Cleaning out the closet? Non-active members and such.

[anrchy]

Ok so I just spent way more time clicking through the pages upon pages of members than anyone should ever do, but came upon some interesting facts. Which got me thinking. We should clear out some old non active members from the roster. This idea is based on the following numbers:

893 pages of members.

20 members per page = 17,860 members

332 pages of members with 1 or more posts (6,640 members)

561 pages of members with 0 posts (11,220 members) Majority joined before the year 2012

There are 28 pages of members with only 3 posts (560 members) some are current users

There are 40 pages of members with only 2 posts (800 members) some are current users

There are 64 pages of members with only 1 post (1,280 members) some are current users

I had to click 166 times to get to page 332. Average wait time between pages was 4.5 seconds. (Probably due to the fact the information hasnt been accessed in awhile)

If we got rid of some of the non active members with no posts that would free up some member names that people could use. I would say start off with ones that have ZERO posts and havent been accessed in say a year?

Also think the same should be done with accounts with only 1 post that "didnt" post a DMT or other entheogen use "experience report" and havent been accessed in 2 years.

I have had accounts with some websites that "de-activate" your account after 30 days of non use. I don't think this is necessary but maybe after 2 years of non use? or 1 year?

I do think that 561 pages of non-posters is kind of ridiculous. As it would be more like 1 page if we implemented some sort of time frame of when to delete or deactivate accounts upon non-use of membership.

My main point is this, if you joined in 2008 and you only posted 1 post, unless that post contains extremely important info, your not contributing anything and there should be no problem in deleting this user, as its not difficult to re-apply for membership. When no posts have been made, there is no reason to keep that username registered, as the name can be freed up for someone else and we can unclutter the member pages.

Unless the member has accessed the account this year, if there are no posts the account should be removed IMO.

 

[universecannon]

I say keep it the way it is.You have no idea why people quit posting or logging in.They might not be able to at the present time for various reasons.I don't post that often myself and I would be mad if I came back sometime and my name and everything was gone.

Yeah thats a good point. But i don't see how that'll be much of an issue if only those who have been inactive for over a year and had 0 posts to begin with are the ones deleted

it'd be funny though if one of them happens upon this thread and objects

 

[a1pha]

It was more or less a joke -- plz, don't take offense by me.

Bottom line: it would create more work for The Traveler. And, as a web admin myself, I see only problem after problem for him. Out of the thousands deleted at least a few are going to want their membership back. There's only one person to who has this ability: The Traveler. Therefore, in the interest of saving the poor guy a few hours of his life....

 

[universecannon]

good point ^. in that case, i vote against it then.

i guess i just figured it would only take a few clicks to do for some reason, but then again i don't know much at all about this sort of thing.

 

[anrchy]

I don't have experience with this either. That's why I say it was just a suggestion figured I would post it just in case it turned out to be a good idea and not a lot of work vs pay off. Which I figure is the biggest factor in changes being made.

 

[daedaloops]

Excuse my weird post earlier, but I just wanted to note that I think a big part of those 11.000 members are lurkers who can't access parts of the forum otherwise. You keep saying it "wouldn't take away from there ability to view the website in any manner.", but in fact it does. You can't view the subsections "Coalition for Entheogenic Libery" or "Quality Experience Reports" or "Suppliers". Also you can't view attachments. So I think alot of people register here just to view those things, atleast I did in the past.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

Excuse my weird post earlier, but I just wanted to note that I think a big part of those 11.000 members are lurkers who can't access parts of the forum otherwise. You keep saying it "wouldn't take away from there ability to view the website in any manner.", but in fact it does. You can't view the subsections "Coalition for Entheogenic Libery" or "Quality Experience Reports" or "Suppliers". Also you can't view attachments. So I think alot of people register here just to view those things, atleast I did in the past.

As already pointed out, you also can't search.

 

[Infundibulum]

It was more or less a joke -- plz, don't take offense by me.

Bottom line: it would create more work for The Traveler. And, as a web admin myself, I see only problem after problem for him. Out of the thousands deleted at least a few are going to want their membership back. There's only one person to who has this ability: The Traveler. Therefore, in the interest of saving the poor guy a few hours of his life....

or in similar words, don't try to fix something if it ain't broken.

There is nothing wrong with all these users and the only valid reason was to free up usernames for new users to take. But again, who says that these new users will be active? And what's the fuzz with the name?

The consensus seems to disfavour the deletion of names, and I am locking this thread before we start going back and forth. Anchry, if you got some important reasons of why inactive users should be deleted, then pass them on to the Traveler or any other mod. For the moment, if it bothers you just do not click the damn link and do not waste your time making statistics:d

The forum sure offers a million of good things to talk about!