Hmmm...could be interesting, although my first question would be whether or not I could still submit my own puzzles and questions and if so, then it should be a different moderator's responsibility to review, approve, or reject my submissions.
Secondarily, would the moderators be responsible for monitoring at all times or would there be several people with different specified time periods (like times of the day as well as on which days) to do this?

Yeah, what 3hj said.

Sounds interesting. Would be interested in what the down sides of the position would be.

I am interested in the answers [1] asked, and also interested in helping out!

[5] We can participate, but will we still be able to earn our wonderous points? Cause I am WAY interested.

I am very interested, but a bit concerned about Aaron/renfurdson. I haven't seen him around lately. Is he okay, but just overloaded with submissions?

[5] I, too, am interested!

My resume? (I know I don't have to...)

I spend all day long telling others what to do and grading their work.
I am used to lording my superiority over all of my students and those with less seniority.
I teach fifth grade and the average periodical writing is about a fourth grade level, so I can judge whether something is written at a level a lot of people can understand.
I am VERY opinionated.

PS....look at the baby......

Sounds like a dream job! All the fun you want and no actual schedule to follow...
How can I NOT want to participate??
Let me know the details TJ and if you need me I am interested.

OK I have trouble being here on time every night... I think I figure these things out for the most part...I do create a lot of puzzles and have offered some out to others for review. As for a resume, look no further than my red ribbon and thread discussion approaching 500 posts.

I'd be interested, of course, but there are others more qualified. Unless I get a shiny badge, then it's all me.

I'll put in for the weekend/holiday fill in job until I learn more about solving.

Do tanga users get to vote on possible moderators? ....that would be cool...

double post glitch

Cool, maybe we can get puzzles without typos or hidden surprises. I'd be interested.

[12] I agree completely. I would much rather vote on possible moderators than be one.

But I would like to be one, and as I have solved every tanga puzzle from the first month on, i think I would be qualified.

[12] melody, double posts could cost you votes.

doh!!

I'll help out any way I can.

is there going to be a special "superiority lording" thread set up?

Color me interested. I'm not yet able to commit, but I will echo the comments of wanting to help out how I can. Some sort of approval committee (as opposed to a sole moderator) sounds good.

Will there be a way to view the puzzle without immediately seeing the solution (while in moderator mode)?

[5] What exactly do it mean when you say "Yes, you can still participate in normal Daily Fun activities"?

Surely you don't mean that the Daily Fun Moderator, who would look at every puzzle and solution and help decide which puzzles get published, is then allowed to earn solving and bonus points for entering solutions they've already seen?

[19] That would be excellent - still available to solve for the moderators when released.

I am interested also. I have many hours a week I could devote to moderating due to the fact that I work in the computer field and I am online 12 to 14 hours a day most days and can be on almost anytime that was requested. I know it's sad but I wouldn't have it any other way!

I think it would be appropriate for the people volunteering their time for moderating (test-solving, suggesting changes...) - which can actually be quite time consuming (more so than solving the published puzzles) - to receive some TP remuneration for their time - whether by being allowed to "solve" the puzzles, or by being awarded a moderator bonus.

In the past I have literally spent HOURS test solving iterations of ONE puzzle for each of several other puzzle makers. Comparing this to the 400 bonus points that can be collected in 15 minutes by the most astute Tangans who can be on the site at 10PM eastern - well what is that time "worth"?. That is why I see no shame in solving a puzzle that I have test solved - and IF I am online at the 10PM starting pistol, I'll collect the bonus points.

I agree that a "moderator" who browses through answers just to be able to "solve" the puzzles is not the desirable "employee" and hope that some checks and balances (or audit) will be in place to reduce that possibility (perhaps when a moderator opens a puzzle, but doesn't "deal" with it - solving points are not awarded when the puzzle is published and "solved" by that person). It may take some creative programming on TJ and TM's part, but it should be doable.

anyway that's my two cent--- er --- TPs

Looks like you have a few people interested in helping out...myself included...

So, maybe you can "assign" a certain number of puzzles and questions to each moderator, that way a single person doesn't "see" all the puzzles. That way the site will still be fun for them and they can still acquire points the old fashion way and get bonus points if they are online at the appointed time.

For those puzzles you have evaluated, maybe a set amount of points (10 or 20 or a little more due to the time involved) depending upon the puzzle type (OWWs or Hypercrosses) could be awarded but they would be shut out of the bonus points like the puzzle creator is?

Count me in as interested in being a "Daily Fun Moderator".

I think the sheer volume and diversity of my puzzle submissions should demonstrate my qualifications for such a position. :)

[24] Here's a fairly simple (conceptually, not sure about the implementation of it) manner for divvying up puzzle review. (Assuming, of course, that we have sufficient interest, which, seems to be the case.)

Each reviewer is granted access to reviewing puzzles, based on the last number of the puzzle address.
Example, I wind up being an xxx2 reviewer.
I could then see this: http://www.tanga.com/puzzles/2922,
but not this: http://www.tanga.com/puzzles/2910

Roughly 90% of the stuff would still be new to me.

Or, if f we only had 10 reviewers, and we wanted 3 sets of eyes on each puzzle, they could be distributed like this:
"reviewer xxx1" sees 012.......
"reviewer xxx2" sees .123......
"reviewer xxx3" sees ..234.....
"reviewer xxx4" sees ...345....
"reviewer xxx5" sees ....456...
"reviewer xxx6" sees .....567..
"reviewer xxx7" sees ......678.
"reviewer xxx8" sees .......789
"reviewer xxx9" sees ........89
"reviewer xxx0" sees 01.......9
reviewer xxx# has access to xxx(#-1), xxx(#), and xxx(#+1)

[25] you've submitted puzzles????

[27] lol... and there's still about 100 waiting in the queue. Though it looks like they're going to be putting a dent into that tonight! Woohoo!

[28] Oh, an all-Murdoctor puzzle night tonight? 'Looking forward to that! :)

If you're still looking for mods...count me in.

I think having three levels of Moderators would be ideal.

First group would basically just be looking for spelling errors, or inappropriate content. They could quickly check a puzzle and receive 1 to 3 points for each puzzle. At this level only one moderator needs to see the puzzle.

Once the puzzle gets approved it goes to the next level who would actually take the puzzle apart and spend time looking for problems and solvability. This group would get more points and then label the puzzle featured or unfeatured. If the majority of the group votes featured it goes to tanga admins for publishing. If the majority votes unfeatured, it gets put into a database to randomly appear as an unfeatured puzzle. 3 to 5 people should see a puzzle at this level.

Third level is Tanga admins, who decide when to publish the featured pile. (the above two groups wouldn't know when a puzzle would get published so they still have to be here everyday at 9 to "solve" if they want the bonus points.

[31] I'm thinking group 1 would probably want/need to see the solution right off the bat, whereas group 2 would definitely want/need the solution initially hidden.

I agree that there is need for both basic quality control (spelling/appropriateness) as well as solvability. I also agree that the second level of testing is more work.

So, to the people above who've thrown their hats in the ring, were you hoping to be more of a level 1 or level 2 tester? (Given that spelling is not my strong suit, I'd probably sign up for Level 2.)

[32] The level idea is very interesting and a number of folks have great ideas on how to do this. I, personally, see myself as a nuts and bolts type person, less of the AHA! guy. I learned early on in my puzzle making days to check for inaccuracies, although no matter how hard you try they still sneak in.

Ideally the 3 level idea works great with level 1 folks proving themselves and earning level 2 status when admins see they've put the time in and done a good job. I would apply for a level 1 position and learn towards a level 2. Seeing the solve method and checking references, etc is right up my alley, then I can pass it along to the Dr or Jewelia or whoever to test solve and they recommend whatever...I like it.

hmmmm - at first blush the level idea is okay, but after mulling it over a bit, I don't know that a moderator should be limited to being either a level one or level two tester. There are so many different kinds of puzzles that some puzzles will resonate with some, and not with others. And everyone will be "eyes on" to catch spelling and content errors.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be those particular tests, only that some days I may only have a few minutes to do level one checks, and other days, the wherewithal to spend some quality time with the puzzles and the puzzle makers with level two checking.

[34] makes a good point. Each of us who are interested in becoming moderators have different amounts of time to spend acting as such. This would depend on schedules and other such things that may come up. In addition, I know for myself that some days I can solve the puzzles quickly and smoothly and other days...well, not. I feel that keeping it simpler may well be easier for all.

After reading all of the viewpoints here, I think I have a solution that merges all of the given ideas together. Basically, the puzzles to be reviewed would be placed in a queue, and when a moderator requests to perform a review (perhaps with an option to see the solution or not), one puzzle will be assigned to them for their perusal and feedback. Once they are done and provide their input, they can request another puzzle to review... up to a certain daily limit, perhaps. That will allow the moderators to set their own schedules and workload, and ensure that they won't see too many of the available puzzles. It would even be possible to put a reviewed puzzle back in the queue for another moderator to look at for a "second opinion" (or even third opinion, etc)...

Count me in. I think I know a bad puzzle when I see it :)

do puzzle moderators get access to a special server that still runs the old Tanga 2.0 template/css? :)

I would be interested depending on the solutions to the problems above. I'm not sure how the problem solving supervisor is going to work but I think a solution could be worked out.
Even if you solve all the puzzles every night you only get 50 points unless you compete at 9:00. But most of the people on this list I see at 9 sooo.

I wonder if there could be a way to set this up similar to what I saw NASA do with their decades-old pictures of Mars from the Viking spacecraft. NASA set up a website called Clickworkers where volunteers could help identify and classify craters on Mars. Each time you logged on you got a random image that enabled you to circle what you thought were craters on Mars. You got a new random image each time and numerous people saw the same image (hundreds possibly). They were able to take the general consensus of what people thought were craters, along with their type, and were able to create a detailed age map. At the height of the program, they were able to do in a week what would have taken a graduate student a year to accomplish.

Tanga could set it up that each time a moderator logged on to view a puzzle he/she would get a random puzzle to look over. You could set it up so after ten random checks the puzzle gets taken out of rotation and placed in the featured, unfeatured or rejected piles. This way each moderator can view as many puzzles that they have time for and it can be guaranteed that at least 10 people reviewed it before it gets released to the public at large (or rejected). There'd have to be a place where we can leave comments of course (especially for the rejected ones) where we can inform the puzzlemaker and Tanga why we think the puzzle needs work, has spelling errors, or is ready for prime time.
You could also have generic buttons or selection choices for quick review (ie: featured, unfeatured, rejected) plus a comments section.

[40] I understand the theory of your comment, but looking through many of the comments in this discussion, I wonder how many "moderators" it would make sense to have. When I first read the post I got the feeling they were looking for one or two. While there certainly seems to be a large amount of interest in the position, I would advocate for a much smaller pool of moderators.

I've long been a fan of having at least two sets of eyes (where possible) see something like this, but having 10 or 20 or more, while well intentioned, would be overkill (you're starting to approach double digit percentages of people who solve OWW on the first day they're up). Of course, Aaron is likely the only person who knows exactly how much of a work load there is, so ultimately his thought on this greatly trumps mine.

And on a side note, I would suggest reviewers not be able to see who submitted the puzzle. I'll also throw in a second (or whatever number we're on) for reviewers not being able to see the solution to a puzzle until after they've test solved it.

[41] Agreed on all points. I especially like the idea of not knowing who submitted the puzzle.

[41] I can see how 10 might be too many, but 5 might not be (or 3 even). You could still use the same method as I described in [40], it'll have a faster turnover rate, but it might not have as balanced an evaluation as you might get from 10 people looking at the puzzle.

Also, the problem with NOT seeing the solution when we check these over is that each person struggles with these puzzles differently. Where one person might find it easy, another person might find them hard; they might not see the "aha" moment to get them to answer the puzzle.

I know that I have found myself hating a puzzle because I couldn't get it, then when that aha moment happens I find that I loved the puzzle. There have been puzzles that looked impossible at first, but after someone a lot more clever than myself saw through the baffling haze and found the solution and posted some salt, I discovered the simple genius behind a puzzle and found myself loving it. As a moderator we would be responsible for judging the solve method as well as checking for spelling and grammar.

And speaking just for myself, I would guess that about a third to a half of these puzzles initially confound me when I look at them. It's only until I get a bit of salt from the comments provided by the people who solved it that the solution to the puzzle becomes apparent to me. As a moderator, not knowing the answer and solve method will make it hard for me to be an unbiased judge.

To agree with you somewhat, maybe the answer could be hidden at first to allow the moderators to try and solve the puzzle, but there should be an "OK I give up" button for the moderators who have tried to solve the puzzle and couldn't get it. Doing this will no doubt require some programming skills and, while it might produce a better, more rounded, evaluation, I think it'll take more time than should be needed to decide if these puzzles are worthy to be featured or not. The goal is to help the folks at Tanga slosh through the (no doubt) thousands of puzzles that are probably sitting in the wings.

The goal of the moderators should be to provide feedback to both Tanga and the puzzle maker (especially if it gets rejected) about whether the puzzle is good or not. Besides, I don't necessarily want to spend the same amount of time evaluating a puzzle as I do trying to solve one.

[EDIT] [41], [42] I also agree that the name of the puzzle maker should be kept secret to provide a more unbiased and fair evaluation. Knowing that a puzzle came from Arnott or Murdoctor might make some moderators vote for the puzzle a little differently than if it came from someone else.

[43] It's a bit difficult to hide the fact that a puzzle came from Arnott, unless we all start putting his little logo in the corner... LOL

Just so all this moderating doesn't take away *too* much time from puzzle making! It seems that all the interested parties are some of the most prolific (and dare I say best) puzzle makers on this site. Hopefully, you all won't be spending so much time critiquing the rest of us that you won't have enough time left to create your own puzzles!

That said, the people who have volunteered so far are pretty much the people I would have nominated if given the choice.

I see that most comments here, mine included up till now, have focused on the puzzle aspect of the moderator position. Joe's original post here also included random questions and naughty comments so I feel it is important to remind everyone that there is more to this position than just reviewing puzzles.
It would seem that the moderator is responsible for "keeping an eye" on the site - such as if someone's comments on a published puzzle is too salty and has been flagged or even if it has not been flagged - then it should be removed from the discussion.
Anyhow, I know that the review and publishing of puzzles is near and dear to everyone participating in this discussion and is an important aspect to be discussed, however, I just wanted to bring up these additional points.

[43] I would definitely want an "I give up button", but, some of the testing is to see how much of a leap it is to get to that Aha moment. (I had one puzzle - http://www.tanga.com/puzzles/386-5-12-2007 - where, once you know the answer, it is impossible NOT to see it. As the creator, I clearly knew the answer, but I wanted an opinion on whether or not it was too obvious. I submitted it with a dummy answer and sent Aaron a TG letting him know I had one in the queue that I wanted him to look at without looking at the solution first, but, amidst the sea of puzzles, he missed that clue and wound up reading the solution immediately.)

[46] Why the ƒúÑ© would you have to bring that Šh¡+ up again? :)

[44] Ooh good idea! ;)

I think the simplest idea would be to have at least 3 moderators and each one gives a yes or no vote for publish and a yes or no vote for featured. 2 out of three gets it published, and 2 out of 3 gets it featured. I agree that puzzlemakers should be anonymous.
I also think the puzzlemaker should be able to see their puzzle's status at the end of the process. If I were sure all the puzzles in my queue were seen and rejected, I'd probably have better incentive to make some more and better ones.

In my not-as-wordy as others way, I'm interested.

I'm interested contingent on what the final plans are. So far seems like there are a lot of good ideas floating around.

I'm a big fan of the multiple per puzzle as well as the solution hidden at first with a view solution button.

As far as points go, I think if you solve the puzzle without hitting view solution you should get more points assuming its a good puzzle and get published. If you have to view solution you get less points but still some for the work you're doing. Very similiar to how actual puzzles work!

Although I had previously just discussed the puzzle aspect, I am interested in the moderating comments, etc. Just let me know what I can do to help!

It seems we have plenty of volunteers with lots of good ideas--when do we get started? ;-)

Yes, I too wonder that [53]...
Hopefully we will hear soon! :)

I hear that some people are being contacted by renfurdson with feedback from mods about their puzzles. Have some folks been chosen?

Yes moderators are at work...I just received a message that a puzzle was "nominated" to be featured or unfeatured in the next 30 days.

Can someone tell us if this [55] [56] is all Renfurdson's hard work or if the additional moderators have been chosen from those here who have volunteered?

[57] also if there are additional moderators, is there a list in case we have a question and want to contact them?

(it appears Arnott's comments are showing as moderators at the moment)

Anything happening along these lines?