Missing in action

[Poorboy]

I just noticed that there are 7 birthday`s today but none of them have checked in for at least 3 years and some of them over 5 ... do you think they should be deleted from the member list

[Old Pirate]

Yep Steve.........

[RANDAL]

I secound the motion. I call for a VOTE on the motion. I know it cant be easy to do though.

[Beemerboy]

If its not causing any data problems then who would care...but if you are looking for just a general cleanup...then I would set a date of two years or there about to clean up the member list...I will say last time In had to look for someone on that list it was way big

[Poorboy]

I`d say 2-3 years without visiting the site would be a good sign they are not coming back ..the easy way would to just eliminate people on their birthday as their name shows on the birthday list

[CharlesW]

I`d say 2-3 years without visiting the site would be a good sign they are not coming back ..the easy way would to just eliminate people on their birthday as their name shows on the birthday list

Two things.
It`s not difficult.
It`s Troy`s decision whether it is done.

[Poorboy]

Two things.
It`s not difficult.
It`s Troy`s decision whether it is done.

I know it`s not hard to delete members, what I meant was instead of looking for them, just let them come to you from the birthday list

[CharlesW]

I know it`s not hard to delete members, what I meant was instead of looking for them, just let them come to you from the birthday list

You don`t even have to look for them if you decide you want to remove any members that haven`t been logged in for a certain number of days.
You just enter the time period, and zap, one key stroke and they are gone.
If as suggested, three years was the cut-off date, the number of days to enter would be 1095. Anyone that had not logged in within the past 1095 days would be removed. We wouldn`t even know who they were.

Keep in mind that it could remove some old time members and once they are removed, they can`t be restored. They could register again, though.
A couple that come to mind would be Natty Bumpo and Jeff Bruce. Do you really want to throw those two out? The namesake of Natty`s and the pioneer in campaigning for discount sales.

[Bradfordp2612]

It does good for the sites statistics.

[JaredPointer]

It does good for the sites statistics.

What, exactly do you mean?

Having a long list of people who are most likely never coming back? What good does that do? I don`t think it makes a difference one way or the other, but the one thing it does accomplish is make it hard to sort through the member list when you need to.

Keeping members around just to make it look like you got a lot of "active" members is, well,

[Pockets]

It does good for the sites statistics.

What, exactly do you mean?

Having a long list of people who are most likely never coming back? What good does that do? I don`t think it makes a difference one way or the other, but the one thing it does accomplish is make it hard to sort through the member list when you need to.

Keeping members around just to make it look like you got a lot of "active" members is, well,

I think they were agreeing with Steves first post. That it would be better too get rid of them so the site has mostly active members on it.

[Autogeek]

Wouldn`t all their old posts be removed too? I think Bradford was saying more members/posts = bigger forum = better "statistics"

[CharlesW]

Wouldn`t all their old posts be removed too?

Good question.
That could require some thought and some research if Troy has any interest in pursuing it further.

[Poorboy]

Wouldn`t all their old posts be removed too? I think Bradford was saying more members/posts = bigger forum = better "statistics"

That is true Dwayne as you know best , but there are quite a few people, (as I click on the birthday list) that have one post or never posted and never contributed to the site other than listing a name and adding to statistics

[Poorboy]

none of today`s birthday people have been on in the last 4 years