Members?

[Mikey]

No definitely not, I couldn't eat more than a quarter of 'throat and chests', though I could probably manage a few more bullseyes.

[AllInContainers]

I went to the members list (under Community at the top of the page) and put the members in order of posts. In round numbers the forum has (or has had) 50 pages of people with 45 posts or more. The next 100 pages of members are all between 5 and 45 posts, then there's just under 200 pages of members which have only made between 1 and 5 posts - maybe signed up to ask one question? The remaining 750 pages of members have never made a post in all their time here (or were spammers who had their posts deleted).

[Bigmallly]

I think keeping numbers of all previous members is a bit of kidology for perusers of the vine as it makes it look more popular than it (as we all know) already is.

[Mikey]

Well that was interesting Allincontainers, I'm midway down page 2, currently ranked 40th I believe!!

What was more interesting was the fact the women out ranking men 3-1 in the top 50, in truth I was surprised there were that many blokes!!!

[AllInContainers]

I think keeping numbers of all previous members is a bit of kidology for perusers of the vine as it makes it look more popular than it (as we all know) already is.

I believe the commercial value of forums and their associated domains are determined both by traffic, and overall membership ...

[Kristen]

In round numbers the forum has (or has had) 50 pages of people with 45 posts or more. The next 100 pages of members are all between 5 and 45 posts, then there's just under 200 pages of members which have only made between 1 and 5 posts - maybe signed up to ask one question? The remaining 750 pages of members have never made a post in all their time here (or were spammers who had their posts deleted).

I have been playing with the Members page too

100 Pages 1-100 visited in the last year (since Jan 2013)
100 : 100-200 - not visited since Jan 2012
260 : 200-460 - 2011
190 : 460-650 - 2010
250 : 650-900 - 2009
150 : 900-1050 - 2008
35 : 1050-1085 - 2007
25 : 1085-1110 - 2006
3 : 1110-1113 - 24Aug2005
7 : 1113-1120 No last visited date

2008 - 2011 either some promotions to attract members, or Forum software has improved since and fewer spammer registering, or 2011/12 was a cold winter and lots of young gardener, not yet registered, died off in the cold

I presume can only realistically remove accounts for people who have zero posts, and not visited for some time (2 years say). Cannot delete accounts for people with posts as that would either also delete their posts (which would muck up the threads) or have to re-assign the posts to "Someone who became inactive" - which would then turn any Quoting of their messages within threads into a bit of a mess.

I don't know what happens in, say, 100 years time to all the accumulated messages? There isn't much incentive to do anything about purging stale documents - disk size increases at a rate faster than most people generate "content" ... but its a coming problem, surely we don't want to store this stuff forever? but it would be sensible to keep the bits that are perennially useful (how do we know which bits they are? constantly increasing "Viewed" count maybe?). And perhaps we should keep bits that will be historically interesting - a TV series that will be popular in a couple of centuries time entitled "21st century gardening forum posts" much like "The Victorian Kitchen Garden"

[Glutton4...]

Gordon-ruddy-bennett - have you people REALLY got nothing better to do!?

Go and read your seed catalogues or something, for chuff's sake!
































Nutters!

[bearded bloke]

Ohhhh great idea G4 ^^,lets see how many of us have more packets of seeds than there are active forum members

VSP stock holders must only count personal seed packets

[Nicos]

I'm just wondering how many hours of voluntary work it would take to delete all those peeps considered
'stale non posters'????

It takes forever keeping spammers at bay ...and having to referee threads!


* wanders off for a lie down to recover from the thought of it!!!!

[Nicos]

Just had a look at that page- and I'm number!! 3

Having said that- I have just passed by 9th Anniversary on here

[Bren In Pots]

I'm just wondering how many hours of voluntary work it would take to delete all those peeps considered
'stale non posters'????

It takes forever keeping spammers at bay ...and having to referee threads!


* wanders off for a lie down to recover from the thought of it!!!!

Just think how many user names it would free up, I could be 'Bren' without the added in pots bit.

[Nicos]

...yeh- true, but that's one of the things about you wot brings a grin to yr face!!!

[Nicos]

...and of course- you'd need to buy a new hat!

[Kristen]

Matter of moments using an SQL database command - maybe that's not an option though?

[Alison]

'Tis a bit of a misleading stat though but anybody that joined could soon work out for themselves that although not that ridiculously busy it is a vibrant forum. Just checked the members page and noted that whilst most people on the first page (including me ) are regular contributors, there are at least a couple of people that haven't been on in ages and one of those last logged on over 3 years ago. Not really making a point, just found it vaguely interesting.