Special Status for a Myriad?

[Strider]

I think that doing a clean out of the memberlist would be nice... I've been wanting to change my name to Striker for sometime now and I can't because some guy registered posted once and haven't been seen sense...

 

[Micaelis Rex]

Originally posted by WillJ
I think they might be a little ticked off when (and if) they come back...

Although I do think posters that have never posted and have never logged on in X amount of time should be deleted; it wouldn't matter all that much to them. Of course, the number of users does matter to some people. In fact, it might determine how much advertisers would like to advertise on this site.

OK, I don't see that as a problem, but if TF did, how about this:

<?php
$variable1 = $30daysago + $postcount(username);
If $lastvisit(username) > $variable1
{
(code that deletes an account)
}
?>

Of course the code is a little harder than that, but you get the picture.

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by Strider
I think that doing a clean out of the memberlist would be nice... I've been wanting to change my name to Striker for sometime now and I can't because some guy registered posted once and haven't been seen sense...

Nah, I like Strider more. Much cooler, somehow. Of course, it's your choice (no wait, you'll probably never get the choice, but oh well).

 

[Strider]

Originally posted by WillJ
Nah, I like Strider more. Much cooler, somehow. Of course, it's your choice (no wait, you'll probably never get the choice, but oh well).

Ok... Then I'll stick with Strider then.... I always thought Striker was cooler, but if you say so .

Also your right... I don't think TF would ever let me make a one letter name change ...

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by Mike23
OK, I don't see that as a problem, but if TF did, how about this:

<?php
$variable1 = $30daysago + $postcount(username);
If $lastvisit(username) > $variable1
{
(code that deletes an account)
}
?>

Of course the code is a little harder than that, but you get the picture.

The reason it might be a slight problem is that less advertising=less revenue for Telefragged (our host) and CFC.

And with the code, does $lastvisit mean how many days ago his/her last visit was? And if, say, someone has 100 posts, and hasn't been around for 49 days, would $variable1 be 130 (30+100)?

IMO, no one with any posts should be deleted just to save space, when it is possible to delete people without posts. Maybe anyone who has 0 posts and hasn't visited in the last 60 days is automatically deleted. That would take care of a whole bunch of people.

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by Strider
Also your right... I don't think TF would ever let me make a one letter name change ...

Actually, he probably would (assuming you haven't been a bad, bad boy ). I got my name changed from willj to WillJ. And I don't see why a small change would be bad; in fact, it's probably better than a major change. The reason why you probably wouldn't get the choice is because TF would have to delete the old user.

And don't just take my word for it; you should probably see what others think about Strider vs. Striker before making a decision. Actually, just go with what you think, it's your choice.

 

[Micaelis Rex]

Yeah, for you non-PHPers, my code just means that if a person hasn't visited in say 55 days, if they have 25 or less posts, they would be deleted.

If someone has 100 posts, they wouldn't be deleted unless they didn't enter the site for 130 days, at which time, they would be.

That helps keep veterans from being deleted, and allows for people with only 10 posts or something to be deleted if they don't show up for a while.

As for advertisers, wouldn't they go by how many times there add is viewed/clicked as opposed to how many people are in the database?

 

[Padma]

One reason for not deleting non-posters, is that many people register just to vote in polls, or use the search function - stuff like that. They may never post, and may only log in once a year or so - but they may still visit the site frequently.

 

[Silverflame]

Originally posted by WillJ

IMO, no one with any posts should be deleted just to save space, when it is possible to delete people without posts. Maybe anyone who has 0 posts and hasn't visited in the last 60 days is automatically deleted. That would take care of a whole bunch of people.

...And half of them will re-register the next day. A lot of the people with no posts are lurkers who registered to use the search function and vote in polls. Also, if we did delete those people we'd only have about 20,000 members.

 

[Micaelis Rex]

NO NO NO!!!

You guys totaly missed what I've been saying. This would be done by when you last visited the site, NOT when you last posted. I thought I said that enough already, apparently not.

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by Padma
One reason for not deleting non-posters, is that many people register just to vote in polls, or use the search function - stuff like that. They may never post, and may only log in once a year or so - but they may still visit the site frequently.

Um, once a year or so is frequent? How frequently they visit the site without needing to log on doesn't matter.

And of course, this doesn't matter, because of what Mike said.

 

[ainwood]

Guys,

Posters are never going to be deleted (except DLs ).

And they shouldn't be either. There is no 'robust' solution - even people with high post counts can be gone for extended periods (eg. Starlifter). And auto deletions significantly increase the probability of someone being deleted mistakingly. For example - what if the forum clock is set to the wrong year inadvertently?

Too dangerous.

 

[Octavian X]

Agreed.

But, why don't we just get rid of the thing that encourages us to think about post counts? Why not just hide the postcount?

 

[ainwood]

Originally posted by Octavian X
Agreed.

But, why don't we just get rid of the thing that encourages us to think about post counts? Why not just hide the postcount?

You're not the first great thinker to think that

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Originally posted by WillJ
@AoA and gonzo: Remember the 300-post custom avatar limit? That isn't exactly treating everyone equally.

Yes it is.

Everyone must meet the requirement, and without spamming or other nonsense.

We make no distinction between people with custom avatars and those who have not yet met the requirement.

 

[anarres]

Obviously not, but on the question of hiding the post count:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51242

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
Yes it is.

Everyone must meet the requirement, and without spamming or other nonsense.

Okay, then same with the 10,000 post reward, if it were implemented.

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
We make no distinction between people with custom avatars and those who have not yet met the requirement.

People with 300 or more posts can have custom avatars. People with less than 300 cannot. If you don't see that as a distinction, then what would be wrong with a 10,000 post reward? As long as it isn't something like, "Everyone has to give 100% respect to people with over 10,000 posts," or something like that, there would be nothing wrong with it, even by your logic. For example, letting 10,000 post people have larger custom avatars would be just as okay as the current 300 post limit.

 

[ainwood]

'Cept that the 300 post limit for a custom avatar is not a reward. It is simply to ensure that server space isn't wasted by having to host 20,000+ custom avatars, when 98% of those people just register then never post more than a few posts.

You are advocating a 10,000 post reward. That's a completely different issue, and not one that I think will be supported.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

I vote to ditch all postcount, and custom atavars.

 

[Immortal]

I vote for Lefty to stop voting.