This forum has, apparently, 3512 members.
Now I know this includes all the banned and duplicates etc....so that figure is slightly exaggerated.

However........there are possibly less than 100 members who contribute on a regular or semi-regular basis.....so the number of registered members means nothing - how many people would register just to ask (without reading the existing threads) "How do I get unbanned?" :twisted:

I would like to see an automatic suspension of accounts on members after a period of, say 3 months of inactivity.

Seriously, I have no idea about how much server space etc a registered member might use or what implications being registered but not actually visiting the site has....but I'm guessing there must be some.

And in reality - if you don't visit a forum for more than 3 months - how interested are you in being part of it?

So...I would like to see implemented for this forum:

After 3 months of inactivity (ie not visited) - suspension of account - an email sent to advise that the account has been suspended and if there was no reply/visit within the next month then the account would be deleted.

This would:
* give a better indication of how many active forum members we have
* free up names that new members may want to use
* give members who are taking a break the opportunity to remain registered as they receive the reminder

Discussion welcomed

I completely agree. The period of inactivity specified by Saff is a great idea, and is long enough for people who are interested in the forum to take a break every now and again. I also think that banned members should be removed.

how many people would register just to ask (without reading the existing threads) "How do I get unbanned?" :twisted:

* db1986 starts counting fingers and toes and quickly runs out of them

There are too many of them. Most iSketch players think that the forum is completely related to iSk and hope that problems they have on iSk can be dealt with here.
Maybe a note when new members register stating that if there were any problems with iSk they should be directly pointed to feedback. Unless there is one already :embarrassed:

I'm pretty sure the amount of registrations doesn't make much bulk on the server, it's the contributions themselves that make the load.

Still, i wouldn't be against deleting accounts that have never posted anything in the lifetime of their accounts, or at least since the boards were wiped. Which would account for about 60% of our membership.

However, thinking about it, it might not be such a great idea.

A large number of members on a board give the impression that the board is very busy, and may attract new members. Also, it's normal to have about half of a large forum's membership inactive. Other fora i participate in are just like this, there's this one that has 40.000 members, but i'd say only 300 members collaborate regularly. The membership is so large because every day we get about 15 noobs registering to ask the same questions over and over, get their questions answered and never rear their ugly noob heads again :)

But.. but... that would mean we'd lose Peter...



I think it's basically an ok idea though. Especially the freeing up names part.

I don't think we'd ever be able to gain a true picture of how active the forum is because it doesn't require people to register in order to read. There's always a few guests on - are they logged out members? The same 5 or 6 people coming back over and over? Or a whole bunch of lurkers? I'm not sure it's so urgent to find out, and to check out how many registered people are checking this place regularly, you only have to look at the figures on the homepage for how many members visited in the last 24 hours.

I don't know - the idea appeals to my tidy nature although I don't see HUGE benefits arising from it.

(Sorry for the jibe, Pete... )

A large number of members on a board give the impression that the board is very busy, and may attract new members.

I suppose this would make it seem busy. It also depends on what type of people join the forum; whether they contribute regularly or not. I also agree with the e-mail of suspension being sent. Maybe that would persuade members actively contribute on a (slightly) more regular basis. The more, the merrier :)

I don't see HUGE benefits arising from it.

Except freeing up names, which you already stated :)

I don't think we'd ever be able to gain a true picture of how active the forum is because it doesn't require people to register in order to read. There's always a few guests on - are they logged out members? The same 5 or 6 people coming back over and over? Or a whole bunch of lurkers? I'm not sure it's so urgent to find out, and to check out how many registered people are checking this place regularly, you only have to look at the figures on the homepage for how many members visited in the last 24 hours.


Seeing some statistics on this would be nice. I'm sure the website's control panel has tracking options for ips, visits, returning visitors and that, if it doesnt then peter needs to get one that does it.

There's always a few guests on - are they logged out members?

Also what are spiders?

Spiders are those programs that look at everything on the web, database it and make it available for search on search engines.

3 months is too short, I'd think.

If you were to delete any accounts, I would delete those who have never posted and registered more than 3 months ago. Of the ones that have posted, I'd delete the ones that haven't logged in for over a year.

The idea itself is all right though.

3 months is too short, I'd think.

If you were to delete any accounts, I would delete those who have never posted and registered more than 3 months ago. Of the ones that have posted, I'd delete the ones that haven't logged in for over a year.

The idea itself is all right though.

There is a way you can prune members on their last visit alone so they don't have to post, just visit the forum.

This is all possible, just not sure about automatically, the only method I know is "Prun / Move Users" (an Admin CP option) which allows admin's to specify a whole set of criteria to search members by, and then they can move them to a suspended user gruop or delete them. The criteria available for that are which user group the user is in, when they last logged on to the forum (not posted), when they joined and post count. This means Peter could say, search by users with a post count less then 1, who havnt logged in for 90 days and then move or delete the users found.

'Sup folks. Interesting thread... speaking from a resources point of view inactive users are nowhere near a problem. The only benefit I can see of deleting inactive users is to free up common usernames but I don't even think that justifies it. I know that if I registered on a forum and then came back a year later and found my account had been deleted I'd be pretty annoyed. Happened to me recently in fact and I didn't bother re-registering.

There are about 300 registrations that aren't human from back when we had a load of spambots, I may be able to find a way to delete those but all the same it's not really gonna make a difference to anything.

Lol Vik I had it comming, I don't know what it is but I just fail.

Perhaps different types of members?
Very Active, Moderately Active, Hardly Active, kinds that just check out the threads but don't actually post.
Otherwise... They don't really bother me.

I don't know - the idea appeals to my tidy nature

*nods* - that's where I was coming from too :P

I wouldn't support culling members without warning - so Peter's experience of going to a forum 12 months later and finding he had been de-registered would not happen. In my example, after a set amount of inactive time, the account would be suspended and an email sent to notify that member. The account is automatically re-activated if they visit the forum from, say the link in the email. If they don't visit, then after another set amount of time, delete it.

I personally think the idea of "a large number of users gives the impression of an busy forum" is a weird concept - do people actually make a decision to register on a forum on that basis? heh.

I personally think the idea of "a large number of users gives the impression of an busy forum" is a weird concept - do people actually make a decision to register on a forum on that basis? heh.
You'd be surprised actually. A lot of new users see a forum with a small number of users and think "meh that doesn't look very popular" and then see a forum with a lot of members and think "oooo popular forum, I'll register there"

Argh, just my luck, I make a cheeky comment and he comes and reads it!

You don't fail, Peter! Or even phail or phalye or whatever people are calling it these days! You just had the audacity to be young and have a life :P

I think it's true what Jobe says, although in this case I'm not sure it's a factor because although there are a ton of members, only a very small % are active. I think people tend to look at the 'how many members are online right now' kind of stats than actual membership figures. If that grabs them, they might explore a few threads, and seeing 'regulars' with 500+ posts makes people feel that there are at least a few people here who know what they are on about.

Having said that, did the post counts ever return to normal?

IMO 50+ active posters with a good turnover of posts is enough for the discerning noob.

You'd be surprised actually. A lot of new users see a forum with a small number of users and think "meh that doesn't look very popular" and then see a forum with a lot of members and think "oooo popular forum, I'll register there"


See, me on the other hand because I'm slightly weird... I actually prefer smaller forums with less people on them. I find that if I join somewhere that has a ridiculous amount of members I can get lost and a bit put off. Whereas with a smaller group you can identify people much more easily and kind of make friends with everyone. That's probably because of my shy-ness though (yes, I'm even shy on the t'internet :rolleyes:).

See, me on the other hand because I'm slightly weird... I actually prefer smaller forums with less people on them.

LOL Aw Sarah. I just thought.....oooh, an isketch forum where people can talk about thier addiction and get to know each other a bit more....cool.....and joined :rolleyes:

where people can talk about thier addiction
You mean kinda like an AA meeting? :twisted:

/me runs

Perhaps different types of members? Very Active, Moderately Active, Hardly Active...

That sounds like a good idea.

I don't really see a problem with leaving the accounts, coming from someone who doesn't post very often. Three months is a pretty short period of time - it's surprising sometime how much time flies. I've been really busy lately, as I'm sure many of you have, and I'd hate to come back to a deleted account - that has happened to me before and it was quite discouraging.

A year sounds more reasonable, although in all honesty sometimes even a year can fly by in the blink of an eye. I don't know if any of you use Doodlebug, but I just recently drew again on there for the first time in over 2 years. My account wasn't deleted and I was welcomed back, and for this I was very glad. :) Perhaps that will also happen with people on this forum.

And also, much of the time I am on here, I read the posts but do not necessarily have the time (or the energy :P) to post, so I hope that if this system of deleting inactive members happens, being "active" simply means having been logged on, not in terms of posting.

I'm with lisa479 here... some of our members only pop in once or twice a year, members some of us appreciate like quicker, jmac and incognito. Wouldnt want to delete those guys... jmac is in mexico or something with no access to the interwebs. Quicker i suppose is in college and inco... well, havent seen much of him since systole, but he still plays and i'm sure he reads the boards every once in a while.

hm...i mean like..deleting the accounts of people that dont come very often doesnt seem to be that great,, since yah, we still enjoy seeing them on when they do come around :) but the ones that are duplicates...I dont see a big point in having their accounts on here...if the extras were deleted then that would still help? maybe....

Personally i have gone for months and but then return after ages. However that is due to personal reasons which meant i couldn't go online or ages. But then i returned and thankfully still have an account!!

I think it is unfair to delete someone's account after only 3 months. Not everyone may be able to check the forum everyday, and they also may be busy with their personal life.

I agree that some members on here probably have checked the forum once or twice and not bothered since.
If you're going to delete someone's account then it should be at least after a year IMO.

Anyway i'm off to scare the trick or treaters =) Rawr!

*EDIT* Oh and thank you for not deleting my account! Woohoo

Glad to have you back, Tigs. :)

But.. but... that would mean we'd lose Peter...

:smile:

Personally i have gone for months and but then return after ages. However that is due to personal reasons which meant i couldn't go online or ages. But then i returned and thankfully still have an account!!

I think it is unfair to delete someone's account after only 3 months. Not everyone may be able to check the forum everyday, and they also may be busy with their personal life.
/me stands on a chair and applauds Tigeress

As Tigeress says not everyone can get online or have time to post on forums as often as some. So they should be victimised and removed???:?:

(be back in another 3 months :twisted: :biggrin:)

not everyone can get online or have time to post on forums as often as some. So they should be victimised and removed???:?:


Hmm Victimised seems a harsh way of looking at it. :rolleyes: And I agree that accounts shouldn't be removed, it wasn't really what was suggested. I was talking about inactive accounts - I meant people who logon to make one post (usually about how to get unbanned/unblocked and then never come back) The suggestion was to suspend and email the member to notify - and the account would be re-activated if they visited the site (not posted, just visited)

But as it has been explained that these accounts don't have any effect on the way the forum operates (in terms of quotas/space on the server etc), the only real advantage seems to be freeing up the username.

Mind you, if something like that had been in place, we wouldn't have gone so long without seeing Peter :twisted:

I meant people who logon to make one post (usually about how to get unbanned/unblocked and then never come back) The suggestion was to suspend and email the member to notify - and the account would be re-activated if they visited the site (not posted, just visited

Oh in that case I see your point.

...
I was talking about inactive accounts - I meant people who logon to make one post (usually about how to get unbanned/unblocked and then never come back) The suggestion was to suspend and email the member to notify - and the account would be re-activated if they visited the site (not posted, just visited)
...

Although we know from experience a good portion of the threads in iSketch Help are probably one-off postings, how would you design a reliable system wherein you can identify an inactive member who won't come back?

Yes, those how-can-I-get-unbanned posters just post once, but then again, you also have those normal people who visit just a few times a year. They would both come under 'inactive' because of their visiting/posting habits, but only one category create redundant accounts.

IMHO
I don't think inactive members pose too much a problem?

Bandwidth is about those who do post I believe,
If it becomes a problem then I would consider, emailing older members, to ask if they are happy to have their account removed, before removing it.

/me flirts with Buffy

erm........only three months seems a bit harsh-my new lil one isn't quite three months yet, but I still don't seem to have time to eat a meal with both hands free while sitting yet, much less posting on the forum:biggrin:


However, that doesn't mean I don't miss it and I'm sure others like me don't quite have the time we used to but still love to log on once in a blue moon to smile and remember all you lovely folks and hope to once again be able to wave hello to you and ruin the fun and games sections:twisted:

Ok my 10 seconds are up......gotta run but I miss everyone tons!

Aeroooo!! I miss you too, it's been so long! You probably still remember me as SnapeFan479, haha. But glad to see you stop by to post; I haven't been on much either.

Hope to see you soon. :-)

*Ah and sorry I know this post isn't exactly related to the topic at hand. Got excited...haha.

erm........only three months seems a bit harsh
Yes, it seems to be. Maybe 12 months is more appropriate
/me hugs aerochickybabe AKA SuperMum (er......SuperMom?)
Congratulations on another baybeeeee :D
my new lil one isn't quite three months yet, but I still don't seem to have time to eat a meal with both hands free while sitting yet
:twisted: ermmmmmmmm...give it another 4 years........:eek:

Aerochiiiiiiick!!!! :biggrin:

Now I'm done spamming... lol

Members who are not posting, or even visiting wont eat up much bandwidth. The only problem I see with inactive members is banned members making accounts to use when they choose, or people joining to 'stalk' the member list or member profiles. People having multiple accounts also might be a problem, as it's supposed to be a no-no on here.

This is a public forum though and you can set your profile to private too... the only place you can be seen is the member list and if you're an active poster, it stands to reason you'd be on it.

Use of multiple accounts probably is an issue on here, especially by some users who were previously booted. That said, you can't really ever know who you're talking to online unless you've met them and even then you can still be decieved.

I suppose what I'm saying is, since this forum is a public forum, deleting non-active members wouldn't really solve any of the above issues as they'd simply join again and become another either: another active member who spies, or an inactive account waiting to be used at the person's leisure. Public forums carry this burden (if it is one) but the same applies to most internet sites. I say it's public, so leave it that way.

As had previously been said, someone would be pretty cheesed off if they came back and saw their account had been deleted when they couldn't get online... take Tigs for instance, she's just come back, her account may have been deleted.

I don't think people should have their accounts deleted because of a few bad apples. :biggrin:

Plus... any advertising Peter wants to do will be aided by the number of members he has.

...
The only problem I see with inactive members is banned members making accounts to use when they choose, or people joining to 'stalk' the member list or member profiles. People having multiple accounts also might be a problem, as it's supposed to be a no-no on here.
...
I suppose what I'm saying is, since this forum is a public forum, deleting non-active members wouldn't really solve any of the above issues as they'd simply join again and become another either: another active member who spies, or an inactive account waiting to be used at the person's leisure.
...


Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're not talking about banned members here. I think we are just referring to those people who post once then never come back.

I think there is a clear distinction between what we are referring to as an 'inactive' member and a banned member. A banned member may well create another account, and people may well stalk and never post, but the proposed solution is that an account is marked as active even if someone logs in. So even if you're going to go on invisible and normal forumites (i.e. not admins/moderators) can't see that you're being active by logging on, you still won't be an 'inactive' member.

How people choose to be active on a forum is entirely up to them.

And now that it has been clarified that the number of users on a forum doesn't affect bandwidth or anything like that, it would only be used to free up usernames, and if someone is truly 'inactive', I don't think they'd care much whether or not their account was deleted. It would be courteous though, to still send them an e-mail warning them, give them a grace period to log in and thus automatically reactive their account, and if they don't - then delete it, and free up the username. Banned members' accounts can also be deleted to free up the user name, or they could be kept to avoid provoking them to create another account just so they can have 'banned' as their forum status (who knows what floats peoples' boats these days!).

Please don't delete me... I don't have much time these days to post but I use it to keep in contact with my friends here via visitor and private messages...

After 3 months of inactivity (ie not visited) - suspension of account - an email sent to advise that the account has been suspended and if there was no reply/visit within the next month then the account would be deleted.

It would be courteous though, to still send them an e-mail warning them, give them a grace period to log in and thus automatically reactive their account, and if they don't - then delete it, and free up the username.

I think that's what Saff was generally talking about in her original post. Maybe three months is too short a time, but then it did open up this discussion and many people agree with this time being too short.

Edit: You're a regular KittyKatt, you wouldn't be deleted :smile: *hugs* And neither should any of the other regular people.

Please don't delete me... I don't have much time these days to post but I use it to keep in contact with my friends here via visitor and private messages...

You wouldn't be deleted because you're active (at least you log in)... there's isn't even a system for this in place yet, so don't worry.

db: Yes, I think 3 months is too short a time also.

I think this whole thing boils down to freeing up usernames for those "inactive" (term loosely used) forumites, the people that post once on the forum usually to get themselves unbanned.

"freeing up" usernames could just cause confusion.

"freeing up" usernames could just cause confusion.

If they're going to be so inactive that they only post once, then never return, there will be no identity attached to them. It would be as if they were never here, so nothing to get confused about.

Probably.

I don't think that freeing up usernames is a good reason for deleting accounts though.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're not talking about banned members here. I think we are just referring to those people who post once then never come back.

I was just saying what some of the reasons might be for clearing up the list... and I also came out as leaving it as it was, nothing more, and the collective 'we' would mean everyone in the thread? That includes me, surely? You went on to use that point to voice your opinion on it, which was good.

As for it being 'entirely up to them', I don't disagree.

I think deleting 'inactive' members is only useful if the member was found to be previously banned, otherwise you're deleting someone for simply not visiting for a long time, which doesn't seem right. That's why I brought that point up.

As someone who is 'inactive' but pops in once a year or so on some forums, I'd say it was more of an deterrent than an encouragement of new material to a forum.

The original suggestion came from a few areas (I hadn't thought of any of the things Buffers talks about):

1. I assumed that the members were 'taking up space' on the server which could be better used. This has now been clarified.

2. Freeing up names that other people may want to use to be identified by.

3. Generally something inherent about tidiness, and not having records/accounts that were not going to be used again.

The original suggestion was:
After 3 months of inactivity (ie not visited) - suspension of account - an email sent to advise that the account has been suspended and if there was no reply/visit within the next month then the account would be deleted.

I'm surprised at the number of people who have talked about coming back a year later to find their account deleted, because that just woudn't happen....they would get an email - although, if someone was totally offline for that long - ie no internet, no email...it could be a problem.

Ah well, after reading all the discussion, the idea seems to have too many possible negative consequences for too few/no real gains.

Hi, I'm one of those infrequent visitors, just not a lot of time to spend either posting or reading. I do enjoy visiting occasionally, and if I find a good joke, I know where to go with it. I would think, though, that an account with zero posts, and zero activity for a year could be deleted, and the account-holder wouldn't even notice.

I agree with that, if an account hasent been touched for a specific period of time, then i dont see why the mods shouldent delete it, if someone then got offended by the removal of it who still wanted to keep it all they would have to do would be mail the mods to have another account.
No hardship really, but like poots said they proberly wouldent even notice it gone.