Inactive Members
 

Did you know we have about 1250 members with ZERO posts?
I mean, if they were all recent, we could take into account that the person didn't feel like posting up to now, but there are a number of accounts from early 2004!

Let me get to the point: I think that we should email the owners of those accounts with zero posts, maybe the ones that are over 2 months old, asking them if they are interested in continuing their account. If not, we would delete their account (att: NOT ban, just account termination). After all, those ppl can access the forums without being logged.

I know how radical that sounds, but, when you come to think about it, it's logical.

Gimme your thoughts.

Re: Inactive Members
 

I'd only see the need if the high user number was causing server problems, which I don't think it is.

Also I see the member ammount in any community as a fair gauge as to how large it is, so why not leave it?

Re: Inactive Members
 

I side with that. Of course that would reduce the size of our database from, let's say, a few kilobytes, but else I don't really see the point. And if ever the BU server had the bad idea to send 1250 emails at once, guess where it'll be listed ;)

Re: Inactive Members
 

I understand the point of $eu_crey$$on - he wants to know the "real" number of BU members (BU community). I can ask the people at some friendly forums if they clear some unused accounts or not (but I don't think someone bothers about it).
I understand also the point of our Beloved President why don't clear them - it would mean another big work more for him. :D

Re: Inactive Members
 

whatwhatwhat, ain't I beloved ?

Re: Inactive Members
 

"Feared Tyrant"

Re: Inactive Members
 

could stop me :P


boah, ya shouldnt do exercises to the early morning ( 2:00 ) and then start the next day with 3 lectures :P

Re: Inactive Members
 

i agree with the above posted (also with asp, but thats a different story ;)).

Notify the non-active-at-a-very-recent-period-of-time-user with an e-mail. When no activity is noticed within a few days (week?), the account information will be deleted. When we do this, we get a better picture of our community. Which is , imo, pretty important ;)

Re: Inactive Members
 

I totally agree with you, stefan.
And my point is not "reduce the size of the database" or "know the real number of members". I just think it is useless to keep that kind of information on the server for a person that seldom (never) visits or posts on the forums.
And I understand PMB's worries about the amount of emails. We could do it in lots, like, 250 per week 9_9...

Re: Inactive Members
 

I don't like the idea...people who sign up get other things too like sending a PM or a better way to see which threads you read and which are updated. Also check the list with the current active users...most of them aren't very active posters anyway.
I'd say only remove acounts if they are very old or if the database gets a bit to full.

Re: Inactive Members
 

... and that wont be the case until we have millions or billions of registered users.

anyway, i think, we already had this discussion somewhere.

Re: Inactive Members
 

And that's why we would email them first to ask if they're interested in continuing their accounts at BU.

Re: Inactive Members
 

I think that the users who are not visited BU from 8 weeks must be deleted. Question is WHY? Better comunity and free nicks for get from a new members. ;) I think that publick poll is needed here.

Re: Inactive Members
 

Im against the deletion.
With or without the notifing email.

Those people registered may have registered for a reason.
the fact they bothered to register at first is enough prove we exist.
See it as a vote to continue. It would be a waste to ignore registerants who read and follow progress on various or one singel bot or bu development.

Id say leave it as it is. !!

Re: Inactive Members
 

At SoW(www.sandsofwar.net) we have deleted all the accounts with 0 posts. This was mainly because we had some problems with bots registering. We did it without sending mails out first.

After some discussion we decided not to do that again, at least not without a notice first.

Re: Inactive Members
 

We have had that discussion some time ago in the admins forum. I'm against it for the reasons that Rick and Shrike have said, but if you want to vote it again you can ; I won't change my vote though.

Re: Inactive Members
 

Naw, I also we should just let them be here.

Re: Inactive Members
 

i don't think it will harm BU when we do not delete inactive accounts. So i won't bother about this subject longer. My opinion is clear, like all others have given their opinion.

Btw, BU and million accounts? i'd love to see that ;)

Re: Inactive Members
 

Some people may not post, but may be visiting the forums anyway. Can you tell which accounts have not visited the forums for a few months?

Re: Inactive Members
 

yes, you can see that also ...

Re: Inactive Members
 

It may be interesting to see what the active user count is, for example by counting how many users accessed the forum in the last month or two. I'm thinking about interesting statistics, not if we should drop accounts or not.

Re: Inactive Members
 

userwise statistics about the frenquency of posts over the time of day would be great ;)

Re: Inactive Members
 

I guess that's a job for Nova...

Re: Inactive Members
 

Few forums I'v been browsing has also some statistic about user - most active in xxx forum (23% of this member and 0.13% of this forum posts).

Re: Inactive Members
 

yeah.. cause hes active..

Re: Inactive Members
 

hey, don't make jokes about that, he has for sure a lot to do. drinking, getting to know a few more girls etc. that's quite a lot of hard work ;)

ok, dunno, maybe he's even seriously working. although one might doubt it :P

Re: Inactive Members
 

Yeah, meeting girls is a hard job... Oh well, someone's got to do it (/me) :D

Re: Inactive Members
 

Meh. I set the standard vb inactivity script. user gets a warning (email) at 30 days inactivty, then at 90, and at 180 his account is automatically deleted. Satisfied ?

Seb

Re: Inactive Members
 

inactivity on not logging in and viewing posts or based on posting stuff ?

Re: Inactive Members
 

I wouldn't object if I was sure that by "inactivity" they mean "not even logged in/viewed posts for months".

Re: Inactive Members
 

It goes by not logged in. Cut down to 499 members now :D

Seb

Re: Inactive Members
 

argh nova, we havnt had already a council vote about this ?!

I'd vote for : don't do anything, since it's not doing any harm

Re: Inactive Members
 

lol, yeah Nova, fast boy, forum Attila, you'd better keep yourself updated about the council decisions, don't you think ? :D

Re: Inactive Members
 

*ducks & covers*

Re: Inactive Members
 

Now we have to make sure that users who register know there account will be terminated after 180 days. :(

Re: Inactive Members
 

nah, only if they dont even login for 180 days ...

Seb

Re: Inactive Members
 

nope, we should start a council poll about if we want to do this at all.

Re: Inactive Members