Clearing up the Dead Wood.

[Libertine]

Not sure of this is the right section, but since it's the most-read one, I thought I'd place this here. Our membership now seems huge, but lots of these members appear to be inactive or have moved on. Jeff and Myriads- can you incorporate a program into this site to delete the memberships of anyone who doesn't log in, say, at least every three months? (Some email providers delete accounts if not used for a month.) A policy of this nature would clarify the number of active site users and show us a truer picture of our numbers.

Anyone agree?

 

[MasterPaladin]

we all have fun here I am just wondering what difference it makes to have an exact number. there are thousands who visit. it sounds like a lot of work for nothing.

 

[BlackestLily]

I like the idea. Seems more clean and accurate I suppose.

 

[kis123]

My feelings are mixed on this one for the same reasons PurrBast and MasterPaladin mentioned. Besides no one can be sure why a member hasn't posted; they could be ill or dealing with a personal matter. Seems counterproductive to delete that account without knowing what the issue/s behind it.

Just my .02 cents............

 

[karategirl18]

My feelings are mixed on this one for the same reasons PurrBast and MasterPaladin mentioned. Besides no one can be sure why a member hasn't posted; they could be ill or dealing with a personal matter. Seems counterproductive to delete that account without knowing what the issue/s behind it.

Just my .02 cents............

Yea, you've got a good point. Last year i lost my internet for about 8 months, and couldn't visit the site during that time. But i came back as soon as i got the net back...just my personal opinion, but i woulda been really upset if my account had been deleted cause of that.

 

[Wolf]

I'm with kis123 on this

My feelings are mixed on this one for the same reasons PurrBast and MasterPaladin mentioned. Besides no one can be sure why a member hasn't posted; they could be ill or dealing with a personal matter. Seems counterproductive to delete that account without knowing what the issue/s behind it.

Just my .02 cents............

I think it's putting an unfair restriction on people who don't feel the need to log in as often as the 'core group' does.

Isn't there enough of the "Us & Them" mentality going around?

 

[Redmage]

I'm not sure why it's important to have accurate count of active members. Can you explain the benefit?

 

[MasterPaladin]

I'm not sure why it's important to have accurate count of active members. Can you explain the benefit?

that was my thought. seems like a lot of work for nothing. I have been gone 6 months at a time and once for a year and as was said I would have been pissed if I got deleted.

 

[Perduabo]

You never know when these people may decide to come back though.

It really wouldn't be fair to them to try and log in only to discover that their account has been deleted. All the feather awards, private messages they saved, ect.....gone.

It would be nice if we could figure out a truer and more accurate number of active members, but I see this almost as a sort of punishment.

Just my two cents though, nothing personal 🙂

 

[BOFH666]

Not sure of this is the right section, but since it's the most-read one, I thought I'd place this here. Our membership now seems huge, but lots of these members appear to be inactive or have moved on. Jeff and Myriads- can you incorporate a program into this site to delete the memberships of anyone who doesn't log in, say, at least every three months? (Some email providers delete accounts if not used for a month.) A policy of this nature would clarify the number of active site users and show us a truer picture of our numbers.

Anyone agree?

I'm sorry but this is just about the worst idea I've ever heard on these boards, and that includes the political debates.

I thought this was meant to be an inclusive community? A site dedicated to bringing together those with a shared interest. An interest which, by its very nature, has people very VERY nervous about posting or commenting here. And yet here's a suggestion that says if you don't post at least once every three months you're not welcome?

My account wouldn't have survived this criteria several years ago. Why? Because I was screwed around by another member on here so badly I couldn't stand to look at the forum for a long time so I went away, focused on the UK forum and scene and gradually came back. But if I'd returned to a little message saying "We're sorry but because you're not dedicated enough to these forums your account has been deleted" I'd never have visited again.

Over the last few years I've played a very very small part in building the community over here in the UK and the one common thread, the ONE thing that links all newcomers to the scene, has been that initial hesitency to really get involved. The TMF has been instrumental in promoting the tickle community and moving it from basically nothing to something that supports many many munches, regular gatherings, daily radio shows, a small army of video producers and a medium-sized country of creative talent contributing in a thousand and one ways to the community over the years. And it's always, ALWAYS been based on that single principle that all are not only welcome to be here but that they can take their own time and path to discover as much, or as little, about this fetish as they like.

I don't know, maybe it's because I can still remember the nerves I had the first time I posted, the fear at actually meeting people in public for the first time clearly. But I'd expect better from someone who's been around the community for so long and is so highly regarded on the TMF. To throw away the core element that makes this place so unique for the sake of book-keeping.... I'm stunned that it's even a suggestion.

And I appologise here and now for being angry about this, I apologise for ranting but not for one moment do I apologise for the sentiment behind that anger. This would be nothing more than an attack against those who do not conform to someone's ideas of what a useful member of the community is and that sickens me.

 

[TMF Jeff]

I don't love this idea because it seems like a lot of busy work for the staff with no visible benefit, but I do want to point out that libertine is suggesting people who don't log in, not people who don't post.

 

[His Divine Shadow]

We did this at the TickleTheater some time back, purging all users who had accounts over a year old AND never confirmed their accounts. Wiped a huge chunk off of the membership database and likely is the reason the TMF has more members today, as the Theater had a not-insubstantial lead back then. No real gain to it here, aside from freeing up the usernames, and it does inconvenience those members who do eventually decide to return. It has happened before that a lurker who registered and never confirmed eventually returned to use their account.

 

[Capnmad]

Wow -- lotta' opposition to this that I wouldn't have expected. I support this, actually, though I'd negotiate the term of inactivity beyond three months to maybe six months to a year. The desire for me would be simple accuracy -- we can say we've got 85,000 members or whatever, and maybe we put feathers in our caps because of that, but we all know that's bull, and those numbers are ridiculously inflated with one-timers, dead sockpuppets, forgotten password accounts, old aliases, etc.

I'd just like to know how many are on here regularly... Perhaps if folks are averse to eliminating old accounts, why not have a program that lists the number of folks who've been active in the last three months as a recurring statistic at the bottom of the index page, like it already lists how many are on currently... That way, it's inoffensive and informative.. Wha'd'ya think?

 

[BOFH666]

I don't love this idea because it seems like a lot of busy work for the staff with no visible benefit, but I do want to point out that libertine is suggesting people who don't log in, not people who don't post.

With all due respect, what's the difference? The principle is the same - if you're not here for three months you're not welcome. I'd love to know how many long term members would actually survive that selection criteria. How many people join, have a look around, maybe watch a video or two and then retreat, afraid of their own reactions, only to come back months or even years later when they've had time to get over that first shock?

If they're an active user who's confirmed their account then they should be a member for life IMO. Even those who registered and never confirmed should only really be touched if there's an operational requirement for it to be purged (exception to this is for obvious spam accounts). It's simply too personal a thing to many people to predict their reactions or set such limitations. If the TMF server ever starts to struggle under the load then maybe such a thing would have to be considered but I can't believe that's the case or would be for many years to come.

 

[BOFH666]

Wow -- lotta' opposition to this that I wouldn't have expected. I support this, actually, though I'd negotiate the term of inactivity beyond three months to maybe six months to a year. The desire for me would be simple accuracy -- we can say we've got 85,000 members or whatever, and maybe we put feathers in our caps because of that, but we all know that's bull, and those numbers are ridiculously inflated with one-timers, dead sockpuppets, forgotten password accounts, old aliases, etc.

I'd just like to know how many are on here regularly... Perhaps if folks are averse to eliminating old accounts, why not have a program that lists the number of folks who've been active in the last three months as a recurring statistic at the bottom of the index page, like it already lists how many are on currently... That way, it's inoffensive and informative.. Wha'd'ya think?

The thing is if all you want is a count then that can be done (as you said) by about ten minutes of programming. Just write a little tiny PHP script, probably no more than ten lines, that goes into the database, counts all those users who have logged in at least once between the current date and your cut off point, and pop it up as the 'active members' figure on the home page right after the existing 'members' count. Simple, easy and doesn't need any removal of user accounts. Hell, have it run once as a scheduled job at midnight by the system clock and save that figure in the database then you won't even have a performance hit when loading the main page. I have no problem with that at all, I have a major problem with chucking peoples accounts out because they don't meet some arbitrary standard level of acceptable activity.

 

[Wolf]

Spot On.

With all due respect, what's the difference? The principle is the same - if you're not here for three months you're not welcome. I'd love to know how many long term members would actually survive that selection criteria. How many people join, have a look around, maybe watch a video or two and then retreat, afraid of their own reactions, only to come back months or even years later when they've had time to get over that first shock?

If they're an active user who's confirmed their account then they should be a member for life IMO. Even those who registered and never confirmed should only really be touched if there's an operational requirement for it to be purged (exception to this is for obvious spam accounts). It's simply too personal a thing to many people to predict their reactions or set such limitations. If the TMF server ever starts to struggle under the load then maybe such a thing would have to be considered but I can't believe that's the case or would be for many years to come.

I think it's a bad idea, no matter what the rationalization. In the most unflattering of perspectives, it could be seen as another not-so-subtle way of deciding who's worthy of being here, and who's not. I'm still stumped as to what the benefit could be, aside from space.

 

[BOFH666]

I think it's a bad idea, no matter what the rationalization. In the most unflattering of perspectives, it could be seen as another not-so-subtle way of deciding who's worthy of being here, and who's not. I'm still stumped as to what the benefit could be, aside from space.

Sorry, should have made it clear above, I'm with you on this, I don't see the point really but just wanted to say that IF it were to be implemented it's basically just a case of querying the databse that runs the site to get the relevant figures.

 

[MasterPaladin]

If this were in effect I would have been deleted about 6 times and not to happy about it

 

[Musicroxmysox]

Hmm....yea I don't think this would be fair at all. Having the names isn't a big deal. It's not really effecting anything. No point.

 

[Libertine]

It's a reasonable compromise

The thing is if all you want is a count then that can be done (as you said) by about ten minutes of programming. Just write a little tiny PHP script, probably no more than ten lines, that goes into the database, counts all those users who have logged in at least once between the current date and your cut off point, and pop it up as the 'active members' figure on the home page right after the existing 'members' count. Simple, easy and doesn't need any removal of user accounts. Hell, have it run once as a scheduled job at midnight by the system clock and save that figure in the database then you won't even have a performance hit when loading the main page. I have no problem with that at all, I have a major problem with chucking peoples accounts out because they don't meet some arbitrary standard level of acceptable activity.

A clarification: to me, signing in indicates you are a participating member, simply because only by signing in can you completely access the content of the site. I don't care about how much or little a member posts, but I regard signing in as leaving a visiting card, indirectly thanking the site administrators and mods for the site, and acknowledging your fellow participants, by letting them know you've been here.

 

[baldadonis]

I think it's a bad idea, no matter what the rationalization. In the most unflattering of perspectives, it could be seen as another not-so-subtle way of deciding who's worthy of being here, and who's not. I'm still stumped as to what the benefit could be, aside from space.

The benefit is being able to say, the TMF has x amount of active users as defined as, in this case, those that log in every 3 months.

I wouldn't go so far as saying this has any relation to deciding who is worthy and unworthy. Those that would be purged would merely have to log in once every few months to remain. They don't ever have to post or could be complete asshole(s) and remain.

That said, I also do not see the point of this endeavor. At the end of the day, who really cares how many "active" users we have? Who really cares whether TMF has more "active" users than TT? It seems like it is just going to result in a substantial amount of members being pissed off when they learn that their accounts were deleted and now have to reregister, or maybe they choose not to reregister this time.

Life takes people away from the forum sometimes. I know there were stretches in my 7 years here where I lost track of this site for many months. But I'm still here. Lets let the inactive people be and maybe some of them will return over time as well.

 

[baldadonis]

A clarification: to me, signing in means you are a participating member, simply because only by signing in can you completely access the content of the site. I don't care about how much or little a member posts, but I regard signing in as leaving a visiting card, indirectly thanking the site administrators and mods for the site, and acknowledging your fellow participants, by letting them know you've been here.

If perhaps your suggestion was limited to only those that have never signed in after a period of time following registration, I think it would be more reasonable. I think once someone signs in once, they should be viewed an active member and can choose to sign in subsequently as often or infrequently as they like.

Again though, I still don't see a benefit to the forum or its users in doing this.

 

[Redmage]

Wow -- lotta' opposition to this that I wouldn't have expected.

I'm not passionately against it; I just don't see any value in it that would justify the effort, or the possible annoyance for people who return to find their accounts deleted.

With all due respect, what's the difference? The principle is the same - if you're not here for three months you're not welcome.

The difference is fairly important. The system can tell the difference between someone who doesn't post and someone who doesn't come here at all. So someone who just lurks would not be deleted.

Not that I favor the idea either way, but it is different.

 

[BOFH666]

To clarify: to me, signing in means you are a participating member, simply because only by signing in can you completely access the content of the site. I don't care about how much or little a member posts, but I regard signing in as leaving a visiting card, indirectly thanking the site administrators and mods for the site, and acknowledging your fellow participants, by letting them know you've been here.

Okay, my personal situation - I worked my arse off for almost a year to provide content to the community in the shape of tickle fiction. I was up until 2 in the morning about 4 nights out of 5 just writing and I did it because I genuinely loved giving something to the community. I then had a very bad personal situation with another member which I don't need to get into here. I left for, probably, about 6 months because a) it was too painful to look here and be reminded of what happened and b) because I'd met my Angel from here and we were in the young love stage of the relationship. Result - banned for not acknowledging my fellow particpants despite leaving a body of work behind for them to enjoy.

I popped in and out for a while then didn't come back for another 6 months+ because I was busy helping the UK scene grow including organising two gatherings (one of which you attended by the way). Result - banned for daring to try and get people together.

Again, in and out of the forum and then away for almost a year as my job went utterly crazy throwing 70+ hours at me a week. Result - banned for daring to have a life outside of the internet and not being able to log on to a fetish forum from the work PC that was my cell.

Since then I've come in as I please, sometimes a couple of times a week, more often once a month or so. But when I do it's usually to contribute my own small piece to the growing mountain of original content here. Most recently I, along with several others, have been putting a lot of effort in to make a major push to get the UK scene up and running to a greater degree than ever before. Part of that was writing the Ticklepedia, designed to help newcomers understand their fetish and the scene. There was, indeed, a three month period where I didn't log in here. Result - Banned for putting my creative energy, my time and my effort into trying to help my fellow ticklers and ticklees.

So you're telling me that by your standards I haven't done enough for this community? That somehow I'm being disrespectful of those that spend time and energy and money maintaining this place (despite worshiping his divine shadow on a regular basis as we admin the tickle brits site)? That I am, to use the topic title, 'dead wood'?

 

[Capnmad]

The thing is if all you want is a count then that can be done (as you said) by about ten minutes of programming. Just write a little tiny PHP script, probably no more than ten lines, that goes into the database, counts all those users who have logged in at least once between the current date and your cut off point, and pop it up as the 'active members' figure on the home page right after the existing 'members' count. Simple, easy and doesn't need any removal of user accounts. Hell, have it run once as a scheduled job at midnight by the system clock and save that figure in the database then you won't even have a performance hit when loading the main page. I have no problem with that at all, I have a major problem with chucking peoples accounts out because they don't meet some arbitrary standard level of acceptable activity.

Well, there we go, then. No one's putting the standard at "posting" anyway, but define "activity" as logging on. 10 lines of code, you say, to count those who've logged on in the last 3 months? Shouldn't be too much of an inconvenience, should it? We get a better grasp of numbers, no one loses membership, almost zero hassle for staff, and happiness reigns. 🙂

Jeff, et al., is this doable?