A Culling of Inactive Users?

[Pete]

It struck me while perusing the member list, that there's a large number of users that joined way back in 2001, but have only made one or two posts in all that time.

Would it be beneficial to cull these old and inactive users so that their user names could be made available to new members? I for one like my straightforward name and I imagine that other new members might not want to put odd numbers or letters after their name simply to join up.

People who've not done anything with the forum for the past 5 years can reasonably be deemed "Inactive", don't you think?

It might even speed up searching a bit as well....

[Karl C]

Good idea however, some may have joined and are lurkers only. Additionally, from a marketing perspective, POTN can claim "membership" in excess of 140,000.

In reality, at least to me, true membership numbers are a lot less.

[Pete]

I think the Admin team here should be able to see when users have last visited the site. If that's over more than 5 years, I'd say they're inactive.

[Karl C]

I think the Admin team here should be able to see when users have last visited the site. If that's over more than 5 years, I'd say they're inactive.

Agreed. It'll keep Jake busy for awhile, thus allowing Lisa to reach 30k posts first. ;)

[cdifoto]

I would be a little peeved if I signed up, made a few posts for advice, went on with my daily life for a couple years, then decided to hop on here again only to have my account deleted and/or someone else using my ID.

[Pete]

I would be a little peeved if I signed up, made a few posts for advice, went on with my daily life for a couple years, then decided to hop on here again only to have my account deleted and/or someone else using my ID.

I'm talking about 5 years here. Most businesses won't keep your details for more than a couple before throwing out the old paperwork.

[cdifoto]

I'm talking about 5 years here. Most businesses won't keep your details for more than a couple before throwing out the old paperwork.

So?

[Pete]

So.

[John_B]

Pete,
Sorry but I really don't see enough positive in your suggestion..... If this forum was running very slow (which it isn't) then it might give a small (very small) help but its not needed so why bother.

Like cdifoto they might just drop in, or maybe they don't post much but like to read often? ???

Just my opinion of course... :)

[Karl C]

I would be a little peeved if I signed up, made a few posts for advice, went on with my daily life for a couple years, then decided to hop on here again only to have my account deleted and/or someone else using my ID.

It's not an uncommon or unheard-of policy for public forums admins/owners to suspend or delete members with inactivity greater than 12-24 months. It's an effective membership database management tool.

If someone signed up as a member five years ago with no activity since, the odds of them returning are slim-to-none.

I'd rather have a smaller, more active group than a larger group with inactivity from a substantial portion of the membership.

Quality over quantity.

[Pete]

About a month after I first joined here, I ran a search against the user name I wanted to use. When I saw that user hadn't been active in some years, I asked Jake to change my user name. Jake concurred and I'm happy with simply being "Pete".

I imagine that other users here are in the same boat (having to choose "GoofyGumdrop234" because their first choice was already taken by someone who's been inactive for some time).

[cosworth]

I'd love to have the username Jason. Last activity, 5 years ago. Posts? 1.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/member.php?u=7321

Will I change my username to Jason from cosworth? It would be nice.

[Pete]

I'd love to have the username Jason. Last activity, 5 years ago. Posts? 1.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/member.php?u=7321

Will I change my username to Jason from cosworth? It would be nice.

See...? PM Jake and he'll probably let you do that.

Maybe.

But you're a brand name now, cosworth - you'd lose your reputation and have to start over... :D

[cosworth]

you'd lose your reputation

Yeah well, ya see...

[MDJAK]

cosworth who?

[cdifoto]

Other than a mediocre technical achievement, what's a cosworth?

[cosworth]

Far from mediocre. At one point they had the most successful F1 engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosworth

[cdifoto]

Hey I said, other than a mediocre technical achievement. :D

[John_B]

Far from mediocre. At one point they had the most successful F1 engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosworth
Hmm..... and I always thought a Cosworth was a good photographer on POTN......
....you learn something new every day :)

[PhotosByCynthia]

Surely management here can see when the person last logged in. I say if they haven't logged in anytime recently then they have no interest in actively participating in the forum and it would be safe to delete them. If they so choose to become a member in the future, let them. They'll have to re-register again. No biggie. Maybe it will spur them into becoming an active member of the forum. If it happened to me I wouldn't be peaved about it.

[BottomBracket]

This whole culling thing would be unfair to Rip Van Winkle.

[catacon]

At a computer site I visit often, we had the same problem of many inactive users. I think the admins deleted all the users that hadn't been to the site for 3 years or so. There were a ton. I can see a problem if you delete users based solely on their post per year ratio, because people may just come to look. However, if you delete them based on whether they have actually been to the site or not, then I see no problem. I'm pretty sure vBulletin has this option already.

[::John::]

On my site I have a utility that puts users who have shown no site activity for 3 months into an inactive usergroup.

All that usergroup sees is a message to say their account has been flagged as inactive and, if they want to re-activate it, the need to PM me.

If, after a further 3 months they have not been back to visit, their account is removed.

Lean and mean.

[catacon]

You know, I think that computer site I visit decided to do the same thing. They list the total members and the active members. That's probably the safest way.

[tommykjensen]

See...? PM Jake and he'll probably let you do that.

Maybe.


More like maybe not. Members are never deleted. Not on request and not when they are inactive.

[Karl C]

Members are never deleted. Not on request and not when they are inactive.

Okay, I'm curious - why the opposition to deleting members? If someone hasn't logged on in two-plus years, why keep their username in the database? Seems really counterintuitive to operating a forum.

[cosworth]

If a username is that much to someone, PM the user and ask them if you can have it. Hopefully the email is still valid. Ask politely and any sane human would let you have their login.

Emails that bounce from a username "come check out POTN again" email batch could be culled.

Either way, it's $10 on a $0.10 problem. PM the user and ask.

[catacon]

How would PMing a user that never visits do anything? Most likely they won't get the PM.

[Radtech1]

It might even speed up searching a bit as well....

Or better, cull the people that are OVER using the forum as a chat room. Tons and tons and tons of blather must really be slowing down the searches. Anyone with more than, say, 1000 posts per year should be curtailed. Who can possibly have anything useful left to say after already posting a thousand time! So if you are looking at streamlining - look for bloated post counts and short term membership.

Quality over quantity.

EXACTLY!

Rad :eek:

[Gujustud]

I own a large forum, okay not as large and active as potn, but I have approx 15,000 members (www.mazda6club.com). At one point we had close to 22,000 members, but we ran a purge on bot accounts, duplicate accounts, inactive (0) post accounts, and yes it brought our membership down to 13,000. Thats a HUGE difference. We had I believe only 2 complaints out of it, by members who lost their account.

Yes it does effect when sponsors/advertisers want to see how many members you have, but at least I can honestly give them a ACCURATE number, rather than a completely inaccurate number. In the end, I believe the advertisers are more happy.

[TheHoff]

Since they don't sell ads directly, not sure it matters other than what the admin wants to do with his database. Cutting your member table size in half has little affect on vB's performance (as opposed to the monstrous post table).

[Pete]

More like maybe not. Members are never deleted. Not on request and not when they are inactive.

So how did Jake let me have my current user name when I requested it?

[tommykjensen]

So how did Jake let me have my current user name when I requested it?

Better ask Jake that. He probably made an exception.

[blonde]

Other than a mediocre technical achievement, what's a cosworth?

i just lost all respect i had for you (it wasn't much mind you but still)
:)

[Pete]

i just lost all respect i had for you (it wasn't much mind you but still)
:)

That's good. cdi thrives on disrepect.

[DAMphyne]

I wanted to be David, but it wouldn't work,
I've got a damn fine user name after all the hassel.

[_aravena]

Another MOD power play. Dum dum dum...

Idk, always thought that same on another forum I'm at AF. I have 3 names there because the first one was when I first visited and wanted to post something. Thena few months later I decided to join, but overall I dind't like my s/n and they had a overhaul. So I created my current name there and kept it since but the other names remain...inactive, on an email address that doesn't exist and a password I have no clue as to what it is even with the hint.

The site seems to run fine though unlike AF did over the years, although it's much lager. I think it's went through at least 3 server changes since I've been there over 6 years. Deleting users who either made no posts or 1 over 5 yrs ago sure why not. Tax offices don't generally keep stuff older than 5 years.

[sevillafox]

Another MOD power play. Dum dum dum...


Not a Mod power play. More like an owner being able to make his own decisions about how things are run. See his answer to the topic on this thread here.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=5144514&postcount=248