Membership activity

[hrcho]

Honestly, I expected much more people to vote than this. Just 22 votes total? Out of how many members? Even with all those inactive members, it really should have been more voters.

Edit: I just looked at the numbers Troll Gate Provided and if you conclude that there are 50+ very active members, less than half of them provided a vote for the next admin of their favorite site


Topic split from the "New admin" thread. -ES

[ket_the_jet]

I didn't expect more people to vote. 22 people, we have maybe 30 active people, 25 more long-time members who check in sporadically, then maybe another 30 neekerbreekers.

And my approximations were generous. I think the new Admin's first act should be closing all of the accounts with 10 or fewer posts in the last year (with the exception of people with 1-9 posts made since the beginning of August).
-wtk

[Witchkingx5]

Well, I wouldn't do that, but we could either way:

a) send reminder mails that only stop if you delete your account to accounts with 10 or less posts if that person wan't online for a longer time range  than, let's say, 3 days or so. Many players are just lurking around and don't spam everywhere, ket.

b) send an email to every member if he wants to keep his account. I think many members that just registered and never posted would delete those. We could use the "Spam-Strategy" (sending an e-mail every week or so) to really make sure those members that want to stay can stay. I wouldn't just delete all.

[Witchkingx5]

possible, but that's just a theory. Maybe we should write a PM to every member, asking him whether he or she is a bot or not. Some bots are so stupid that they even answer "yes".

[macheteman]

and the other question remains: as long as the bots aren't posting about viagra... does it really matter that we have "members" who aren't active?

[Gil-Estel]

Agreed...

[Witchkingx5]

it just looks so sad if you look at the stats that there are over 600 members, but many of them haven't even posted once.

[itjunkie]

poor cat lol

[Elessar's Socks]

These suggestions sound like a good way of irritating users and spreading bad rep.

[ket_the_jet]

Things ket_the_jet Has A Problem With:

A. Ostracizing a few new users in efforts to clean out bots and other inactive accounts by encouraging activity.
B. Ostracizing current neekerbreekers who have had an account longer than 30 days but have not posted.
C. An new administrator doing his job and laboring through the members list to pluck out inactive accounts and block bad IP addresses.
D. None of the above.

I hope you picked "D."
-wtk

[Elessar's Socks]

Because, people probably have better things to do than dealing with our email spam, or having to worry about frequently checking in. I think pruning should take place sporadically at best.

[HawkeyeSPF]

I agree with ES on this one, completely - I'm betting there are large numbers of our members who just look around and use this site as a reference for rules and decks when playing around their kitchen tables, but have nothing to post. Occasionally we might get one with a rules question, but more often than not they will just figure something out amongst themselves that they're happy with and move on.

[Kralik]

I don't think one post in three months is too much to ask. Aside from that, as long as someone has logged in even once in the last three months, they will not be pruned. Perhaps this discussion should go in the correct topic though.

[hrcho]

I am sorry, it is my fault this off topic discussion started, although it strayed from my surprise of low vote count.

[Kralik]

No worries.