ROB — Wed, 09 Apr 2003 04:21:20 +0000

shirley you're on the mark.

Abhishek Reddy — Wed, 09 Apr 2003 03:07:44 +0000

Quote: 'rob' registered in sept'99 and has never posted. i don't lose sleep over it, but it is rather annoying that i have to spell my nick R-zero-B when this fellow obviously doesnt want, need, or use the nick.

Are you saying he robbed your name? And now you want to nick it back?

ROB — Tue, 08 Apr 2003 21:23:20 +0000

'rob' registered in sept'99 and has never posted. i don't lose sleep over it, but it is rather annoying that i have to spell my nick R-zero-B when this fellow obviously doesnt want, need, or use the nick.

i say delete anyone who has zero posts and hasnt logged in for over a year.

Panky — Sun, 16 Mar 2003 15:21:48 +0000

Just because a registered user doesn't post, doesn't mean they are not here. If you change anything, go by last log in date.

There's really not much of a concern. Inactives aren't using board resources. There's probably no limit on the script to say "too many registered users."

Technically, there is 6000+ members. So, it isn't like false advertising where the number count was intentionally inflated. It's good for marketing. You can advertise 6000+ members. That's 6000+ pairs of eyeballs who can potentially view the ads.

Panky
ICQ:51140074

mjames — Sat, 18 Jan 2003 20:06:03 +0000

No need to delete inactive users. Why? Having them doesn't cause any strain on the server and there's no telling if they'll come back or not. Plus, as Mark said, it becomes tricky when deciding what to do with old posts.

Abhishek Reddy — Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:46:38 +0000

Why?

Internet names are fair game. If someone took yours first, too bad.

Just because 0-posters haven't posted doesn't mean they don't lurk. If anything, I think accounts whose members haven't posted at all and haven't been active for a few months could be deleted, as well as accounts that members have dropped in favour of a new one for the sake of a different name or because they forgot their password or whatever.

Still, I don't see what ill effect this is having. Sure, the member count stat is misleading, but aren't all statistics lies, anyway?

Renegade — Thu, 16 Jan 2003 09:10:06 +0000

Yeah clearing zero posters is a good idea and i'm sure many boards do, do that but what about those with just one post?

The Webmistress — Thu, 16 Jan 2003 08:32:22 +0000

I agree that it might be a good idea to clear off all members with 0 posts but leave anyone in who has posted.

liam_tmt7 — Wed, 15 Jan 2003 20:54:31 +0000

yeah thats sort of what i mean
just delete the members, but leave the posts

Liam :batman:

Megan — Wed, 15 Jan 2003 20:44:14 +0000

I've always thought that we should jsut clean out all the members who have 0 posts (and there are somewhere around 2700 of them!)