text:
I have been reflecting on some ideas around our current election system which were (originally) prompted by our pro tem appointment process. First, I think the Community Team needs to get out of the moderator-selection business. Currently, 45% of our moderators were appointed by someone from the Stack Exchange staff, and more than half (58%) our sites have yet to hold a proper election.
We need to give agency back to the communities regarding how you pick and maintain your elected leadership from the beginning and as the community continues to grow.
Is there an interest in broader election reform?
The purpose of this post is to gauge the general interest in taking a fresh look at our current electoral ideology and how you pick and maintain your moderation leadership. This isn't about working out specific implementation details or resolving every obstacle. I want to see if there is a general appetite for looking at broader reforms around how we elect and maintain moderators.
The first question to ask is: “Is this even a thing? Should I be looking at this?" Or am I stepping on customs so ingrained and sacrosanct, I should just leave it alone.
Jon Ericson has been experimenting with pro tem elections to replace moderators who have moved on. As we were looking at improvements to that process, I kept asking if we should roll that [cool idea] back into the regular election cycle?
Starting with a clean slate, I started considering how broader electoral changes might improve some of the issues around our representative ecosystem. I think we might be edging into something more capable and adaptive — so I want to see if I should continue working on this.
Here are a few issues I’ll put on the table for consideration; I'm sure there are others. This is an open discussion and trial balloon to see whether there is any interest in looking at broader electoral changes. Please feel free to add your thoughts in the answers below.
There's no reason we (the community team) need to continue picking your moderators. We've already started experimenting with pro tem elections, so I'd like to improve on that process so ALL moderators are elected by the community — including pro tems — starting shortly after the private beta.
Jon's pro tem experiments show that pro tem elections can work, so I would like to see if we can merge both processes into one, unified election ecosystem. As the distinction between pro tem and "real moderator" starts to fade— read on.
The CoGro Team (particularly Jnat and others) has been grinding away at a long-neglected backlog of sites needing moderator replacements (resignations, absentees, vetting candidates). Those delays will not likely end with the current backlog. The community team continues to be conspicuously short on resources to help communities with other issues. I believe this next bullet item can essentially free up those resources almost entirely.
Let's start with an assumption that I can simplify the election process to make it much less exhausting. The basic idea is to have much simpler, lightweight elections… more often… at regular intervals… maybe even yearly. The idea is to make elections much less epic and generational by creating more opportunity for the community to decide who they elect and retain. One way to help assure your best talent rises to the top is to provide more opportunity for avid users to apply.
This one seems like a no-brainer. Leveraging our current Q&A framework, we can model a town hall where communities are empowered to host their own event if they so choose, or skip it if they don't (with CM assistance where needed, of course).
Should "Moderator For Life" always be automatic… and FOREVER?
Our Moderator team is the best there is, bar none. Having senior moderators is important to retain valuable talent. But should communities have a say when that happens? And should they be empowered to decide if something has changed? We don't want to have a lot of needless rollover elections, so maybe we could come up with a system where long-term "senior moderators" are easily retained, while more established communities can avoid needless elections when it turns out: "Nah, we're good. We don't need another election."
I love our STV voting system; I think the single transferable vote is inspired. I’m not sure if there’s room for improvement, so I mention it here but I would largely keep the fundamental mechanism intact.
The first Skeptics election had 64 voters in total.
That's a scary number to me, any lower and I'm not sure the election would mean anything.
The previous stance by SE was always that the community needs a certain size and activity to host elections, and I don't see any reason why this would have changed. Coupling elections to graduation doesn't make any sense anymore with the way they work now, and the endless beta many sites are in, but that is something SE already knows and has worked on. I don't see any reason to change much more than the decoupling of elections from the graduation state, as graduation is now coupled to criteria many sites won't hit soon, or maybe never.
I'm personally not a fan of the town hall questions for elections. They don't provide substantial insight about a candidate to me, compared to the rather large effort they are for the community and each candidate. The most reliable indicator for a mod for me is still previous activity on the site. So I would personally consider changes there potentially good, but it's also not something I would care a lot about.
Personally, I don't have any issue with moderators being appointed by SE. Of course I've been appointed twice by SE, and later elected in both cases. I don't see any alternative to appointments in early sites, there is simply no way actual elections would work at that time. SE isn't a democracy, and I think it's a bit misleading if we style SE sites as democratic. SE still holds all the power, and while they usually don't exercise it, the community only runs the site within the constraints set by SE.
This would be a fundamental change in the relationship between the moderators (particularly the elected ones) and the company and, more importantly, the community.
I'm not sure I would have run for election - especially on Stack Overflow - if I was always having to think about re-election. I know in other walks of life elections aren't for life, but then we get the constant electioneering which distracts people from doing the job they were elected to do.
I know that Stack Exchange takes breaches of the rules around moderating very seriously and diamonds have been removed from several moderators for various reasons. Perhaps what we need is a simpler (but not necessarily quicker) process for this.
Inactive moderators - currently it seems to take too long for inactive moderators to be removed. I know that there are multitudinous reasons why a moderation might become inactive and not all of them require the immediate removal of the diamond, but should the system become more automated?
You've not logged in at all in the last months.
You've logged in but not performed any (or very few) moderator actions.
This would remove the need for the CMs to reach out (at least in the first instance) and this reminder might be enough to prompt the moderator to say "you know what, I don't have time for moderating right now and I should step down".
Unpopular moderators - I don't see this as being a reason to remove the diamond. We're not elected/appointed to be popular but to help run the sites. Sometimes that involves making decisions that might upset a number of people.
Harmful moderators - these are the cases where the moderator is taking actions that are actually detrimental to the site. These actions might be popular (at least with some sections of the community), but are against the overall ethos of the site or direction that the majority of the community wants to go. People are quick (certainly on Stack Overflow) to go to meta and raise issues they see with moderator actions, so I don't think there's a need to invent a new way to air grievances. If someone doesn't want to go public they can always raise a ticket with the community managers.
Does there need to be something that collates the meta questions (it could use the score to see how valid the rest of the community thought the complaint was) and CM tickets to show if a moderator is heading in the wrong direction before something bad happens? I don't have an answer here though.
Alright, I can see where a lot of this comes from - elections are a lot of work for the CM team, as are the pro tem appointments. I get that with a reduced team and an ever growing network, you'd want to look at seeing what can be done to reduce your load and increase overall productivity as sites are happier when they have mods to steer the ship and have the number of mods they need to keep the ship afloat. That makes sense to me.
That said, a lot of this seems to devalue a lot of the work, time and energy that mods put into their sites, most of which their community never sees. There's a reason we joke about being janitors, after all. So when I read this and see "should it be forever", and the idea of having to re-run yearly just feels like a lot of mess and disruption. I get it, you don't want to risk the idea that the community feels like the mods are the kings and queens stepping all over the populace (cue that "help, help, I'm being repressed" skit here, if you like). At the same time, all of us who have been here for a while have put a lot of ourselves into making sure the sites are awesome, and this feels very "okay thanks for coming out, putting up with all the crap, dealing with all this stuff as we step away from being present, but here's the door".
Maybe that's not charitable of me, and perhaps I am supposed to hope that my community will recognize my awesome and keep me around. But here's the rub - like I mentioned earlier, a lot of what we do and what we handle, users don't see. We're supposed to be exception handlers and janitors and all that good stuff. A sign of a healthy site is that you shouldn't see the mods unilaterally dealing with and closing all the things. So...the community might not always know that I handled infinitely more flags than my fellow mods by a hundredfold, lets say - they might only see that they personally like ModX better because they're more fun in chat.
I am not sure how to balance all of this. I get that you guys desperately need to relinquish some control because this stuff isn't tenable as things get bigger and bigger. But I am not sure that this, as I am interpreting it, is the best way to go about it.
A further thought - if you are, effectively, forcing mods to step down if they're not constantly re-elected, this kinda flies right in the face of the fact that you have said many times to mods (of elected/non beta sites, who haven't like...blown up stuff or caused giant messes) that elect to stop moderation and step down due to burnout or other personal reasons that their diamond is, effectively, theirs if they decide they wish to step back into the moderation ring again. It feels like youre doing a bit of a 180, here, instead of supporting the people you have, you're just flipping them out in favour of others. This feels like instead of supporting mods who might feel burnout, that you are trying to preempt that by potentially setting us aside.
Could we get a yearly check in meta post by the Community user asking if the site would like to have a mod election?
On some sites, a mod election may be necessary while on others the community could be perfectly happy with the mod team. In either case I don't see a harm in asking and in the second it would help the moderators know that the community is happy with what they are doing.
The reason for having the Community user post it on a schedule is that otherwise the mods may feel like the asker of the meta post is irritated with them for some reason, because if they are happy then there is no reason for an election right? While if the Community user posts it then it's just a neutral question that gets asked every so often.
I think it's worth doing a mix of what we do now on betas, and the election process.
It is. However on a new community, it's extremely useful to get things started on the right foot. The nice thing with the current appointment system is that you guys get to vet the candidates. On one hand, this hopefully means folks with the right mix of SE experience and subject knowledge expertise get picked. On the other hand, this, well, might not scale that well. Y'all can't know everyone.
On a smaller, more manageable site (the good ol' days?) it would probably be a great way to get to know the folks in the community (I'm not sure if betas get their own CM on overwatch any more) as well.
The pro-tem process also kind of got me used to being a moderator, so it's also a useful way to bootstrap members of a community who are not mods on a smaller site with different challenges. Not everyone makes it (that's true of some elected mods too), but it allows there to be a bit more diversity in the broader community of mods. Of the two "newbie" mods on Software Recs - one's a Stack Overflow mod now, and I'm a moderator on Super User, so the process might actually have helped in some way there.
Elections also seem expensive in terms of time and effort, but that's probably a CM might know better than us.
I suspect a mix - of an initial batch of hand picked moderators, with top-ups/replacements until graduation being elections - might be a good fit.
On beta sites, having elections for top-ups and replacements gives a chance for folks with the 'right' personalities to assert themselves before folks need to decide if they'd be a good candidate for moddyness.
Well, in theory, on mature sites, you're basically running elections as needed. It seems to work, and other than Stack Overflow, most sites are not going to need a massive, churning moderator team. In fact, if moderators are getting replaced often, it's more work, and maybe a sign that moderating the site is a bit too much of a chore.
They might. On the other hand, it's a massively manual process. As mentioned earlier, elections are expensive, and personally I feel running them only as needed makes sense, even when it's cheaper.
This is something that's been a problem for... quite a while. It seems to be getting a little better, but it does feel there's a point where I'd ask, "if it's short of resources, how far is streamlining going to help?".
At some point, there's a distinct lack of fat in the processes to trim.
Simpler elections sound like a good idea. On the other hand, it's worth considering if running them more often than "as needed" makes sense. On the short term, it might be worth using simpler, more streamlined elections to cut back on the backlog.
I like simpler. More often should need a clear reason why it's better.
Meta is kind of that. We also have a room on Super User for contacting mods, and it works reasonably well. There's a handful of users on many sites (who I shall not name since they would probably be embarrassed) who have an impact primarily through meta and such.
Having read through and realising I misunderstood this completely - They could - but other than initiating town hall question collection and picking the questions, the CMs act primarily to facilitate and organise. I'm not really sure that those processes mirror anything a regular mod comes across ... as a normal mod.
In a sense - the community does but I'm not very sure how devolving the process to the community would work better than it does now.
The idea of getting mods to "re-up" and letting them take a break and come back has been mentioned before. As someone who's both a mod and an ex-mod - I actually feel the value of a experienced, engaged and accessible moderator kind of goes beyond the site they actually moderate on. So, I'd feel that a mod should be a mod as long as they're able to, and willing to put in the time.
I'd say, a mix of minimum activity and an option to step down at any time would be a great compromise.
I'm not sure of a "great" system of working out when a community needs more mods short of the mods asking. As long as the flags are handled (which is a "easy" metric in terms of statistics), they're able to keep ahead of meta and there's no major/widespread drama in the community over mod teams.
Even where some of our experienced mods are less active, they do form a really useful counterbalance on some decisions behind the scenes, so "activity" is not a great metric.
That's to say, we shouldn't have moderator turnover for the sake of having turnover on a mature site.
The idea is to make elections much less epic and generational by creating more opportunity for the community to decide who they elect and retain.
This seems to be connected to your bullet point about moderators for life. Can you elaborate on that a bit? For example, if you have 3 moderators and the election comes, 3 new would be elected and if the old ones wanted to stay, they needed to nominate themselves again?
This sounds like a lot of extra work for then active moderators, who had to go through the election process while also volunteering to keep on moderating their sites.
Furthermore, as @fbueckert mentioned in a comment, moderators also have to make unpopular decisions. It shouldn't become too much of a popularity contest. I wouldn't want moderators to have to worry also about the popularity of their potential decision, because there's another election soon. If it's the best decision for the community should matter only.
Consider an "Honorary Mod" status for elected moderators.
They drift away from the site, have less time for the job, etc. This is usually accompanied by a substantial decrease in activity. They're not around much any more. They are welcome to return later.
Something bad happened and the diamond is removed.
They get hired by SE and might get an employee-diamond to replace the mod-diamond. They still have privileges, but use them much less frequently because they have network-wide responsibilities now.
They were actually doing just fine and are still active and interested, but you want them to step aside so the community can have another election.
The risk with removing a diamond from an active elected moderator is that it could cause some frustration and resentment, for both the moderator and the community. Here's somebody who's dedicated years to the site, who thought it was a lifetime position after election, and who's now being told "thanks but you're done". Even when people know intellectually that a change-up is good for a site, I anticipate that many will still struggle with it, because people are complicated multi-faceted beings, not logical machines.
Further, there are people whose wisdom and insight we want to retain access to. I could (but won't publicly) name a few individuals who I want to still be part of the mod team even if their activity greatly drops, because they bring history, particular problem-solving abilities, or special skills to the team. Currently they can remain on the team; your proposal would kick them out.
For mods who are only stepping down (or being nudged out) to make room, and (perhaps) who have served the site for some threshold amount of time to be determined, let's create an "honorary moderator" status.2 Functionally, this is similar to the case of a moderator getting hired -- the person retains access to the mod tools and chat rooms and team,1 is free to handle things when noticed or urgent, sometimes participates in mod chat, but by and large does not participate in the active moderation of the site. These honorary mods wouldn't carry a normal share of the moderation load, wouldn't count toward a quorum when an official mod panel needs to be called, and would be separated out from the active mods on moderator lists.
Should this status be for life? I don't know. I don't think we are at risk of the honorary mods overwhelming the currently-active ones, in the same way that the 15 or so employees with diamonds don't overwhelm the three moderators on a smaller site. So I think "as long as the person is active and wants to participate in this way" would be fine. I think it's also fine to go into this with that intention but knowing that we might need a time limit later -- anybody accepting the honorary diamond knows things might have to change.
I got this idea from my congregation's honorary trustees. Past presidents (it's a big job and you had to work your way up through offices usually over ~ten years) become lifetime honorary trustees. They may attend and participate in board discussions, they have access to all the official doings that officers and trustees do, and they are allowed to vote for several years. After a set time they lose the vote but retain everything else. Most of them have drifted away by then, but it's a graceful transition, not a boot. And if somebody wants to return to "active duty", we'll elect them to the board again.
1 Having your team account deleted because the community needs you to make room for another mod would be especially demoralizing, I would think -- you lose your account and body of work.
2 It can be called something else; this is an idea, not a precise suggestion. "Ex-officio", "mod advisor", "venerated elder"... ok, probably not that last one, but this is the kind of function I'm describing.
I hope this is rare, but sometimes an election is the last thing a site needs right now -- there's some issue on the site, some factional dispute or the like, and an election will be contentious and perhaps produce results we'll all regret in a few months. I'm not sure how to address this, but we should somehow "take the pulse" of the community before scheduling an election, rather than just having a fixed schedule.
Of course, if there's a problem that significant, the community and the CM team should be working together to solve it. The "are we ready for an election?" prod would surface those issues if they haven't been visible to the CMs before.
As I've always seen it, site elections are a sign of trust between the Community Team and the site itself; you effectively trust us to be able to select our own leadership without running the site and the network's good reputation into the ground in the process.
Early beta sites really haven't earned that trust. And there's also long-running beta sites which still haven't earned that trust. Appointing moderators instead of throwing it to the fickle winds of the voting public is still necessary to ensure that sites have proper leadership when they for whatever reason are unable to choose that leadership for themselves.
However, I do agree that there's no real reason for the Community Team to do this most of the time. Except for the very first moderator selection on a fledgling site, in most situations where appointing a pro-tem moderator is necessary you already have an existing moderator team, or at least part of one; these are the people that you have already trusted to know how to effectively lead the community, and whose judgement you're (presumably) already relying on when deciding who next to appoint. Why not just cut out the middle-man and let them deputize their own pro-tems?
I would still want the Community Team to sign off before giving any deputized pro-tem access to PII and such, but the majority of flags and work that would necessitate having a pro-tem in the first place doesn't involve more than just having elevated mod-level privileges (e.g. one-vote close/delete/undelete powers). The community leaders should be able to decide if and when there's need for a few extra hands while they're waiting for the next election; there's no reason to backlog the Community Team with this. If a new "real" moderator is needed urgently, we'll let you know.
We should do a better job of giving "drive-by" voters relevant information about the candidates.
Right now the election screen contains very little information about how a particular candidate interacts with a community – instead, it provides "objective" information like reputation, time on the site, candidate score, and badges, in addition to the candidate's blurb.
But besides what the candidate wishes to reveal in her bio, there's no information about the candidate's views on the site, her approach to moderation, her approach to conflict, and so forth.
This puts us in the situation where high-rep users, after a long hiatus or period of conflict with the community, can attract votes on the basis of name recognition and "good stats" from drive-by voters who got their minimum voting reputation some time ago and haven't been engaged recently. They get a notification that there's an election, and they vote, and that's that.
One way to help address this is by developing better "objective" stats that incorporate things like recent review queue activity (as opposed to years ago), recent flag count and acceptance rate (not just total count), recent meta posts count and score, and so forth, and displaying them prominently, rather than only showing metrics based primarily on rep and long-term badge achievements.
I believe a better informed electorate would help make elections less stressful for communities. I'd also speculate that this would reduce the need for CM involvement following controversial elections, though this is just a deduction with no data or even anecdote to back it up.
I like the overall idea, but I'm nervous about a few things with replacing pro-tem mods, in particular right out of private beta.
Lack of solid knowledge. The community doesn't know their candidates that well, they probably haven't seen them run into many tough situations yet.
Lack of voters. There won't be that many users yet, and if all goes well, the site will quickly grow to where most users didn't vote in that first election.
Lack of risk mitigation. If we get bitten by the previous two points, we don't have a good safety net. If a mod elected early on does turn out to be a bad choice, it's difficult to avoid a lot of drama, which is always harmful, but perhaps even more so for a site early in public beta.
All of that said I absolutely think that we should have elections eventually, and pro-tem mods should be a temporary solution, and making elections simpler and thus easier to have (e.g. for replacements) sounds great.
Have we considered the effect on private information?
I don't know if this is neutral or negative, but more people cycling through the moderator positions means more people who can see all the mod-private information, like suspension histories and PII. Everybody is bound by the moderation agreement (including after they step down) so I'm not concerned that things are more likely to leak out, but over time more people will see private communication between mods and users. This could become uncomfortable for the users involved; that "be nice" suspension of a prominent user with all the juicy details in the mod message is visible to an ever-increasing number of site users. What will the effect be? This concern already exists whenever we add a moderator, but we're opening the door wider now.
Do we care? I don't know. Just from an information-security perspective, we should ask ourselves the question.
There's one notable advantage of more users cycling through moderator teams: increased perspective among non-mods.
There are many good points here so far about concerns with having more elections. I agree with almost all of them.
If the problems with more frequent elections could be figured out, I see one big advantage: the more users who have experienced having to moderate a site, the more “forged in the fires of moderation” users we will have. I think this would be good for the sites.
Becoming a moderator has an interesting side effect: the rules look very different when you're the one trying to judiciously apply them. This change in perspective has been remarked on by and is very valuable for myself and my fellow local mods. If we could get some of that outside the set of mods, I think it would be a great benefit to a site.
After all, it's one thing for the people who control the levers judging and enforcing the rules to have a big-picture view of tending to site health and operation. It's even more valuable to have that perspective among the general membership. It makes for a lot more cooperation and a lot less friction. But, it's less likely to spread from “The Man” of lifelong mods though, and more likely to spread among non-mods by seeing other non-mods model it.
As much as the idea of standing for election every year (or whatever) gives me a headache thinking of how it would politicise every mod action, if we could somehow get more regular users to have moderator experience under the belts, I think that one thing would be of great benefit to site health.
In short, moderator experience makes for more conscientious users, and we can always use more of those. If we can figure out how to get more users real moderation experience without breaking anything or anyone else, that would be good.
I think the mod for life position works quite well, and I would not change it to have mods reelected annually, or some such.
There are plenty of cases where mods step down, or get removed and new users step up and are elected to replace them. Or in another case, a site grows and it gets more mods. That all works (could use some tweaking on the inactive mods steeping down part) but the mod for life bit is central to how our sites are run.
As others have stated changing the mod position to focus on reelections is dangerous (just look at politics).
If instead of curating the site we help run, which includes some actions that are unpopular, I was just filling my term looking to the next election, I'd always be thinking about how this would effect my votes (again look to politicians).
Take an example from our site, blender has an all new still experiential version 2.8, we are getting questions about that new version. There is an ongoing debate about whether or not 2.8 questions should be on topic yet.
If I was thinking about getting re-elected, I'd say sure ask away (that is the popular thing), however if I'm thinking about the longevity of the site, and the usefulness of the questions/answers I say no. All that is still changing, next week that button might not be there.
Ok, back to the problem of elected forever. Do we realistically expect a mod to volunteer for decades? (Some people have life to do, and simply can't.) No, nobody does.
We need to make it very clear this is an opened agreement.
Moderators are elected to help run the site for as long as they want to.
When a mod gets busy (new job, school, baby, family emergency, moves, etc) they should simply be able to leave.
No pressure, no expectations from the users or SE. They could very well be here for decades, or just a few months. Whatever it is, mods should feel free to come and go as they want.
Once a moderator of SE, always a moderator of SE.
After a moderator is elected and signs that Moderator Agreement, they should be able to return as a mod any time they want (say they finished school, or that baby grew up) even if their position has been filled. Granted they left in good standing, and have stayed even marginally engaged with the site (this does not go for the few that get asked to leave, or are kicked out).
You can't have too many mods. So if a mod who helped start the site years ago now has time again and comes back, it is a win win. There is less workload on all the other mods; there is less to learn then a brand new mod; and the site keeps its energy with "fresh blood."
Lets say there is a mod "Frodo Baggins." Frodo is more busy then he use to be, he's still on the site nearly every day handling flags and all, but if he knew he could step down, let one of the super active power users take over, and yet still be able to come back as a mod, he probably would step down.
See at that point there is no reason not to. The site benefits because the more active a mod the better, and Frodo has lost nothing by leaving.
In our current system, there is a huge disincentive to leave as a mod. If you leave, you leave all that power (even if you don't use it that much any more). Our sites suffer when semi-active mods do not want to give up their seats, because there is no guarantee that they will ever be able to come back.
So instead of forcing the mods to keep getting reelected (which has a whole host of its own problems), just remove the reasons the mods do not want to leave.
Mods keeping a re-election mindset is dangerous. Sites' quality will suffer.
Enable mods to freely step down and rejoin when they want. Solves most of the inactive mod problem, keeps sites fresh and active, and the special role mods play safe.
Any references to "The Fellowship of the Ring" or "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" may be incidental.
The recent pro tem election on the Vi site has left me with mixed feelings.
Active member of the community.
Sporadic contributor (mostly from when the site was new). I would still consider him to be a good mod, but that's mostly based on contributions I've seen on other sites (he's a great mod on another site).
Prolific contributor on other sites, but not on ours. I think few people knew who they are (and thus if they're a good mod).
Very few/sporadic contributions on any site spread out over many years.
There wasn't really a choice: only one candidate was clearly qualified. I think no one was surprised by the outcome: candidate 1 got 72% of the vote.
It's not that I'm unhappy with the outcome; but it seems to me that the entire election process was just ... unnecessary? I'm not active on the parenting site, but looking at their election it seems there was a little bit more choice, but one candidate getting 60% of the votes seems it wasn't a difficult decision there, either.
Honestly I'm not sure if the election really improved anything over just appointing the mod. On the other hand, I don't think it did any harm, either.
Small update: one of the nominees self-deleted their account a day after the election results were announced. While we can't be sure of the reason, I think it's not unreasonable to assume that that disappointment with the election results is a factor. No content is lost and the user's contributions were sporadic, so not a huge deal; but it does highlight that elections can be a risk and have negative effects.
Okay, I am throwing a suggestion out there. It’s very rough and mostly food for thought. Also, it pertains to “running” sites with an established moderator team and probably does not translate well to sites on the scale of SO or the community of SciFi. I am aware that this goes against the premise of sticking to STV, but while STV is great, it is simply not made for what I am suggesting.
Introduce a score that quantifies how much a new moderator is needed. This can be calculated from flag-handling times, some special button each active moderator can push, or recent retirees.
Introduce a score that quantifies how suitable somebody is for moderatorship. This could cover some basic community-moderation achievements (like the moderator score in current elections) but most importantly should be based on anonymous votes by experienced users. The latter could roughly work like this: Once a user reached a certain reputation, they can nominate up to e.g. three other users for moderatorship (and change that list at any time). The value of these nomination votes could somehow mildly scale with reputation or be higher for existing moderators.
If all of the above is positive, the candidate writes a brief text to introduce themselves, is subject to questions by the community, and most importantly subject to a vote. In the latter, voters are only asked to express their approval of this particular candidate. If the result of this is positive, the candidate becomes a moderator.
No moderator elections if there are no suitable or willing candidates.
Excellent candidates can become moderators when they are ripe.
You seem to be proposing a procedure by which the whole community can remove a diamond moderator by majority vote, when there are more candidates than there are seats. A better alternative to consider is removal by a two-thirds vote of the whole community.
I suggest that if you do establish a yearly election cycle, it is a great idea to list existing diamond moderators on the ballot, and give them an opportunity to campaign, but they should be removed if they receive twice as many downvotes as upvotes.
Why? Because moderator elections are not democratic. I am not criticizing this. It is just important to keep in mind. A community cannot set the rules of its own elections. It cannot set terms, term limits, voting procedures, it cannot determine the powers of its elected officials. Robert’s Rules do not apply. The closest the community comes to establishing bylaws is voting on meta posts which propose community policy, and even then community policy cannot contravene Stack Exchange policy. The moderator agreement is with Stack Exchange, not with the community. In short, elected moderators are community representatives, sort of. But it is closer to the truth to say they are appointed volunteers, and that Stack Exchange uses elections as a way to crowd-source and automate the decision of who is safest to appoint.
So the question becomes, how can Stack Exchange crowdsource the question of which diamond moderators they should remove because they are not an asset to Stack Exchange? For that there should be a community consensus, that is, the two-thirds majority which is conventionally the minimum for removal from any office.
This procedure is detailed at “Handling Calls to Remove a Moderator”. A two-thirds vote is fairly consistent with what Robert’s Rules calls for. Robert’s Rules begin with confidential investigation by a committee that prefers charges, followed by a trial of the facts by the assembly (censure a.k.a. impeachment), and, if censure passes by a majority, a second two-thirds vote on removal then takes place.
“Stack Exchange Inc. reserves the right to terminate my privileges as a moderator at any time without warning.” This is a clause in the Moderator Agreement. Termination could presumably take place whenever a diamond moderator violates the agreement. I do not know if this procedure has documented steps that provide for a fair hearing or due process.
From the number of posts, it seems obvious there is interest. Not alot consistency what direction it should take but there is interest.
A lot of the posts opposed to reoccuring elections are about the drama (and pain) of the current process. The suggestion is for a simpler less painful process.
Long before I was active on SE, I had a mop at a couple of the en.wikipedia.org sites.
The process used at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Administrators was not overly painfull, quickly removed the inactive, and provided a route to return. It is one of the most graceful and pleasant process I have seen.
It is a common occurrence on wikis to create an account, be active for a certain period of time, then become inactive. While this is to be expected due to the nature of this site, accounts with restricted access should not be left unattended for a long period of time. Users who return after an extended break may no longer be in touch with community practices or policies, which is not desirable in an administrator. Inactive accounts are also more open to account hijacking, and this may be difficult to detect as compromised if the original user is not there to notice edits they didn't make. Furthermore, the list of users with restricted access should only contain those capable of responding to queries within a reasonable period of time.
On Wikisource, an inactive sysop will generally have his or her rights removed. An "inactive administrator" is one who has not edited during the past six months and has not made more than 50 edits during the last year. Inactive users automatically lose their restricted access in their next scheduled confirmation of the voting unless the community supports continued access. Any user who has lost access due to inactivity may reapply through the regular processes.
I'm incredibly leery of this aspect. It completely changes the paradigm of moderators, and not in a good way.
I get that SE is trying to make elections take less from their staff to enact. But...that's kinda the cost of doing business in this system. If you want final oversight and control of the site, you need to keep your hands in it. Less involvement implicitly means less control. See chat and the various debacles that have happened there.
If you want to take a step back and automate the process more, while requiring moderators to stand for re-election, you're telling the community that their input and decisions matter more than the overall health of the site does. You're going to face massive backlash when you see something isn't working right, and stick your oar back in.
If you want the oversight, you need to put in the work.
There are too many words, comments, answers to read them all. So, I'm going to focus on two points. If this has already been said by someone else, apologies.
But should communities have a say when that happens?
May I suggest two years? If someone is a good fair-minded mod whose presence is unintrusive until needed or an unreliable biased person, I believe two years is sufficient time to either confirm or remove their title. If their status is confirmed, then it's guaranteed for life five-seven years. During which time, a mod can freely choose to resign whenever RL intervenes and new elections should be held, if and when the community feels that necessity. Turnovers are necessary for the well-being of any public institution, private company and workforce, the same principle applies to websites.
What about the users who have the right to vote?
Should a user who has only posted twice in five years have the same say as someone who has regularly contributed to the site? Should a user who has never posted on meta have the same privilege as someone who has participated, not every week, not every month, but at least (hypothesis) four times on meta in any given year EDIT (this could also include comments). But for candidates, I want to vote for someone who sticks out their neck every once in a while, and I expect them to have been an active member also on meta, not only on the main site.
It's a fact, but what I'm about to say will not be liked, not all users are created equal. Some have earned more of a voice than others.
I think that regular elections are simply a horrible idea. Having to go through the circus of elections on a regular basis would be a very strong incentive to step down. I am currently a mod on 3 sites (elected on two, appointed on one) so I would have to go through three elections every year if we made this a yearly thing. That would be very tiring.
I also think it is very counterproductive to make mods a more political position than they need to be. Moderators need to feel they can do their jobs, which sometimes involves making users angry at us, without fear of this leading to them losing the next election. I really don't want to have a situation where moderators will consider their actions through the distorting lens of how they would affect their reelection bid. I can't see that having a beneficial effect on the quality of moderators' work.
However, I do think it could be useful to give the community a simpler way of expressing its feelings about current moderators. To that end, I propose we have a running mod score. Each mod's profile could have two special voting buttons and each user would have the right to up- or downvote the mod (users should be able to change their vote at will). If a moderator's score falls below a certain threshold, and if the total number of votes cast represents a significant proportion of the community, that could trigger some sort of action. Perhaps a mini-election (like a vote of confidence) where users would be asked to vote on the mod retaining their position. Of course, the score should be completely ignored until enough users have voted one way or another that the score can be taken to be representative of what a large part of the community feels. The score also doesn't need to be visible to anyone but SE employees.
I think it is important that the communities feel their mods (at least their elected mods) always represent them and there should be a better way for the community to remove a mod when they feel the mod's no longer right for the job. As it stands, the only way a community can de-mod someone is by contacting SE or raising a huge stink on meta. This also means that a few vocal users who dislike a mod can have a disproportionate impact and cause all sorts of drama by complaining on meta. If we had a moderator score as I describe, that could give a much better, more objective and more representative measure of how the community really feels about its moderators.
I think these are good ideas for the smaller exchanges. Moderation on low volume sites can be difficult for only a few users to shoulder, and the community is often hard pressed to meet the numbers themselves.
Moderation of the smaller sites has been problematic in the past, so taking a slightly different angle could help keep the sites clean while also increasing interest in participation and contribution.
That said... I don't think this makes sense for the larger sites. The moderation at Stack Overflow, by far the largest site of the exchange and the lifeline of the company, is in a pretty coalesced state. Its overall process, lineage of term, and selection is being handled very well. I haven't seen really any complaints about it there, and I am an avid follower of their meta site, a frequent contributor, and have ran in a few elections. They were fair, the elected moderators have done well, there was a lot of community participation across the board, and the frequency seems balanced.
tl;dr; Good for small, avoid for large. Please do not do this for Stack Overflow.
Suggestion: stop using down votes for mod election votes (primaries1).
Does it really matter who you are against? Who you are for is what matters.
The use of negative voting in SE elections, the down vote button alongside the up vote button, remains a sign of the flaws in SE community's attitudes towards people. We have done a thing lately in trying to improve that. Carry that momentum forward.
Down votes during mod elections: not necessary.
Add up the "who I am for" votes (the up votes); we each get three in a given election. The winners will still win.
The down vote tool for questions and answers retain their utility for the things -- questions and answers -- that is this site's attraction.
People aren't things, so please stop treating them that way (in the mechanical sense).
1 primaries point edited in thanks to feed back in comments from @MonicaCellio.
I am extremely confused by this bullet point.
Our Moderator team is the best there is, bar none.
I don't know which moderator team you are referring to, and what evidence you have for it being "the best there is".
Having senior moderators is important to retain valuable talent.
It is not clear what you are saying here. Are you saying that giving talented people the option of being permanent moderators is important for keeping them? So these talented people that are such good moderators, wouldn't do it if they were not made permanent? In my opinion, that attitude alone is enough for me not to want such a person to be a moderator.
Have a say in when what happens? When a moderator becomes permanent? If you are thinking about making it possible for some moderators to become permanent, then why should the community not have a say in this? Yes they should be able to select which ones are permanent and when they graduate to becoming permanent (though I really don't understand what you're saying so maybe my answer is not relevant).
And should they be empowered to decide if something has changed?
Whether or not something has happened in the past (for example "changed") is not usually something we decide in the present.
We don't want to have a lot of needless rollover elections, so maybe we could come up with a system where long-term "senior moderators" are easily retained, while more established communities can avoid needless elections when it turns out: "Nah, we're good. We don't need another election."
So at what point have you addressed your question in bold at the beginning, about whether or not "moderator for life" should always be automatic and FOREVER? This has been one of the most confusing paragraphs for me ever to try to interpret.
It is extremely obvious that no one should be given mod privileges permanently. Someone is eventually going to develop Alzheimer's and delete every single question on their SE.
Also the atmosphere in an SE changes over the years. Those who were good moderators 10 years ago will likely not be liked when the grandchildren of millenials are writing 90% of the questions and answers here.
This is why there are ways to remove moderators (for example with 2/3 votes from other moderators). If by FOREVER in all capital letters, you mean you want to remove the capability to remove moderators, then I disagree that this would be a good idea.
Have two grades of moderators.
Ones that have to run for re-election every year (or however often you propose to have regular elections), and ones that have to run for re-election every 10 years (or whatever).
You need to have served at least 1 term as a short-term moderator, to run for long-term moderator.
The 10 year moderators would be what you seem to call "senior moderators" and naturally by virtue of the fact that their term is 10 years long, it is easy to "retain" them. But you will find that 10 years is a long time and things change a lot over 10 years, you probably want these "long-term moderators" to be for something like 5 years instead.
So should people become "long-term" moderators "automatically" ? No. Some people are good on paper but when they are given the power they turn out to be terrible. Make them survive at least one re-election before you make them "long-term", and don't have anything "permanent". The long-term moderators are given a huge number of years (for example 5) during which they do not need to run for re-election which should be plenty of incentive to do the job, and during this huge number of years, the only way they can be removed is by the existing methods (for example, 2/3 of the other moderators voting for it, though I find 2/3 strange and would think 51% is enough).
Moderator elections in beta sites?
How does the Constable badge work in the new graduation model?


text:
← How to provide coaching to your front line managers?
This is a great topic to discuss. I think you make some valid points, but at the same time I think that most could easily be overcome except for the physical presence with the customer. There is nothing that substitutes physical presence with the customer.
If you allow your employees to work from home, you need to have special, above average, employees. They need to be driven, have integrity and work ethic, and be accountable for what they do. This type of employee is special and not all employees fall into this group.
Even though not all employees fall into this group, there are many companies that could take more advantage of the work at home employee. Companies could save a lot of money if they were to allow people to work from home more often.
Thank you for bringing up this topic.
@Brandon: Yeah! Most of these issues can easily be resolved. But not many people know how. I have worked/consulted various companies, where they just implement work-from-home policies because its cool. But that’s not the way to go. Organization needs to provide extensive training to their line managers to implement these principles carefully.
And with the work like software development, where almost all the projects go over the budget due to the nature of work, and poor cost estimation; no one wants to add another complexity.
Anyways, thanks for providing your feedback. And yeah! Do watch out for my next blog, I will provide few tips on how you can prepare your line managers to promote work-from-home culture.

industry_corpus2: Computing & Telecommunications


text:
The Energy Department is committed to advancing women's participation and leadership in the energy workforce, and in furthering STEM education by working in partnership with stakeholders and seeking to remove barriers to participation in STEM careers, especially for women and other underrepresented groups.
Highlighting the work of women trailblazers at the Energy Department.
The "Calutron Girls" are the final women of the Manhattan Project we're celebrating this year.
The fourth woman from the Manhattan Project we're highlighting this Women's History Month is Floy Agnes Lee.
The third woman whose work helped the Manhattan Project that we're highlighting this month is Irène Joliot-Curie.
The second woman from the Manhattan Project we're highlighting this month is Blanche J. Lawrence.
The first woman from the Manhattan Project we're highlighting this Women's History Month is Lilli Hornig.
This Women's History Month, we're showcasing the broad spectrum of women who contributed to the Manhattan Project.
Dr. Grace Bochenek, Director of the National Energy Technology Lab (NETL), shared her thoughts on the importance of STEM education.
A summary of the teacher training event in Boston after the C3E Women's conference in November 2017.
A re-cap of the Department of Energy's visit to G.I.R.L. 2017 in Ohio.

industry_corpus2: Power & Energy


text:
Shipwrecked and alone in a foreign land, Viola makes the best of the situation the only way she can — by disguising herself as a man named Cesario and landing a job as a page for the local Duke. Duke Orsino warms to Viola quickly, and entrusts her with a job, to woo the Countess Olivia, whom he's been pining for. But Viola does too good of a job, and soon Olivia has fallen head-over-heels for "Cesario."
Horrible formatting. The character names cross overtop the actual lines and take up more than one line to the point where you cannot tell who is speaking where. Would not recommend.
Shakespeare achieves his goal of entertaining in Twelfth Night. Although the old language of this text may make it confusing for many readers, the plot is timeless. A string of follies, mistaken identity, and deception leads to utter confusion for the characters and hilarious entertainment for us. Also, for a free book this version of it by Bookbyte is very good.
Bold character names make it very easy to read. A fantastic version.

industry_corpus2: Literature & Emotions


text: In a natural field experiment with 900+ subjects in 300+ teams, we study the effects of choosing team members versus ideas on entrepreneurial team performance. We use a two-by-two design in which subjects are randomly assigned to one of four treatments in which they (i) choose their own team but not the idea they pursue; (ii) choose their own idea but not their team; (iii) choose both their team and the idea to pursue; or (iv) choose neither their team nor the idea. We find that teams who choose their own idea but not their members perform consistently better than those in the remaining treatments. We then explore a number of different channels that can account for this finding.

industry_corpus2: Technology & Research


text:
Is Facebook damaging your reputation with sneaky political posts?
Most of us have a Facebook profile, and most of us take a haphazard approach to segregating our business and personal lives. That can cause serious headaches, thanks to a troublesome new Facebook feature.
One of the first rules most of us learn in business is to avoid bringing up controversial subjects with co-workers, colleagues, and customers. Especially customers.
If you have business-related Facebook friends, you probably think twice about the sorts of things you share. The same unwritten rules apply on Facebook as in face-to-face interactions: you wouldn’t tell an off-color joke or start a political argument in either place.
So you might be shocked to learn that Facebook is automatically publishing posts under your name and placing them at the top of the News feed for your friends. In some cases, these posts can include controversial political content that you would never voluntarily post.
So what's the big deal? People share stuff on Facebook all the time, right?
Except that's not what happened here. I've found more than a dozen examples of similar "sharing." I spoke with five individuals who supposedly shared posts in this format. All of them said they had done nothing to trigger these posts.
If you actively share a link, a post, or a photo, you expect that shared item to go out to your friends immediately. In this case, however, the posts are going out under your name because at some point in the past (in some cases in the distant past) you visited a page and clicked Like.
Yes, you voluntarily Liked that page and made it part of your Facebook profile. If a Facebook friend wants to go through your list of Likes, they can learn that you like the NRA or PETA or a seemingly innocuous group that you probably didn't realize was funded by Karl Rove's political action committee.
One associate whose name was attached to a rabidly right-wing political post said she disagreed vehemently with the sentiment it expressed, and she couldn't imagine why it appeared under her name.
Two other associates had their names attached to more innocuous-seeming posts. One forcibly shared post was from eBay Motors, which caused a potentially embarrassing conflict for the unwitting poster. The other was from Esquire magazine, and the person under whose name it appeared called it "crazy annoying" and asked what he had to do to "stop this kind of hijacking in the future."
Even worse, if you're the recipient of these messages, there is no way to prevent them from appearing in your News feed. You can hide individual stories as they appear, but you can't block the page from posting again, and again, and again. And even if you remove the friend completely from your news feed, the forcibly shared posts appear. The only way to stop it is to unfriend the person whose Facebook identity is being misused.
This is an election year, so the problem is only going to get worse.
If you're concerned that inappropriate content might appear in your friends' News feed under your name, you should immediately go through the list of pages for which you've clicked Like, and Unlike any that you think pose the potential of embarrassing you.
You'll also want to ask a trusted friend to let you know immediately if anything suspicious appears in their News feeds that appears to be from you. Because when Facebook uses your name to promote a page to your friends, it doesn't provide any indication to you that it has done so.
If you've seen any examples of similarly sneaky behavior, share them with me in the Talkback section.
A colleague of mine and a friend of mine had both "liked" drugstore.com somewhere along the way. No problem, right? Wrong.
Drugstore.com recently ran a somewhat racy promotion for the "Date Night Gift Pack from K-Y: Including $10 off 2 movie tickets, Yours & Mine Lubes, and K-Y Touch Warming Oil," and the ad implied that my associates liked the K-Y products. To say that my colleague and my friend were mortified would be an understatement!
If you're communicating with clients and customers on Facebook, do you really want that image to show up in their News feed?


text:
The Asental Group strives to be a well managed company with a modern, communicative approach in its dealings with employees, business partners, local stakeholders, and the general public, and to excell in its land management activities and in the creative development of real estate. It focuses its interest and energy on the domestic market, particularly in the Moravian-Silesian Region.
These business priorities bring better conditions and service to Asental’s clients (primarily commercial tenants, regional industrial companies and public-sector partners) and to the general business public.
(ii) by contributing to the general, sustainable economic development of the region.
This latter goal necessitates ongoing constructive cooperation with partners from the public and private sectors. Asental is committed to this goal, applying an proactive and cooperative approach to regional land management, development and maintenance.
Asental Group applies a high standard of quality to the management of the properties withiin its portfolio. In the future, it plans to expand and diversify its portfolio, either via the acquisition of further quality real estate assets or by the construction of new, modern developments.
Asental Group, in its corporate identity, comprises Asental Group comprises of two main parts: the name and the graphic element.
The name was created by combining two key words that define the essential focus of the company: a) Essential b) Assets. The abbreviation and adjustment of the phrase “Essential Assets” gave rise to the singleword, original name of the company, namely “Asental”. The designation of “Group” is then added to the name to form “Asental Group”, which serves as an umbrella for the group’s divisions.
The graphic element consists of the three stripes. The pictogram imbues the logo with a sense of stability, power, and dynamics, while expressing ambition, objectives and constant progress.

industry_corpus2: Real Estate & Construction


text:
Yesterday on the blog we looked at how to recognise the signs of your cat showing you ‘love’ or affection; and how cats in the same social group can show affection to each other (if you missed the post, read it here).
But what happens when your kitten is smitten – and at what age do they begin to mate with each other?
In the latest video in the Simon’s Cat Logic series, Simon’s Cat creator Simon Tofield discusses love between cats in the video ‘Butterflies’.
“One of the stars of ‘Butterflies’ is a fat, chubby girl cat, who is a bit of a love interest for Simon’s Cat,” explains Simon. He goes on to describe the inspiration behind the video and the character of Cloe.
Cats Protection’s Behaviour Manager Nicky Trevorrow discusses the concept of love between cats and mating behaviours. Nicky says: “Unfortunately cats aren't really that romantic – cats actually mate with quite a few different partners, they’re not really fussy about who they choose to breed with.
“When a female cat is in season she’ll call quite a lot or miaow and it’s a very different sort of miaow to what owners are normally used to. It’s quite a persistent noise. Some owners that aren't familiar with this sound may actually think their cats are in pain, but this isn't true.
Find out more about the health benefits of neutering here.
Feel free to share the video and join in the conversation on Twitter using the hashtag #SimonsCatLogic.

industry_corpus2: Others


text:
Ronald McDonald House Charities® Manitoba requires an Events & Communications Assistantfor our Fund Development department.
The successful candidate will report to the Special Events & Community Relations Manager and work closely with the Development & Communications Officer to provide support to all RMHCMB’s signature and third party events. In addition, the role offers support in the development and management of strong community relations initiatives and ensures a positive social media presence in the marketplace.
This entry level role with RMHCMB requires a Creative Communications diploma or equivalent diploma/experience. The position’s principle job responsibilities include event data entry/management, third party group registry and support, donor stewardship assistance and social media network management support.


text:
CALDWELL, Ohio (Legal Newsline) - Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine and the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services filed a complaint on Wednesday against a Summerfield camp for allegedly operating without a license.
The Ohio Wilderness Boys Camp in Summerfield allegedly operated a long-term residential facility for children without a state license. The ODJFS made an unannounced visit to the camp in May after receiving a report about a brief sexual contact by minors between two residents of the camp during a supervised field trip.
The complaints requests that the facility cease operations until it obtains proper licensure.
"The state requires licensure for such facilities in order to ensure the safety of the children living there," DeWine said. "Some of these children have been there more than two years. And as far as we know, they aren't attending school or getting the education they are required to, and need, for their ages."
The ODJFS found that at least nine children between the ages of nine and 15 were at the facility between three months and two or more years. Residential children facilities with stays exceeding two consecutive weeks must be licensed by ODJFS.
The OWBC website states that the camp is a long term program for boys between nine and 15 years of age with emotional trouble. There are nine sessions of the program each year and each session lasts approximately six weeks. There is a break between each session of less than a week and families may visit the camp every 90 days.

industry_corpus2: Law & Justice


text:
A-B. Starting from the Community Centre, follow the green (and purple) arrows downhill and veer right at the road junction. The purple arrows are for the longer Benard Loop. Pass Lanes Shop on your right and continue out of the village and uphill to join a laneway on your right. Turn right here.
B-C. Follow the green and purple arrows along the laneway and into forestry across Paradise Hill.
On the descent watch for a stile on your right as both loops turn into forestry. After 50m the loop turns right and follows the forestry road for almost 2km to reach a 3-way junction where the Benard Loop turns right but you continue straight. After 200m you reach a 3-way junction where you rejoin the Benard Loop and turn left.
C-D. Now follow both loops for 200m to reach a T-junction where you turn right, and after 300m take a sharp left. Now follows a long ascent to the highest point of the loop on the shoulder of Temple Hill. Fine views open up on your left as you descend to reach a sharp left turn where the loop turns right and crosses a stile into a field and turns left and downhill.
D-A. The loop descends for 200m to reach the stile you crossed at B above. This time continue straight and rejoin the outward section of the loop on the return to the trailhead.
Come to Ballyhoura Country and walk into paradise!

industry_corpus2: Travel & Geography


text:
Kiss, Cs. and Horner, J. and Pál, A. and Szakáts, R. and Vilenius, E. and Müller, Th. G. and Acosta-Pulido, J. and Licandro, J. and Sárneczky, K. and Szabó, Gy. and Duffard, R. and Thirouin, A. (2014) The extreme Centaur 2013 AZ60. In: Asteroids, Comets, Meteors 2014, June 30 - July 4, 2014, Helsinki.
This list was generated on Fri Apr 26 14:01:49 2019 CEST.

industry_corpus2: Aerospace


text:
Picking the best stocks can be a simple process if you avoid the most common mistakes in an attempt to ramp up returns. Get more stock trading tips from India Infoline.
Trading is a gamble they say. And it is, therefore, one of the most common deterrents that keep people from trading in the share market. But in reality, trading is not as scary as it seems to be. If only you can avoid some of the common mistakes that traders usually do, you can steer clear into earning good returns.
Can you write something on paper without a pen or pencil? Or can you repair your car without the right tools? Just like these are not possible, trading without using the right tools is also a big mistake. This becomes more important than the examples even because it’s your own hard-earned money that you trade. Have good brokers to guide you, reliable trading software to assist you, some financial educational material to back you everytime you trade. The more you realize the value of these right tools and start using them, the profitable it might turn out to be for you.
There’s a reason why you budget yourself everytime you get your salary. You note your expenses, liabilities, investments and distribute funds accordingly to each. Having it written helps you be more focused towards your goal, track your spending, budget your expenses and save better. Same applies to trading. Constantly recording your trading in your diary does contribute significantly to making you a good trader. You may or may not make money always but you can certainly review your trading patterns and improvise each time. So, don’t get low about losses but rather note it as a lesson that you can learn from and avoid next time.
Market trading isn’t limited to stocks today. It involves other securities such as options, futures, commodities and currencies too. Having a specialization helps you to approach the hot market segment with a pinch of salt. Knowing your speciality gives you an edge. It helps you plan your way around the risks and attract maximum profitable returns. Technical knowledge, interpretation of data, networking or timing the trade, choose your skill and master it in a way that it works in your favour.
Losses, like success, have the tendency to multiply but at a faster rate. Hence, it becomes very crucial that you take measures to stop it when you have the chance. Stop-loss order is one such opportunity. You can stop the trade if your losses reach a certain threshold. This way you can stop its snowball effect and change it back to something that works more in your interest.
Dealing with money is more of an emotional gamble than economical. Traders earn or lose money all the time but what that’s the idea of it. Money is important to everyone. For some it meant the safety of themselves or their family, to others it was security while for yet others it is a symbol of status and power. However, these perceptions are right in their way, losing money then could mean losing things related to it. Therefore, it is important how emotionally attached you are to it. Trade smaller trade sizes till you are sure of your emotional state. The better you are in control, the better trading decisions you would make.
Trading is a good way to make some money in the market however, you need to play smart. Avoid the mistakes that people generally do and make the most of the opportunities at hand. Use your instinct along with your experience and market knowledge to earn good returns. If you haven’t yet started investing, let this be your guide to steer clear of the risks and start investing now.

industry_corpus2: Finance & Economics


text:
In the south west of Europe lies mainland Spain with its varied landscape and geographical wealth. With its beautiful beaches and stunning landscape Spain has something to offer for everyone.
Perhaps you are looking for a few days away exploring one of Spain’s cities to check out the local history and culture, or maybe you want a beach holiday, where you can relax and par take in one of the many water sports that Spain has to offer. And if you like to party in the evening then you could visit one of the livelier resorts like Benidorm.
For all you sun seekers out there the best time to visit Spain will be between June and September where the temperatures can soar up to 30 degrees and above.
But for those who prefer the cooler months then the best time to visit Spain is between November and March where the temperature drops slightly under 20 degrees.
So if you’re looking to visit Spain for your holiday then why not give us a call with your requirements and “Wheel Run Around For You”.


text: We take pride of place along Lea Bridge Road, overlooking the River Lea. Minutes from Clapton Station and Hackney Marshes. A well deserved stop off for any occasion!

industry_corpus2: Hospitality & Catering


text:
Deprogram Self-Punishment Empowerment can help deprogram self-sabotage, it is a simple yet powerful empowerment to heal yourself and others. It was channeled and founded by Reiki Master Stephanie Brail in 2010.
In the accompanying manual for this empowerment it explains,”The Deprogram Self-Punishment Empowerment helps to deprogram any self-punishment “program” that might be running in the subconscious, leading to self-sabotage, under-achievement, and personal drama. It is easy to use for self and clients.
A self-punishment program is an unconscious set of instructions that makes a person sabotage or “self-destruct” instead of succeed. Self-punishment can include tendencies such as destroying promising relationships before they get off the ground, constantly creating drama at work, or overspending and mismanaging money.
Sometimes the self-punishment program shows up in the way a person treats themselves. They might overeat, drink too much, or become workaholics. Instead of exercising, they watch too much television. Instead of eating healthy foods, they eat junk food.
Self-punishment becomes a vicious circle and can lead to more self-punishment. When things don’t go right because of an unconscious self-punishment program, the tendency is to blame the self and add more self-punishment on top of what already happened!

industry_corpus2: Health & Medicine


text:
In the US you have the American Music Awards, in the UK we have The Brit Awards, and in Australia they have the ARIA Awards with the crème de la crème of Australian music talent, including Jessica Mauboy who celebrated in the most colourful way possible yesterday evening.
The gorgeous popstar wore a Josh Goot Resort 2013 look featuring a strapless corset top with a structured silhouette and a multi-coloured flower print paired with a colour-block asymmetrical flared skirt with a copper leather panel.
There is a lot going on, which is why she kept the styling simple with an updo, subtle Bulgari jewels, neutral makeup and black Louboutin pumps; however, the model’s heels are much preferred – both the style and colour.
Her ensemble has so much character that I feel she let it down somewhat with the uninspiring footwear.

industry_corpus2: Film & Entertainment


text:
You'll be able to count on Star White Kitchen Cabinets to supply the top professional services regarding White Kitchen Cabinets in Southern Pines, NC. Our team of highly trained experts will supply the services you need with the most innovative solutions in the market. We are going to apply excellent supplies and affordable techniques to make sure you will get the best service at the greatest value. Contact us today by dialing 844-329-5869 to learn more.
You've got a spending budget to stick with, and you want to get lower rates. On top of that, you'll need the most beneficial and highest quality of services for White Kitchen Cabinets in Southern Pines, NC. Our initiatives to help you save money won't compromise the excellence of our results. When you choose our team, you will receive the advantages of our own practical knowledge and top standard products making sure that any project lasts while saving time and cash. This is attainable given that we recognize how to save you time and funds on materials and labor. Save your time and cash by calling Star White Kitchen Cabinets today. We'll be waiting to take your phone call at 844-329-5869.
White Kitchen Cabinets are available in Southern Pines, NC.
When you're thinking of White Kitchen Cabinets in Southern Pines, NC, you've got to be kept informed to make the best choices. We will never let you come up with ill advised judgments, as we understand what we are doing, and we ensure you know very well what to look forward to with the process. This is why we make every effort to be sure that you are aware of the strategy and are not facing any kind of unexpected situations. Begin by contacting 844-329-5869 to go over your venture. Within this call, you're going to get the questions you have responded to, and we're going to arrange a time to commence work. We consistently arrive at the appointed hour, all set to work with you.
You have got a lot of reasons to use Star White Kitchen Cabinets for your needs involving White Kitchen Cabinets in Southern Pines, NC. We are your best option when you really need the best cash saving options, the best quality products, and the highest rank of customer satisfaction. We fully understand your expectations and intentions, and we are there to help you with our expertise. Contact 844-329-5869 whenever you need White Kitchen Cabinets in Southern Pines, and we will work together with you to successfully finish the project.


text:
Ronnie’s on the run from his past – a promising boxing career soured by a fall in a fixed match – but he can’t hide forever, not even in a family-run bistro in Montreal. There he cleans dishes, but the restaurant owner’s son Francois knows his secret. When Francois agrees to fight the school bully in a boxing match, he turns to Ronnie for help training. Francois is a small, fragile boy and Ronnie hesitates but he cannot resist Francois’ charm or his promise to help Ronnie win over Jacqueline, a waitress at the bistro.
Ronnie teaches Francois to fight, all the while unaware that the boy has his own secret- he is dying. Francois’ sickness has driven his father, Philippe, into debt and now it’s time to pay up. There’s an easy solution- Gaetan, who holds Philippe’s debt, wants Ronnie to fight again. Ronnie agrees and as Francois lies sick in a hospital bed, he steps once more into the ring. Knowing that Francois is watching on TV, he cannot bring himself to throw the match. Even Gaetan understands. So before he passes on, Francois at last gets his wish – to see Ronnie fight and win.

industry_corpus2: Sports


text:
If you are looking for volunteers from the University of Adelaide to assist in an activity at your organisation, please complete the following form or contact Tania Johnson for further information.
How many volunteers do you require?
Will this activity occur within normal office hours (9.00am – 5.00pm)?
Why did you choose the University of Adelaide to undertake this activity?
Thank you for completing the volunteer request form.

industry_corpus2: Subject Education


text:
The Roxy Hotel Tribeca is Located in Manhattan, this stylish Tribeca district hotel welcomes you with a complimentary glass of champagne and offers also free WiFi.
All rooms at The Roxy Hotel Tribeca have a work desk and a seating area. Bathrobes and complimentary toiletries are provided. The rooms also come with a flat-screen cable TV.
The Roxy Bar & Lounge boasts an 8-story atrium and serves modern American cuisine for breakfast, lunch and dinner. The Bar & Lounge offers up DJs and live entertainment.
They have also A 24-hour fitness room and concierge are on site. You can use a free bicycles during the warmer months so that you can enjoy to explore the surrounding area.
Tribeca is a great choice for travelers who are interested in foods, restaurants and shopping.
Book a Room at The Beekman A Thompson Hotel New York, NY USA and Get a Great Discounts!
Great Deals if you Book A Room at The Hotel Andaz Wall Street, New York City, NY!
Book Greenwich Hotel TriBeCa New York City For Big prices!


text:
Tom Engelhardt, author of Shadow Government, discusses why the enormous US intelligence apparatus is rewarded for its repeated failures.
Questioning the official narrative to 911 is very common amongst the libertarian base. However these two want to mock and ridicule people who hold that position. Is this to pander to mainstream conservatives? Why would you attack your base? It makes me wonder, maybe that is why libertarians fail so badly at being effective in the political arena, your too busy stabbing your friends in the back.
Q. How do you make Scott Horton sound like Bill O’Reilly?

industry_corpus2: Politics & Administration


text:
Capsana's Health Challenge invites Quebecers to eat better, be more active, and take better care of themselves. Since the campaign was launched in 2005, it has since surpassed the million mark in registrations.
With a website packed with helpful tools and information, motivational e-mails, a Facebook and an Instagram page where participants can share their achievements, the Health Challenge is a fun, dynamic experience. The upbeat approach encourages individuals to take concrete steps in their daily lives to improve their lifestyle and their physical and mental health.
The 2017 Health Challenge takes place from March 30th to May 10th. It can be taken up alone, as a family, or as a team (with friends or co-workers, for example), and it's absolutely free.
Because healthy habits start at home, the Health Challenge offers helpful tools and tips to registered parents.
Launched in 2005 in association with the public health system, numerous private-sector partners and an extensive support network, the Health Challenge is Quebec's largest public campaign promoting healthy lifestyles. In 2011, the Health Challenge was expanded to include a Municipalities and Families component, which aims to encourage healthy lifestyle choices among Quebec children ages 4 to 12 by engaging and supporting municipalities, local communities, and Quebec families.
Nearly 100,000 participants in 2016!
A popular challenge: More than 1,6 million registrations in 15 years!
Interested in becoming a Health Challenge partner? Contact us!


text:
The very fact that Johnny Adair is still alive after 20 years at the helm of Ulster's biggest loyalist paramilitary group, the Ulster Defence Association, makes him a huge success within his venal, violent realm.
Nobody has yet managed to murder Johnny "Mad Dog" Adair. But that, leading loyalists and nationalists in Belfast say, is probably just a matter of time.
"Right now there's a queue of people waiting to kill Johnny and he knows it," a loyalist figure with links to the paramilitaries said. "The problem for Johnny is that most of them are loyalists."
A republican figure said: "The IRA tried to kill him for years. It's ironic that ultimately the loyalists will do it themselves."
These days Adair, 39, usually stays well within his domain, a big Protestant housing estate off the Shankill Road. Catholics or known nationalists who dare to walk through this malevolent place will be beaten or killed. The police are rarely seen.
At each end of Adair's street stand burly guards. Dripping with gold jewellery, covered in prison tattoos and wearing dark glasses, they are there to protect Adair from a drive-by shooting or an attack by someone he knows.
I am here to see John White, a suit-wearing convicted double murderer who says he has renounced the gun in favour of politics and who took part in the negotiations for the Good Friday peace agreement.
Today, he heads the Ulster Political Research Group, an organisation that claims to provide political advice to the loyalist paramilitaries while keeping its distance from the activities of proscribed organisations like the UDA.
"Whenever there is a void in the political process in Northern Ireland, the paramilitaries will fill that void - it is a regrettable fact of life here. But I have renounced violence and others have too," White says as we sit in the front room of his research group's headquarters - with its reinforced metal doors and grilles on the windows - opposite Adair's house.
Suddenly the door bursts open and two Alsatian dogs begin sniffing around the room. Adair, with his crewcut, gold jewellery and pumped biceps, bounces in behind them.
"White, how the feck do I join this feckin' political research group a yours?" Adair demands.
Adair - who boasts that he "out-killed" the Irish Republican Army around Belfast for almost 20 years - is much smaller than he looks in photographs.
Today he is agitated. He laughs maniacally, his eyes dart around the room, he slams a fist into the palm of the other hand and utters profanity after profanity. His dogs, as if infected by his twitchiness, sniff at the corners of the room, scratch at the carpet, growl and bark.
Then he turn his attention to me. "Who the feck are you?" he demands. I tell him. He is unimpressed, but is interested in ranting and raving about his once beloved UDA, which recently expelled him, reportedly for conspiring with a rival loyalist paramilitary group, the Ulster Volunteer Force, to kill another UDA commander.
John White seems embarrassed by Adair's intervention. He ushers me upstairs, where he continues to renounce paramilitary violence while Adair bounces off the walls, kicks furniture and curses downstairs.
Adair, a former neo-Nazi skinhead who embraced the paramilitaries in his late teens and served two terms in the notorious Maze prison, has reason to be paranoid. Since being expelled from the UDA - whose notorious Shankill C company (which killed dozens of Catholics in the 1980s and early '90s) he commanded - the internal strife in the UDA has escalated. A series of shootings and a new turf war between the UDA and the UVF, possibly related to the drugs trade, has ensued.
"The IRA ... tried to kill me. I survived 15 republican murder bids and have bullet fragments in my head and side," Adair said recently. "So I'm hardly worried about a couple of bully boys who sat on their hands and did nothing when loyalists ... were taking the war to the IRA."
Adair is also talking a lot about God these days, and any Christian rebirth would come as good news to his family, for whom life is increasingly parlous.
In August 17-year-old Jonathan "Mad Pup" Adair was ceremonially shot in both legs in the main square of the Shankill estate. The shooting was allegedly sanctioned by his father as a punishment for behaviour not sanctioned by C Company.
Mad Dog Adair's wife, Gina, (no prizes for guessing her canine moniker) is said to be increasingly paranoid about her family's safety. In recent months the Adairs have been spending a lot of time abroad.
Last weekend in west Belfast some new graffiti was painted on a wall. It Reads: "Johnny Adair and John White - Dead men walking."


text:
When I run gnome-sound-recorder, there's a GUI element labelled "Record from input" and a drop-down that displays a single option "Capture".
So, it's surprising that I can't select these options in gnome-sound-recorder.
What's worse is that if I plug in a USB headset with speakers and a mic (Plantronics, not sure of the model #), then the volume control applet shows two additional capture sources; "Capture: Monitor of Plantronics Headset - USB Audio (PulseAudio Mixer)" and also "Capture: Plantronics Headset - USB Audio (PulseAudio Mixer)"
Again, if I restart gnome-sound-recorder after plugging in this USB headset, and seeing the new sources in the volume control applet, then gnome-sound-recorder still won't show anything but "Capture" in the "Record from input" list.
Reopening. Simply closing the bug claiming that it's a dup without proof is non-sensical.
you really think you will make whoever work on this bug look at your issue by using confrontational behaviour?
No, my behaviour is not confrontational. In fact, to be honest, I found your behaviour (just closing the bug without any useful information at all) quite aggressive.
* If the bug is not a bug, then by all means close it (and state why, so that everyone else who is affected by this problem and finds this bug by Google/... will understand).
* If the bug is a duplicate, mark it as such, and state which specific bug it's a duplicate of. You need to state why so that (a) I can go subscribe to the "parent" bug. (b) Everyone else who finds this bug by Google/... will find useful information, not just yet another dead-end. Calling a dup "invalid" is also pretty insulting.
* Otherwise, the bug must stay open; it's a valid bug that needs to be fixed. I can't see why this isn't self-evident.
This is simply normal bug processing practice!
the way you describe would work ideally, the issue is that we got so many bugs and duplicate that we would either spend the week looking for duplicates numbers or keep hundred of duplicates open and make the bug list un-usable for people who work on bugs which would defeat the purpose of bug reporting.
The current way is a compromise between those, we close bugs that we know to be duplicates and let the user search for the corresponding open bug.
This policy also doesn't help the other people who find all the dups via google, see they've all just been closed out, and have to file a new one because they can't find the original.
Would some one please point me the fix of this issue (only "capture" available in sound recorder)? I've spent many hours looking for it. BTW, It used to work fine on 7.10, but almost all the other options vanished after upgrade to 9.04. Any help or link would be highly appreciated.
I've just read through all the gnome-media bugs on launchpad. There is no bug besides this one that describes this problem.
b) Searched bugs in all states (open, closed, ...) for comments that mention "pulse" and then again for "pulseaudio".
None of those bugs describe this problem.
Would removing PULSE fix the problem? If so, should we replace PULSE with something else?
Bump. Did anyone had a chance to look at this?
This particular bug seems to have been made obsolete my Lucid (tested daily 1/31). The "Record from Input" option no longer appears in gnome-sound-recorder. Instead, it uses the system-wide default/current input stream selected by "sound preferences", and does appear to record OK.
I don't recall if i originally reported this against Jaunty or Karmic. It's possible it's also fixed in Karmic; I haven't checked. The bug can probably be closed as "Fix Released".
Okay. I just noticed that "PulseAudio Volume Control" did not install after upgrade from 8.04 to 9.04. I'm now able to record from different input streams once again, although it takes a lot of hoop-jumping. We could easily set it from the dropdown menu from the application being used, and now we have to play back and forth with PulseAudio Volume Control. Anyway, for those looking on how to get recording working once again, you can find more details here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PulseAudio.
PS.: Thanks for those maintaining this nice system/distro, but it seems to be that a nice feature was removed or "degraded".
So this bug should be closed as suggested in comment 14?
Would it be too hard to re-implement that feature ("Record from input") back? It was so nice to have it right there and it was very handy. Should we have instead in the same place a link or a button that starts up pulse audio control open at the "Recording" tab, perhaps? Anyway, I found a way record what I needed, but again a VERY GOOD FEATURE was removed. It's so disappointing !8-(.


text:
STS Medics provides medical event cover for fairs, festivals, nightclubs and sporting events.
When large crowds gather for public events there needs to be first aid cover to ensure customers well being and safety.
Our STS Medics staff are smart, professional, experienced, DBS checked and friendly.
In the event of an incident happening at your event you can be safe in the knowledge that their skills will prevent further harm and will save lives. Our team will provide essential medical care onsite or until the emergency services arrive if needed.
We use staff who work as community first responders, Firefighters, Paramedics and Nurses. We have covered triathlons, rugby events, festivals, nightclubs, corporate events and exhibitions.
2 Medics to cover a bonfire night lasting 5/6 hours costs £275, 3 medics £355, 4 medics £395.
First Aid cover for a nightclub costs £150 plus £11 per hour per first aider.
With this in mind please get in touch so that we can discuss and tailor the cover to your individual needs.
For events with special risks we can also provide a Rescue team.
If your event needs water rescue or other specialist teams we have a network of firefighters and paramedics that work in the emergency services specialising in technical rescue and hazardous area response. Our speciality is keeping your customers safe in and around the water using land or kayak based rescue teams in dry suits. Other hazadous areas like confined space and working at hieght can also be managed by our teams.
We do not accept last minute bookings for this team as a full risk assessment and briefing is essential.
Call 07912227985 for more information.
We can also provide Medical/First Aid event cover for any size of event.
Manual Handling, People Handling, Bus/Mini bus emergency evacuation courses, and Child Protection Courses.
© 2019 STSmedics. All rights reserved.


text:
Home › Twisted Macrame cord 5 MM (1000 feet) - "Ivory White"
Twisted Macrame cord 5 MM (1000 feet) - "Ivory White"
This lovely 5 MM natural and high quality cotton cord from Teddy and Wool is perfect for any macrame, knitting, crochet or weaving projects. Create your own plant hangers, wall hangings, curtains, bags, baskets, dog leashes and many more DIY or crafting items! The cotton cord consists of 100% natural cotton and does not contain any polyester or acrylic (plastic) fibers, so it's perfect to dip-dye any colors you might want to add. Almost all of my wall hangings and plant-holders which you find in my shop are created with this 3-ply (triple-strand) twisted macrame cord.

industry_corpus2: Manufacturing


text:
There is one thing that I never seem to get enough of: lipstick. I love how it instantly makes me look more awake, more feminine, and is compact. Also, it doesn’t have to be costly. Lately however, I have been taking a better look at all that I own. Whether it’s lipstick or sweater, I wonder “how many times have I used this?” and “how long have I had this?” If you have read the Marie Kondo book aptly called The Life-Changing Art of Tidying Up, you are likely familiar with the need to de-clutter and opt for pieces that you truly need.
Leslie Camhi’s conversation-starting piece in October 2018 Vogue.
My personal makeup space. Note this is AFTER a major clean-out.
Makeup is not a necessity. Yet, Leslie Camhi in October 2018’s Vogue reports that women shell out around $300,000 on makeup during their lifetime. In Camhi’s article “Apply and Demand,” she discusses how beauty follows the “fast fashion” model (much like clothing, which I discussed a few weeks ago). This calls to mind Kylie Jenner’s and Kim Kardashian’s makeup drops. Camhi also discusses how when a makeup line is advertised as “Limited Edition,” it triggers consumers to want to get the product, for fear that they will miss out on it in the future.
For female readers I wonder how often you are using those makeup palettes that you “just had to have” because it had a special feature such as smelling like chocolate, being shaped like a seashell, or having “new” sparkly colors. Personally, I find it so easy to fall into the trap of wanting the latest product and I know I am not alone.
It may seem strange to get news on the overconsumption of makeup from Vogue, which features advertisements like no other. As a loyal Vogue reader, I want to make the case that the actual writing on culture and politics is top notch. The advertisements keep the magazine running, like with the majority of other publications. Though the pages beckon you to buy, I think that our solution as consumers is to to buy smarter.


text:
Our featured Bordeaux-born artist cut his teeth on wood sculpting, and after pulling the splinters from his gums, went on to masterfully design the timeless shapes you've seen today. His artistic roots compel his brush to continued use, perhaps to assuage clients facing five-figure restoration bills for their W113s and E24s. This late-model example liberally blends art deco with pop art for a trippy, clockwise flow of warm-and-cool hues that could be a statement on the inadequacies of sports cars' enamel keeping wayward red paint swaths from assaulting the fender of your rear wheel drive German Bahn-burner like tumbleweed in Nevada. Or not. Either way, it's a great entry-level example for the Porsche enthusiast, and should gain more respect from the air-cooled faithful than our recently featured 996 Cabriolet. Find this 2000-era Paul Bracq early edition giclée painting of a Porsche 964 911 Turbo here on eBay in Northville, MI for $499 buy-it-now.
Giclée (say zee-CLAY) comes from a French word meaning "a spray or squirt of liquid," which describes the 12-color ink jet printing process used for quality control in high-quantity digital prints. The seller ends up with a 24x36 canvas, a relatively simple construction not nearly as finicky as a Volvo running an early Bosch K-Jetronic fuel-injection system or an Autostick Beetle requiring sheer ambidexterity. The structure appears to be free of structural rust, although it's hard to tell when we can't see the underside because the seller only included one lousy picture.
This print may be slower off the line than, say, a 1987 Yugo powered by a snowmobile engine, but would be a more aesthetically pleasing garage addition than just another Camry. It seems to be nearly brand new, and should be a faithful road companion with basic maintenance.
This is said to be one of only 150 prints made, making it extremely unlikely you would encounter one of these on the road. Because that would mean it fell out of someone's car, and they're probably, you know, looking for their art.
See a cheaper way to pay homage to the Monet of Mercedes? Email us at tips@dailyturismo.com.

industry_corpus2: Automobiles


text:
When you have a family issue, there are many benefits to choosing a local family lawyer. In addition to supporting a member of your Edelstein community, you are also choosing a lawyer that is more convenient to travel to, being local to Edelstein, than if you were to choose a lawyer outside of the Edelstein area.
By hiring a reputable Edelstein family lawyer, you can ensure that your case will be handled in the most professional manner possible. And finding a good, experienced local Edelstein family lawyer will give you the comfort of knowing that if you should have another family issue in the future, your lawyer is right around the corner.


text:
We would like to transfer our Android developer to Bitbucket.
Currently, Bitbucket offers only per project/repository git clone/pull and git push. Since there are about 400 or so number of repositories per Android project, we need Bitbucket offer such capability.
1) integrate our "repo init" and "repo sync" script programs to Bitbucket.
If my understanding is correct, you'd like to use a script so you can bulk upload the repos from your Android project to Bitbucket, is this correct? If that's the case, there's a couple threads in the Community that might help you with this task. You might be interested in checking Git project bulk import and Import 300 git repositories to an Atlassian project.
I realized that in my initial #1 question, there seems NO necessity for "repo & Bitbucket integration" per se.

industry_corpus2: Computing & Telecommunications