[Dawson]

How come you don't deleted those members who have 0 posts and haven't been here in a long time???

I was looking over the members section and there is alot.

 

[D-Man]

Because then the forum will have A LOT less members. And having a lower member number doesn't look good compared to forums with more members.

Well, that's how I look at it with my board atleast.

 

[WWF Angel]

What is your idea of a long time? A week, a month, a year?

Maybe they haven't been here for awhile cause their puters broken, or they have other lives or they're on an African Safari...:lmao

Maybe they haven't posted cause they have nothing to say thats not already been said to death.

 

[Dawson]

It's about pride in members that post.

Not with numbers.

Edit: a long time would be 2 months or more.

 

[BabyBoy]

It's about numbers.

 

[Dawson]

I was trying to look at where I compare to other members with a post count.

There are 2034 pages of members, and all I stoped looking for post at around page 1900 and still members with zero posts.

And who have not been here for 2 months or more.

I say they go.

 

[MrkLrn¹³]

So what if they don't post? Just leave it like that...

 

[WWF Angel]

Not with numbers.

Wrong answer...LOL

It's about numbers.

Looks like it is about the numbers there Dawson...LOL

 

[Dawson]

Will this forum be reduced down by 50% or what? 15%?

I don't know I'm n00b. LOL

 

[WWF Angel]

I say they go.

That I would say is up to the admins., besides who are you to say they should go?

 

[BabyBoy]

I'm an admin and I say they stay.

 

[WWF Angel]

I'm an admin and I say they stay.

Jesus has spoken and stay they shall...sorry there Dawson looks like the powers that be have spoken and its a no go on your idea.

 

[Dawson]

That I would say is up to the admins., besides who are you to say they should go?

It was just my vote.

How many 0 post members are there anyways?
----------------------
Edit: I couldn't find the exact number of members with zero post since I got a "This page can not be displayed."

But it was close to 200 pages of members with at least one post.

50 members per page X 200 pages of members =

= 10,000 posting members and about 90,000 with no posts.

10,000 members or 15,000 lets say is not bad, nothing to be ashamed of.

Going for member records?

 

[Kaneanite]

Nope, I just don't see why we would waste our time with such a trivial thing. What's it hurt?

 

[Roughbuoy]

Some just want to see whats in here. and in order to do that you have to register....

 

[Kaneanite]

It wasn't always like that...

 

[BreakdownV1]

LOL yeah, let's destroy W-E's hard work and one of the biggest causes of people joining for no reason.

 

[Flash]

I say they go.

Good job it's not up to you then. It is about numbers, like BB said. Also, how is two months a long time? What about when people go off to college, get a new job, move house, go travelling etc and can't get online for however long?

What a silly, silly idea.

 

[Nitemare]

I've said this before but I'll type it up again since it's been a while.

We get about 3,000 registered users coming to this forum daily. We only get a few hundred (or less) registered new members daily. How many post daily?

Going by that obviously members with no posts still visit. I'm not deleting by date because why force those who have registered to reregister? Our database can easily handle it, the numbers count IS accurate (last I looked it says "registered members," not "registered members who have posted"), and it hurts no one.

Waste of time to argue about it. They stay.