So many unused accounts.

[Inkfeather 597]

A little research shows that we have around 320 combined blank flanks and "Validating" accounts on this forum, many of which are more than weeks old and have never posted before.

 

This means that the number of active users are around 380 accounts of which not everyone is of course as active as most.

 

Isn't it rather stupid to have 300+ unused accounts on the forum, it would maybe be an idea to put up something like "You have to post atleast 5/10 messeges the first week or we will take down your account to save server space." Or something in that direction? And atleast keep it like you have to post ATLEAST once a month to make sure that the account is being used.

 

This is just an idea of course and it would need lots of tweaking if it ever were to go real.

[super*specialSTAR 19]

It sounds like an excellent idea to me. Although, I haven't been active a lot. I've wanted to become more active in the forums since yesterday(busy with the holidays) and this topic pops out and BAM! My decison seems to make more sense and that idea of getting rid of unused accounts seems like a wonderful idea!

 

 

Wisdom Lace

[Lyra Heartstrings1 53]

Yeah that sounds perfect. Feld should really add that on.

[Sunnymilk 40]

well, the so and so many posts the first week seems liek a good idea, but the at least x amount of posts a week/month is not so good. what if I for some reason decided to take half a year with doctors without borders or something weird like that. that one at least have way too many variables to be applicable.

 

one quick little addition. if we have only 380 accounts over blank flank. and lots of those ages old. with some even still at postcount 0. is it not then perhaps... technically... a little premature to do a 500 member "celebration"?

[Inkfeather 597]

well, the so and so many posts the first week seems liek a good idea, but the at least x amount of posts a week/month is not so good. what if I for some reason decided to take half a year with doctors without borders or something weird like that. that one at least have way too many variables to be applicable.

 

one quick little addition. if we have only 380 accounts over blank flank. and lots of those ages old. with some even still at postcount 0. is it not then perhaps... technically... a little premature to do a 500 member "celebration"?

 

I understand the point about taking breaks and stuff and maybe a little account addition could be added to that. Let's say when you post enough so you validate for member and survive the first week you get an option on your account saying: "going on a break for X amount of time" maybe.

[Sunnymilk 40]

I understand the point about taking breaks and stuff and maybe a little account addition could be added to that. Let's say when you post enough so you validate for member and survive the first week you get an option on your account saying: "going on a break for X amount of time" maybe.

 

that could work, but in which case it would have to very easily accessible.

[Inkfeather 597]

that could work, but in which case it would have to very easily accessible.

 

As said: this is all just ideas. It would need tons of tweaking to actually work.

[Nah 3,181]

This totally is like MOCpages, when it comes to unused accounts, many people think they can join some random website to promote a company they work for, MOCpages has all these "creations" that have no pictures or lego whatsoever and just says random corporate stuff. We should give users 90 days to use their account, or lose after 90 days of inactivity. That's what flickr does.

[L-PinkVsD-Pink327 177]

I got it, what if we allow them a cirtain amount of time to make a post depending on their time spent online here, and how many posts they made?

 

For example, if someone made like, over 100 posts they have more time to say something than someone who only did 30 posts.

 

Then you also have to consider the people who don't say much very often, so we should look at the time online here as well.

 

Both of those are already provided, we just need to make a reasonable graph.

 

Anyway there's my crude idea.

[Tom The Diamond 1,828]

...

 

Is this really that big of a problem to start setting up all these silly things, like posting so often? I mean, its not like these unused accounts are slowing down the website(At least not that I'm aware of).

 

I mean, worst case scenario, the mods can just go through accounts and delete anypony who hasn't made a post at all and shows no signs of returning to post.

 

But I really don't think its that big of a problem right now.

[Inkfeather 597]

...

 

Is this really that big of a problem to start setting up all these silly things, like posting so often? I mean, its not like these unused accounts are slowing down the website(At least not that I'm aware of).

 

I mean, worst case scenario, the mods can just go through accounts and delete anypony who hasn't made a post at all and shows no signs of returning to post.

 

But I really don't think its that big of a problem right now.

 

I agree, but it was just a thought that we didn't have half of the member count filled up with unused account, also to ease server stress because if it continues then it MIGHT become a problem.

[FLARE 951]

I think the only issue is if someone wants a username, and they have covered for that... I think, back when I first joined, my account name was flare, but in the email address field I put .con not .com so I was screwed and made a new account(flare03), because I had no idea how to PM a moderator nor could I make a thread or post because my account was not validated.

[Zoop 8,384]

I believe that accounts that do not get verified after a certain amount of time are automatically pruned from the database, though I may be wrong.

 

As far as deleting accounts that don't meet a certain posting threshold... I'm not really a huge fan of the idea; there are a number of reasons why someone might depart from the forum for a while, and returning to find that their entire account has been removed could act as a deterrent to them coming back and being active again.

[Finesthour 7,284]

I am against having a post minimum.

 

Some people just like to talk.

 

So deleting them for not posting makes it alright?

[Inkfeather 597]

I am against having a post minimum.

 

Some people just like to talk.

 

So deleting them for not posting makes it alright?

 

It was all but an idea of a concept. I don't liking the feeling that you HAVE to post to stay. But atleast something about online time or activity would work.

[Twilight Sparkle ✨ 8,520]

A user account is roughly 2-3 KB worth of text. Trust me when I say that they're causing no noticeable server stress. We already have a pruning system in place that deletes your account if you don't activate it within 30 days.

 

Once an account is activated, I see no reason to delete it based on the user's activity. I myself once created an account at another forum, activated it, and made my first post several years later. Was nice to already have an account there when I finally returned.

 

I think the only issue is if someone wants a username, and they have covered for that... I think, back when I first joined, my account name was flare, but in the email address field I put .con not .com so I was screwed and made a new account(flare03), because I had no idea how to PM a moderator nor could I make a thread or post because my account was not validated.

 

That's what the "Contact" link at the bottom of every page is for.

[Street Comedy 327]

I am against having a post minimum.

 

Some people just like to talk.

 

So deleting them for not posting makes it alright?

 

And by talking you mean on the chat room, right? Kinda odd since you HAVE to leave the Blank Flanks group to get on there.