36 members from hitting 65,000

[FIREWALL]

Originally Posted by RickC Sniper

This +1

Short One ? + 1

[August]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

i think that an account with no activity, no posts, no log ins etc for a year or maybe even 18 months should be deleted.

just my opinion.

It is mine as well.

Lurkers can lurk without signing in.

[geetrue]

Originally Posted by August

It is mine as well.

Lurkers can lurk without signing in.

True too ... aren't we suppose to be captains or something like that.

What if the captain didn't show up since 2009?

[August]

Originally Posted by geetrue

True too ... aren't we suppose to be captains or something like that.

What if the captain didn't show up since 2009?

He'd be relieved of command at least. The forum equivalent is account deletion. Nothing stopping someone from creating a new account either.

[FIREWALL]

I just don't like where this is going.

If your selling phones or pures ok. But just poking around....

[FIREWALL]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Question: should we go back and delete accounts that:

• have 0 posts
• joined after 2009
• show no activity including log-in for a year

There's a good chance we have a couple thousand spam accounts camped out in the db.

Hey Neal am I missing something ?

[gimpy117]

send them a PM first warning them that if there is no reply they will get the delete

[FIREWALL]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

send them a PM first warning them that if there is no reply they will get the delete

That makes sense. gimpy117 Then again you usally make good sense.

[Penguin]

I guess it's time to upgrade to 17-bit forum software

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Is this an "and" list (all three need to be true) or an "or" list (only one needs to be true) for deletion?

Yes, all three would need to be true to qualify for deletion, if we go that route. My intention is to remove accounts that were created, never posted, and have been abandoned. If someone made a forum acount 2 years ago and has not logged in once during that time, it's likely it could be a spam account. Not 100%, but still, what's the point in keeping the account, and ... (see below)

Originally Posted by Platapus

My opinion?

Members should not be deleted simply because they have not posted in a year. Readers are also part of our community. This addresses item 1

If a member has not logged in for a year, I would still keep their account active unless a newer member would like that screen name. A member that does not log in costs the site nothing but the space to record their account information.

Is there a risk with a "spam account" that does not log in?

I do not understand why joining after 2009 is a factor. Can you explain that.

Basically, my worthless opinion is to keep everyone on the membership list unless they actively tell you they wish to be removed.

Figures that list total number of members on an internet site are of limited use, unless that number helps you with selling advertisement. I would think that average log-ins per day would be more important.

I echo the phrase "your site, your rules"

If you are askin, I say leave the dead accounts alone unless there is a compelling reason to delete them.

Fair enough. I know, my site, my rules, in the absolute sense, but I share the site with you guys, so you should have some input. Besides, I know from experience that many times, the forum members have better ideas than me, so I consider it wise to consult you.

There is a problem with spammers here. There is a lot going on behind the scenes, it's a war out there. Hunter and the other mods, and several key members are helping detect them and delete them. But with all the attention the spam world is paying to this forum, I am afraid there are inactive spam member accounts that simply have spam sig links, without a single post, and the spam trackers are giving them credit, and consequently, increasing the attractiveness of this site for more spam.

[CCIP]

I vote for a bit of spring cleaning.

Lurkers can re-register if it really matters to them.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

the spam trackers are giving them credit, and consequently, increasing the attractiveness of this site for more spam.

I never considered that.

Off with their heads!

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

There is a problem with spammers here. There is a lot going on behind the scenes, it's a war out there. Hunter and the other mods, and several key members are helping detect them and delete them. But with all the attention the spam world is paying to this forum, I am afraid there are inactive spam member accounts that simply have spam sig links, without a single post, and the spam trackers are giving them credit, and consequently, increasing the attractiveness of this site for more spam.

Ah, now I get the system behind it, as I didn't get how these measures would discourage spammers. I didn't know that an inactive account still can raise the credit in the world of spammers other than to see how many boards can be infiltrated through one email. So that's what you can also do: to cross-reference the email adresses of those 0-post accounts with known spam-adresses.

If only sigs with links are the problem, how would it be either to grant "sig rights" to people with at least a couple of posts - most spam I see here gets deleted before they post more than 3 - or to revoke those sig rights if an account gets reported for spam.

[magic452]

Someone can lurk all they want without becoming a member, you become a captain so you can participate. No log in, no participation, no need to worry.
A PM sounds like enough, than delete.

If a deleted account holder wants to participate then they can re register.

Magic

[Stealhead]

Sounds fair if they get deleted after a PM warning(for inactivity) then they must not care.

I also agree with the others the true lurkers lurk for a year or so then join then lurk some more then finally post and either A)stop lurking and become more active or B)go back to lurking again if its B they some are what wasted space and can just keep on lurking as a none member.

Wow my 666th post on the day after the supposed rapture day mark of the beast I never would have guessed the anti-christ would be mug shot from PTO II.(one of my favorite games is that supposed to be Admiral Spruance? in my Avatar)