[Wickers]

We have 74 pages of them... not 1, or 3, but 74.

Now considering that the 'members' page shows 30 members per page listing... that's around 2220 members with ZERO posts. . .

So I'm thinking... WTF? Nearly half of our members not only don't posts, but have not posted a single thing.. (we have 174 pages of members and growing..)



So can we do a little house cleaning?

[staph]

There are legitimate reasons for someone to be a member but not post, like the fact that if you're logged in the forum will keep track of which threads you're up to date on and which you're not.

It's not like 2000 unused members put that much of a burden on the server.

Edit: removed quote, because redundancy is offensive to Wickers in all its aspects.

[Wickers]

Did you really need to quote me? hehe.. I mean, that's the only other post in this thread.

Anyhow, good point, I did not think of that.

Aside from that, by 'house cleaning' we could also take a look at inactive members... like ones who have not logged in since they first registered.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Wickers Aside from that, by 'house cleaning' we could also take a look at inactive members... like ones who have not logged in since they first registered.

For what purpose? Do the guidelines require activity? Not that I know of.

[Wickers]

Ok, well I was just asking anyhow...

No the posting guidelines do not speak of activity, however they pertain to what's inside the post. I guess this topic would be covered in the member's guidelines to which as far as I can tell, we don't have.

In the end, no worthwhile good I guess would come of this. Aside from cleaning out some useless data from the database.

[staph]

Originally Posted by Wickers Aside from cleaning out some useless data from the database.

You say that like there's useful information in the dB!

[Brad]

Actually, Jack and I had talked about this long ago. Here's the conclusion we came to:

1. Regular accounts should be left alone unless we have some particular reason for removing them.
2. Accounts stuck in "Users Awaiting Email Confirmation" can't do anything anyway. No posting, no private messaging, etc. So, they should be deleted every couple of weeks in case the user ever returns and tries (and fails) to reregister with the same name.

I don't think we anticipated having 2220 unused accounts when we chatted, though. While these accounts do not demand a much of resources on the server, they do reserve those usernames so no one can ever use them.

After investigating, I see that we have a whopping 535 accounts in that "awaiting confirmation" mode! I've... err... been rather forgetful in keeping up with that duty recently. As I look down the list, the first 150 users have not even returned once since the day of registration (or the first few days within registering).

I'll flip through a few more pages here and probably knock them out tomorrow.

Originally Posted by Wickers In the end, no worthwhile good I guess would come of this. Aside from cleaning out some useless data from the database.

Actually, I could easily see the benefit to this: freeing up user names. Most people I know like to use the same (or similar) handle everywhere they are online for email, blogs, forums, etc. There are a lot of good generic names in here that have been sitting untouched for half a year or longer. If I was a new member registering here, I probably wouldn't be upset if "Brad" was taken and had never even been used, but I would certainly appreciate being able to claim it since the original "Brad" obviously had no intention of using it.

~1700 (2200-535) is a lot of user names, though. So, I may run a query that will restrict only to zero-post accounts that haven't been active in, say, a whole year and then consider knocking out those as well.

[_Ω_]

I have no issue with people not posting. People who are inactive for an extended period of time however......

Occasionally you might be away for awhile but I think you could probably assume that if you have not logged in for over three months then they will not be too cut up if their account has disappeared.

[torifile]

Some probably registered to PM other members or send emails to them. I'm not sure it's quite accurate to go only by post numbers. What about PMs sent and received? I dunno. Seems like trivial thing.

[Luca]

Yeah, it always bugs me when I can't register as "Luca" at another message board because some chucklehead has registered the name and promptly left, never to return. That's the case almost everywhere I go - Luca is short enough and just common enough to get snatched up really quickly, but in almost every case, the person who registered it has never even posted once (and their last account activity took place the same day they registered).

[709]

Originally Posted by Luca ...some chucklehead...

I'm hoping to have that dictionary compiled by the holidays.

[torifile]

Originally Posted by Luca Yeah, it always bugs me when I can't register as "Luca" at another message board because some chucklehead has registered the name and promptly left, never to return. That's the case almost everywhere I go - Luca is short enough and just common enough to get snatched up really quickly, but in almost every case, the person who registered it has never even posted once (and their last account activity took place the same day they registered).

Luca,

You know it's because of the croatian heartthrob on ER. You're just unfortunate to have that name too.

[ast3r3x]

Funny, 'ast3r3x' is never taken wherever I go

[scratt]

We could always sell the really good ones to n00bs...

Bit like special number plates?

[SKMDC]

Everyone with Zero posts should start a Video iPod post, or chime in with sarcastic semi-humorless posts now and then.

[psmith2.0]

They do. Have you not been paying attention lately?

[SKMDC]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 They do. Have you not been paying attention lately?

not all 2000 of 'em, it just seems like it.

[alcimedes]

Jack and I talked about this as well, and my understanding was he didn't want them removed, period.

There are a number of forums that I've been to that I visit once every few years, but that doesn't mean I want my username removed from their database.

Rather than just wiping them out, could you compile a list of users who haven't been active, then send an automated e-mail explaining that if they don't log in some time in the next month their accounts will be removed?

I also thought that removing accounts would cause problems with the database, and the member numbering side of things.

Jack was always a stickler for not removing data.

I guess I'd rather keep the forums and it's member database intact vs. axing members on the chance someone wants a specific username.

[scratt]

I am with alcimedes on this one...

I have a huge amount of paranoia about removing such large amounts of date (or more importantly structures) from a database.. No matter how solid the system...

When Brad mentioned this I was kind of worried at the back of my mind. Not to say that I am not sure the same sensible concern would not have crossed anyones mind, including Brad. (How many double negatives there!?!? - You get my gist!)

But if it ain't broke don't fix it.

An email to innactive users asking them to log in, or their accounts will be deleted would be a very good first step...

Then someone could take the time to properly investigate clening up the database it it's really necesary...

I have this nightmare of things going down for a day and then having to go back to an old version of the database and all my really cool posts going missing for some strange reason and noone being able to do anthing about it!! OH MY GOD! I'M LOSING MY MIND WITH WORRY! PLEASE BE CAREFUL BRAD!

[atomicbartbeans]

Remember a while back, we all celebrated AN having 4000 members?

We all log in tomorrow morning, and the member count is back down to 3000. A collective "wtf?" is heard throughout the world.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by scratt OH MY GOD! I'M LOSING MY MIND WITH WORRY! PLEASE BE CAREFUL BRAD!

Yikes! It looks like I stomped all over on a couple nerves here. Sorry, guys! I don't intend to go thrashing through the database deleting things willy-nilly. Don't panic!

Here's one AN link where Jack mentioned what I said. Only mods and admins can use that link, but I'll quote the message here:

Originally Posted by LoCash We have forty of 'em currently. Can we batch send these people their confirmation emails again, and delete the ones that bounce?

There's no way to tell if an e-mail bounces; so, a couple weeks should be plenty of time to allow any interested users that are still lingering to follow through. I'm doing this right now.

As for the 1700 other registered-but-inactive users, Eric has a good idea that I've actually seen done on at least one other forum too:

Originally Posted by alcimedes Rather than just wiping them out, could you compile a list of users who haven't been active, then send an automated e-mail explaining that if they don't log in some time in the next month their accounts will be removed?

Absolutely. All they have to do is log in and the time stamp will be updated. That's also how I can tell that the overwhelming majority of these aren't people who have been just using the private messaging system as torifile theorized; they have never even been back to AN and logged in since that first day.

[ast3r3x]

Oh what, you guys don't have fans from the internet signing up just to message you and tell you the YOUR the man?

The real reason, is I posted nude pics of Kick to other sites and linked it, they are just registering, and thanking me. Of course I sent Carol in with a camera after a drinking contest with Kick and 151.

Those gay red hed fetish sites LOVED Kick!

That accounts for 1500 of the 1700

[torifile]

Yeah. Don't you have to be logged in to see images? Between Kick and Carol, no wonder...

[Kickaha]

Dammit, she said those were just for her private shrine to redheads.

I feel so... *used*.



Do it again! Do it again!

[_Ω_]

Brad,

Are you a little disappointed no one commented on your ROLFCOPTER and LOLLERSKATES?

[scratt]

Originally Posted by Omega Brad, Are you a little disappointed no one commented on your ROLFCOPTER and LOLLERSKATES?

That's harsh man!! The

For the record I liked them. There ya go Brad...

[ast3r3x]

Originally Posted by Omega Brad, Are you a little disappointed no one commented on your ROLFCOPTER and LOLLERSKATES?

I laughed out loud, I figured he had all the geek cred he needed already.

[LudwigVan]

I didn't see the LOLLERSKATES.

[709]

'ERASERING' gave me a good laugh.

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by ast3r3x The real reason, is I posted nude pics of Kick... Of course I sent Carol in with a camera after a drinking contest with Kick and 151.

Now wait a sec here. Let me get this straight. Was *I* a participant in this drinking contest, or just an observer 'after the fact'?

Nude pictures of Kick, huh? Hmmm. Velly intellesting, velly *velly* intellesting.