Hmm....
I'm not sure I have a good suggestion for this forum Lynn, as everyone seems happy, and why fix it if it ain't broken.
Here's a wish list for forums in general. The future of Web 2.0?
First, the site owner should have a clear vision of what kind of material they wish to publish. If we don't know where we're trying to go, we're unlikely to get there.
Then...
1) Reward the "good" posters, ie. posters who further the goals of the site.
Dofollow links at least. Signatures approved per poster, after poster has reached some target goal. Perhaps some kind of more prominent placement for that handful of better than average posters who keep the site on the right track. Pats on the head, why not?
![Smile :-)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
Identify the best posters, reward them somehow, and make sure they know they are being appreciated.
2) Dump the junk posters. Again, "junk posters" have to be defined within the context of the goals of a site.
The main thing here is that if a site wants to keep quality up, moderators have to read the posts BEFORE they are published, and decline those posts that don't meet some standard.
Question: Would we buy and read a magazine that published any article _anybody_ submitted? Probably not. So why do it on the web?
Webmaster forums are about the publishing business. They can perhaps be most instructive by setting a quality standard, and by presenting posters with a writing challenge, a chance to grow, something to reach for and accomplish.
Old timers will recall The I-Sales Digest. That's an example for those who were there. You had an opportunity to share your thoughts with industry leaders, but one's lesser efforts didn't make the cut.
If you wanted to be heard there, you had to dig deeper, and reach higher.
In a media marketplace that is literally flooded with a tidal wave of options for readers, that's a good habit to get in to, eh?