13 replies to this topic

[iBotPeaches]

I sent out a mass email (I don't know if you got it) and specified to send 25 emails per 10 minutes. However, it thought I said 2 emails per 10 minutes so as of last week it was still running clogging our SMTP server.

I got like 10 PM's of people unable to log in, starting with khoas and ending with unknown. So yeah I should have looked earlier.


Also, as of 10,000 members we will require an e-mail validation when you register. This is because I'm tired of getting 1000 bounced emails since you guys enter fake ones. I just never forced it upon people because myself hated validating them.

StevenSVE, caratti, Joe Walls, Jeehs and Legacy I remember off the top of my head have invalid email addresses.


Tomorrow the news post of our forum re-order and clean up will be posted, based on the opinions given by you guys.

[Dark Slipstream]

I agree, it is much needed. I enabled it at 9,000, someone disabled it >.>.....


Btw, can you make EVERY CURRENT MEMBER validate their email? (Somehow)

[diet]

Dark Slipstream, on 20 June 2009 - 05:00 PM, said:

I agree, it is much needed. I enabled it at 9,000, someone disabled it >.>.....


Btw, can you make EVERY CURRENT MEMBER validate their email? (Somehow)

or prune members with 0 posts?

[SmokiestGrunl]

Dark Slipstream, on 20 June 2009 - 05:00 PM, said:

I agree, it is much needed. I enabled it at 9,000, someone disabled it >.>.....


Btw, can you make EVERY CURRENT MEMBER validate their email? (Somehow)

Would of been Peaches because he didn't want it at the time.

diet, on 20 June 2009 - 05:55 PM, said:

or prune members with 0 posts?

We don't want to get rid of members, some member just troll never posting.

[Dark Slipstream]

Yea exactly Smokie, we'd look pretty gay if we deleted people because they just come for stuff.

Maybe prune members with 0 posts, and last signed in before June 1st, 2008. (There's like 4135 lol....)

[SmokiestGrunl]

Dark Slipstream, on 20 June 2009 - 06:48 PM, said:

Yea exactly Smokie, we'd look pretty gay if we deleted people because they just come for stuff.

Maybe prune members with 0 posts, and last signed in before June 1st, 2008. (There's like 4135 lol....)

We still don't even want to loose them because it bumps up the members number.

[iBotPeaches]

I hate deleting members until were a very successful site, because member count is what separates some sites at this point.

[diet]

iBotPeaches, on 20 June 2009 - 08:26 PM, said:

I hate deleting members until were a very successful site, because member count is what separates some sites at this point.

No, active members is what separates sites. You can have a site from 2002 with over 30,000+ members but if only 50 or so are active and posting whats the point? You having a bigger number then a competitor is not always good. I take it sarcasm from DS, so to Smoke why would you want members that just troll and don't post or don't give anything at all to the community and just leach? You wouldn't want 5,000 people that just walk around your store and never buying anything, would you?

[iBotPeaches]

I naturally don't join a site if they have less than 1000 members, since it just doesn't appeal to me. However, your argument is good. If we ever get 30,000+ members I think I would prune by then, I think establishing a member count is important until you hit a certain limit, because that is what some people look for when joining a site.

[Dark Slipstream]

Too bad you can't move ID's back.

So for all the deleted members, everyone's Member ID could be rolled back. :/

[iBotPeaches]

That would be such a mess though.

The member ID is the primary key in any mySQL database, messing with that throws everything off. Thats why its best not to ever mess with it.

[diet]

iBotPeaches, on 21 June 2009 - 05:03 AM, said:

I naturally don't join a site if they have less than 1000 members, since it just doesn't appeal to me. However, your argument is good. If we ever get 30,000+ members I think I would prune by then, I think establishing a member count is important until you hit a certain limit, because that is what some people look for when joining a site.

Just thought of this; Another thing you could try is to move all inactive members to an inactive group. Then whenever someone from the inactive posts anywhere from 1-5 times they will be upgraded to a normal member again. This way you can keep all your members but still weave out the ones who no longer come to the site, ones who have 0 posts, and/or ones who have not been active sense x day. I use to have a similar system on a old site I use to Co-Manage.

Also, I forgot that with pruning comes member ID confusion. So I think you should at least think about what I put above, it would be good way of showing the completely inactive members compared to active, and casual members.

[iBotPeaches]

Yeah I like that idea, currently I can only promote based on posts, but maybe there is an option somewhere to demote in 30 days of inactivity to a new group called "Inactive"

I would make the permissions the same as "Validating" and that would prevent that inactive user from leaching content, but keeping the member count intact.

[Dan]

diet, on 21 June 2009 - 12:48 PM, said:

Just thought of this; Another thing you could try is to move all inactive members to an inactive group. Then whenever someone from the inactive posts anywhere from 1-5 times they will be upgraded to a normal member again. This way you can keep all your members but still weave out the ones who no longer come to the site, ones who have 0 posts, and/or ones who have not been active sense x day. I use to have a similar system on a old site I use to Co-Manage.

Also, I forgot that with pruning comes member ID confusion. So I think you should at least think about what I put above, it would be good way of showing the completely inactive members compared to active, and casual members.

Yeah, I also like this idea, after their first 1 or 2 posts they are promoted to "Member" from "Validating Member" (<- Or something like that).