Author Topic: Inactive Users? (Read 6803 times)

zanco · « **Reply #25 on:** August 23, 2005, 07:25:31 PM »

I think it won't be such a great idea to delete accounts that have not been used for a long time and/or not been used at all. I didn't realize it until lately, but things have gone quite wildly on forums... Deleting accounts ( I think ) will only result in more "exaggerated" interpretations.
And maybe I forgot to mention this, but I have tried to "recruit" more outpost 2 lovers and/or have tried to make other people discover this game. I have also asked them to register even if they won't post on forum ( hopefully they will). They may also have problems posting :heh: ... a lot of them don't speak English fluently.

That is all and is my point of view. Don't delete accounts, write more newsletters.

zigzagjoe · « **Reply #26 on:** August 23, 2005, 08:41:22 PM »

no, you dont get it. we mean accts w/ 0 posts. not ppls that have posted; then it looks bad.

lordly_dragon · « **Reply #27 on:** August 24, 2005, 09:41:44 PM »

i know zanco you did recrui

t me after all but.... you didnt specify that it was in english

zanco · « **Reply #28 on:** August 24, 2005, 09:54:32 PM »

lol,
Sorry about that Lordy_dragon :heh: But you are doing very well

Quote

no, you dont get it. we mean accts w/ 0 posts

I did understand that... of course. I just wanted to show it would be really bad if it ever happened, and I wanted to give you more reasons as for not deleting account(s) with 0 post.

Axen · « **Reply #29 on:** August 24, 2005, 11:39:08 PM »

Well on behalf of the semi-active users, at least don't kick users that post after the email. I joined due to my interest in the OP2 projects and will keep coming by. Thanks.

Tellaris · « **Reply #30 on:** August 24, 2005, 11:56:19 PM »

Hrm... Maybe play some OP2 Axen?
Anyway, I think acts with no logins for a month/months/year should be simply removed.

zigzagjoe · « **Reply #31 on:** August 25, 2005, 08:08:45 AM »

i htink if a acct has 0 posts and hasnt posted/beena ctive after a week or so after registration, i would give them the chop. as for ppl with >0 posts, i would *not* delete them, ever.

perhaps move them to a inactive group?

BlackBox · « **Reply #32 on:** August 25, 2005, 12:55:19 PM »

I don't know, they shouldn't get moved to a group with less userrights just because they didn't use the forums.

BTW, the forums do log in some database fields called "last_visit" and "last_activity" as a UNIX timestamp. The difference between the two I didn't bother to check out; but on most of the accounts I saw, "last_activity" was a later timestamp than "last_visit".

We can use those to gauge a person's activity level if we need (I can't remember if a display for it is part of the forum software, but that can be added).

Edit: last_activity is the last click on the forum (gets recorded for online list); last_visit is set on user login and other things like postings, etc.

the reason you can have them far apart (days) is because of the login cookie.

zigzagjoe · « **Reply #33 on:** August 25, 2005, 06:12:55 PM »

nah i mean make a equiv group w/ a diff title

leeor_net · « **Reply #34 on:** August 25, 2005, 06:44:40 PM »

There are a lot of great ideas being thrown around but I think that a definitive decision needs to be made by the powers that be.

I agree that user accounts that have posts but have been inactive for a certain amount of time (like a year, for instance) could be marked as 'inactive' or however it is deemed appropriate.

User acounts with no logins and no posts is another thing altogether.

Also, very frequently, people will lose interest in something and will just leave and forget about it (seemingly gpgarretboast being an unfortunate casualty of this). So I guess that it's up to whoever maintains the forums. OH well...

I'm having another one of those days. Don't mind me much.

Mez · « **Reply #35 on:** August 28, 2005, 01:03:01 PM »

Well it is not like we are stuck for forum database space, so there is no need to move users groups around or cull threads to an archieve.

maybe an inactive usergroup could be set in place. perhaps there is a script to move the users whos last activity was a month or two ago into an inactive group. and then if they relog on some time move them back into an active group. so members looking at the user list can see whos active or not.

i dont know if this can be done buts its my idea of an automated system.

perhaps an email to the users account saying that they have been transfered to an inactive user group indefinatly until they log in again?

BlackBox · « **Reply #36 on:** August 28, 2005, 05:29:20 PM »

That probably could be hacked into the forum system some time in the future; seems like it'd be a good idea.

Also, I was thinking of this: have a thing inserted into each user's profile that says their last visit date.

Ezekel · « **Reply #37 on:** August 29, 2005, 06:06:49 AM »

you guys wouldn't delete my lil account now, would ya?

i'm still around, i just only come intermittantly (mainly cos things aren't too fast on the forum that i'd miss something big this way)

zigzagjoe · « **Reply #38 on:** August 29, 2005, 08:15:41 AM »

no eze, we woulnt delete a acct that has posts. wt mezza just said was wt i was trying to say alll along .... just move them into a inactive group...i belive theres a colomn in the db for time stamp. ya could prolly stick that on a crontab on a week or every 3rd day basis run.

leeor_net · « **Reply #39 on:** August 29, 2005, 09:23:25 AM »

I definatly like Mez's idea. Works all to well and makes things nice and simple...

Leviathan · « **Reply #40 on:** September 02, 2005, 10:39:28 AM »

That would be nice yeah. Its mainly the thing of the user count which is misleading. If we can have a inactive group and have the member count not include them. So there is total member count and member count minus the inactive users.

Flanx · « **Reply #41 on:** September 02, 2005, 10:19:39 PM »

Don't forget there's those of us that just simply don't post much or just log onto IRC and idle without paying a bit of attention like most people on it do. The last time I was in IRC I had a question that actually had a simple answer but of the 15 people on only 2 of them responded within 10 minutes of my asking. Now I understand that some may have been in games but from what I've seen 99% of the games have turned into pie chart rushes lasting 5 minutes or less. Anyone else see a problem waiting to happen for a new person comming into IRC or somebody comming in with a bigger problem then what I had? That's my two bits along with a little rant.

thablkpanda · « **Reply #42 on:** September 20, 2005, 08:01:49 PM »

I agree with Flanx.

I've had the same 'issue' there are so many people idling, that only lik e 3/12 people are REALLY there, or paying attention at all.

I understand we have lives, and not everyone has the dual-monitor setup like I do, however...

Gotta see both sides.
Panda.

zigzagjoe · « **Reply #43 on:** September 20, 2005, 10:25:38 PM »

*poke* *poke* 3 monitors, baby. idling is kinda unavoidable, ppls will be afk...its fact of nature. oh btw, incase you didnt know, L and OPU|Bot are user managenet bots, and HubbaJJ is a nonfunctional stats bot. i htink its time to go postal on HubbaJJ's ass....

BlackBox · « **Reply #44 on:** September 21, 2005, 01:45:13 PM »

For the thousandth time, we are not getting rid of HubbaJJ. Case closed. So stop asking to remove it Joe.

If we got rid of it; the stats that it's already accumulated get lost.

TH300 · « **Reply #45 on:** September 21, 2005, 03:49:34 PM »

Idling is not avoidable. You can't expect people to watch the irc window all the time. There are other things in life.
And to be on irc and do something else is better than doing something else and not being on irc. At least you'll get an answer then. I don't understand people who can't wait 10-20 minutes after asking a question.

BlackBox · « **Reply #46 on:** September 21, 2005, 05:38:39 PM »

I agree. When they're on irc, at least they have the opportunity to come back and see what's been going on. Also, existance in a chat room is more temporary than a forum account -- if you're at least idling in there, you've probably been there within the last day or two (unless you have a bnc or something).

I think patience is something that needs to be learned by all.. If you need to ask a question, highlight a person on irc and simply wait for a response instead of spamming something in all caps then quitting after 30 seconds.

Anyway; this thread is about forum inactivity, not IRC inactivity -- let's get back to the topic.

Leviathan · « **Reply #47 on:** October 12, 2005, 09:08:33 AM »

Well back on the topic of deleting accounts.

Most of the time when we get new memebrs insead of being happy it just anoyies me, because they dont stay with us etc.

I was thinking, should we delete new accounts of people who dont post an introduction? Say after a month.

Mez · « **Reply #48 on:** October 13, 2005, 03:54:37 PM »

Delete users that havn't logged on a month, who say 3 months ago, and yes if their posts are insignificant or no posts at all.

Any user with more than 5 posts should be kept, unless they have spent their time and effort into filling in their details and uploading an avatar to the forum

Freeza-CII · « **Reply #49 on:** October 13, 2005, 04:01:00 PM »

Of the 300 or so people that are registered how many really show up and post. But before you s*** can there account send them a email tell them they have a week or 2 to show up and do some thing on the forum or IRC or there account will be canned.

News:

Author Topic: Inactive Users? (Read 6803 times)