The Prune Poll


#1

Prune away?

  • Yes – (evil laugh)
  • Yes
  • No – (see my message below)
  • I’m indifferent

0 voters

I’d like your feedback on this because I’m curious how regular members feel about pruning “no longer active” accounts.

I’ve installed an updated version of the Prune Inactive Users function which allows us to remove Members who have only posted an average of less than 1 post in 10 days.

Now, let me pause to think about exactly what this could mean. Take Bu Lai En as an example. He currently has 1,000 posts on the forum. If he holds true to his word about not posting anymore, at some point in the future, his “10 day posting average” will drop below 1. Maybe in about 28 years? (10,000 days) So in Year 28, Bu Lai En’s account could be wiped out by the system.

I beleive his posts would still be there, but his moniker would be come fair game. For instance, Mother Theresa’s granddaughter my come over and assume BLE’s identity (and then proceed to run havoc, well, if she’s anything like her grandfather)

(Woah, there’s a lot of strange ideas floating around in that example. When I first came to Taiwan, coming up with snappy, cogent examples for my Bushiban students was not my speciality.)

ANYWAY, my question is…

Do we really mind if our account IDs expire even after we are no longer using them regularly?

We (the admins) are itching to wipe out the “Inactive members” – those with less than 1 post average per 10 days who have not registered within the past 4 months.

I’m aiming for a final decision by CNY. We have over 1,800 registrations now, and following the formula described above, we’ll be saying “bye, bye” to over 1,000 members IDs. :smiling_imp:


#2

If it’s possible to throw this into the equation, I’d say last time logining in would be a better measure of name worth than # of posts per day (or ten days). I would fully support a combination of the 2.


#3

Yes, I’m with Miltonkid on this one. Last log-in should count somehow if that’s possible.

Iris


#4

Well, there is the plain vanilla “those who haven’t logged in” and “those who never posted” options – but the one i describe here includes both of those groups.

We have five Prune choices to choose from, and the “those not posting so often anymore” option is the broadest


#5

I am with miltownkid. Perhaps some users are “read-only”, so login would be a safer method of measuring if a member is still visiting here or not. Prune after 3 month - or as suggested a combination of both.


#6

I think pruning is a good idea as long as the posts of the pruned remain. I would prefer the last login method.


#7

Maybe base it on 20 days instead of 10; sometimes things happen to computers and people travel, etc. I agree with Miltownkid as well.


#8

Hey, some of us do have offline lives; we get sick, have children, need to meet deadlines, go off on vacations in places that don’t have net access…

Why be so eager to get rid of people? Too many eyeballs?

:cry:


#9

Yes, log-in frequency is definitely “fairer” than number of posts with regard to pruning. Some people, myself for instance, may like to log in to take part in polls etc, and only post with specific questions or information, rather than rattle on all day :laughing:

Any option that wouldn’t involve re-registering each time would be preferable. Otherwise normally “quiet” people will be forced to subject other members to a requisite amount of inane self-absorbed posts with far too much boring personal information, don’t you think?


#10

3 months is too short, in my opinion. People could be away for longer periods and come back. 6 months or a year, maybe.

I could nominate roc as an example of a “quiet” member. I doubt that he posts as often as once every ten days.

There are also some threads that get out of date, such as those announcing meetings of the Taiwan Linux Users’ Group. They could be pruned, but the decision should be made by more than one person.


#11

I think with all this agree-ence (sp?) I deserve some guanxi. I’m a little strapped and want my avatar back without going on a posting rage :smiling_imp: . With all the new changes and stuff there’s probably a good number (posts per day) that could be used to trim the fat. It’s not like it’s a lot of work to reregister. Besides, it doesn’t affect me :sunglasses: .

Ok, out of couriosity I checked to see how many people have made at least 1 post, 1,310. 200 and 1 people have 30 or more. I’m sure there must be a mathimatically sound number that would clean things with minimal effect on the regular user base. If I had the numbers, I’d come up with it. Maybe the one gus provided was mathimatically sound. I didn’t think to check :blush: . The login in thing was just my first response to the question.


#12

I think pruning accounts on the basis of the basis of date last logged in is the best way to go. Anyone who hasn’t logged in for three months or so could disappear. Some people have accounts and don’t use them to post regularly but still log in and read the forums regularly.


#13

people’ll probably disagree…but i feel that banned accounts/logins should not be reused and thus, should not be pruned. it keeps the innocent/newbies from assuming a name that has very bad karma attached to it.


#14

Just do it. If you’re only posting on average once every 10 days, what … 37 times for a year? Most Lao Wai’s only live in Taiwan for 6 months to a year anyway. To keep your hotmail account valid, you need to log on once every month don’t ya, even that’d do.


#15

Prune on no log-in after any period it takes to keep the non-active membership number under control. Leave posts after deactivation, don’t recycle banned user IDs.


#16

Yup, I agree with Miltownkid, last login.
I would aim at the member hasn’t logged in for 3 months. Send them a message that their account will be terminated if they don’t continue with some activity, wait 2 weeks, and then blast the lazy blighter out of the system :wink:


#17

That’s the way to go… Even though I would like to change my name to ABCguy24


#18

Hey Mr He,

I see you went a little crazy on the FX shopping - Guanxi is looing a little low.

I did the same thing, I guess I need to go on a posting rampage now, only I don’t have the time anymore.

At least I am Supreme Commander now :wink:

p.s. If anyone out there wants to buy the title Supreme Commander it shall be yours for oh let’s say 1000 Guanxi $.


#19

Although a true lurker would not post until after a decision was made, here’s my rare 2


#20

yeah, I know one poster who doesn’t post anymore but he does visit in invisible mode to read the posts