Programming Forums > Community Forums > Coder's Corner Lounge

ReubenK · Apr 27th, 2006, 2:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peace_of_mind

You're assuming if those posts that now inactive members were forced to submit in order to keep their account open would be something more than filler. As was stated, "quantity is not quality". More posts made simply for the sake of posting would not make the forums better, it would only make it more difficult to wade through the crap to get to the helpful posts/threads.

Good point,I know that "quantity is not quality" but it would get rid of inactive users if they dont post every say 4 months..
I doubt people are gonna even bother keep posting 1 post just to keep there account open when they can just view the forum without logging in..
Usually when they arnt active for 3-4 months means they arn't gonna come back so its a bit of a nuasance having account on the forum that hasn't posted in 4 months..

DaWei · Apr 27th, 2006, 2:53 PM

Where's the necessity of expending one ounce of effort or resources to 'get rid of' inactive users? They're not using bandwidth, they're not 'nuisances'. If your database gets so full that it represents an incremental cost to keep 'em, then you flush 'em. Ever been responsible for a bottom line?

ReubenK · Apr 27th, 2006, 5:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaWei

Where's the necessity of expending one ounce of effort or resources to 'get rid of' inactive users? They're not using bandwidth, they're not 'nuisances'. If your database gets so full that it represents an incremental cost to keep 'em, then you flush 'em. Ever been responsible for a bottom line?

Why keep inactive users,Dawei?

jayme · Apr 27th, 2006, 5:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReubenK

Why keep inactive users,Dawei?

What's inactive? What if I wanted to go on summer holidays for the whole two months? What if 500 members wanted to go on summer holidays? I don't think big_k or mods would like receiving pm's concerning there accounts safety while on their trip. It's too much of a hastle dealing with inactive members, when you don't know for sure if there inactive.

nnxion · Apr 27th, 2006, 5:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayme

What's inactive? What if I wanted to go on summer holidays for the whole two months? What if 500 members wanted to go on summer holidays? I don't think big_k or mods would like receiving pm's concerning there accounts safety while on their trip. It's too much of a hastle dealing with inactive members, when you don't know for sure if there inactive.

Defining inactive is easy. Why you would want to get rid of them is another.
My definition of inactive is not being online for a year.

Sane · Apr 27th, 2006, 5:23 PM

A higher member count also encourages some to sign up. The ol' "common! everybody's doing it!" trick.

ReubenK · Apr 27th, 2006, 5:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nnxion

Defining inactive is easy. Why you would want to get rid of them is another.
My definition of inactive is not being online for a year.

Yes,Quite..
Also jayme,I dont mean deleting them off after around 2-3 months I mean being inactive for around 5 months+..

DaWei · Apr 27th, 2006, 7:14 PM

Crap, read my ENTIRE post and rub a couple cells together.

ReubenK · Apr 28th, 2006, 3:24 AM

I did read your ENTIRE post but I still see no reason for keeping them..
It also would make the forum look better having a smaller amount of users but all active but alot of users but 50% non-actives..

Jimbo · Apr 28th, 2006, 3:35 AM

Having been on a forum, taking a 6-month leave, and finding my account still in place when I came back, I kinda prefer the argument of leaving them as long as possible. Besides, a user takes how many bytes in the database? its not really a big deal...

Apr 27th, 2006, 2:53 PM	#22
DaWei Resident Grouch Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,453 Rep Power: 10	Where's the necessity of expending one ounce of effort or resources to 'get rid of' inactive users? They're not using bandwidth, they're not 'nuisances'. If your database gets so full that it represents an incremental cost to keep 'em, then you flush 'em. Ever been responsible for a bottom line? __________________ Abstraction doesn't make it impossible to write bad code; it makes it possible to write superior code. Contributor's Corner: Grumpy on C++ Exceptions DaWei on Pointers

Apr 27th, 2006, 7:14 PM	#28
DaWei Resident Grouch Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,453 Rep Power: 10	Crap, read my ENTIRE post and rub a couple cells together. __________________ Abstraction doesn't make it impossible to write bad code; it makes it possible to write superior code. Contributor's Corner: Grumpy on C++ Exceptions DaWei on Pointers

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Apr 27th, 2006, 5:23 PM	#26
Sane Banned Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Ontario Posts: 2,101 Rep Power: 6	A higher member count also encourages some to sign up. The ol' "common! everybody's doing it!" trick.

Apr 28th, 2006, 3:24 AM	#29
ReubenK Programmer Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 36 Rep Power: 0	I did read your ENTIRE post but I still see no reason for keeping them.. It also would make the forum look better having a smaller amount of users but all active but alot of users but 50% non-actives..

Apr 28th, 2006, 3:35 AM	#30
Jimbo Battle Programmer Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Bellevue, WA, USA Posts: 770 Rep Power: 3	Having been on a forum, taking a 6-month leave, and finding my account still in place when I came back, I kinda prefer the argument of leaving them as long as possible. Besides, a user takes how many bytes in the database? its not really a big deal...

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Programming Forums > Community Forums > Coder's Corner Lounge

Some Interesting PFO Stats