'Active' vs 'Inactive' members

[Liesje]

I know Interference takes pride in it's HUGE amount of members, but have you ever noticed that for every posting member, there's about five in a row with a 0 post count? I think it's great that people register to lurk and never post, that's their business. But would there be an easy way to classify "active" vs. "inactive" members? Like, say you're going through the list of "M" members looking for someone, could there be a column where it says you're active if you've posted in the past say...3 months? Does that makes sense to anyone? I mean, any website could have 24398475843 members but it hardly means anything if only three people post.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

i'm not sure, but i think there would be a grey area, as to what makes up an active or inactive member. i know there's people who just lurk here, especially since several people with no posts are premium.

but i suppose it could be done, but i don't know vb very well. it could be a matter of sorting by when they last posted/visited the site, or it could be a thing done by manually putting each member in a group. but i doubt it's the latter.

 

[martha]

several people with no posts are premium.

For some reason, this weirds me out.

I had contact with a person like this. It was as if this person were a CIA agent.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I had contact with a person like this. It was as if this person were a CIA agent.

Those spies get everywhere!

And I think my phone is bugged.

 

[Screaming Flower]

that's creepy.

 

[Salome]

don't know if its possible but I like this idea

 

[Liesje]

I mean, it doesn't have to effect one's status or anything besides when searching the list of members, you know who's actually posting. And then when we say "we belong to intereference and it has X active members" b/c it's sort of a bullshit number to say interference has 10,000 members (just made that number up) when like 1 out of 7 have ever posted.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

we've got 18,000 members now, and i'd guess maybe 2-3,000 of those are actually active. i've not decided yet as to whether or not my guestimate includes alters or not.

 

[Elvis]

define active.

There are people who are here on a daily basis, but do not post, or rarely post. There are people that post only every few months. There are people that get their fix from getting the U2 News weekly email, but don't visit the forum oftern. Not everyone is a daily addict of the blue crack.

Approximately 4000 people are "active" posters.

 

[Liesje]

define active.

An active member is someone who's posted at least once in the past, say, month.

I know people browse and lurk, but they can still be classified as inactive. Inactive does not = bad, stupid, or less of a person b/c you're not actually posting, it means you are inactive b/c there's no activity of your account. Simple enough, I think.

 

[Angela Harlem]

so whats your definition of active elvis, with the 4000? are they people who visit frequently regardless of posting?

this would be pretty interesting for stats...

 

[IWasBored]

For some reason, this weirds me out.

I had contact with a person like this. It was as if this person were a CIA agent.

yeah, i talked to one of those people. someone premium who never posted added me to their buddy list. scared me. i think i scared them back though.

 

[U2Kitten]

Back before you had to be premium to get PM's, I got frequent PM's from a guy with no posts. He was from England and he was very nice and pretty cool. I told him why not post, but he never did.

 

[JessicaAnn]

Not everyone is a daily addict of the blue crack.

Really? I am shocked

 

[Elvis]

I'm closing this thread only for the reason that I have no plans to identify add 'active' or 'inactive' to the members pages. Posts are already shown, and people's profiles show their activity, if they've been logged in.