can refer upwards again, if the situation requires, to BBC Editorial Policy advisors or to lawyers. This raising of problems upwards, coupled with some previous thought about what actions to take under a range of possible circumstances gives a good framework for facilitation.
It is possible to have flexibility in the amount of moderation and control which needs to happen, However I believe facilitation (hosting) – on the other hand - should always be provided.
Without someone doing some facilitation, the social systems seem to break down or simply fizzle out in the virtual world. The same is true of the real world, of course. How many people know someone who is the social aggregator of a group or community living in your town or village? There seems to be people who are born aggregators, other who are good contributors and some who just like to ‘lurk’.
The first virtual communities were obviously ‘housed’ in newsgroups, highly textual environments. When the new message board interfaces came along it was suddenly possible to easily attach an image of yourself, so the personalities of the Internet, hosts, mods or engagers, began to come out of the woodwork. I encouraged the BBC hosts to write a page about themselves and to include an image too. It seemed only fair that those who were facilitating the space should be accountable, visible, to have a kind of ‘proximity’ to the community themselves.
The community responded well to the increased visibility of the hosts, and an added bonus was that it seemed to enable a relaxing of the rules. If the hosts posted, then lurkers would also be encouraged to post. If new members were welcomed, they responded by returning sooner and by being more inclined to interact with others, to leave comments or content. If there was a problem a host could remind all of the shared ‘House Rules’, then the digital social space (of whatever kind) seemed to work better for all.
Each community seemed to vary in the amount of hosting and the style of hosting they wanted, therefore it was important to make sure there was stability in the staffing. With a non-staff host that continuity of relationship would be broken.
We began to run live chats, and the community hosts would take the interviewer role on behalf of the online community, putting the questions to the celebrity or expert that were sent in by the members. The live chat team bought a ‘Stream Genie’ and began to run a video stream alongside the text side of the live event. The text and the stream were never in sync, that wasn’t possible, but at least the hosts were in vision at last, and moving! Pretty soon I began to wonder what the difference was between a presenter and an online community host…(more tomorrow)
~ Lizzie Jackson
Recent Comments