Should we delete non-posting members from the database?

[Speed Racer]

What do you think? I'd like to open this up for discussion. As I posted in another thread, we have the following stats right now:

Total Members: 1005
Total Members who have posted at least once: 684
Total Members who have never posted anything at all: 321

What I'm suggesting is that we go back two months, and anyone who joined two months ago [or earlier] with a ZERO post count should be removed from the database. That way we have an accurate idea of the size of our group. If they want to re-join, that's fine - but I'd like to see ACTIVE members, wouldn't you?

Anyone can view the forum without logging in.

Note: If you should answer "No" to the poll, please do us a favor and leave your reason for saying no. If you do agree with what I'm suggesting, it's not necessary for you to comment.

[wallcrawlr]

i voted no for reasons ive stated in the other post.

we are to new to dump members. lets give it some more time.


next...

[skip]

non-active members have never bothered me, so i say no. but if having non-active members affects space or bandwidth in a negative way then i say yes.

[Junkie]

I voted yes.I don't post every day,or every week,but at least I stay active.I enjoy reading about 80% of the posts here,and toss out a few comments on the stuff I know well.Let's see some activity,or hit the road.


:drink: :wedrunk: not quite yet,but working on it :fart:

[CJSREDPRA]

Voted yes....

Just looked at the Members list & there are peeps who have not posted, that are going ALL THE WAY BACK to the middle of March, when the forums went online.

Plus I also would like to see a accurate account of those who are active. Even if they only have ONE posting going back to March.... Versus those who have not even posted once.

[Deanfun]

i voted yes, with a condition in mind:

a "speak-up" thread is stickied for a few weeks so if there are any lurkers, they can chime in and not get deleted.

[trdmkii]

I voted yes and like slips idea, if they are a lurker and see this then they can post to save their lives.

Also is there anyway to see if they are active, by maybe viewing the last time they signed on, if there are some that have never posted and only signed on once or posted once and never came back, then they should go.

[quick]

Undecided for me. I'm not very concerned one way or another. I like the group of people here. The MkII community is where it's at.

But in regard to the no-posters. Doesn't matter to me either way. I don't know why you'd register without posting other than Billy's thought.

[zank]

BAN BAN BAN :evil2: anyone not posting up, not even to say hi is asking for :banme: :wedrunk:

[suprasrock]

I've voted no. I don't see the problem with lurkers. Some people like to stand at the front making all the noise, and some people like to stand back quietly taking it all in. Obviously, a forum wouldn't work without the people doing all the talking, but I don't see how lurkers have any negative effect on the process.

Notwithstanding technical issues, I say the more the merrier.

However, I'd definately vote for weeding out multiple registrations. I think several people must have had problems registering, and rather than seek admin help have simply reregistered.

[Speed Racer]

I've voted no. I don't see the problem with lurkers. Some people like to stand at the front making all the noise, and some people like to stand back quietly taking it all in. Obviously, a forum wouldn't work without the people doing all the talking, but I don't see how lurkers have any negative effect on the process.

Notwithstanding technical issues, I say the more the merrier.

However, I'd definately vote for weeding out multiple registrations. I think several people must have had problems registering, and rather than seek admin help have simply reregistered.

The problem with weeding out the multiple registrations is that people don't always leave the best clues that they've done this. I have found a few where people have used multiple email addresses...but I've still managed to figure out they were the same person.

Now...to go through 1000+ members and figure out who has more than one account -- you're talking about quite a task and I can guarantee I'd never find them all.

What I don't understand is the 321 silent members - that's a LOT of people! 32% of the members have nothing to say? It just makes no sense.

[Malloy]

Why create work? I say leave em. Their registered names do not affect any admin duties, do they? If they do, then its your call.

[SupraFiend]

it just bloats the stats. A better approach I think is to delete the dead accounts. Like it was said, if you can tell the last time they visited (which obviously the software records or the View Posts Since last visit thing wouldn't work) and if that time is over say 3 months or something and they've never posted then its someone who registered, never posted, then lost interest and stopped visiting. In which case their account is nothing but a waste of hard drive space. Obviously there are accounts that haven't been used in months and have a few posts as well. Maybe nuke those after a year?

[Speed Racer]

Ok...

Poll will close tomorrow. I'd just like to remove the dead accounts, since they're not active and really don't need to be there. But...if it's only bothering me then...I can't care. :roll:

[quick]

I can't care. :roll:

Sure you can. Do what you think is right, man.

[85_6mge]

and then after we get rid of all the "lurkers" and other non-posting creeps let's consider dumping those owner/members that don't participate in any of the reginal/national meets/greets, etc. Then we can go after the ones that don't.....get my point? I voted "NO". As they say "just my .02 cents worth".

[dogstar]

i think that if people have no interest in the site, then why would they want to remain registered?

i like slips idea, leaving a sticky in a few lobbies, just incase those people who are lurking dont want to be deleted, but otherwise, why carry members who arent members?

IIRC, membership implies actively belonging to something... registering once then disappearing isnt really active, and it doesnt contribute to the group, but thats just my opinion.

[Speed Racer]

and then after we get rid of all the "lurkers" and other non-posting creeps let's consider dumping those owner/members that don't participate in any of the reginal/national meets/greets, etc. Then we can go after the ones that don't.....get my point? I voted "NO". As they say "just my .02 cents worth".

Ok...I've been waiting for a post like the above.

Give me some CREDIT for a minute. Do you honestly think I would consider doing anything so completely asinine?

No, I don't agree with getting rid of lurkers, non-posters, owner/members that don't go to meets. Don't you think that was a bit excessive on your part? I mean COME ON!

All I suggested was purging the database of member names who have joined the forum, but have not posted anything for the past 60 days. If they want to re-join and actually contribute...great. That's the absolute extent of what I suggested.

[85_6mge]

Ok,ok I was only trying to make a point about personal issues becoming RULES. If the membership feels that we as a body need to add some basic guidelines to remain with this group then fine ...but I don't read minds ... perhaps some of the recent events in this country have me a little concerned about the erosion of our basic rights.

BTW I totally agree as to the question of why would someone join the group and then never, or almost never, post. However without gidelines in place for new/all members to agree to and follow then we could fall into a pattern of formulating the RULES as we go along. That's all. Thanks

[Zombiepup]

I lurk this site all the time. I read probably 75% of the posts and learn what I can.

I don't have a supra right now, so I have no questions about them. I only chime in once in a while and only when necessary.

I have no absolute oppinion on purging the unused accounts. However only the ones that haven't been used at all prior to 60 days ago should go. I'd really hate to see my account get nixed simply for not posting. I'm not one who has much to say and that shouldn't affect me when viewing forums. If that were to become the case, I'd probably not return.

Just my penny's worth

[Speed Racer]

People come and go...as would be expected. Some post more than others...and that's cool too.

I'm suggesting that accounts which have never posted, and are over 60 days old be purged from the database. That's it. I am not suggesting we remove anyone else, or anyone who hasn't posted in a while.

[zank]

People come and go...as would be expected. Some post more than others...and that's cool too.

I'm suggesting that accounts which have never posted, and are over 60 days old be purged from the database. That's it. I am not suggesting we remove anyone else, or anyone who hasn't posted in a while.

:werd:
you should of just gotten rid of them, no one would of noticed :lol:


<---------:brownnos: http://www.eclipseforums.org/forum/images/smilies/scratchhead.gif

[wallcrawlr]

Make this "delete your membership after a certain period of time" a policy that people are aware of when they sign up.

That way there is no question and its openly stated.

Its no longer an issue after that.



Good luck administering...

[fjb]

Okay, as a new member of this forum, I'm still a bit hesitant to post anything ... although I have made a few posts in the past few days. What I think is missing from this discussion (and the poll especialy, which I missed by not reading this forum until today) is a precise description of the criteria for "active" vs. "inactive" members.

I've seen statements like "no postings in last 60 days", "never posted", and "delete the lurkers". Frankly, I like lurking (usually much longer than I have in this site), it is a great way to learn -- learn the topics, the most frequent posters, the knowledgeable ones, and the not-so-often-correct (flame-bait) posters.

As an alternative to outright deletion of those who haven't posted (recently?) and partly in support of another post I read, how about establishing a set of criteria, somewhat along the lines of those words I've been using: "Active" and "Inactive" members, and then "duplicate members". You can somewhat easily find all the duplicates by a search on e-mail addresses in the user profiles. I'd say a cleanup of the site is in order to AT LEAST eliminate duplicate accounts (by either consolidation, giving the person with duplicates the opportunity to select the one they'd like to keep, or just brute-force checks on the uniqueness of e-mail address and posting status, eliminating the duplicate account least recently utilized for posting). Beyond that, establish a rule for changing accounts from ACTIVE status (e.g. has posted something within the first 60 days of account creation, or ____) to INACTIVE status, and _vice_ _verse_. When an account is moved from ACTIVE to INACTIVE, generate an e-mail warning to the address in the profile, stating that their account has been made INACTIVE, and after a certain time has elapsed (say 30 days?) as INACTIVE, the account will be moved to status DORMANT. Then, you inform the users that DORMANT accounts will have their PM and images (whatever local storage they use) purged from the system after N days, but the username and profile will be retained for 1 year (minimal storage requirements, so why not give people the opportunity to come back and retain their identity?). Retaining the identity has benefits for the ongoing (frequently posting) members also, as it makes it much easier to keep track of and remember who you've dealt with in the past. (Oh yeah, CJSREDPRA used to be ______ ... I don't know, just an example of someone I've already gotten some good leads from - and thanks again!). I don't know about you, but I'd hate to have to remember who someone USED to be! :wink:

Along with the warning about accounts moving to INACTIVE status, provide instructions (in the e-mail) as to how to keep the account ACTIVE, or how to elect something like SABBATICAL status (or pick a better word, please), which immediately moves the id to DORMANT, but gives a longer timeout on keeping the ID and profile "on reserve".

I've been writing software for a long time now, and I've had a bit to do with some membership based sites, so these recommendations come from experience. Note however that there are some drawbacks, and some potentially serious problems that I won't get into in an open forum discussion (security by obscurity!).

So, there you have the newby opinion, from a preferred lurker, and maybe even a partial algorithm as to how to clean out the truly departed users.

[Speed Racer]

Ok...I'm going to reply to each section directly, rather than post my response all at the end. I thought I had made pretty clear what I had in mind, which is a very simple task...you guys are reading WAY too much into what I'm suggesting...


Okay, as a new member of this forum, I'm still a bit hesitant to post anything ... although I have made a few posts in the past few days. What I think is missing from this discussion (and the poll especialy, which I missed by not reading this forum until today) is a precise description of the criteria for "active" vs. "inactive" members.

I appreciate you taking the time to reply in this thread and by the way, welcome to the forum.

Here is what I am suggesting ==> The removal of member names who have simultaneously met these two criteria:
1) Joined the forum and their account is at least 60 days old.
2) They have never posted a single time...ever.

If these people which to re-join the forum AND CONTRIBUTE that's fine - they will not be banned but just plain removed from the database. That is the EXTENT of what I'm suggesting. Delete the members who have joined, but never ever posted anything and have accounts over 60 days old.


I've seen statements like "no postings in last 60 days", "never posted", and "delete the lurkers". Frankly, I like lurking (usually much longer than I have in this site), it is a great way to learn -- learn the topics, the most frequent posters, the knowledgeable ones, and the not-so-often-correct (flame-bait) posters.

I have no issues with lurkers. Deleting "lurkers" is not my goal here. In fact, lurkers are great...and reading and learning via the experiences of others is why the forum was created. It's a great way to figure out what's wrong with your car, or perhaps learn something you didn't know before.


As an alternative to outright deletion of those who haven't posted (recently?) and partly in support of another post I read, how about establishing a set of criteria, somewhat along the lines of those words I've been using: "Active" and "Inactive" members, and then "duplicate members". You can somewhat easily find all the duplicates by a search on e-mail addresses in the user profiles.

As I addressed above...members who have posted once or a just a handful of times are not the target here. An area of your idea which is flawed is the ease of finding the duplicates by using email addresses. Not every duplicate I've come across has used the same email address. Often times, the person is using multiple email addresses, and mulitiple (non-similar) aliases...along with differing details in their profile. The forum is not my full time job - and the MkII is a hobby for me. I don't want this turning into that kind of work (and neither does Mike Malloy or Chris Wick for that matter.) Yes, I know it's possible to do, but I do not have the time or the will to get into researching our member base that closely. Hopefully you can respect that. Yes, it's a good idea - no I don't wanna do it.


I'd say a cleanup of the site is in order to AT LEAST eliminate duplicate accounts (by either consolidation, giving the person with duplicates the opportunity to select the one they'd like to keep, or just brute-force checks on the uniqueness of e-mail address and posting status, eliminating the duplicate account least recently utilized for posting). Beyond that, establish a rule for changing accounts from ACTIVE status (e.g. has posted something within the first 60 days of account creation, or ____) to INACTIVE status, and _vice_ _verse_.

What I will likely do is alter the "greeting" email that is sent when someone joins the forum. I will also do a group distrubution email that hits every email account registered with the forum to advise existing members of the "60 day without a single post ever" policy. That way it's up front, everyone knows about it...including new people that join the group.


When an account is moved from ACTIVE to INACTIVE, generate an e-mail warning to the address in the profile, stating that their account has been made INACTIVE, and after a certain time has elapsed (say 30 days?) as INACTIVE, the account will be moved to status DORMANT. Then, you inform the users that DORMANT accounts will have their PM and images (whatever local storage they use) purged from the system after N days, but the username and profile will be retained for 1 year (minimal storage requirements, so why not give people the opportunity to come back and retain their identity?). Retaining the identity has benefits for the ongoing (frequently posting) members also, as it makes it much easier to keep track of and remember who you've dealt with in the past. (Oh yeah, CJSREDPRA used to be ______ ... I don't know, just an example of someone I've already gotten some good leads from - and thanks again!). I don't know about you, but I'd hate to have to remember who someone USED to be! :wink:

I appreciate the idea but I don't want to go there. If being an admin on this forum was a "paid position" I might consider it. I don't have the time to monitor accounts that closely, and I don't know of anyone that really does. CS.com is a hobby for most of us and the way I see it is if an account has been inactive for a long time...and the user comes back and becomes active again...so be it. If not, then at least they "were" active at one time. That type of user is not what I'm concerned with.


Along with the warning about accounts moving to INACTIVE status, provide instructions (in the e-mail) as to how to keep the account ACTIVE, or how to elect something like SABBATICAL status (or pick a better word, please), which immediately moves the id to DORMANT, but gives a longer timeout on keeping the ID and profile "on reserve".

See response to previous paragraph. I'm really not interested in re-inventing the wheel here. All I wanna do is remove the accounts that have joined, but never EVER posted anything (and are over 60 days old). Period. That's it!


I've been writing software for a long time now, and I've had a bit to do with some membership based sites, so these recommendations come from experience. Note however that there are some drawbacks, and some potentially serious problems that I won't get into in an open forum discussion (security by obscurity!).

Thus the reason why I don't want to open that can of worms. If I got that detailed, I could quit my regular job and monitor this thing like a hawk. That is not something I'm inclined to do...it would not only take the fun out of being part of the group for me, but I think I'd eventually hate playing "hall monitor" on a daily basis. That's not what this is about for anyone on here...me included. Again, I appreciate the suggestion...I really do.


So, there you have the newby opinion, from a preferred lurker, and maybe even a partial algorithm as to how to clean out the truly departed users.

Thanks for taking the time to write your suggestions. Many of them are valid...however, that's not really a direction Mike, Chris or I want to head in - and I'm sure you can respect that. Please don't take my replies in a negative light. I think you know what I have in mind and how I'd like to proceed...and I really don't want to make it any more complicated than that.

[wallcrawlr]

nuff said.

[white_mk_2]

Here is what I am suggesting ==> The removal of member names who have simultaneously met these two criteria:
1) Joined the forum and their account is at least 60 days old.
2) They have never posted a single time...ever.


This sounds fine. A person doesn't have to have an account to read the posts so why register and not post? Better to delete their file so we have somewhat accurate numbers for the group.

[Village]

This sounds fine. A person doesn't have to have an account to read the posts so why register and not post? Better to delete their file so we have somewhat accurate numbers for the group.

I register and don't post so that it properly updates unread/read posts. Easier to keep track then every message being considered new on each visit.

There is really no reason to start cleaning out old accounts now. Accounts should be given a year without logging in before being considered for deletion. I often go in spurts when reading groups I find interesting, but not my main focus. I will read it for a month or so, then disappear for months before coming back for whatever reason. And I *hate* having to recreate my account everytime. I much prefer the "email me my password" button. =)

[Speed Racer]

There is really no reason to start cleaning out old accounts now. Accounts should be given a year without logging in before being considered for deletion.

Ok...I think maybe I'm not speaking English here, so I'm gonna try explaining my goal here ONE last time:

I want to delete accounts that meet this SIMULTANEOUS criteria only...

1) Account is 60 days old or older.

PLUS

2) Account has never posted anything ever. Not one post ever.

The way I see it is...if an account is created, and its owner never ever posts anything during the first 60 days of joining, chances are good they will never post anything EVER. Now, I know there will be some exceptions to the rule...and that being the case, if the person wants to create their account again - that's cool by me.

If I did what you're suggesting, I would have to keep tabs on all accounts and wait for them to reach one year of maturity. No way man.

[Village]

I understand just fine what you want to accomplish. Just disagree with your methods. =) Your board and your free to do as you wish, I post enough to not be worry about it.

Someone has to defend the lurkers (since they wont), who register and never post. Who read the boards, and find having the new posts highlighted much easier then having to hunt through an entire board of potentially new messages. And hey, maybe they want to recieve news and updates from the site emailed to them when they happen.


If I did what you're suggesting, I would have to keep tabs on all accounts and wait for them to reach one year of maturity. No way man.

Keeping tabs? What I was suggesting was running a script once a year(or whatever interval you want) that more or less finds any account that has not logged in over a year and deletes them.

There is no way I'd advocate watching everyones account daily for a year limit, that's madness... MADNESS I tell yoU!!! :shock:

[Speed Racer]

When it comes right down to it, I'll probably do just what Malloy and Quick suggest. Nothing.

Rather than ruffle people's feathers or create problems, just leaving it alone would be best.

The forum belongs to EVERYONE - namely our MkII Supra group. I'm not about to go against the grain, which is why I opened this up for discussion. It's easy enough to sort by post count and get an accurate idea of how many active members there are.

Bottom line -- I'm not gonna worry about it. It's an issue, but definitely not a problem.

[SupraFiend]

not to drag this on again, but I still don't see why whether or not they've posted is being used as a criteria. It should be the last time they've visited. Who cares if they post. They register so they can use the View Recent Posts feature and use the PMessaging. What we want to get rid of is the dead accounts. Accounts that are not in use in anyway and haven't been for like 6 months. We know the last time visited is stored on the server, or the View Recent posts button wouldn't work, it should be just a matter of getting that info. Surely a little script could handle this chore. Nuke all accounts with 0 posts that have not visited in 6months.

[dan12771]

aight just saw this and everything. i havn't been on in weeks and i'm not gona be able to be as active as i used to be but i'm still here i'm jsut grounded at the moment and plan on being grounded for a few weeks to month or two more so don't delete my account ijust cheak about every week or so and make a post here and their but i'm very much still interested in keeping my account active. thanks.

[RaptorRacing]

What we want to get rid of is the dead accounts. Accounts that are not in use in anyway and haven't been for like 6 months. We know the last time visited is stored on the server, or the View Recent posts button wouldn't work, it should be just a matter of getting that info. Surely a little script could handle this chore. Nuke all accounts with 0 posts that have not visited in 6months.

I think that this is the best idea. I'm sure it's been said a million times, but I'm sure out of the few hundred or so that have registered there has to be a few who sign on every once in a while to check things out. They might not have much to say because they're still in the absorbing stage. So I say what Fiendboy has suggested is the best:




Nuke all accounts with 0 posts that have not visited in 6months

[cf_koch]

I know this subject has already been decided but I thought I would explain why I rarely post on this forum. I am just getting started with modifing and hopefully autox my supra. I have been using this form to learn from members experiences. I have found that most of my questions have already been addressed so I do not have to add repetitive posts. I have not had enough experience to enrich anyting beyond what the experts on this site have already posted. I hope that as I get more involved with my car I will have more to add to this community. Please don't deleat Supra fanatics just because they are flies on the wall.

[Phil G.]

I say we delete all those who do not have a Mk2 from the list....

Ok wait a minute - I am working on it! (Malloy has no excuse).

Does not matter to me either way.

Phil G. (looking to approach Zank's posting record one day.....) :lol:

[Supra Guy Scotty]

This is one of those "follow your instincts" times. I do think this is an early time especially for the messege board being on no longer than it has. MAybe you should give them a chance, or a set time period. If still no post in the next 6 months,.. then there is no real question. Or set your own time limit. Do what you feel is best. Good luck! 8)

Scotty

[Bobby L.]

I haven't been posting for a while because neither of my '85 P-types is streetable right now. I bought my first '85 Supra with the intention of using the drivetrain in an old '57 roadster, but the bottom end of the 5 mge turned out to be wider than that of a small-block V-8, so the engineering got a little involved. Meanwhile, I had a lot of fun driving the Supra (with 6mge) to collect parts at various junkyards, so I got away from my original project. If I should abandon my Supra projects, then I will have a lot of good parts to sell such as a complete range of differentials (3.73; 3.91; 4.10; 4.30) a few transmissions and an engine or two. If I get back into the engine work I will have a lot of technical stuff to post about, especially in the adaptation of a couple of Weber downdrafts and a non-computer controlled engine.

Otherwise, I enjoy reading daily the postings of members who are knowledgeable about the Supra mechanicals. Quality comments from super-innovators such as Norbie, or very well thought-out technical postings from persons such as Jamie, are always interesting. I go back to the old forum for the classic comments of TomD.

If group members who do not post much are a burden on the Forum (because of limitations of technical capacity or whatever it is) then may I suggest that a membership fee of $20 or $30 per year be charged. That would possibly sort out "serious" participants, and would at least ensure that persons who are "read only" would be carrying their share of the financial base to support the Forum.

Bobby L.
(Blue '85 P-type, no rust body, nice leather, hole in engine; Red '85 P-type, 6mge runs great, doesn't pass smog)

[Malloy]

There is no technical burden. You are all welcome, 4 posts OR 400 posts. :bigok: :)

[SupraFiend]

I know this subject has already been decided but I thought I would explain why I rarely post on this forum. I am just getting started with modifing and hopefully autox my supra. I have been using this form to learn from members experiences. I have found that most of my questions have already been addressed so I do not have to add repetitive posts. I have not had enough experience to enrich anyting beyond what the experts on this site have already posted. I hope that as I get more involved with my car I will have more to add to this community. Please don't deleat Supra fanatics just because they are flies on the wall.

Someone give this guy a medal :thumbup:

[Tanya]

yes I am dragging this back from the dead. why? because I am an annoying female, why else? :D
Why not send an automatic email to all "0" posters requesting that if they do not post in so many days, say 45 or something, their account will be terminated. It may sound mean and threatening but I would understand if one was sent to me. I think it's silly to register somewhere and to not contribute, not even ONCE.
I think the best thing about this forum is that we've gotten to meet people from all over the world, we're getting a better understanding of how many mk2s are left, in what condition or whatnot. The more people that "lurk" the less info we really have. I can understand not posting everyday, or once a month, but at least post an introduction that says "hi I am here, I have such and such Mk2 and am located here" blah blah blah
Maybe this is just a dead issue, but I'm just giving out my opinion, for what it's worth
happy posting
;)

[zank]

yes I am dragging this back from the dead. why? because I am an annoying female, why else? :D
Why not send an automatic email to all "0" posters requesting that if they do not post in so many days, say 45 or something, their account will be terminated. It may sound mean and threatening but I would understand if one was sent to me. I think it's silly to register somewhere and to not contribute, not even ONCE.
I think the best thing about this forum is that we've gotten to meet people from all over the world, we're getting a better understanding of how many mk2s are left, in what condition or whatnot. The more people that "lurk" the less info we really have. I can understand not posting everyday, or once a month, but at least post an introduction that says "hi I am here, I have such and such Mk2 and am located here" blah blah blah
Maybe this is just a dead issue, but I'm just giving out my opinion, for what it's worth
happy posting
;)

quit your post whoreing :lol:

[sloopercat]

Maybe we should save bandwith by cutting folks off after 1489 posts? :wink:

[85TurboMKII]

I dont thinkwe should just yet I mean there are only 1000 people here. and some people (my girlfriends roomate) who may be here hunting for info and stuff. Hell he is an old pontiac guy. but he is curious about all this (new fangled electronic overhead cam stuff). I mean if we had like 4000 people on here and 2000 of them didn't post that would be a different story. but a few lurkers isn't going to hurt anyone

[84_celicasupra]

i don't know, in my mind i see this site where everyone is welcome.also i don't see y someone should have to check in every once in a while. its just a rule that i think is unnecessary, most of the people that don't post (i did this for awhile) just like to use tha site as a resource, also they might not post because they have an uncanny ability to use tha search button. but all this crap is just what i think,

JR

[trdmkii]

well if we didn't have post counts then we wouldn't have this problem, and everyone would be known as a member...just a thought.

[Greg G]

Maybe we should save bandwith by cutting folks off after 1489 posts? :wink:

Roger that Bruce.... loud and clear. And now its up to 1574 quality posts.

[cf_koch]

If we drop members that do not post regularly won't we just be encouraging people to make irrelivant posts simply to prevent from being dropped?

[CJSREDPRA]

Re-read the original intent of this posting.

We were requesting that peeps be dropped, who joined up several months back (over at least 6 - 8 months), and have ZERO postings. If they have at least one, they won't be dropped.

[Import_Eve]

non-active members have never bothered me, so i say no. but if having non-active members affects space or bandwidth in a negative way then i say yes.

I have to agree with you.

[CELICA GTS]

We were requesting that peeps be dropped, who joined up several months back (over at least 6 - 8 months), and have ZERO postings. If they have at least one, they won't be dropped.

I concur, after scrolling thru the database to locate Dynamic73, I saw more than a few guys who have 0 postings and have been listed as joining for at least a year. Its weird seeing some guys with 0 postings then seeing some with 2390...cough cough CJSREDPRA....LOL..JK at least your postings are informative :shock:

[Tanya]

2,390 that's it? LOL and thanks btw Celica GTS I feel un-loved with my useless posts, hehe
well the poll says more people want the 0 posters deleted, I guess there was no point in the poll if nothing was going to be accomplished by it
*shrug*

[CELICA GTS]

Tanya I think the problem is the "headshed" has been swamped with regular work and really have'nt had the time for it-so I can see that. Its just one of their ongoing projects I would assume. BTW I see you causing trouble in the Celica GTS forum.... :chair: LOL

[Tanya]

trouble??? me?? I don't cause trouble...
:twisted:
I've been joining a lot of other forums lately, and I like their ideas of the new member specific forum, where people are asked to introduce themselves when they join. Usually, the "General" section is used for that, but lately I've seen new members pop up in other sections with their intro and no questions or comments related to the section they've posted in.
I like this site, and I'm not going to harass the admins/mods for trivialites when they're probably really busy with other stuff.

[Speed Racer]

We pretty much decided that it's not worth the time to delete people who join, but never contribute. Some people like to join, read posts and learn but never say anything on the forum - which is fine. Unfortunately, we'd end up nuking them along with the ones who joined the forum, and then vanished off the face of the earth as well.

The reality is that it doesn't hurt bandwidth, doesn't hurt the database...so it's really no big deal.

Steve

[CELICA GTS]

The reality is that it doesn't hurt bandwidth, doesn't hurt the database...so it's really no big deal.

Steve

Thats what I was wondering about, but since it doesn't impact this sites efficency then there is no concern from me

[Malloy]

Sounds good to me.


We pretty much decided that it's not worth the time to delete people who join, but never contribute. The reality is that it doesn't hurt bandwidth, doesn't hurt the database...so it's really no big deal.

Steve