I know I'm just a newbie here, but I have a suggestion for the Mods & Admins.


There seems to have been some concern recently about the number of new members that don't post.

My suggestion is to look at members accounts, and if they haven't posted for a long time (for example 3 months), cancel their account so they are not a member any more.

What does anyone else think? Just tell me to shut-up if I am out of line.



(Admins - please move, delete, whatever this thread if you want).
:ok:

That's not out of the line... in fact we have talked about this many times before (I think the suggested period was 6 months), anyway...

You can read all about it HERE.

Sinse the other topic is closed anyway I guess it's a good thing you started a new one, so we can get some fresh opinions on the subject.

Thankyou Sebationas. :ok:


Wow! 6 pages in 2 days!
There are some strong opinions in there - most of them against the idea.


I don't want to cause trouble. It was just a thought I had after reading that a lot of regulars were getting concerned about the number of new members that don't post. :unsure:


If there is nothing more to add, can some-one close this thread please?

:)

I don't really see a problem here. What does it matter if new members post or not? It's not as if anyone will even notice they are there, if they don't post.

Well, they do take up names :unsure:

but that is easily by-passed by just adding a few numbers to the end of the screen name

You're not causing trouble, but I think you might have misunderstood.

The members aren't concerned with new members that don't post, but with new members that post things that are just... well... spam or worse.

i found a member whos never posted its a admin oddly enough :eeeeeh: theres 1090 members that havent ever posted and joined before or on april first. Thats alot of work for them to do :eeeeeh: it would be nice to just select and delete them all :cry: the fact is that the members that dont post ever is an annoyance because when you look at the number of members its like HOLY BAJEEBUS also the only reason to join is for the forum. so dont join or post. i hope its not people going aboot creating profiles to clog the system that would be annoying
since i like statistics theres 1830 non post members :crazy:

@ Sebatianos

Oh. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Seems that I misunderstood. :unsure:

Silly me. :rolleyes:


If there's not a problem, can someone close this thread please?



Sorry to everyone.

Just an extra explanation before this is reclosed. :)

Registration offers a few benefits (like being able to use the view new posts since last visit functionality).
As the number of members doesn't really slow the system down I don't see a reason why non posters should be removed...

As for the non posting admin, if you're a regular you should be able to determine who it is. ;)

I'd like to say that altough I'm not for deleting lurker accounts, some people just register and don't return anymore - or worse, forget their password and register a different username.

So I'd like to voice my opinion, that accounts that have not been logged onto for more then 3 months should be removed as it is clear that the owner is not really interested in what's going on around the boards.

Yeah but maybe the account owner goes on vacation, and when he returns his account is deleted.What kind of impression would that make ?

I agree with both of you... althow it might look unconsensual

I think people should be warned first... if a pm is sent to a member, there will be a mail sent to the address entered in his account so, if that address is valid and the member has any kind of interess in belonging to this comunity, he will come here checking for it.

IMHO (if i learned it correctly from you guys, it means "In My Humble Opinion":max:) i think that even if an account is deleted, its nick should be preserved for some time, giving the chance to be reactivated. Hotmail does something like that if you don' t check in during a month, but preserves the address.

To be quite honest, I don't really understand why we would need to delete accounts at all. I agree that it's sort of ridiculous that lots of people register only to make a single post (or sometimes none at all), but then again we're not running out of nicknames, surely, and a member who doesn't post doesn't really do any harm either.

I fail to see the perceived problem - how is it hurting us?

Look kosta said no when i suggested it why would he change his mind now?

@ Punch999

I don't think Kosta has changed his mind.

I misunderstood things that were being said by regular members, so I made a thread suggesting this. I didn't realise you had done this before.

My thread was a BIG mistake, as a lot of people are against the idea.


I caused a lot of trouble which was unintentional. :(

Don't worry Punch, nothing has changed since your thread.



EDIT - corrected spelling mistake.

Sorry if i sounded rude I really didnt mean to have it come out that way. Its ok :ok:

Well, consider that the abandoned usernames are still blocked, plus it gives somewhat false results as to how many people are really around.

Well, to be honest, i've to say that the phantom-members hurt me! Not for a specific reason, but i could like if they'll be deleted...

Anyway, i dislike expecially the ones whom come here only to say "Hello!" and nothing more for the rest of their life!

Heres one reason to delete them: BANDWITH.

How do they consume bandwidth? They're tiny and when they're not in use they don't do any harm.

well, now that i think a little more about it, i think the only disadvantage i found is that they may take some "server space", because as members, they have an account with some space for them with some folders where they can store their pm... of course that amount of space might be dynamic and the space occupied probably isn' t significant; however, 4000 members, which most of them have never logged in, maybe, but just maybe it needs to be purged.... or maybe not :whistle:

Well, I think we should delete the nonusers

A) because I am a neat person and don't like junk sitting around, especially on this site

B)because if we deleted all the useless users and found that there were only 500 or so "real" members left, that would add a bit to the intrinsic community feel of the site.

No offense to Kosta, but I think he just keeps them on cause its cool to say "my forum has 4000+ members" rather than "500+"

It just kinda bothers you doesnt it? Like we registered and everything and we uphold the site, but the other guys register and do nothing. Haveing an actual membership really should be reserved for those who at least put a little work into the site.

Qualifications for membership:

You must have at least 100 posts (fair enough? maybe 50 posts)
You must have written at least one review (optional qualification, maybe too harsh)

We work, we are worthy of enjoying the amenities the site provides.

Or maybe you are not allowed to download free games until you get 50 posts. If you are a guest, you get them for free, but if you choose membership, you have to show that you are serious by working to get 50 posts.

A lot of you are saying, whats the use of getting rid of the nonusers? Well, what is the use of keeping them on? Only one: so you can show off the amount of users there are. I really don't care how many users there are, do you?

Just some thoughts. :cheers:

Spam ahoy! That is a very very daft idea I'm afraid. Apart from anything else, it'd just put people off the site altogether.

You are so predictable, Beef.

I already said: just some thoughts.

Whenever I give suggestions all I'm doing is throwing out random ideas from my head. I build the frame, you guys fill it in. Just trying to cover every subject. Of course I thought of everything you are saying, that that would invite spam. But like I said, just throwing out little bits and stuff.

you know that you dont get emails for PMs automatically? its optional.

Erm, you realize that I would be deleted by Indi's rules? I haven't written a single review (I suck at it).

Also, as the active accounts don't do any harm and as at least a few of them must be lurkers (just read, barely post). I would say that if we slim down to 500 members and lose, say, 5 lurkers then the cost would be too great.

I'm with Beef and Havell here, Indi: some people may be a tad shy and may not want to post quite so often. Or perhaps they only post when they genuinely think they have something to contribute to a discussion. People should contribute to Abandonia because they want to, not because they fear getting kicked out of the forum or no longer being able to download games.
Besides, all those phantom members don't really hurt anybody, do they? Lurkers are just about the most harmless group of forum users there is. And anybody who's a regular at the forums should have a rough idea as to how many 'active' members there are and who they are, so that's not really a problem either, is it?

Fine, fine. Like I said, I don't really care. Leave it as it is.

Hey......just thought of something. Where are all those people who actually WANT to delete the nonusers? They started this topic, didn't they?

Um i believe some of the non active actives would be deleted then. like Romano and a couple others would have their accounts deleted. Is he unactive. I DONT THINK SO!

So i think that is a idea better left untouched

If I'm not a member, I can't get my posts counted (or can I?), so how would I be able to post at least 100 posts if I am not a member?

This will definitely kick me out of membership since I haven't written any reviews whatsoever.

Honestly I'd rather be a guest then. After all guests can still post in a few sections of the forum. I'd rarely (almost never infact) post in those sections hidden only to members anyway.

I've been coming here for quite awhile..but just recently started posting a bit. Anyways..despite that..I don't see the point of removing inactive members. It doesn't slow the server down..it doesn't cause any harm at all really. So I don't see the point..and as others have said..possibility of removing "lurkers" is not worth the risk. They're members too..and though they may not post..they still are members.

I'm not even going to reply to Rabadi's post. If you have eyes, then you know the answer to that question.

I only pointed out that if I am not a member, I may not get my posts counted to 100. So, if I cannot get at least 100 posts, how can I become a member? :P

Do not turn this into a flame war!

You seem to be misunderstanding my point, guys. I have nothing against lurkers. They log in every once in a while and skim the board. Now, there are accounts which their owners just left to rot. Since the board can register the last time the user visited, it is pretty easy to identify accounts inactive for over 6 months and remove them.

I have to spell it out for Rabadi: If you choose to register for membership, than to keep that membership you must get at least 100 posts. If you have 73 posts and say, you don't post in 6 months, admins delete your account.

I mean come on, how can you be on vacation for 6 months? :bleh:

Tom almost was, whne he went to Spain. Than he found that he could indeed get internet in Spain and was only away for about a day.

well, i'm a member for more than 6 months and i still don' t have 50 posts, so, i' m probably "out"

I agree only with in the question of deleting accounts "inactive" - this means: account created, member logged for the first time, member logged out and never returned. in all other cases, mantain the account.

You mentioned "Qualifications for membership:", so naturally I perceived it as "qualifications for non-members to become members" rather than as "qualifications for existing members to keep themselves as members". See the difference there?
*shrug*

Yeah, I know. Sorry for not making it crystal clear (I have a problem with that; my thoughts get all jumbled up and what comes out doesnt make any sense) :kosta:

It's okay, it's just a misunderstanding, no harm done. English is not my primary language, so I also do not express myself well sometimes. :D

i' m sorry to restart this topic again, but i was reading the "Important annoucements" topics and stroke something called V.I.P. Section!!!

from what i understood, this seccion is to be restricted and according to Tom 's rules:
does this means that now that we have over 4000 members, there is "space" for about 1000 VIP' s or did the rules changed? (of course everybody wants to be a VIP, it would do wonderfulls, specially to my EGO :bleh:)

Well, to become a VIP, you need to work actively for the site. Stop working and you loose you VIP membership. Start working again, and you'll gain VIP once more.

Helping out the site can be anything.

Tom, i understand the rules, and to be quite honest, i' m far away to deserve such an honor. i' m very happy to be a member, and the only thing every one can have as granted from me is that every time i see i can do something positive, i will do it. :cheers:

my question was not about how to become a VIP, it was more as how the number of members can affect the number of VIP's. so maybe, but just maybe i' ve presented a reason to delete accounts that are inactive. and to tell you the true, now that we are in this "honest small-talk", if i was in Kosta' s place, i could not press the "delete botton" too.

i have the same opinion that sherk because the nick is personal, and the people after received a e-mail if they don´t come here they must lost there log

Or someone here has been unplesant to them.

I like to see so many new people flooding in each day. You never know in that sea of people where brilliance will shine out of gaming(like everywhere). :ok:

while it's great for the site to becoming ever more popular, it has it's downsides...such as the stupid idiots who think it's funny to come in and flame everyone and spam a lot...it really sucks, and bringsdown the board...it's the reason Puffin left for awhile

Yep...

The thing is I sometimes leave for large chunks of times due to real life issues. So I'm always at a lack of understanding to what's going on.

I sometimes leave for 16 hours and lack understanding.

Some times I can not even look away and lack understanding....
But that is about the games I don't play, normally LOL

one of the good things here is talking with lot of people and of course downloading old games that we can replay.

why someone without a post is admi?

It's a backup admin account ;)

i ask why i see kkrauth with o posts and he is a admin

returned to the topic why it is possible almost 2,000 members never put a post, why the member regist count when someone put a post?This is one idea.

Little fish, there is a nice little button called the edit button. In the upper right of your post, you can see this button. Some people will get angry at you if you constantly double post.

This should help even newer members too.