Inactive Accounts - Delete or not to Delete?

[Mandoli]

Apr 20, 2015 11:55:23 GMT -8 @womenonly said:

Inactive people are disinterested in being an active forum member.

Not true. One of my members went two months without coming to the board. He came back late last month and has frequented the board a lot since returning. He probably had a life to live.

People on my site take breaks due to schedule conflicts or mental health. When they find the time to return and contribute (or at least return to see what's new), they'll come. Give them time.

EDIT: Fixed the quote tag.

[Former Member]

I just today had a visit from a poster that had not posted in a year and a half.
I am glad I didn't delete her account. I don't see the harm in keeping accounts and not deleting inactive ones.

[Bones]

Apr 20, 2015 11:55:23 GMT -8 @womenonly said:

Inactive people are disinterested in being an active forum member.

They do not care if they are deleted or not deleted.

They do not know they are deleted because they stop returning to that forum.

I think you're mistaking that with "Zero posters" IMO. Inactive members at least have posted, and there's always a chance why they may come back thus why I personally don't delete them. Whereas it's "zero posters" that never post on the board (alot of the time)/care if they get deleted/not deleted and mostly do not to return to the forum. As I have said in before in this thread (Way, way early in this thread in the early days) I only delete the zero posters (After 6 months, to keep a true member count) and not inactive accounts as the original question asks.

[Mandoli]

Apr 26, 2015 6:13:44 GMT -8 Bones said:

Whereas it's "zero posters" that never post on the board (alot of the time)/care if they get deleted/not deleted and mostly do not to return to the forum. As I have said in before in this thread (Way, way early in this thread in the early days) I only delete the zero posters (After 6 months, to keep a true member count) and not inactive accounts as the original question asks.

I've had people who haven't posted come to the board and lurk. It's probably a preference.

[Bones]

Apr 26, 2015 8:56:35 GMT -8 Mandoli said:

Apr 26, 2015 6:13:44 GMT -8 Bones said:

Whereas it's "zero posters" that never post on the board (alot of the time)/care if they get deleted/not deleted and mostly do not to return to the forum. As I have said in before in this thread (Way, way early in this thread in the early days) I only delete the zero posters (After 6 months, to keep a true member count) and not inactive accounts as the original question asks.

I've had people who haven't posted come to the board and lurk. It's probably a preference.

Your probably right, I just think there has to be a cut-off point, but that's my preference (6 months) and a whole other discussion. I don't think there's any right or wrong answer there - with that, again personal preference.

[nariadreaming]

We don't delete inactive members, but for us it's more a matter of time. With 8,000 members and growing, it takes entirely too long to delete zero-posters.

[Evylyn Rose]

Apr 20, 2015 11:55:23 GMT -8 @womenonly said:

Apr 20, 2015 10:16:27 GMT -8 Mandoli said:

What kinds of sites do you two run? I couldn't see people just getting rid of inactive accounts on a general/themed topic board. I've had people leave for a little bit, only to come back. I ask people on my board to not delete their account, just in case they find the time to return. There's always the possibility of adding a ton of new content that might be attractive to them. Or they just have busy lives and don't have the time to get on the board. What good does deleting inactive people do?

Inactive people are disinterested in being an active forum member.

They do not care if they are deleted or not deleted.

They do not know they are deleted because they stop returning to that forum.

I view inactives the same way. In some cases, these aren't zero posters, but people who were active in the past but lost interest or otherwise have different priorities now. Whenever I clear out inactives, the process involves announcing that a clean-up will be coming and then a series of at least 3 mass emails (just in case one or more end up in spam folders) over the course of a minimum of 2 weeks. Anyone who does not respond to the emails or a clearly designated thread gets deleted. I used to do this on a monthly basis when we were highly active with new members joining daily, but I've found this to be unnecessary. At least once a year on an active forum is usually sufficient.

Over the years, I've had (and welcome) members who remain lurkers, never posting or only posting once and they always respond to the clean-up so long as they are still interested. They may be silent participants (sometimes not even logging in), but I consider them active.

If inactives cared about being deleted, had intentions to be active now or in the future, or otherwise plan to return, they would respond in whichever way they are most comfortable with. If any deleted members later decide they want to return, they are always welcome to rejoin.

[Former Member]

Apr 27, 2015 11:30:55 GMT -8 Evylyn Rose said:

Apr 20, 2015 11:55:23 GMT -8 @womenonly said:

Inactive people are disinterested in being an active forum member.

They do not care if they are deleted or not deleted.

They do not know they are deleted because they stop returning to that forum.

I view inactives the same way. In some cases, these aren't zero posters, but people who were active in the past but lost interest or otherwise have different priorities now. Whenever I clear out inactives, the process involves announcing that a clean-up will be coming and then a series of at least 3 mass emails (just in case one or more end up in spam folders) over the course of a minimum of 2 weeks. Anyone who does not respond to the emails or a clearly designated thread gets deleted. I used to do this on a monthly basis when we were highly active with new members joining daily, but I've found this to be unnecessary. At least once a year on an active forum is usually sufficient.

Over the years, I've had (and welcome) members who remain lurkers, never posting or only posting once and they always respond to the clean-up so long as they are still interested. They may be silent participants (sometimes not even logging in), but I consider them active.

If inactives cared about being deleted, had intentions to be active now or in the future, or otherwise plan to return, they would respond in whichever way they are most comfortable with. If any deleted members later decide they want to return, they are always welcome to rejoin.

Inactive and disinterested members are just that.

I do delete inactive members.

[TVC]

Well, here's the thing. I do activity checks every month, as well as send both an email and PM. Not only that, but I do both at least thrice. If you're telling me that you didn't get an email or PM, or even if you did, and don't post in the activity check thread, you're getting deleted. Yeah, it sucks to delete members who have been around for awhile. But that is no excuse for not replying to an activity check thread that is heavily talked about. Besides, old and inactive accounts on forums with low active members just makes the site seem tacky. That's why I try my best to keep the member count and active members balanced.

[Boy_Wonder]

I move inactive members to an inactive account and archive characters. If they remain inactive for 3 months or more OR they only show up once a month to "blow hot air" in the cbox? They get removed permanently because its a waste of everyones time. They're always welcome back however

[Former Member]

I don't really see a benefit to deleting them. Too much extra work for trivial reasons that most people won't notice anyways. I'd rather spend time on something else. Not to mention they might stumble back one day, being on their proboards dashboard is free advertising imo. If the inactive member count gets out of hand I can just edit the code and remove the default member count mechanic & replace it with an estimated active count or some sort of census. 

[xtheascendedonex]

I think for forums like my own that are just getting off the ground keeping an active member count is crucial for appearances for interested parties. I have a core of four excluding myself that frequent the forum and post regularly. Anyone else zero posts or otherwise give a false impression of struggle. I think this is especially important for Role Play forums since it's so heavily member to member social. Hopefully, one day if my forums member count grows I'll approach such things differently.

That's just my opinion on the matter.

[♥ ℒʊ√ ♥]

Apr 22, 2015 11:26:25 GMT -8 @apple1 said:

I just today had a visit from a poster that had not posted in a year and a half.
I am glad I didn't delete her account. I don't see the harm in keeping accounts and not deleting inactive ones.

I completely agree, @apple1.

I don't see any reason to delete them. If they're not causing harm, they're welcome to stay.

[Cuethelaugh]

Honestly it takes a minute for someone to reactivate a deleted account (as long as you don't delete their posts). They can always come back if they want but I feel like it's lying to guests if you have a site count of 300 with maybe... 3 people active. It makes the site look less than stellar as a first appearance. Then again I guess if you don't really care about that that's totally your prerogative. For me I'd far rather be honest in member count and be on top of my admin (bridging on OCD) duties which for me includes site upkeep, being impartial, and that is a part of being on top of membercount/inactive accounts.

But to each their own of course! That's just my personal preference.

I reuse what I said earlier "You could be an amazing soccer player that everyone loves and who is very talented.. But if you stop coming to games/practices what then? Do they just hold a spot because they like ya and have that gap there (causing slowed game play) or do they bring someone else in?". I find that with rp boards this is imperative.

[♥ ℒʊ√ ♥]

It's just a matter of perspective and choice. I don't think either way is wrong. As they say, "to each their own". 

But if someone has taken the time to join a forum, they are a member whether active or not. So it's a truthful count.

The only dishonesty in member count would be if one person joined 10 times to artificially inflate the numbers.

Personally, how many members a forum has isn't important.

For most, it's about content and the interest in that content that's important.

If a forum had just three active members and the content was interesting to someone, their low member count should be a non-issue.