Have you considered pruning the user list?

DoctorP · 31 Jul 2006

I understand it is nice to say you have 19,500 members, but have you ever considered pruning the user list (it is quite cumbersome). There are way too many members who have joined, and didn't even post once and have never been back.

Just a thought.

RockLee · 31 Jul 2006

I was thinking about that too actually. It would be good if all the members who posted 1 time or a few OR who aren't active for more than 1 year were pruned.

DoctorP · 31 Jul 2006

I realize it would be time consuming, I would be willing to do it, that is if the administration is willing to deflate the forum numbers.

RockLee · 31 Jul 2006

Problem is, only Administrators can do that Mods can't

DoctorP · 31 Jul 2006

good point

Maciamo · 31 Jul 2006

There is no good reason to prune members who haven't posted yet. Who is to know which member is never going to post and which have been waiting some time before their first post ?

DoctorP · 31 Jul 2006

It was only a question! But I guess you are right. If someone joined Oct 4, 2003, has 0 posts, and last visit Oct 4, 2003...they might very well bust the door down today and make their first post! I see your logic now.

(a quick search brought up 4,224 people with no posts that joined before 1-1-2005...of which probably 1/2 have never revisited the site)

Maciamo · 31 Jul 2006

It's good for the record to keep all members who have signed up. This way we can make statistics (country, age, gender...) about the evolution of our members in time. It is vital information for a stats lover and marketer like myself.

DoctorP · 31 Jul 2006

Yes, I said in my 1st post I understand that saying 19,500 sounds better than saying 15,000 members. It just seems quite deceptive is all.

Elizabeth · 31 Jul 2006

Maciamo said:
It's good for the record to keep all members who have signed up. This way we can make statistics (country, age, gender...) about the evolution of our members in time. It is vital information for a stats lover and marketer like myself.

Has anyone ever looked at whether the number who sign up and never post or stop after 1 or 2 has increased as a percentage of the total from one or two years ago ? If you're talking about seriously marketing to increase active membership, good luck ....it really does seem the regular posters keep dwindling to an ever smaller and smaller group.

DoctorP · 31 Jul 2006

Maciamo said:
It's good for the record to keep all members who have signed up. This way we can make statistics (country, age, gender...) about the evolution of our members in time. It is vital information for a stats lover and marketer like myself.

I just want to be clear that I did understand the reason for the higher number being used...that was clear when I posted the question.

note (I'm not stupid, I just dumb myself down so that others may join the conversation!)

kohlrak · 31 Jul 2006

Elizabeth said:
Has anyone ever looked at whether the number who sign up and never post or stop after 1 or 2 has increased as a percentage of the total from one or two years ago ? If you're talking about seriously marketing to increase active membership, good luck ....it really does seem the regular posters keep dwindling to an ever smaller and smaller group.

Yea... i havn't been here long and i've already heard complaints about my post rate. This place has so many members, but at the same time few post, and i get complaints about my own posting rate. Not my fault they don't post as quickly. I found this place using yahoo, and hoping to find some decent information. My actual purpose for joining was to answer a question asked 2 years ago but was never answered. So, i looked around a bit and decided to stay.

Have you considered pruning the user list?

DoctorP

先輩

RockLee

Hullu

DoctorP

先輩

RockLee

Hullu

DoctorP

先輩

Maciamo

先輩

DoctorP

先輩

Maciamo

先輩

DoctorP

先輩

Elizabeth

先輩

DoctorP

先輩

kohlrak

Guest

Similar threads