# Non-active members



## Eugin

Hello, everybody! 

I have a suggestion to make, though I don´t know whether it has been already made by some others.

The thing is that I notice that there are many, many members who have registered in the forum but they didn’t post a single thread. If you have a look at the Member’s list, you’ll see what I mean: I have even seen, in just one page of the pages of that List, that there are up to 13 members with O posts.

What I would like to know is whether it´s possible to establish a rule where it could be stated that the members who do not make a single post over a year, they shall be automatically removed from the Member´s list on the basis of "no activity in the forums" (here is an example of someone not being active for more than a year’s span). 

Why do I mention this? Because I think that new foreros, willing to (actively) participate in the forums, are not able to use a nickname they´d like, they’d feel identified with because it has been taken from another forero who hasn’t even signed in within a year… and I don´t think that to be a fair thing for the newcomers...
I myself could not use the nickname I first chose because it was already taken by somebody else (though that person does post from time to time, but not much).

This is just a point for Mike and moderators to consider, in case anyone agrees with me….
 
Please, apologize for my English and thank you for the time taken to read this.
All the best for you all!


----------



## coppergirl

Hi everyone! 

Just to say that I think Eugin has brought up a good point.  One thing which I find annoying sometimes is having to sift through the Members List for ages if I am looking for the name of a particular forero/a when many of the people listed are not even active members.  

Perhaps in the Members List, if someone has not posted for a very long period (say a year) or had no posts, they might be "hidden" on the list temporarily until they post again?  This might make the Members list a bit easier to navigate and less time consuming to use.

Just a suggestion.

Cheers!


----------



## Fernita

Hi, Eugin!
I do agree with you if you refer to those who don't start a thread nor post anything at all.
Anyway, I don't know whether my opinion should be taken into account due to the fact that I joined WR a month ago.
When I joined this site, I needed some help on a specific transtation. But now I have finished what I was translating so that's why I don't start any new threads but I love participating while I wait for another job.
All in all, I'm with you.
Fernita.


----------



## Whodunit

Eugin said:
			
		

> Hello, everybody!
> 
> I have a suggestion to make, though I don´t know whether it has been already made by some others.


 
I have to disappoint you, but your request is not new.


----------



## Eugin

Whodunit said:
			
		

> I have to disappoint you, but your request is not new.


 
Thank you, Who, but how was I supposed to find whether there was a thread with the similar question if the title of it is simply "Other suggestion"? (I know, I should have looked for "non-acitve" or "members", but it´s just too much time-consuming)... 

I just browsed the pages in the "Comments & Suggestions" forum....

But thanks for your quick reply, as well as the points of view of the others who answered!!


----------



## Jana337

coppergirl said:
			
		

> Hi everyone!
> 
> Just to say that I think Eugin has brought up a good point.  One thing which I find annoying sometimes is having to sift through the Members List for ages if I am looking for the name of a particular forero/a when many of the people listed are not even active members.


Why? Just perform the search (you probably know at least a part of the nick) and then order the results by number of posts. I bet that the person you are looking for will be on the first page. 



Jana


----------



## justjukka

Your English is fine.


----------



## Moogey

I agree, it has benefits. I'm not going to read the provided thread, but that's my opinion.

On the other hand, though, if the member comes back and wants to start posting all of a sudden, it might inconvenience him/her to have to re-register and he/she might not even return at all because of that.

-M


----------



## Eugin

Moogey said:
			
		

> On the other hand, though, if the member comes back and wants to start posting all of a sudden, it might inconvenience him/her to have to re-register and he/she might not even return at all because of that.
> 
> -M


Ok, that´s a point you have. 

But, if you state as one of the guidelines, in the Rules/FAQ link, that the member shall post at least one thread within one year, then he/she cannot claim when he/she is removed for not having complied with the forums` rule, don´t you think? 

P.d. And thanks for your compliment, Rozax


----------



## Moogey

Eugin said:
			
		

> Ok, that´s a point you have.
> 
> But, if you state as one of the guidelines, in the Rules/FAQ link, that the member shall post at least one thread within one year, then he/she cannot claim when he/she is removed for not having complied with the forums` rule, don´t you think?
> 
> P.S. And thanks for your compliment, Rozax



Yes, you're right. However, we could only get rid of members after this has been implemented, not already registered members. 

And your English is quite good 

-M


----------



## lsp

Posting is not a requirement, yet one _must_ be a member to set preferences to be recognized and remembered by the forum (new posts are bolded, already-read posts are not), and to subscribe to threads of particular interest, to PM other members, etc. Therefore I can see inactivating people who don't even visit WR after an extended period, but not simply if they don't post. For those people who are active in ways we can't see, I would hate to require them to make a meaningless annual post in order to keep their forum settings.


----------



## Moogey

lsp said:
			
		

> Posting is not a requirement, yet one _must_ be a member to set preferences to be recognized and set preferences for the forum (new posts are bolded, already-read posts are not), and to subscribe to threads of particular interest, to PM other members, etc. Therefore I can see inactivating people who don't even visit WR after an extended period, but not simply if they don't post. For those people who are active in ways we can't see, I would hate to require them to make a meaningless annual post in order to keep their forum settings.



That's a very good point that I didn't even think about. Maybe that's because I've never done such a thing 

I would choose not to delete members if this were my only reason.

-M


----------



## cherine

Thanks to Whodunit for reminding us of the previous thread where this subject was treated.
Allow me to put Mike's post, so we can spare ourselves extra time in discussions that -most probably- will lead us to nowhere :



> Let me just say that I have read that other forums delete inactive registrations and it only leads to headaches with people writing months later "What happened to my registration?"
> 
> I also once limited the member lists to people with at least 2 posts. The next day I started getting messages from people having problems registering who thought that they could confirm that they had not registered correctly because they were not in the member list. I changed it back.


----------



## Talant

Eugin said:
			
		

> P.d. And thanks for your compliment, Rozax



I entered the forum in october. I spent some months posting from time to time, and then I spent 3-4 months off-line. It would have bothered me to have my nick reseted. However, by the time I had already some 70 posts.

I agree that deleting non active members is a good idea. I once entered a forum just to post one question. I wasn't good enough to answer myself other people's questions, and I've never needed to post anything else. Now in that forum they'll have a non-active member for ages.

I think that a message can be sent to non active members telling them that their nick is going to be deleted unless..... They have given a valid e-mail account, haven't they?

Last, Eugin, in Spanish we say "Post Data (P.D.)" while abroad they use "Post Scriptum (P.S.)". I would recommend you to use PS. In French PD has a bad meaning.

Have a nice time


----------



## natasha2000

Hello, I am with Eugin, since many of those 0-poster-members register not because they are interested in the forum, but because they are looking for some kind of info that is not the subject of this forum, BTW. This is a little bit annoying.

I have received not one PM from 0-poster-members asking me what is there to see in Bercelona, because they are going to visit it, or looking for a pen-pall, etc...
Do you think this is ok? I don't. So why should those kind of members be members at all, since they are not interested in forum?

If someone posts from time to time, it's OK. Many things can happen in this life, so I personally, would remove those with 0 posts, and for example, one year of membership.


----------



## Jana337

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Hello, I am with Eugin, since many of those 0-poster-members register not because they are interested in the forum, but because they are looking for some kind of info that is not the subject of this forum, BTW. This is a little bit annoying.


Pardon my ignorance, but I still do not understand why our zero-members  disturb people so much. I tried to explain above that if you employ all options that our search engine gives you, you do not have to wade through many pages of names whenever you need to find someone.





> I have received not one PM from 0-poster-members asking me what is there to see in Bercelona, because they are going to visit it, or looking for a pen-pall, etc...
> Do you think this is ok? I don't. So why should those kind of members be members at all, since they are not interested in forum?


Non sequitur. People who contact you are usually newly registered members. Do you think people would return to a forum where they signed up many months ago (and they probably forgot their passwords) just to look for pen-pals?

Jana


----------



## coppergirl

Jana337 said:
			
		

> Why? Just perform the search (you probably know at least a part of the nick) and then order the results by number of posts. I bet that the person you are looking for will be on the first page.
> 
> 
> 
> Jana


 
Thanks, Jana!  I'll do it that way from now on.  I have to admit, I don't usually use this function much anyway, but have only really had the need to use it very occasionally anyway.  

Cheers!


----------



## natasha2000

Ok, Jana, maybe I take too personal this forum....

But look this:
Usuarios: 63.424, Active Members: 9.270 

It is desproportional. There are almost 63.500 members, but only less than 10.000 are active. This means that there are 53.500 non-active members.
If this number means something to WR management, than ok. The WR management would know best.
I am not demanding anything. I just expose my opinion. The last decision is of course, of Mike's.


----------



## coppergirl

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Ok, Jana, maybe I take too personal this forum....
> 
> But look this:
> Usuarios: 63.424, Active Members: 9.270
> 
> It is desproportional. There are almost 63.500 members, but only less than 10.000 are active. This means that there are 53.500 non-active members.
> If this number means something to WR management, than ok. The WR management would know best.
> I am not demanding anything. I just expose my opinion. The last decision is of course, of Mike's.


 
Hi Natasha, Jana and everyone!

Just to ask, with these figures, how is "active members" defined? What I mean is, to qualify here as an Active Member, does that mean someone posts 1 post, or once per week or once every 6 months or what? Sorry if this is explained elsewhere and I appear to be really thick! It is a Friday and all . . . so could someone please explain it?

Thanks!


----------



## natasha2000

coppergirl said:
			
		

> Hi Natasha, Jana and everyone!
> 
> Just to ask, with these figures, how is "active members" defined? What I mean is, to qualify here as an Active Member, does that mean you post 1 post, or once per week or once every 6 months or what? Sorry if this is explained elsewhere and I appear to be really thick! It is a Friday and all . . . so could someone explain it?
> 
> Thanks!


 
Sorry, but.... I wouldn't know anything about this. This is a question for a moderator.


----------



## Jana337

An active member is a person who has logged in in the last 30 days.

Jana


----------



## coppergirl

Jana337 said:
			
		

> An active member is a person who has logged in in the last 30 days.
> 
> Jana


 
Thanks Jana!   That clears it up!


----------



## mkellogg

Hi everyone,

The request is a little tricky.  I suppose that I could delete any username with 0 posts.  I just did a search and there are 8309 usernames registered over a year ago that have 0 posts.   My problem with deleting them is that I would hate to make a mistake and delete other users.   The delete operation is only reversible by restoring an old copy of the database.

As a side note, I am a bit confused as to why people register and not post.  Some people think that they will see more features in the dictionaries after registering with WordReference.  (They don't.)

I once limited the member list to people with at least one post.  It took about 12 hours for someone to write me "I registered, but I don't appear in the member list, so something is wrong...".  I changed it back. 

[...time spent researching...]
I see now that vBulletin has an easy option to allow me to delete old usernames easily.  I'll give it a try sometime in the next week. 

Mike


----------



## french4beth

My 2 cents worth - if someone has not been on the WR forums for over a year, it would appear that the person is inactive - I wouldn't want to remove people who don't post as I read many more threads than I actually respond to!

And don't forget, everyone, Mike is doing this all on his own, with no outside financing - let's not give him any extra work!  He has done so much already!  Long live the forums!  Seriously, I don't know what I'd do without them.


----------



## Confused Linguist

You could make a rule that members with less than 30 posts have to log in at least once every couple of months. I've noticed that most members with 0 posts have not logged in since they registered here.


----------



## Etcetera

There's one more thing to take into consideration. 
Imagine you've registered at some forum, and for some reasons you didn't activate your registration, nor did you visit the forum again. Will you remember your password after a year? I doubt!


----------



## natasha2000

Really, if it is not too much problem, it would be nice to remove those who have 0 posts and registered more than a year ago. Those won't come back, for sure. I would give a space of one year before erasing someone. After all, your yahoo or hotmail account is nulled if you do not enter for more than 6 months... This is a good thing for statistics... As I already said... There are 5 times more non-active than active members, although I would make longer the period of one month. Maybe, six months wouldn't be so bad idea... And the number of active ones would raise... After all, one can be active for a long time and than to be absent for six months. A trip, a job, some family event... Maybe just a lack of time... One month is a too short period to pronounce someone inactive.
Just a couple of thoughts. Nothing more.


----------



## natasha2000

french4beth said:
			
		

> Again, just because you don't 'post' doesn't mean you're not using the forums - if haven't been on the forums at all for over 12 months, then you're probably not active...


 
you can use WR forums and dictionary and everything that WR offers if you are not registered, too. The only difference you have when you register is to be allowed to post. So if you don't post, why should you be registered, occupy a nickname than might be wanted by some other, more active user, or be a part of some false statistics?

EDIT: I think that my post had three lines off-topic and some 15 lines on-topic, Jana....


----------



## maxiogee

Eugin said:
			
		

> Why do I mention this? Because I think that new foreros, willing to (actively) participate in the forums, are not able to use a nickname they´d like,



Someone who refrained from joining in for that sort of reason is someone I, for one, wouldn't miss.
What sort of person cannot think up a second screen name? 
We're meant to be into language here, for crying out loud!  Come on!


----------



## natasha2000

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Someone who refrained from joining in for that sort of reason is someone I, for one, wouldn't miss.
> What sort of person cannot think up a second screen name?
> We're meant to be into language here, for crying out loud!  Come on!


 
Maxi, don't be so literal!  You're perfectly right, but imagine that someone is always using the same name, in all fourums they participate... I admit for sure it is not the reason for not joining (it would be the most stupid reason, whatsoever!), but...

More important reason would be statistics. If this forum can say there are 60 000 members, this is a pretty good figure. But, on the other hand, this is not true, because there are only 10 000 active members, and as Mike said a little bit before almost 9000 users that are registered for over a year and with 0 posts. If it is cleaned from time to time, than it will be easier to make real figures when it comes to statistics...

Of course, this issue does not prevent neither me nor any other membwer of this forum to enjoy participating it. 
Since the thread is opened, we just discuss pros and contras...


----------



## maxiogee

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Maxi, don't be so literal!


On a language site? Please.



> More important reason would be statistics.


Do we need statistics? Seriously.
It matters not a jot to me if there are X,000 or Y,000 reading my *pearls of wisdom*. I'm more exercised about Matthew 7, 6!


----------



## Eugin

maxiogee said:
			
		

> What sort of person cannot think up a second screen name?


 
When you have already 60.000 members within a forum, well, it can be complicated to think up a second screen name.... 
Maybe you were lucky enough that no one else had used the same nick you chose, but it was not my case and I had to think of more than a second and third nick.

And, I am pretty aware of the fact that this IS a forum about languages, but there are also people (with names) here participating, not just numbers, digits or any other inanimate thing...


----------



## geve

Ok, there are 6.000 members, but has anyone ever counted the numbers of nicknames that use strange signs or punctuation marks? Would someone get disappointed not being able to register as !!!!!aaaaa!!!! ? There must be a good deal of silly nicknames among the zeroposts members... 

Maybe we could make an auction with old unused nicknames.  How much for this one?


----------



## lsp

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> you can use WR forums and dictionary and everything that WR offers if you are not registered, too. *The only difference you have when you register is to be allowed to post. *So if you don't post, why should you be registered, occupy a nickname than might be wanted by some other, more active user, or be a part of some false statistics?....


And set viewing and recognition preferences, like time, language, "remember me" (new posts are bolded), buddy lists, and so on.


----------



## lsp

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Maxi, don't be so literal!  You're perfectly right, but imagine that someone is always using the same name, in all fourums they participate... I admit for sure it is not the reason for not joining (it would be the most stupid reason, whatsoever!), but...
> 
> More important reason would be statistics. If this forum can say there are 60 000 members, this is a pretty good figure. But, on the other hand, this is not true, because there are only 10 000 active members, and as Mike said a little bit before almost 9000 users that are registered for over a year and with 0 posts. If it is cleaned from time to time, than it will be easier to make real figures when it comes to statistics...
> 
> Of course, this issue does not prevent neither me nor any other membwer of this forum to enjoy participating it.
> Since the thread is opened, we just discuss pros and contras...


An active member was defined as someone who has logged in in the last *30* days. It doesn't mean the inactive people *never* come around anymore. So your way isn't entirely accurate either.


----------



## lsp

Eugin said:
			
		

> When you have already 60.000 members within a forum, well, it can be complicated to think up a second screen name....
> Maybe you were lucky enough that no one else had used the same nick you chose, but it was not my case and I had to think of more than a second and third nick.
> 
> And, I am pretty aware of the fact that this IS a forum about languages, but there are also people (with names) here participating, not just numbers, digits or any other inanimate thing...


It's pretty common in the most popular username-required sites. I can't count how many times I've had a username rejected at yahoo, apple, and other high traffic sites.


----------



## Eugin

lsp said:
			
		

> It's pretty common in the most popular username-required sites. I can't count how many times I've had a username rejected at yahoo, apple, and other high traffic sites.


 
That was not my original point. Of course what you say has happened to me as well, and that shall continue to be like that (or worse) in the coming years, but my point is that it´s not fair that someone else is the owner of a nickname another person wants and the owner didn´t even show up to post a single thread for over a year. 

That´s all I am suggesting... a kind of "clearance" of the "Zero-posters" who haven´t made a post (whether it`s a question or answer) within a year.


----------



## lsp

Eugin said:
			
		

> That was not my original point. Of course what you say has happened to me as well, and that shall continue to be like that (or worse) in the coming years, but my point is that it´s not fair that someone else is the owner of a nickname another person wants and the owner didn´t even show up to post a single thread for over a year.
> 
> That´s all I am suggesting... a kind of "clearance" of the "Zero-posters" who haven´t made a post (whether it`s a question or answer) within a year.


I maintain that posting alone is not a fair requirement or even fair evidence of anything in this regard. See my previous posts for details. On the flip side, I can't believe how many posts I have added to this thread, considering how little impact it has, in my opinion, on life here at WR. Jana's advice is excellent - Member Sort and Member Search is all I've ever needed.


----------



## Eugin

mkellogg said:
			
		

> I once limited the member list to people with at least one post. It took about 12 hours for someone to write me "I registered, but I don't appear in the member list, so something is wrong...". I changed it back.


 
Hi Mike!! First of all, thanks for taking your time to check on this thread.

Now, I want to ask you: what is your concept of a "member"? I mean, in order to become a member, does the person need to make at least one post or he/she can be a member just by adding himself/herself to the List? 

I have seen that in these forums there are "guests" as well. So, maybe, you could establish that, in order to be entitled to be a member of this forum, a person must be an active member, otherwise, he/ she gets to pass on the "Guest List" and, if there are 0 posts over a year (at the most)of that person, his/ her username/ nickname is transferred to newcomers and the account deleted.

This is only a thought... thanks for considering it!


----------



## geve

Eugin said:
			
		

> Hi Mike!! First of all, thanks for taking your time to check on this thread.
> 
> Now, I want to ask you: what is your concept of a "member"? I mean, in order to become a member, does the person need to make at least one post or he/she can be a member just by adding himself/herself to the List?
> 
> I have seen that in these forums there are "guests" as well. So, maybe, you could establish that, in order to be entitled to be a member of this forum, a person must be an active member, otherwise, he/ she gets to pass on the "Guest List" and, if there are 0 posts over a year (at the most)of that person, his/ her username/ nickname is transferred to newcomers and the account deleted.
> 
> This is only a thought... thanks for considering it!


I think a guest is someone who hasn't registered and who is just browsing the forum.  At least that's what I've always assumed!


----------



## alc112

Thanks Eugin for bringin this topic back!!
Mike, you have to see the best part, maybe if you delete them, then you don't need to move the forum t new servers because of the enormeous number of post and users


----------



## geve

alc112 said:
			
		

> Thanks Eugin for bringin this topic back!!
> Mike, you have to see the best part, maybe if you delete them, then you don't need to move the forum t new servers because of the enormeous number of post and users


Do zeropostmembers really occupy a large place in a forum? (just a bit more space than this thread maybe?   )


----------



## alc112

I don't know. Mike can tells us, PLEASE


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

alc112 said:
			
		

> Thanks Eugin for bringin this topic back!!
> Mike, you have to see the best part, maybe if you delete them, then you don't need to move the forum t new servers because of the enormeous number of post and users


On the other hand, if a real number of forer@s is shown, don't you think there will be a risk for this site to get less revenue from adverstisements?
Maybe not. Just a thought...


----------



## TimN

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> But look this:
> Usuarios: 63.424, Active Members: 9.270
> 
> It is desproportional. There are almost 63.500 members, but only less than 10.000 are active. This means that there are 53.500 non-active members.



Of course, that means that Active Members are actually in the minority, and maybe they shouldn't be telling the frequently inactive majority of members (of which I am one) how they should be using the site.

The reason I no longer use Hotmail is because they closed my account after 3 months of inactivity. I never went back.

3 months? 1 year? Where do you draw the line?

If the WRForums ever reach the dizzy heights of success that Hotmail achieved, deletion due to inactivity might be justified. Until then, we're not harming anyone by keeping quite…


----------



## cuchuflete

KaRiNe_Fr said:
			
		

> On the other hand, if a real number of forer@s is shown, don't you think there will be a risk for this site to get less revenue from adverstisements?
> Maybe not. Just a thought...


Good question Karine,

There are no advertisements in the forums.  The number of registered forum members has no effect on advertising.
The WR dictionaries do carry advertisements, but again, there is no relationship to the number of registered members in the forum database.


----------



## cuchuflete

alc112 said:
			
		

> Mike, you have to see the best part, maybe if you delete them, then you don't need to move the forum t new servers because of the enormeous number of post and users



Hola Alc,
Moves to new servers occur when the level of activity, not the number of members, grows beyond what a current server can handle.  The number of active members, posting and searching, is what causes a need for a server upgrade.


----------



## DesertCat

One of those 0 users is me. I had originally signed up under a name I use most places on the Internet but then I decided I wanted to keep this interest separate from my other interest.  I would have deleted it but I don't think there is (or was) that option.

I would not be surprised if there are other people in the same situation since at one time it was suggested that people make a new name rather than request that Mike change it.


----------



## Etcetera

DesertCat said:
			
		

> I would not be surprised if there are other people in the same situation since at one time it was suggested that people make a new name rather than request that Mike change it.


I remember there was a thread in which someone asked if it is possible to change your nickname here. And Mr Cuchu advised them just to re-register.


----------



## mkellogg

Altogether, there is no harm done by having registered "members" with 0 posts.  The server is not going to be slower or anything like that.  But also, I don't see much harm in removing accounts that are over a year old, have 0 posts and don't even show a single visit in the last year.

What do I consider a member? (asked by Eugin) Haha.  I really give no importance to the concept.  You need to register to post, and then you are a "member".


----------



## danielfranco

Me zero post member too! Hee-hee... Once, I registered and later forgot my password (it was so secret that I could never remember it!) I couldn't even remember which email I had used to register!!!
I must have done that while in an "altered state"... Blame the tequila, I guess... Anyways, I'm better off.. I mean, really, who would want the nick "fluffy_toasty_butt"?


----------

