8,000 members....

[Nicos]

Well...very nearly!!!!

[bubblewrap]

Well...very nearly!!!!

It is not that long that we talking about 4,000 members!
Just checked it was February.

[Stacey Steve]

So many lunatics in one place, is that safe?

[bubblewrap]

So many lunatics in one place, is that safe?

What about The House of Commons?

[Two_Sheds]

7064 members as of now, but how many are active? About 200?

[piskieinboots]

that was my thought also TS - 8000 is a lot of members but how many are active....I only joined last November but even I have noticed some come and some go.

If I owned a site I would remove accounts of inactive people after xx amount of time.

[zazen999]

The real question is; how many individual 'I can't get parsnips to grow' threads will that be next spring?

I agree with the removal of inactive people, but just like all other organisations, the forum probably has targets on new members.

[Cloud]

Her indoors always tells me I'm inactive.Is that the same thing?

[dandy]

What do you define as inactive? I don't have many posts on but that is because anything that I could usefully contribute either is or has been said. I tend to lurk and sign on when I want to post/answer posts. Is this necessarily bad?

[Kristen]

I'm sure that if the PTB want to remove "inactive" folk that process could include:

Last logged on date before Some Date
AND
Registered before Some Date
AND
Number of posts less than X

However, someone who HAS posted might want to come back and modify a post, and removing their membership would prevent that (and in any case the database would be compromised if a Post had a non-existent-author - they would have to be converted to Anonymous or somesuch)

And having thought all that its probably just too much trouble to contemplate deleting data ...

[bluemoon]

that was my thought also TS - 8000 is a lot of members but how many are active....I only joined last November but even I have noticed some come and some go.

If I owned a site I would remove accounts of inactive people after xx amount of time.

Piskie's right. We joined on, or very close to, the same day, but of those who registered around the same time, I think we're the only ones who are still around. I'd de-register the inactive after a certain amount of time too, after all with nearly 8000 user names it must be becoming increasingly difficult to come up with something new and I can see a time when we start to get confused as people take a currently active name, but just spell it a little differently, or stick a number on the end....... I don't think you have to worry about that particular problem though, Piskie. When the intro thread was started I almost always used to say hello, but there simply wouldn't be time to do it these days.

[Hazel at the Hill]

I have no strong views on this, however...

... jus' as a point of interest, out of 8,000 members, nearly 1/2 have never posted, and out of the 8,000, there are 5,000 who have not visited the site in the last 12 months.

I don't find that the overall number of members either a concern, or a mark of 'success' for the site. The number of 'active' members at any one point seems to be about 200 (say) which, although that doesn't mean that we have to 'chop off' those who don't post (or visit), an email from the Powers That Be to a non active member after 6 or 12 months might encourage participation, perhaps?

[Kristen]

Would more "participation" help? Or just mean that there are so many posts that people can no longer find the time to join in?

I think that those that want to be here are, but that the majority are Googler's who find the answer to their question, or join to ask that single question - and maybe join again next year, forgetting they have done so before, to ask the next question ...