Should we de-register non-active members?

Post by **administrator** » 29 Aug 2004, 08:26

While you are pondering the question regarding viewing permissions, here's another decision for you to make. Of our 224 registered members, many have never posted at all, or for some considerable time. The option exists to de-register non-active members.

On the plus side this would give a truer reflection of active membership. On the minus side our official membership count would plummet.

Again, it's your vote that counts folks!

Post by **wangi** » 29 Aug 2004, 14:00

What's the point. Rember too that being a member has benefits even if you never post - you can see new messages since your last visit. Leave it be.

bearcub · Post by **bearcub** » 29 Aug 2004, 19:58

[quote]What's the point. Rember too that being a member has benefits even if you never post - you can see new messages since your last visit. Leave it be.[/quote]
Agreed. If someone wants to just pop in and have a look to see if there's anything that interests them, what harm does it do??

They might only get interested in a topic and post once every two years, but might have something valid and important to say on that topic - what good does it do the rest of us by stopping them.

Think de-registering would just discourage new members and I'm pretty sure that's the last thing we would want to do.

Sandra · Post by **Sandra** » 30 Aug 2004, 11:26

I think lurkers should be allowed to lurk if they so wish.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 31 Aug 2004, 20:27

You might have thought I would take the libertarian line on this one. Oh no.

GO PRUNE 'EM BOB !!!!!

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 31 Aug 2004, 21:58

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 31 Aug 2004, 22:02

Oh callow youth, Dada - your way is not the right way by my way of thinking.
Are ye seeking to create an incestuous circle of numpties who only let in people who promise to participate by posting messages and IF THEY DON'T THEY ARE BANISHED TO THE OUTER BOUNDARIES OF PORTYLAND?

And if so, why?

Inclusion and welcoming to all is the way forward (especially as this thought currently comes from the cheap edge of EH3)

:bonedemon:

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 31 Aug 2004, 23:36

Lose the rhetoric if you want to debate properly, magnolia!!!

It doesn't follow that suggesting the removal of inactive accounts means the person does not bid newcomers welcome.

It's just a bit of spring cleaning. An inactive account is simply a bunch of bits on a computer that don't need to be there. Busy forums get rid of inactive accounts and we are getting busy.

It's like "How Clean Is Your House" but for forums. It may seem unfair to you that somebody who has booked a certain name and doesn't post for a year still has title to that name, but in my opinion that's like putting your towel on a nice lounger next to the pool and not using it till 4pm, if at all.

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 01 Sep 2004, 09:42

I don't want to debate, thanks - I want to expand my vote impact with a bit of rhetoric. This after all 2004 and spin and rhetoric are all that count.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » 01 Sep 2004, 11:51

administrator wrote:Of our 224 registered members, many have never posted at all, or for some considerable time. The option exists to de-register non-active members.

Some lurkers have to lurk because they do not have regular on-line access, and can't join in, but still enjoy reading. Others like to read, but are too shy to join in, or feel they haven't anything to contribute, or live too far away to contribute to the local discussions.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 01 Sep 2004, 20:18

Jay, take your point and as wangi points out on another thread there are advantages to being registered even if you never post. I guess it doesn't do any harm keeping these accounts open, even if some of them are totally inactive.

However, what I probably will do pretty soon is send out a mass email to all registered members and de-register anyone with an inactive email address. That should get rid of a few dead accounts, and I can request that anyone who no longer has an interest in the forum lets me know so that I can de-register them.

As Dadaist explains, this kind of pruning is standard admin stuff. I know that I've registered for forums in the past and later lost interest in them and never returned. I wouldn't expect my account still to be open a year later, and if I changed my mind I could always re-register.

ali · Post by **ali** » 01 Sep 2004, 20:36

Dadaist wrote:
........ in my opinion that's like putting your towel on a nice lounger next to the pool and not using it till 4pm, if at all.

I prefer to think of it as like getting a library ticket but doing all my reading in the library but never actually taking a book home to read.

I still think that you should leave the lurkers alone. It can take a while to pluck up the courage to post. Give people time to feel comfortable around here (and the right topic) and they'll speak up -

I repeat my earlier point that if its not causing technical problems for Bob then we should leave people be. I can't imagine that there's enough posting action here yet that its going to affect the board. If we need to do it then lets hear the "technical" arguments from Bob first. We shouldn't do it just because people haven't contributed yet.

ali · Post by **ali** » 01 Sep 2004, 20:39

AND if the poll at the top of the page means anything then I think opinion so far is very much against Bob and Dadaist on this subject. How long does the poll stay open for?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 01 Sep 2004, 21:32

Ali, the poll at the top of the page means everything. This is democracy in action! For the record, I never actually stated how I voted although in my previous post I have explained how I intend to deal with the situation.

I didn't set an end-date for the poll but I'm happy to accept the decision based on the votes so far. Some interesting and amusing points on both sides - thanks to everyone who contributed. The poll will close tomorrow but feel free to continue the debate if you wish.

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 01 Sep 2004, 21:49

If you go here: [url]http://www.tartanarmyboard.co.uk/ [ How does this work on this system?]

You find this:

Our members have made a total of 121,587 posts
We have 2,898 registered members
The newest member is flang
Most users ever online was 153 on 13:46 Fri 25 Jun 2004

(Thanks to Alex I can whizz from one to another at the drop of a hat now with my multi-tabbed doodah). Seems to suggest though that the system may be able to cope with a few dormant accounts? Deactivating ones with dead email addresses seems a sensible way forward though?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 01 Sep 2004, 22:25

It doesn't suggest that the "system" can cope with a few dormant accounts.

Some performance metrics might suggest that, but the only information you can get from the fact that there are 2898 registered members on tartanarmyboard is that there are 2898 registered members on tartanarmyboard.

I preferred rhetoric to unjustified conclusions!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 01 Sep 2004, 22:40

Bob wrote:However, what I probably will do pretty soon is send out a mass email to all registered members and de-register anyone with an inactive email address. That should get rid of a few dead accounts, and I can request that anyone who no longer has an interest in the forum lets me know so that I can de-register them.

As a general rule, if Dadaist is for it then I'm against it. The facts can wait.

Bob when you do your mass email, why not ask for an insight into why people have registered but don't post? Maybe you could set up a poll with whatever you think the most likely reasons are and they can respond anonymously. Make one option "Other" and they can give an explanation.

Just my 2 cents.

Can you search and batch those with zero posts?

What do you think the poll options could be?

I don't post on POL because:

a) I don't know where Portobello is?

b)?

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 01 Sep 2004, 22:49

Dear Dada

Dadaist wrote:It doesn't suggest that the "system" can cope with a few dormant accounts.

Some performance metrics might suggest that, but the only information you can get from the fact that there are 2898 registered members on tartanarmyboard is that there are 2898 registered members on tartanarmyboard.

I preferred rhetoric to unjustified conclusions!

I've been metric all my life but I can't pretend to understand that.

I thought perhaps that 2898 might be read as larger than 224, thats all, and I didn't offer a conclusion, I offered a suggestion formed from a supposition.

Or something like that.

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 01 Sep 2004, 22:51

Porty wrote:
What do you think the poll options could be?

I don't post on POL because:

a) I don't know where Portobello is?

b)?

b) I don't trust Adam Crozier

ali · Post by **ali** » 02 Sep 2004, 10:17

As a general rule, if Dadaist is for it then I'm against it. The facts can wait.

Me too!!!!!!!

Talk Porty ~ Portobello