Inactive users/locked threads

[ION14]

Does the site have an automatic deletion of ancient inactive users? I know the number of users would probably drop at an amazing rate, but I think sometimes it would keep the site a little more tidy.
I don't mean have a 1 month inactive period, but maybe 6 months or so... I think anyone who is a regular here wouldn't stay logged off for half a year. Even in the case of medical emergencies or vacations... a whole 6 months?
I think the problem is that this site is a lure for any Mary Joe and John that thinks they like Daft Punk. I've learned form being here that most of the threads are for the Punk-savvy; i.e. information usually pointed at more seasoned fans.
---
My other question is about inactive and locked threads. I think the forums would look much better if uber-old threads and locked threads were removed. Its crazy sifting through a bunch of old threads to find something. The number of threads would also be nowhere near as overwhelming to the newcomer. I remember being freaked out by all the posts that were here when I became a member back in '08.

Anyway, just some gripes/ideas. Please feel free to share your opinions.

[digital*aria]

first of all, i find the fact that you joined in january of 09 a bit interesting.. =]

second, just a little tidbit to get you thinking- the new members who join and make 1 or 2 posts might not return after half a year, but the old ones might. haven't we had a few instances where the uber oldies came back after they left to say hi and make a few more posts? a lot of the older members have left (due to various reasons we might never know) and one day they might get curious and remember this place.

[cda]

Why would any forums delete inactive members?

[Alex]

Why would any forums delete inactive members?

In case of a crash, it its much easier to restore everything witought less 300 or so members.

So that the server runs faster, without it being so cluttured.

And to make searches easier.

[ION14]

first of all, i find the fact that you joined in january of 09 a bit interesting.. =]

second, just a little tidbit to get you thinking- the new members who join and make 1 or 2 posts might not return after half a year, but the old ones might. haven't we had a few instances where the uber oldies came back after they left to say hi and make a few more posts? a lot of the older members have left (due to various reasons we might never know) and one day they might get curious and remember this place.
Snap... has it only been 10 months? Sorry, digital, I thought I'd been here so much longer! LOL.
I can understand what you mean. I remember Boba coming back out of the woodwork after a lengthy hiatus..I'm not saying that the names should be deleted for punitive purposes, but just to keep the site up-to-date. You can only have so many name, you know. And when you see names like:
Dapunk909
Daftfunk909
Dafunk909
Musique909
Daftfan909
(these are ONLY EXAMPLES)
it gets a little boring. The words Daft, Punk, Funk,and 909 can only be mixed around so many times. God forbid we make original names! *giggles*

In case of a crash, it its much easier to restore everything witought less 300 or so members.

So that the server runs faster, without it being so cluttured.

And to make searches easier.
This is what i was kind of getting at, especially with the old/locked threads.

[piroteki]

we don't have a policy of deleting inactive accounts. i can't say i would be in support of it, either. i don't know a ton about the logistics of it, but i do remember once hearing something another site where this was frequently suggested about how deleting inactive accounts would actually make the system slower. now, i'm not sure if this is applicable to our system as well, but basically, the idea is that since every account is numbered numerically, deleting inactive accounts would leave gaps/holes in the database, and would make accessing/searching the database inefficient because it has to accommodate for those holes.

i think deleting inactive accounts like that would also kind of harm our forum in the long run, because i think deleting an account also deletes all associated posts, which kind of ruins the archival discussions and stuff, and might possibly mean the loss of some important information.

besides that i think your suggestion of 6 months to a year is probably not long enough. i've taken hiatuses from other sites longer than that, so it wouldn't be terribly surprised if anyone did that here. just recently i started using an account i made on a Japanese social networking site. the last time i used that before two weeks ago was over two years ago! (not to mention that such a policy might end up deleting some of our important/influential members! both of my fellow admins don't log in very often at all. i wouldn't be surprised if Spud has gone 6 months without logging in at some points, and bout's been pretty close to that at times as well.)

additionally, i think deleting the accounts/dropping the member count might make the site seem somewhat less appealing. after all, if you saw a site with 300 members, versus one with 2000 members, which would you think is more interesting and successful? surely the one with more members, right? i think people understand that most of the time the vast majority of a website's population is going to be either lurkers or completely inactive. it's just the way things work.

i also don't think that deleting old accounts would inspire people to come up with more interesting usernames. they're going to be combining that sort of stuff regardless. lol


-------------------------------------

regarding threads. there shouldn't be a bunch of locked threads. we try not to lock threads, since we can now merge them. when we do lock them, however, we leave them within view for a couple days or so so that the OP can see that their thread was locked as well as a reason why, so that they don't do it again.

there are a few locked threads which we've purposely left in view because, for example, the discussion was useful up until a point where the thread was locked to prevent a disagreement from escalating, but the rest of the information is still useful. -or- the topic is brought up so many times, we've left it visible for reference so that the question won't be asked again.

other than that, however, we shouldn't have a lot of locked threads. if you see them, then report it to your nearest moderator so that it can be moved out of view.

i see no reason, however, for deleting really old threads. for me personally, there's a sense of nostalgia in some of the older threads (yeah, yeah, i know, i'm old), so it would be a bit sad to see some of those memories go away! additionally, there are lot of these old threads which, even though they're not currently discussed, do contain a fair bit of useful information if ever people might need/want to reference them, so deleting them would mean losing that information. finally, deleting the old threads would also delete all the posts within them, and so all of the oldbie's post counts would plummet, and i can't imagine people being happy about that.

if you're really bothered by seeing a bunch of these old posts/threads, however, there are settings which you can change via your CP which limits what is displayed for you. you can set a cutoff date of material, so you won't see all of the really old stuff unless you specifically go looking for it.

i don't think that the number of posts/threads should be overwhelming, i think it's fairly standard that if you're visiting an established forum, there's going to be a significant amount of threads already in place. it's not like you'd have to go back through and read everything that's ever been posted here, lol!

[nothing]

Snap... has it only been 10 months? Sorry, digital, I thought I'd been here so much longer! LOL.
I can understand what you mean. I remember Boba coming back out of the woodwork after a lengthy hiatus..I'm not saying that the names should be deleted for punitive purposes, but just to keep the site up-to-date. You can only have so many name, you know. And when you see names like:
Dapunk909
Daftfunk909
Dafunk909
Musique909
Daftfan909
(these are ONLY EXAMPLES)
it gets a little boring. The words Daft, Punk, Funk,and 909 can only be mixed around so many times. God forbid we make original names! *giggles*

This is what i was kind of getting at, especially with the old/locked threads.

I don't think it's really fair to delete people's accounts. Well, unless they are SPAMBOTS. Real people in. Spambots out. Oh, and I think I am the perfect example of an original username.

[spamwichx]

I don't think we should delete old threads.
I love looking through the archive, seeing random threads about cats and lobsters and crazy stuff <3

Don't forget the Busy P war.
We cannot have that thread deleted despite the face it is locked.

[dmcefc]

I'll just do my first post in a while here so I don't get deleted.

6 months is too short it needs to be the length of time between albums ,because when there's not much DP news about the threads on here turn to random chatter or repeat threads asking questions that have been answered a million times.

When we get close to a new release most people will return.

[cda]

In case of a crash, it its much easier to restore everything witought less 300 or so members.

So that the server runs faster, without it being so cluttured.

And to make searches easier.

I don't think the webserver will crash just because of some inactive members and threads.
The server won't crash. Unless someone is pinging the site and stuff.
The threads and members are saved in the database on the host.

[ION14]

I'll just do my first post in a while here so I don't get deleted.

6 months is too short it needs to be the length of time between albums ,because when there's not much DP news about the threads on here turn to random chatter or repeat threads asking questions that have been answered a million times.

When we get close to a new release most people will return.

True. I hadn't thought of that.

I hope everyone understands that I'm not bashing old threads and inactive users. It is good to see hundreds of members, but when people do log on here and make a name... the hundreds don't seem like so much when 40 log on a day.
Either way, I think everyone has given their opinion; and the majority feel its a bad idea.

[piroteki]

Either way, I think everyone has given their opinion; and the majority feel its a bad idea.

yeah, in a perfect world, people would only create accounts if they were serious about partaking in and contributing to the community, but i think it's generally assumed that the vast majority of any internet user is that they're too busy with their real life, and not going to place much emphasis on your website. lol

even though it kind of ended up being a majority in disagreement with you, if you have any other suggestions for the site in the future, you know, still post them and stuff. i hope this didn't discourage you.

[ION14]

yeah, in a perfect world, people would only create accounts if they were serious about partaking in and contributing to the community, but i think it's generally assumed that the vast majority of any internet user is that they're too busy with their real life, and not going to place much emphasis on your website. lol

even though it kind of ended up being a majority in disagreement with you, if you have any other suggestions for the site in the future, you know, still post them and stuff. i hope this didn't discourage you.

I guess this was just my hope that the world was perfect, then. :D
I still don't think this gives them right to make a name then never be heard form again. I'm a college student juggling school, work, and my ailing grandfather. But I still find 20 minutes or so to log on and keep touch. But hey, that's just me.
And believe me, I wasn't put off at all by this. To be brutally honest, I know no forums that actually do delete inactive users. Call it strange OCD, but it irks me when you see 1,000 users active in the last 2 years, and 200 active in the past 2 weeks. Oh well.