Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 70399	2006-07-02 01:37:00	PF1 Stupid question time	beetle (243)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
467881	2006-07-02 01:37:00	The member list.............. if a member is not using their account..when does the option of deleting or disabling this membership? come into play? who choose's if its not been used for a year? or 2? as when checking some of the birthday list people some are not regular members.so they day they sighned up they left sort of thing? How do we tell what is a true membership / users list then? how many are no longer here? can admins go thro and cull these absent / invalid members?? or is this not possible? I go to lots of sites, and if you are not active in the last months they give you 30 days to reply to a post and if you dont you get deleted....? do we not worry about excess numbers here? beetle	beetle (243)
467882	2006-07-02 01:56:00	In these types of forums, a "member" may only have one query every year or so. Why would you want or need to cull the account? There is no commercial reason to do so either, as advertising revenue or sponsorship revenue could possibly be linked to membership list numbers at some point in the future, if not now. For the few bytes of disk space used to hold the rarely used profile, not much would actually be saved in a monetary manner. I have never used a forum that has a "use it or lose it" policy. (But then again I may not stray into some areas that you do beetle.....) :)	godfather (25)
467883	2006-07-02 01:57:00	Why worry about it? How do inactive members affect you? They will use a little bit of disk space for their registration information. Some regular users regularly waste far more diskspace by quoting whole postings when they want to comment on one line. :(	Graham L (2)
467884	2006-07-02 02:00:00	Ah Beet..............tell us more about these other "sites" you frequent. Nudge nudge wink wink. Candid sites are they?	Winston001 (3612)
467885	2006-07-02 02:02:00	:( Forget i said anything........	beetle (243)
467886	2006-07-02 02:11:00	We can't do that. This thread is preserved for all time on the IDG disks, and soon on the Google archive of every word written and every picture taken ... NSA are scanning it (courtesy of the Waihopai station) as it hums over the wires.	Graham L (2)
467887	2006-07-02 02:47:00	OK beetle I'll help you out here by adding an even more irrelevant question - so that we can share any ignominy... As I recall, my list of members currently watching on the forum used to be in alphabetical order, but with my own name first. Now it has no obvious order, though I'm still first. So ... Is my memory wrong? How is today's order decided? Why was it changed? How's that for an totally unimportant but curiosity-arousing question?	Laura (43)
467888	2006-07-02 02:54:00	I suspect it's now just "however". Apart from the "me" first, it might be "last login" first, or "last login last" . It's probably a "performance enhancement" chnage. The pages we see are produced dynamically (the page I see is not the same as the one you see), so the sorting of the list of logged on users might take a noticeable time when there are a lot of people on. It might be a real problem on other sites using this software who might have hundreds or thousands of people logged on.	Graham L (2)
467889	2006-07-02 02:56:00	Laura pressf1.pcworld.co.nz beetle :rolleyes:	beetle (243)
467890	2006-07-02 03:35:00	Thanks for that link, beetle. I see the sunject came up recently when I was away from home & had no comp access - but Foxy & you were on the ball. Interesting that Mary didn't think it had ever been alphabetical. I confirm it was. And equally interesting you never did get an answer... So I guess we go with Graham's "performance enhancement." Can't say it enhances anything in my mind - but neither is it a problem. I prefer to think the searchbots are chewing the names up & spitting them out as they travel. That's more of a fun picture.	Laura (43)
1 2 3 4