There needs to be a cull

gonna put this out there for discussion, there's no way there are 68,000 active* users (probably, I can't be bothered to check). We can start with the old, the sick and the infirmed.

*socially useful

automatically delete account that has been inactive for 6 months?

There are fewer than 6,000 registered users. There needs to be a cull of pointless threads.

like, remove any evidence of the fact that they even existed?

What's your point?

can we have a list of all the non posting members?

like, remove any evidence of the fact that they even existed?

The pointless threads? No, just don't start them.

can we have a list of all the non posting members?

3500 members have not posted in the last 6 months

gonna put this out there for discussion, there's no way there are 68,000 registered users (probably, I can't be bothered to check). We can start with the old, the sick and the infirmed.

On the front page it says:
Members: 5,804, Active Members: 4,108

Members = Everyone, even those who haven't activated email addresses.
Active Members = Those who have logged on in the last 3 months.

So we only have 1,696 members who either haven't activated their email addresses or haven't logged on in the last 3 months.

Of those 1,696 who is in what bucket?
Awaiting email confirmation: 0
Banned: 47
Registered (Nursery): 719
Regular: 930

So all who are inactive have activated their email address, and just over half of them are people who posted at one point but haven't visited in a while... that could be people who have just registered and posted so that they could PM someone and buy stuff from the classifieds, it could be because they were visiting and now they're not here they aren't interested in the forum.

Could be for lots of reasons.

Point is: There aren't as many accounts as you think, of those inactive they were never all dead accounts in the first place.

I'm not considering a cull, but even if I were to... it would be very difficult to decide upon a criteria to select those to cull without the risk of affecting those who have at some point registered for a reason.

3500 members have not posted in the last 6 months

Not a very good metric. What about those who log in to be able to browse without adverts? Perfectly fine with me as it makes it more likely that they will post.

Plus, what about those who do other stuff... like send PMs so they can buy stuff off of other forum members?

Whether they have posted or not is a bad criteria. "Active" on the front page is determined by whether they have logged in successfully within the last 3 months.

automatically delete account that has been inactive for 6 months?

Purposefully piss off and exclude people who only ride on the track in the summer and post in relation to that?

Yes, this thread reeks of fascism.

Besides... what do inactive users do? How are they a problem to anyone?

An inactive user who has never posted has 2 rows in the database... that's all.

Considering the 73,000 private messages in the system, it's not like a few thousand rows of limited data is of any concern.

You all need to get on your bikes and get outside a bit more.

if I do an advanced member search for anyone who's last post date is before 2008-10-04 (3 months ago) I get 4049 results returned

something's not working right here?

First they came for the arropoks, but I did not speak up because I am not a fashion victim...

Not a very good metric. What about those who log in to be able to browse without adverts? Perfectly fine with me as it makes it more likely that they will post.

Plus, what about those who do other stuff... like send PMs so they can buy stuff off of other forum members?

Whether they have posted or not is a bad criteria. "Active" on the front page is determined by whether they have logged in successfully within the last 3 months.

so what metric? utility?

if I do an advanced member search for anyone who's last post date is before 2008-10-04 (3 months ago) I get 4049 results returned

something's not working right here?

Last Active != Last Post.

It works perfectly fine.

I can log in every day, but have posted last 9 months ago... I would still be considered active because I've logged in.

Fred, just because they havn't posted doesn't mean they havn't logged on. Or PM'd someone.

Edit : too slow

so what metric? utility?

That's my point. You cannot reach a programmatic way of deciding who to cull with such surety that you don't accidentally delete someone who may actually be someone we all know and whom we all agree should keep their membership.

And... why anyway? For what possible gain or advantage is there in deleting accounts that just haven't been used in a while?

And what about users who used to post? If I deleted them now, and you found an old post and wanted to search by other things said by them, you couldn't... there would be no "user" to search.

And what if we also deleted their posts? What if some of them were definitive and held great information? Would we want to delete it?

The proposal to cull has no merit I can see, and lots of downsides... so really, why do it?

to quell civil unrest and distract public attention away from a failing domestic economy?

ooh, actually, we could start a war....

You mean? A forum invasion against C+?

no, more like invading Sark. Those terrorists are asking for it.

back to the cull, why is precision so important? If there are a few hundred regrettable casualties, so what? It's probably their own fault...

I rarely post. The only things I have done on this forum are read/search for advice, buy a set of wheels, buy a bike and give away another set of wheels.

I would prefer not to be culled just in case I want to buy/sell/freecycle some stuff.

Am I a problem and would I be a casualty (regrettable or not)?

When Fred came for the commuters
I remained silent;
I was not a commuter. When they neg repped the car fans,
I remained silent;
I was not a car fan.
When Fred came for the trolls,
I did not speak out;
I was not a troll.
When they came for the Scousers,
I remained silent;
I was not a Scouser.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.