just had a look at the members list and...

[Guest]

I think on looking it is blatantly obvious of the peeps registered who have never used their account to those that have!!!! & by this it makes it easy to decide where can be deleted!!!

[BenRW]

miss_diddy said:

I think on looking it is blatantly obvious of the peeps registered who have never used their account to those that have!!!! & by this it makes it easy to decide where can be deleted!!!

 

my thoughts exactly but some people seem to think that they may actually return one day and be angry that the account they've never used has been deleted.

[Louise]

they can set up a new account no probs.....most have no posts anyway (chances are they dont even remember there password and user name)

[Guest]

luu_luu said:

they can set up a new account no probs.....most have no posts anyway (chances are they dont even remember there password and user name)

 

beat me too it lou!!! Im sure peeps wont be too cross, I mean crikey I had no end of probs with gurn & an account & I just simply opened another, not hard It is after all only a message board & not a vital part of life, that peeps are gonna fret over the fact their account has been closed, knowing how simple it is to join again!!

 

also, maybe James could add on the terms condituions, that if account is not used for 6 months it will be closed, but you can always re-register!!

[LiquidEyes]

This has gone off at a peculiar tangent.

 

benrostwood said:

there are so many people on there with no posts but have been registered for ages. Why not delete these and any other profiles that haven't been used in last couple of months?

The question isn't really "why not delete inactive accounts?"

The question is "how are we going to deal with the members list not reflecting the active members"?

 

It's not as if there is a storage problem (each account must use a negligible amount of space!)

 

The logical answer, to me, is (by default) to only list those members active within the last X months (and maybe have a user-selectable option, as with the threads - e.g. only show users active within the last 3 months).

 

S'pose you could delete them after a long time, but 6 months doesn't seem that long to me. And ... what does that achieve?

[NeoN]

 

Just had a look .

Still nothing done .

 

 

[xpaulax]

NeoN said:

Dawn said:

benrostwood said:

 

 

but what about the people who have never posted but have been members for months and not been online in that time

 

just because they don't post doesn't mean they haven't been browsing the forums

 

Why are they lurkers ?

I know someone who looked for a long time

 

 

its good too look

[Louise]

NeoN said:

 

Just had a look .

Still nothing done .

 

 

i think if james is going to do something about it, then he will do it in his own time

[Magicman]

ok, well how about having active, and non-active users.... active users being those who have logged in in the last x months, and maybe just having a list of them, and basing the count on them.

 

If an non-active user happens to remember their log in details, and logs in, then they get added to the active users list.

[Magicman]

ahhh... I see someone already suggested what I said above, although the main problems are :-

 

a) messed up counts

having to trawl through a lot of members to find the one you want (to send a pm, or something)

 

and I think this addresses that, wouldn't be too difficult to do, and wouldn't require any admin

[James]

dudes - i will try and get round to this at some point but its not top prio.

 

Some stats in the meantime (as of now)

 

New Users in past 24 hours 5

New Users in past 7 days 14

New Users in past month 60

 

Users that have logged in the past 24 hours 131

Users that have logged in the past 7 days 226

Users that have logged in the past month 382

Users that have never logged in 622