Lurkers, non-posters, other creeps

[BruceSter]

Hi there,

when I see the list of on-board members, I see more than enough who have never posted anything, and haven't even answered the questions about their gender, sexual perference and so on. Why are they still on here? Can't there be a cleanup, sweeping the member list clear of all those who just apply, and never post?

And shouldn't there be a rule to automatically delete users that have applied for and gained membership, but then haven't posted within the next, let's say, 24 hours?

Bruce

 

[major_7]

Originally posted by BruceSter@May 24 2005, 12:26 PM
Hi there,

when I see the list of on-board members, I see more than enough who have never posted anything, and haven't even answered the questions about their gender, sexual perference and so on. Why are they still on here? Can't there be a cleanup, sweeping the member list clear of all those who just apply, and never post?

And shouldn't there be a rule to automatically delete users that have applied for and gained membership, but then haven't posted within the next, let's say, 24 hours?

Bruce

[post=314202]Quoted post[/post]​

Awwww, c'mon BruceSter, do you really want to deny the lurkers and non-posters the chance to look at your lovely avatar?? Besides, it makes for hysterical reading when the real members post the PMs that they send.

 

[Dr Rock]

who cares? if they ain't posting anything, they ain't using up any server bandwidth. I personally can't understand why anyone would join a forum they have no intention of contributing to, but hey. people are fucking weird, I say leave them to it unless or until they get in someone else's way.

 

[Pecker]

I enter the forum several times a day and invariably find a couple of pages of new posts to read. Heaven forbid that it becomes 7 or 8 pages several times a day.

Besides, just how many times can one stand reading "Hi, I'm new. I'm 12 with a 10" penis. Am I average? Will I grow more?"

 

[Steve26]

I've been on various incarnations of the LPSG for 5 years and would like to think I have something to contribute. However, I didn't dive right in at first -- I lurked for probably a good six months before actually posting anything. And even once I had joined, I've had long periods where other things got busy in my life and I didn't post here for months on end. From talking to other guys here I think this is fairly typical ... lots of us found we had to "work up the nerve" to post, and/or then post only sporadically.

So I wouldn't be in favor of restricting access based on number or frequency of posts. A lot of the people here whose contributions I value the most post fairly infrequently, and some of the people whose contributions I value the least post constantly. There is certainly not a direct correlation between numbers of posts and one's value as a member (or potential member).

I'm a bit baffled by what feels to me like a recent wave of anti-lurker sentiment. I know some people have been harassed by members who may or may not be lurkers ... I've experienced such unwanted contact myself, so I understand that and don't condone that behavior. But since not all lurkers are harassers, and not all harassers are lurkers, targeting lurkers seems misguided if the "problem" is harassment via PMs or other means. As Dr. Rock said, the vast majority of the lurkers seem entirely benign, so what's the big deal??

Steve

 

[jay_too]

What is wrong with lurking? I usually check the board a couple of times a day even when I am so busy that I cannot post. Is this lurking? According to the proposed 24-hr rule, I would be a serious violator.

jay

 

[madame_zora]

Yeah, lurkers who don't bother anyone are fine. I don't mind that different people join in at their own comfort level, I only DESPISE the ones who want to remain anonymous but send me stupid PMs.

 

[13788]

carolinacurious: You are talking about the "on-board", people who are actually logged in, right?

At some point Mark may need to do something about all the names in the member list of people who haven't logged on in a long time but I just don't care what people do here as long as they don't cause a (negative) ruckus.

Personally, I never go in chat, but I notice that their are frequently people in chat that I have never seen post, some of them paying members. The board is one thing to me and something else to them and as long as they don't bother me (and in fact, some of them financially enable me to be able to come here and talk about politics for free), what do I care?

 

[Pappy]

I don't mind lurkers and non-posters but I wish ALL members would fill out their profiles, or at least their birthdate (be honest) and sexual preference. Is that too much to ask?? At least everyone would know the age of the person they're dealing with. I think the new post requirements for sending PM's is too liberal, I think a person should have to have 50 post before they can send a PM. I'm sure I'll catch a load of crap over that but that's my feelings on it.

 

[whatno]

Lurking does use the site's bandwidth, but not much seeing how the images and filesize for invision are pretty small. I doubt you'd notice any significant difference in bw usage. There are invision scripts that are specifically made for weeding out lurkers. You can set up who you want to get rid of, like, how old the 0 posters are, how many hits from their IP the site gets.. like, for dead signees.

(always back up your tables before any major sql editing&#33

 

[mindseye]

Originally posted by BruceSter@May 24 2005, 11:26 AM
And shouldn't there be a rule to automatically delete users that have applied for and gained membership, but then haven't posted within the next, let's say, 24 hours?

[post=314202]Quoted post[/post]​

I think that's an awful idea. People shouldn't post if what they're looking for are answers to basic, basic questions. In fact, when people post one of these questions that we've seen on here dozens of times, often someone will point out that the question was answered a few posts back. I'd much rather people read quietly on here than post "How big are you soft?" again.

 

[D_Barbi_Queue]

actually, the new post requirement has been killed...too many problems were cropping up.

I don't have a problem with lurkers in general until they PM me with some stupid question related to sex and my thoughts about it. If you really want to know my thoughts, just start a thread. Is it so hard?

 

[Max]

I agree word for word with what Steve26 said. As on other occasions, he is right on target. So far as I am concerned the raison d'être of a site like this is for those who have genuine concerns; many of them are likely to be hesitant lurkers and newcomers.

 

[Pecker]

I lurked on LPSG for at least a year before I finally got up the nerve to register.

Too late to get rid of me now.

Bwa - ha - ha!!!

 

[MisterMark]

The LPSG represents different things to different people. Some are here to learn about human sexuality, some are here for the feeling of community, some probably don't care about the message board and head straight for the gallery, and so on.

Everyone is welcome here. The only people who are discouraged or banned from the site are those who have shown a history of harassing other members or are seriously disrupting the discussions on the message board.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by Pappy@May 24 2005, 08:53 PM
I think the new post requirements for sending PM's is too liberal, I think a person should have to have 50 post before they can send a PM. I

Apparently I don't understand the new post requirement. I was under the impression that a new poster has to post at least ten times before he can send a PM, but I received a PM from a member who has posted only four times.

 

[D_Barbi_Queue]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper+May 24 2005, 07:01 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DoubleMeatWhopper &#064; May 24 2005, 07:01 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by Pappy@May 24 2005, 08:53 PM
I think the new post requirements for sending PM&#39;s is too liberal, I think a person should have to have 50 post before they can send a PM.  I

Apparently I don&#39;t understand the new post requirement. I was under the impression that a new poster has to post at least ten times before he can send a PM, but I received a PM from a member who has posted only four times.

[post=314348]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b]

Psst:

<!--QuoteBegin-TexAssgirl@May 24 2005, 05:33 PM
actually, the new post requirement has been killed...too many problems were cropping up. 

[post=314316]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]

Ah, it&#39;s ok....I&#39;m getting used to no one paying attention to me. :lol:

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by madame_zora+May 24 2005, 07:12 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madame_zora &#064; May 24 2005, 07:12 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>I only DESPISE the ones who want to remain anonymous but send me stupid PMs.

[post=314267]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b]

the pm creeps are another matter. I do think that people who register just to glom onto other users need some kind of slap on the wrist - not necessarily a public one, but they do need to be encouraged to behave like normal human beings somehow. I&#39;m happy to volunteer as the eHitman in this role if the admins don&#39;t have the time to deal with every weirdo personally

Originally posted by Pappy@May 24 2005, 08:53 PM
I don&#39;t mind lurkers and non-posters but I wish ALL members would fill out their profiles, or at least their birthdate (be honest) and sexual preference. Is that too much to ask?? At least everyone would know the age of the person they&#39;re dealing with.

[post=314301]Quoted post[/post]​

eh. I&#39;m not sure that&#39;s such a great idea; a lot of people do seem to value some degree of anonymity online. I don&#39;t understand it myself, but I don&#39;t think it&#39;s too much for them to ask if it keeps them happy. if you really wanna know someone&#39;s age, just ask them - if they&#39;re gonna lie, they&#39;re gonna lie anyway.

<!--QuoteBegin-whatno@May 24 2005, 09:02 PM
Lurking does use the site&#39;s bandwidth, but not much seeing how the images and filesize for invision are pretty small.

[post=314304]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]
yeah, sorry - I meant that reading vs posting uses much less, since it&#39;s just serving up pages. this might be an issue if lpsg.org were prone to server problems - some servers have time limits on their http transfers for that reason - but I haven&#39;t noticed any since I&#39;ve been here.

 

[Mestisamo]

I think that people that "Lurk" may be curious, admirers, or just shy. I also agree with the idea that there are some people that wonder if they are really ok or a sideshow attraction. I&#39;m all for the Lurkers - that&#39;s actually how I became a member.
Now, If someone wants to flame, clog the strings with nonsense and post fake/altered pictures - Those should be addressed. There are plenty of chat rooms out there where that kind of silly shit can go on, along with people gullible enough to believe it.

I had to Laugh at one guy that sent me a pic of my OWN COCK :wow: and claimed it was him..

So to all you Lurkers out there - please enjoy&#33;&#33;

 

[13788]

TexasGuy: Well, it would appear that I am one of these awful lurkers as you will note by the number of my posts. <g> I check the site almost every day. I&#39;ve never sent a PM to any of you, never flamed anybody and even became a gold member to be supportive of the board. Yet, for many of you, I and my fellow non-posters, are an ongoing source of irritation. I don&#39;t understand it but I can do my part to fix it.

Mark, please go ahead and inactivate my account. Thanks to all. I really did enjoy reading many of your postings.

Kind regards.
Rick