** Clean Up proposal - Removing old, never active accounts **
For purpose of internal discussion and to gauge people's opinions, I am opening a discussion topic on this subject -- here, in Public.
I had very recently brought this up internally, in a Staff only area (essential for sensitive discussions, and common in all internet sites).
The image included in this post is a snapshot of my post there - - which looks much nicer than it could ever be here (until we get better, enhanced text format supported).
This idea was motivated by my belief this deserves attention, and by a very recent post by Paul Sutton -- asking what the meaning of 'active'users is on the server stats displayed at the front doors.
My post follows, in Text form. Look forward to your comments, suggestions and participation. Thank you.
---------------------------------------------
A pet peeve of mine.
I would have done it myself. Proposing here for discussion and possible action.
* that long term, never active accounts represent a Zero value added to instance.
* that such accounts can be dormant ones for video sharing people, as we had before
* that high number of users doesn’t really matter, this is my personal opinion.
I propose that :sparkler:
* inactive accounts, zero posts ever, older than a certain threshold, be eliminated.
A report from the admin panel could provide some stats on how many those would be
The threshold I would suggest – one year and older, inactive, Nuke applied.
Thank you.
------
Screenshots included :
1. Forum post snapshot.
2. The content of this post, as seen in a properly full formatted way. Markdown enhanced.
🇳🇱
The counter points to this:
1) We already seperate out stats between active users and registered. So by removing old accounts it would make the registered number useless as we would effectively be reducing it to the active count. Aside from perhaps being dishonest to our users it prevents us from actually being able to know the ratio of active users to registered users, as the registered user count doesnt represent anything meaningful.
2) Users who register with no activity represent 0 value, but also represent 0 negative sides. They do nothing to decrease the quality of the instance
3) users may wish to have an account for read-only purposes. There is no harm in that
4) we can not truely delete accounts, it looks more like a suspension. This means users can not re-register later without them emailing an admin. This adds extra work load on admins, hassle for potential users, and with no gain.
5) there is no easy way to suspend accounts on the criteria you suggests. Someone (me?) would have to invest time and energy to write a script to do it.
6) many users want a server with expiernce and a history. The registered user count reflects this. For that reason many users pick their instance specifically because they have a large registered user count. so we would be doing ourselves harm
It seems to me there are quite a few down sides to doing this and not a single positive effect I can think of... What, exactly, is to be gained by doing this?
Fair points there, I was just thinking about how people may see the number of active uses vs registered users.
As an alternative we can come up with a text explanation to counter any arguments people may have for that.
I believe that a reported number of users who have :
* at least bothered to login once, in the past 12 months.
* posted a single Byte in the instance.
...is not in any way distorted.
Mastodon network user count is approaching 4 million accounts, as seen in the Stats posts in federated timeline.
Well -- how many of those are similar Zombie accounts?
How many are multiple accounts held by one single active user for some reason ? (I have about 12 atm, and increasing. With reasons)
I don't want to spend much time arguing, my logic is on the OP above, and I have other projects to spend time on -- more ideas deserving attention and effort than time, which is precious.
So carry on, let's hear the people's voices.
@design_RG @freemo
I agree here, worth discussing anyway.
I am more thinking that the critics I come across will pick up on anything,
But if you consider that Facebook has what is it now 3 billion users, how many of those users are zombie, duplicate or robot accounts.
> But if you consider that Facebook has what is it now 3 billion users, how many of those users are zombie, duplicate or robot accounts.
Lots of them -- years ago it was easy and quick to get a completely Bogus new account up and running. It's harder now, as these have been abused badly by state agents on campaigns against other countries.
See also, 2016 US election, 2016 Brexit referendum, and likely... 2020 US election, again.
@freemo
Seems this solution would be the best way to satisfy your concerns without having the downsides then, since you mostly just want better reporting of dormant but once-active accounts:
I understand that. But we are trying to solve problems here, not just dictate solutions in isolation of the problem.
I am trying to understand **why** you want to see that so I can help come up with the best solution to resolve the problem, rather than just blindly jump to the solution.
As I said it seems your concerns is there is no statistic for people to know dormant but once active numbers (as that was your explanation of the problem and what the solution you proposed solves).
As such the link I provided gives a solution to the problem you mentioned without the downsides that your solution would cause.
@design_RG
I'm afraid I dont see why this is circular logic.
@zleap