Questions about how the site works and site management

Who actually owns this site? Is there any business model here besides just running banner ads on the pages?
Who’s running the mod team?
-Are they getting paid for this?
-I'm guessing it's their last resort for income?
-How does someone even become a mod? Do they have set terms?
-Are these people real people or just virtual entities (meaning, from a technical workflow standpoint)?
-What happens to an account if someone goes MIA for a while? Does the login eventually become worthless, or is it something else entirely?

The whole Reddit operation is owned by Monitor Plus LLC, which is most famous for running CNN. When people start talking about "the boss," they’re usually referring to an unnamed guy who actually launched Reddit, CNN, and Medium.
As for the moderators, they're just regular users with a bit of extra authority—they don't get paid, obviously. They basically just carve out chunks of their own free time to keep the place from getting cluttered with junk posts.
You've got the standard mods, then you have supermods above them, and finally the admins at the very top. If you ever disagree with a decision a moderator makes, you can file an appeal in the relevant subforum.
There isn't really a formal term limit for mods, either. They stay in their positions until they eventually burn out or, in some rare cases, get demoted back to being regular users. New moderators are picked internally whenever the need arises.
There’s actually a private subforum just for the mods, and honestly, quite a few of them even hang out in person.
When you say "logo," I'm assuming you mean a user account. There aren't any real restrictions on signing up; you'll see plenty of accounts sitting there with zero posts or people who haven't logged on in years. As far as I know, accounts aren't ever deleted.

Volunteer mods?
How does the oversight actually work? It sounds like a nice little utopia on paper, but what happens when a mod brings their own political baggage or a biased take on current events to the table and starts handing out bans to anyone who disagrees? Are there any actual consequences for mods who "overstep" or lose the plot?
I’m just hoping we don't end up with some kind of kangaroo court here, but rather something logical and level-headed..

What’s the actual active user count?
What’s the average and peak daily traffic for the site?
And what percentage of people end up getting slapped with a "permanent ban"?

Moderators are expected to stay objective and keep a level head when things get heated.
Look, disagreements are inevitable, but that’s why you ask a colleague to step in and review the posts. You bring in a third party to issue sanctions if necessary, specifically to prevent someone from making a mistake because they got too emotionally wrapped up in the drama. Besides, we have supermoderators and admins constantly monitoring Reddit and holding moderators accountable—it’s standard operating procedure here. 😉

If you want to dig into the stats, you can check them out right here:

So, what you're saying is there's actually a point to filing a complaint—or let’s call it a formal appeal to restore a thread—if the moderation board sides with a user instead of some rushed moderator?

Do you have a specific complaint regarding a moderator's conduct, or are you just looking for a general overview of how things work here?

Not yet. Still holding out hope, though.
I'm curious—how fast do mods actually spot a rule violation? Is it just their own gut feeling whenever they log on and sit down at their desks, or do they just stumble upon it by chance?
I often wonder if new threads and posts pop up right in front of them in some special dashboard we users don't get access to. Does it land in a specific window, or do they have to manually scroll through every single thread and headline? Are they basically on duty 24/7? I mean, I assume there's shift work involved, obviously.

No. The mods view this board pretty much the same way you do. There aren't any highlighted posts or special threads. The only things that catch their eye are posts that get flagged via the report button (that icon on every post). It’s not even highlighted on the site itself; they just get an email notification. If they have a notification app set up, they can spot a report within five minutes—assuming they're actually at their desk (at least that's my experience). Otherwise, they just notice rule violations by reading through the threads like any other regular user.

They moderate during their own free time. Basically, they deal with stuff whenever they can. It's entirely up to the individual. There isn't some mandatory quota for how much moderating they have to do.

(Huh... Not sure why I'm writing this in the third person...)

Just my two cents, but does anyone here actually have a connection to the mod team? I’m talking about someone with real protection, some kind of inside track or patronage. Is there a documented case of, let’s call it an anomaly, within the Reddit moderation system?
I've seen endless threads with basically the same titles discussing the exact same thing, yet somehow certain topics get shut down just because a similar thread with a different title popped up. If I'm being clear enough, I assume you guys know exactly what I'm getting at.

A moderator needs to be objective as much as possible, but let's be real—total objectivity is an impossible standard.

Nobody’s untouchable here. Sure, there might be a rare exception where a post gets wiped without leaving a mark on a user's record, but honestly, that shouldn't even happen...

"Almost identical" isn't actually "identical"—there’s usually some significant reason why those two threads were kept separate in the first place. That said, if the title changes but the content is basically a carbon copy, I don't see any issue with merging them just to keep the PDF archives from becoming a total mess.

mellowseal27 said:The content is identical. I don't see any reason why those two threads shouldn't be merged just to make the PDF easier to read.

Sometimes a topic pops up across ten different headlines—it’s not always one big aggregate thing. Keeping them separate actually makes it easier to follow the conversation.
It doesn't matter if a standalone thread has a similar name. Look, I don't want to spend all day bitching about this or getting flagged, so fine, I'll take the hit and accept whatever sanctions come my way since that's why I reached out to you in the first place. The thread was nuked, and I doubt there's even a way to bring it back, but I'm sticking to my guns: it was distinct enough from the other one to stand on its own. Nobody wants to deal with twenty identical headlines, but two? That's manageable.

Here’s what I’m running into. Every time I open a PDF and drop a new post, the whole layout shifts. If I’m looking at a post near the bottom, my new reply suddenly pops up at the top in faded text.

Does this happen on everyone else's screen too? Or is it just a glitch on my end when I'm viewing stuff?
Obviously, if we're talking about threads I started myself versus ones I'm just jumping into, does that make a difference?

Can you drop a screenshot? I’m honestly lost on what you’re even talking about here. Also—just a heads up—I don't think you're really using the terms "post" and "topic" correctly.

So, if I grab the second-to-last thread in the list, drop a comment, and then head back out, that same thread jumps straight to the top of the pile—only now it’s all faded out with my handle showing as the latest post.
Think I finally cracked part of the code?

Does everyone see the same thing happen? Like, after you post, does the menu always bump your recent threads to the top?

You’ve cleared things up now—you were actually talking about the thread itself, rather than the individual post (which is what I suspected from the jump).

See, "plain text" titles mean you've already read them, or at least checked out the very last page. If a title shows up in bold, it just means there’s fresh activity in that thread since the last time you clicked on it.
The forum is set up so threads sort in reverse chronological order based on the most recent reply. That’s why the ones you're active in suddenly jump to the top of your list after you (or someone else) hits submit.

Everyone sees the interface the exact same way, unless they’ve gone ahead and manually—or perhaps mouse-magically? 🤔—tinkered with their settings at the bottom of the screen:



P.S. Honestly, how does someone rack up 1,500 posts and still be totally in the dark about how this works? 😁

Thanks.

But how can we all have the exact same thing?
I mean the order...

Look, the order of everything depends entirely on when the last post was made in any given thread. And since time moves at the same rate for everyone, there isn't really much to debate there. 😉

I asked out of pure curiosity. It felt like anyone starting a new thread might have a different perspective than the usual crowd who just jumps into every existing discussion, pushing their latest comments to the top of the pile.
Explaining something this obvious feels like a total waste of time, but hey, I guess that's what this forum is for.
Thanks for bearing with me.

Got a question about a thread that seemingly vanished into thin air. If you have a sec, can you let me know what happened there?
The thread was titled "Carbon sequestration sector aka the government's hand-picked favorites," and it was all about how political parties rig contracts within federal agencies.
Anyway, I looked everywhere, but it’s gone.

Either deleted or merged into an existing thread.