Lurker Accounts

[B_Danceswithlamps]

I was looking through the members list, and at least 60% of all members haven't posted a single thing. That means that anyone who wants to get a name has to try multiple times to get an open name because of all the lurker members. Does anyone besides me think that having Lurker/Few Posts Accounts may be a good idea? That way, browsing through the member list would be easier, and then, new posters have a better chance of getting a name!

Is this a good or bad idea? I'm open to everthing!

 

[B_Danceswithlamps]

Aww, Ms.Lulu, no post? Whats up with that???

 

[Pecker]

Those who are listed as "Member"s but who have 0 posts should be removed from the Members List after 90 days or so.

They can accomplish the same thing as lurkers without swelling the rolls needlessly.

 

[panthera]

I have gone through phases during which I read and thought about stuff here - alot. Other times I have read and posted comments. I don't recall anyone ever being upset one way or the other.
I have a suspicision that many "lurkers" are really trolls getting their jollies off - but that may just be me.

 

[Dr Rock]

Those who are listed as "Member"s but who have 0 posts should be removed from the Members List after 90 days or so.

They can accomplish the same thing as lurkers without swelling the rolls needlessly.

correct. if they're only here to read the forum, then they don't need an account to do that. I've never understood the point of signing up for something you don't intend to use, but a whole lot of folks clearly do it.

 

[chrisung]

As an occassional lurker (without an account - signing up only when I wanted to comment), I like Pecker's idea with a twist.

Though I haven't tried to do it without, I assume you need an account or at least a temp username to use the chat. I've seen several names there that I have not seen on posts (they may post where I don't look, of course but several of their profiles indicate no posts).

I don't know if there's a way to figure out sign-ins, but perhaps accounts could be deactivated after no sign-in over some amount of time, rather than a number of posts?

Removing accounts with no posts, but not taking into account chat could cause issues with some usernames as well.

Just my 2cents.

 

[D_Barbi_Queue]

Mark used to have it set up as such that if any member didn't log in within 90 days that his/her account was automatically deleted. I don't know if he set it up that way once he moved the site over to VB or not.

I liked the idea b/c the member numbers reflected our current active members(posters and nonposters).

 

[Pecker]

correct. if they're only here to read the forum, then they don't need an account to do that. I've never understood the point of signing up for something you don't intend to use, but a whole lot of folks clearly do it.

To paraphrase another famous curmudgeon:

`If they would rather lurk, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

 

[Dr Rock]

I don't get why there's a "no opinion" option for the poll. if someone has no opinion, then why the fuck would they wanna respond to a poll in the first place?

 

[Matthew]

Well, I wanted to see the yellow bar increase in size.

 

[fratpack]

All I know is, there are some people who will go on and on about nothing and there are the silent type who out of nowhere will post a very insightful comment.

 

[Pappy]

While there is nothing wrong with lurking, I think everyone should post atleast once every 60 days. Like if your a member and don't make one post in 30 days, you get sent a notice that you must make a post within the next 30 days to stay a member, otherwise your account will be deleted. 60 days is enough time to cover just about any excuse ( I was sick, out of town, computer crashed, blah, blah, blah) you can come up with for not posting in the same period of time.:biggrin1:

 

[jay_too]

I have no problem with membership lurkers. They help pay the bills that keep the site up and running.

 

[Pappy]

I have no problem with membership lurkers. They help pay the bills that keep the site up and running.

Not unless they're Gold Members.

 

[B_caneadea]

Okay.
Non-paying members get the boot after 60 days if they haven't logged on to the site during that time.
Agreed?


Then such names as:
Mr. Ed
My Friend Flicka
Champion
Trigger
Man-O-War
Whirlaway
Secretariat

will be up for grabs................................

 

[B_RoysToy]

I'm all for Pappy's suggestion, as amended by caneadea. Some activity should be required and I don't see how any member could keep from posting a minimum of once in 2 months! I just hope a maximum number of posts never catches hold, or I'll be fucked!

 

[D_Barbi_Queue]

You say that like being fucked is a bad thing.:tongue:

 

[madame_zora]

You say that like being fucked is a bad thing.:tongue:

God I missed you! Don't go away again, okay?

 

[GoneA]

do you really want all those people posting anyway?

 

[hcjones7]

As someone who posts extremely infrequently, I probably shouldn't get as much say as some of the regulars around here...

...but maybe the way to determine whether an account is to remain active should be a successful log-in every once in a while. They wouldn't need to clutter up the board with excuses; they simply need to show that they're still interested in the LPSG by signing in at least once a month, or once every 60 days, etc. If they haven't visited the board or made the effort to sign in after that period, then they forfeit their screen name.

That's my .02, anyway.