On Deleting Metanet's ZPAs

[aids]

Out of the ~1859 total accounts on our forums, ~993 have zero posts. Of those, how many have been inactive for over a year? I don't know, and I'm trying to find out how I can.

These ZPAs (Zero Post Accounts), while harmless and innocent, still congest our Members list. I recommend deleting the accounts which have been inactive for over a year. That would lower the total quite significantly I'm sure. This is hardly a high priority, but I'm simply bringing it up for discussion.

I couldn't see a way to sort users by both post count and date last active, but that would be the easiest way to do this. How do you guys feel about this?

[Vyacheslav]

How is this a problem? Who cares if people register and then never post?

[blackson]

How is this a problem? Who cares if people register and then never post?

I think it would be nice to to know how many people are active on our forum. It gives a much more accurate look on how large our community actually is.

Maybe create a user group that you're automatically admitted to once you achieve x number of posts?

[origami_alligator]

Or set it so that accounts are deleted after either 1 year of inactivity OR a number of years equal to their post count.

[Universezero]

How is this a problem? Who cares if people register and then never post?

I think it would be nice to to know how many people are active on our forum. It gives a much more accurate look on how large our community actually is.

Maybe create a user group that you're automatically admitted to once you achieve x number of posts?

I agree with this. Don't delete the accounts; just have a usergroup for active members. I recall an older member once saying that ZPAs are the life-blood of the community. Suki, I think.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I recall an older member once saying that ZPAs are the life-blood of the community. Suki, I think.

Definitely wasn't me.

[fawk]

Or set it so that accounts are deleted after either 1 year of inactivity OR a number of years equal to their post count.

After 1 year of inactivity, you get sent an email: Do you still want this account? Then they can choose for themselves. Of course, if they don't reply to the email, then we have to assume they're dead.

[aids]

Or set it so that accounts are deleted after either 1 year of inactivity OR a number of years equal to their post count.

After 1 year of inactivity, you get sent an email: Do you still want this account? Then they can choose for themselves. Of course, if they don't reply to the email, then we have to assume they're dead.

You know, with 993 dead people on our hands, we might as well call it a genocide.

[fawk]

Metacide.

[999_Springs]

At first sight, misread as "ON Deleting Metanet's ZAPs". Momentarily experienced slight discomfort.

[scythe]

How is this a problem? Who cares if people register and then never post?

I think it would be nice to to know how many people are active on our forum. It gives a much more accurate look on how large our community actually is.

Maybe create a user group that you're automatically admitted to once you achieve x number of posts?

We could call it "metanembers"!

[Kablizzy]

I recall an older member once saying that ZPAs are the life-blood of the community. Suki, I think.

I don't think I used the word "Lifeblood."

I think I'm in a unique perspective here, seeing as how I have numerous accounts on forums that I rarely visit, have never posted on, but still have an account at to troll around. Having to remake accounts on all of those forums every year for the past thirteen years would have been prohibitive in my return to those places. The only time we've ever deleted "inactive" accounts was during Keron's time, and once he was deposed by the strong fist of... Well, the rest of us, we stopped doing it, because it's kind of a dumb idea, and takes more effort for no tangible benefit.

I think it would be nice to to know how many people are active on our forum. It gives a much more accurate look on how large our community actually is.

We know exactly how many people are active. 1859 minus 993 or so.

[ENT474]

999 ZPAs, actually. Some of them had pretty weird "locations", of them. I don't think that -too- many access their accounts often.

[Geti]

We could call it "metanembers"!

Oh you cad.

Regardless, just get some statistical analysis modules and call it a day, unless the zpas start eating your disk space with their noposts.

[aids]

Yeah, like I stated before, this isn't a very important issue. But Blizz, what if you only use an account for trolling, you would still be active. There are ZPAs in our forums who have been inactive for over two years. They are cluttering our members list far too much. Unless they were moved into a hidden group, deleting them would be the best option.

[999_Springs]

At first sight, misread as "ON Deleting Metanet's ZAPs". Momentarily experienced slight discomfort.

999 ZPAs, actually.

Some of them had pretty weird "locations", of them.

Ummm... Is this thread a plot to overthrow me or something?

[a happy song]

Ummm... Is this thread a plot to overthrow me or something?

Overthrow you from where, exactly?

[Kablizzy]

Yeah, like I stated before, this isn't a very important issue. But Blizz, what if you only use an account for trolling, you would still be active. There are ZPAs in our forums who have been inactive for over two years. They are cluttering our members list far too much. Unless they were moved into a hidden group, deleting them would be the best option.

No, I... Not trolling in the retard sense, trolling in the... Lurking. Browsing, I mean. I can't fathom that being the best option, and rather posit that it is the worst option. Your move... *member*.

[fawk]

Ummm... Is this thread a plot to overthrow me or something?

Overthrow you from where, exactly?

From his godly position in the community.

[aids]

Yeah, like I stated before, this isn't a very important issue. But Blizz, what if you only use an account for trolling, you would still be active. There are ZPAs in our forums who have been inactive for over two years. They are cluttering our members list far too much. Unless they were moved into a hidden group, deleting them would be the best option.

No, I... Not trolling in the retard sense, trolling in the... Lurking. Browsing, I mean. I can't fathom that being the best option, and rather posit that it is the worst option. Your move... *member*.

Okay, I did use the wrong word. Sorry. But you missed my point. Even if you don't have any posts, you would still be active. I'm saying that we need to delete the members with zero posts who aren't active.

[Kablizzy]

Yeah, like I stated before, this isn't a very important issue. But Blizz, what if you only use an account for trolling, you would still be active. There are ZPAs in our forums who have been inactive for over two years. They are cluttering our members list far too much. Unless they were moved into a hidden group, deleting them would be the best option.

No, I... Not trolling in the retard sense, trolling in the... Lurking. Browsing, I mean. I can't fathom that being the best option, and rather posit that it is the worst option. Your move... *member*.

Okay, I did use the wrong word. Sorry. But you missed my point. Even if you don't have any posts, you would still be active. I'm saying that we need to delete the members with zero posts who aren't active.

Oh, right. I would agree with that if there were any way to tell who's active and who isn't.

[Universezero]

Oh, right. I would agree with that if there were any way to tell who's active and who isn't.

No posts in 6 months = inactive. Easy. Any exceptions (raigan, etc.) will obviously not be deleted.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Oh, right. I would agree with that if there were any way to tell who's active and who isn't.

No posts in 6 months = inactive. Easy. Any exceptions (raigan, etc.) will obviously not be deleted.

I have numerous accounts on forums that I rarely visit, have never posted on, but still have an account at to troll around. Having to remake accounts on all of those forums every year for the past thirteen years would have been prohibitive in my return to those places. The only time we've ever deleted "inactive" accounts was during Keron's time, and once he was deposed by the strong fist of... Well, the rest of us, we stopped doing it, because it's kind of a dumb idea, and takes more effort for no tangible benefit.

[Kablizzy]

Oh, right. I would agree with that if there were any way to tell who's active and who isn't.

No posts in 6 months = inactive. Easy. Any exceptions (raigan, etc.) will obviously not be deleted.

Oh, so we're deleting *All* accounts who haven't posted within 6 months. So blue_tetris gets deleted. And AF. And every other huge member of the community who we guarantee will return, right?

[Geti]

You can check the last time someone logged in quite easily IIRC, though Dave still gets the chop on a 6 month cap. A basic algo to determine "activeness" wouldn't be too hard to set up though, (post count + 3) months would be rough, but good enough considering any lurker will check back at least each 3 months even if they're using a ZPA. Dave would have a few hundred years to login again.