View Full Version : Should 2 year inactive accounts be formatted?

January 3rd, 2009, 7:57 AM
I have been thinking recently, should we delete the inactive accounts?

Besides clearing chances that an Username is taken unfairly by an account that was active but then was forever gone 3 years ago, since the FAQ states it's only possible if post count is 0, it also clears up clutter that is very unnecessary in the member list and birthday list. An account that has been inactive less than 2 years is bound to MAYBE return, because it happens. But beyond 2 years is already abandonment

What do members and staff think about this?

January 3rd, 2009, 8:13 AM
I think the only motive of deleting old accounts would just be so that you can take that person's username...other than that, they really aren't bothering you are they?

January 3rd, 2009, 8:17 AM
They DO make hassles in the member and birthday list as well. I also see no point in keeping them either.

Squeegee Beckenheim
January 3rd, 2009, 8:17 AM
Pardon me if I am wrong, but don't all the old accounts take up a boatload of space on the server which is something we really need to protect?

mewthree w/armor
January 3rd, 2009, 8:22 AM
From what I know about site policy...even before the server switch we don't delete accounts because some of those accounts have made relevant posts. Steve can give you more details on our policy when he responds, but even when we had server problems, we didn't delete accounts. We did prune old accounts with no posts though. There were thousands. X_X

With the new server, from what I know, this has become less of an issue.

Squeegee Beckenheim
January 3rd, 2009, 8:24 AM
And even more since the server switch, wouldn't you say mewthree. I think it is pretty crazy how many people just sign-up and never post or post only once.

January 3rd, 2009, 8:31 AM
The majority of people who sign up just sign up to view the hacking attachments; that's the first place they are when they sign up.

January 3rd, 2009, 8:39 AM
I can understand pruning old accounts with 0 posts that are older than 2 years old. That's not an unfair pruning policy. Considering how many noobs we get who sign up and never post, it's not harmful. However, If an account even has one post, it has the right to be safe from pruning indefinitely.

January 3rd, 2009, 12:13 PM
I think anything over a year old with 0 posts should be deleted without question. It creates some more server space as well as opens up usernames for new users. And there's really no reason not to delete them unless you want to pillow the stats of the forum.

January 3rd, 2009, 12:28 PM
The accounts are part of the history of the community, and some people may come back. For example, The Hunk, he came back after a long period of time of being inactive. Deleting them for usernames isn't such a good idea.

January 3rd, 2009, 5:34 PM
Would it be possible to compress inactive accounts?

January 3rd, 2009, 5:45 PM
I came back after two years-ish. :3

I don't really see the point though, I heard that there's a ton of space on this server so the only reason I can see is so that they don't appear on the birthday list.
Who cares? :/

January 3rd, 2009, 5:57 PM
Pardon me if I am wrong, but don't all the old accounts take up a boatload of space on the server which is something we really need to protect?
An account with zero posts (as this thread is talking about) takes up practically nothing.

Bare with me for a second, I'm going to talk a bit technically. Looking at it in terms of disk space and talking about accounts with zero posts... the account takes up almost no space at all. The chances of that person having filled out profile information or anything like that is pretty small, so the most they're taking up in the database are a username, a password, and an email address.

Most usernames are no longer than 10 characters, to that's 10 bytes. Passwords are encrypted in a way that takes the size up to about 32 bytes. Email addresses are usually 20 or so characters, so that's another 20 bytes.

Totaled up, that's 62 bytes on average. There are 1024 bytes in 1 kilobyte, and 1024 kilobytes in 1 megabyte, and 1024 megabytes in 1 gigabyte. Considering we have gigabytes and gigabytes and gigabytes of disk space on this server, 62 bytes for even 32,000 inactive accounts is, what, roughly 1 megabyte or so?

tl;dr version: inactive accounts are taking almost nothing on our server in terms of disk space.

Mr. Epic
January 5th, 2009, 11:17 AM
Remember that some members do come back after a long time and so even members who have been away for two years.
However, they could always just make new accounts if they want to come back, and if they only had a few or no posts it wont really be a problem to them.
It does not take disk space but it does slow down and cause problems for the server which is worse.
With the new server as mewthree said it has become less of a problem but its better without any problems.
I don't like the idea deleting of accounts and I think this policy PC have therefore is sort of good.
I have mixed views on this, I don't know what to say!

January 5th, 2009, 11:27 AM
I suppose if they have important posts they could be reposted?

I dont really mind so much, I've got over the fact that I cant have certain usernames.

Hiroshi Sotomura
January 5th, 2009, 2:46 PM
In regards to our old policy of deleting accounts with zero posts at regular intervals, that policy can't really be applied today. Since the opening of the Wi-Fi forums, which allow for posting without adding to a user's post count, if we were to specify for zero-post accounts to be removed, we'd wipe out some of the forum's traders as well.

(Though, a database query method used to see if there ARE any posts assigned to an account would certainly be useful in this regard.)

Ninja Caterpie
January 5th, 2009, 2:53 PM
If you deleted people with 0 postcount, if they posted in Trivia, the threads may get screwed slightly too. And TCTI would be murdered. :D

Virtual Chatot
January 5th, 2009, 3:22 PM
I think you should, although the amount of work it would take ages X_X;

January 5th, 2009, 3:31 PM
I think anyone should be deleted that has not been on since 2 years or more and hasn't even posted. It will make the forum more organized and it will be easier to search for members. It also allows others to have certain Usernames that they wanted, even though that they could come back, they could always make a new account if they only posted a few. They might not take up Server Space, but it makes the forum more organized.

January 5th, 2009, 3:34 PM
The policy is 0 posts and inactive for 2 years, no?
If I'm wrong, just disregard what I say :P

If a person doesn't come on for two years and has 0 posts and they for some reason decide to come back on, since they don't have any posts or friends (etc.) it would be easy for them to create a new account.

January 7th, 2009, 5:54 AM
I honestly thinl if it's a huge issue with taken names, the member could request to take the name of an inactive user and have the old users name suffixed with a particular character. If this creates an issue with returning members, the member should be sent an email with the new name if they have >100 posts.

I remember wanting a name, only to find the member had 3 posts in their own welcome thread, 3 years ago... Maybe these cases could be at an Admin's discression? (I am not asking for special treatment, here, just trying to get a point across.)