Prune inactive members? - Printable Version
-Shoutbox (https://shoutbox.menthix.net)
+-- Forum: MsgHelp Archive (/forumdisplay.php?fid=58)
+--- Forum: General (/forumdisplay.php?fid=11)
+---- Forum: Forum & Website (/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+----- Thread: Prune inactive members? (/showthread.php?tid=22371)
Prune inactive members? by Theo on 03-08-2004 at 10:09 PM
just putting this out there cause j mac made me realize yesterday ...
30030 Members
Members who have posted: 28.67%
13892 Members have 0 Posts
Over Ten Posts: 3.99% (898 users)
Was annoying to cause when i regged "Theo" An inactive user had that regged aswell. So someone shud maybe delete all these users, cause they waste accounts and space..
RE: Prune inactive members? by WDZ on 03-08-2004 at 10:11 PM
There aren't actually 30000 members in the database. It lies. 
I pruned thousands of members around the end of 2003, and I'll probably do it again soon.
RE: Prune inactive members? by bach_m on 03-08-2004 at 10:12 PM
space isn't an issue, i dont think.
i think there were plans to do this about the same time as the prioverbial upgrade
but its up to the admins, if they see fit
RE: Prune inactive members? by Johnny_Mac on 03-08-2004 at 10:12 PM
quote:Waste accounts (and their names)..
Originally posted by Theo
cause they waste accounts and space..
Waste space, I explained yesterday, it hardly use up any space for an account.
RE: Prune inactive members? by WDZ on 03-08-2004 at 10:27 PM
The average record in the users table takes up a little over 200 bytes... no big deal.
Attachments and posts are the real space-wasters, and I prune those monthly.
RE: Prune inactive members? by billywoods1 on 03-08-2004 at 10:28 PM
13892 * (hardly any space) = ?
It might be considerably larger than you think.
RE: Prune inactive members? by WDZ on 03-08-2004 at 10:34 PM
quote:13982 members * 200 bytes = 2796400 bytes = 2730 kilobytes = 2.67 megabytes = who cares?
Originally posted by billywoods1
13892 * (hardly any space) = ?
RE: Prune inactive members? by KeyStorm on 03-08-2004 at 10:47 PM
I thought of it some days ago and I didn't dare to ask
Inactive members annoy, specially all those no-posters.
Can't there be a 'pruned' group that requires a new activation but with the possibility for new members to take their names. Of course, posts are kept with the username in a light grey.
My suggestion 
RE: Prune inactive members? by Johnny_Mac on 03-09-2004 at 01:30 AM
quote:I find that very hard to believe...
Originally posted by KeyStorm
Inactive members annoy, specially all those no-posters.
quote:Can you image the probelms this would cause? e.g. search. Maybe for members with 0 posts after their deleted the usernames become up for grabs again.
Originally posted by KeyStorm
Can't there be a 'pruned' group that requires a new activation but with the possibility for new members to take their names.
RE: Prune inactive members? by bach_m on 03-09-2004 at 02:45 AM
quote:
Originally posted by KeyStorm
Inactive members annoy, specially all those no-posters.
i know!!! all those ppl.... not doing anything, not bothering anybody.... ITS SO ANNOYING!!!
RE: Prune inactive members? by chungster on 03-09-2004 at 06:46 AM
hey they re probably better than all those spammers last week 
RE: Prune inactive members? by KeyStorm on 03-09-2004 at 10:57 AM
They annoy! 
Anyway, they're wasting names and messing up statistics, a non-poster is not a member, because s/he doesn't participate in the forums in any way, usually. So all member stats shouldn't consider all non-posters. Anyway... wasted names...
RE: Prune inactive members? by Johnny_Mac on 03-09-2004 at 12:10 PM
quote:
Originally posted by KeyStormnAnyway, they're wasting names and messing up statistics, a non-poster is not a member, because s/he doesn't participate in the forums in any way, usually. So all member stats shouldn't consider all non-posters
Messing up statistics? If anything they add to its accuracy. It shows many other stats, not just posting. Male/Female; Ages; Ratings... without all those other members we'd just have a less gernal view because we only take the posting peoples stats.
IMO, pruning all non-active members is stupid.
RE: Prune inactive members? by kao on 03-09-2004 at 12:43 PM
i think WDZ should stick to his current ways of pruning like whenever the members gets full as hell then just prune the members who havn't logged in for like 6 months because maybe some people register, log in every day, read and read, but never post, what will they say when they're account was deleted just because of not posting ever? should only prune if they havn't logged in for 6 months or more IMHO
EDIT: Theo, i know you can browse without logging in but i've seen a few people in the "also browsing this forum" and clicke their name and they had 0 posts =x
RE: Prune inactive members? by Theo on 03-09-2004 at 12:50 PM
you can browse without logging in ...
anyways it was annoying when i registered but i couldnt cause and inactive user had my name ¬¬
RE: Prune inactive members? by CookieRevised on 03-09-2004 at 05:00 PM
quote:Was the same with my name, I wanted Cookie to register, was already taken by a non-active member...
Originally posted by Theo
you can browse without logging in ...
anyways it was annoying when i registered but i couldnt cause and inactive user had my name ¬¬
Wouldn't an easy solution be that when you're inactive (not logged in) for x months you receive an email and your account gets deactivated. When you don't reactivate within x weeks, the account is deleted? Widely used system by many sites with huge member lists....
RE: Prune inactive members? by KeyStorm on 03-09-2004 at 05:15 PM
quote:That's a good point. Inactive non-posters aren't of any use, in my point of view.
Originally posted by CookieRevised
Wouldn't an easy solution be that when you're inactive (not logged in) for x months you receive an email and your account gets deactivated. When you don't reactivate within x weeks, the account is deleted? Widely used system by many sites with huge member lists....