[Fool's design]

Hello everyone!

These places (FoolsDesign.org, TechTalk.cc, ParanormalStories.com) are not run as a "majority rule" but neither are they run as a "dictatorship" where only one voice matters. Even though, we (the people behind these Web sites) put considerable amount of time and money to keep things running smoothly, we still seek guidance from our visitors and especially our members before making any kind of major change.

Although we do not post new content daily, we have no plans or wishes to become yet another Internet graveyard, that is why we need your help on this specific subject.

Considering that visitors are not forced to create an account and join as members in order to post comments, create new threads or access the contents of the Web sites...
...what are your thoughts about how to handle inactive members?

• At what point does a member count as inactive? 30 days from the last visit? 3 months? 6 months?
• Is a member considered inactive when an email from us bounces back and does not reach that member?
• Once a member is considered inactive, what course of action to take? Delete the acccount?
  (Bear in mind that any action taken toward an inactive user, will not ever mean deleting a user's old posts.)

Please make your voice heard and discuss this subject.

Thank you.

291255-19130-37.jpg (16.38 KiB) Viewed 8224 times

[!]

One of the most depressing aspects of a forum is to see registered members who have not visited the Web site for months! I personally don't consider them members at all and they shouldn't be taking up even one byte of space in the database. All old posts kept and no threads deleted, of course.

I say, torch the accounts but keep thep posts.

article-2546569-1AFEA83500000578-485_634x720.jpg (80.34 KiB) Viewed 8222 times

[Fredledingue]

Hello, my first post in maybe six months... so I think I'm concerned...LOL!

IMO six months -not less- should be considered as abandonned membership, then the membership can be deleted.
But it's always more polite to send a warning e-mail telling that the account will be deleted unless the user takes some action to maintain his/her account.
If you want to speed up the cleaning process, you can send such e-mail after 3 months.
If the e-mail remains unanswered it's clear sign of disinterrest and the account can be deleted after, say, another 2 weeks.

If an e-mail bounce back, then it can be by website rule that the account will be deleted. Because without sign of life and without any mean of contacting the person, what do you want to do with that person?

[Steven W]

My opinion, six months minimum. I like Fredledingue's idea too, send email, if bounces back immediate end, if not wait two weeks. Whatever you decide, make sure that new members are made very much aware.

[TmEE]

Deleted user posts would be all converted to guest posts, and if the user ever decides to return after being pruned he/she could get those posts back. It would work out quite well I think.
6 months is too long IMO, 3 is getting right on the edge. Send mails before potential pruning and see if they get answered, rest would be like what has been described above. I am sure fred here would have chimed in if you people made this exact message months ago

[I, user.]

I agree that they should be removed, after all, no one is forcing people to join here as you say. They can all still use the functionalities if they just want to visit once or twice a year. I think 6 months is way too long and I like the number 4 better than 3. I don't think a warning is even needed. If the member "cared enough" then he/she wouldn't have "forgotten" about this place so why even bother sending a warning and put extra work on the admins? Just delete the user once the 4 months mark is hit.

[TmEE]

I think a better idea is to do scheduled prunes like once or twice a year. You can send out a mass mail to all the members (or perhaps only to the ones that have been inactive) and go on from there.

[Fool's design]

Hi,

Don't forget all the people, who are reading a lot, because they are ...
learning !

[It will take a whole lot of time to come back to the times, where the most important thing for most human beings was ... to instruct others.
But I admit that, from a certain point of view, it may not be important to see how many people are active and how many are only reading. It would nevertheless be nice, if you could make the distinction (between passive members and members who never show up (even passively)). But, if I understand correctly, this requires that I enable cookies. ... And, logically, this would further require ... that I trust.]

Cheers
Rodger

Our reply:

Hello,

Thank you for the reply and your thoughts.

In order for our login functionality (and other future features) to work correctly, cookies are needed. Without enabling cookies, there can not be a login function. Granted, phpBB allows cookie-less logins, we do prefer the use of cookies because we can add other functionalities with ease (we are working on a few new features which will be released soon enough).

Now, it is not a problem if you do not trust our Web site(s) enough to even enable first party cookies on our domain(s), we don't have any issue with that. You are still most welcome to visit. Although, by disabling cookies, your account will not work properly because you are technically unable to use your member account and its features in a proper manner.

For example, without the cookies, when we do a listing on the members, there is no way of telling if a member has visited lately or not. Only when a member is logged in, are we able to see this. The stamp on your account's last active date is currently set to "Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:30 pm".

If you do not trust us enough, then there is no way that we will look at you as a member. What is the point of being a member if that "member" does not trust us enough to even use our login functionality in a proper manner? We do not seek nor want such "members".

Again, we welcome you to continue reading, following and using our Web site(s). In no way, do we limit our content for non-logged-in users and we never even asked or forced you to create an account. You can still create new threads, post replies and access the full content including downloading attachments. The entire point of us enabling full functionality for non-logged-in users is that we do not wish to have dead and junk accounts like other Web site(s).

However, in our view, a person without enough trust to even enable the first party cookies for our domain(s), does not deserve to have an account.

/Regards
Fool's design

This needs repeating one more time:

We welcome you to continue reading, following and using our Web site(s). In no way, do we limit our content for non-logged-in users. We never asked or forced you to create an account. You can even create new threads, post replies and access the full content including downloading attachments. The entire point of us enabling full (basic forum) functionality for non-logged-in users is that we do not wish to fill our database with dead and junk accounts like other Web site(s).

So, pretty please... with sugar on top, if you want an account, you must enable cookies.
..and if you don't trust us but you still want an account? Well, you can respectfully, fuck off.

[Fool's design]

Ok,
my account is herewith cancelled. To be clear, this means that your reply didn't satisfy me.
Good luck for your site !
Roger

Our reply:

Not a problem. We will delete your account.

Thank you for your time.

Ps. We will keep his account 30 more days just to be nice. Perhaps he changes his mind.

Another email:

Sorry, one last point; this has nothing to do with YOU IN PERSON or with the site FOOLS DESIGN (the name of which I find very original). It's the same problem with ALL internet sites. .... There is a huge societal problem!

Roger

Our reply:

No worries Roger, we understand your position.

An education in Internet technology should do you good, however. Without cookies, a proper login is not technically possible. Once you understand a technology and how it is used, then there would be no fear because you would be able to identify when that technology is misused and when it is used in a proper way. First party cookies are harmless because they can not be read by third party Web sites.

If you look at our cookies closely ( they are in plain text ), you would see that there is nothing harmful or shady about them -->

fool's design cookies.PNG (6.58 KiB) Viewed 8193 times

Basic PHP session for logins and basic visitor counting. Nothing more, nothing less.

But as they say, suum cuique pulchrum es, to each his own is beautiful.

Good luck and have a nice day!

/Regards
Fool's design

Indeed, this Web site is very original.

[I, user.]

You know, that "RodgerOver" is an uneducated idiot. Yes, I am offending him.

I wonder if he ever shops online? Go tell that to eBay that you won't accept their cookies but you still want to shop there! *lol*

Typical foolish behaviour where someone hears a little something, maybe even a headline, about an issue and without seeking further knowledge into the matter, the person assumes he now knows all about it and bases his decisions upon no solid ground. Hell, I would even dare to say that many people base their decisions on almost an opinion which has no factual basis.

I see them as nothing but "dirty peasants".

(Please note that I don't mean "regular peasants". I highly respect people who work on farms. Farmers working on the land are the ones feeding us all and we should all respect them.)

peasants-hearthlge.jpg (454.64 KiB) Viewed 8188 times