Purge of zero post users

[monkl2]

title says it all.

 

users with zero posts add nothing to the forum.  I suggest purging them all greater than say 2 weeks old.....long term membership should be earned not given, even if thats just responding to a few posts.

[Da Chief of Staff]

The admins and I are working towards a system like this. I've had little to no time to work on the site other than emergencies that arise. Sometime within the week or so I will manually go through and purge all users that have not contributed at all to the forum and or integrate rules regarding minimum posting to see content.

[jimc]

Could you let us know what we can do to contribute to the site for those who cannot download anything to upload for you guys?

 

I appreciate all the hard work that the up loaders do but don't really post as I don't want to spam.

[DukeM]

So, should we just write anything on posts just so we don't get deleted? I don't think that adds anything either.

 

If that's the mindset the admins are going after then might as well remove all users that haven't uploaded/shared anything barring a few others filling a different role.

[Guest maijing]

Wouldn't having a minimum post requirement just cause people to spam "thanks"? I don't see how that really contributes to the site. Uploaders deserve thanks, but shouldn't it be genuine? If everyone has to reply "thanks," doesn't that diminish its meaning?

I get what you're trying to do, but it's impossible to force people to truly contribute. All this will do is lower the site users. I don't see how less users, less thread views, and less site visits are good for the forum.

[Guest Odysseus]

I agree with those above, would this not simply cause users to post blank spam posts simply containing "." or other similar "non-posts".

[monkl2]

these are my personal opinions and mine alone.

It aint hard to contribute.
post a hello, post a pervy GIF (if theres a general chat section), post something interesting, ask a question not related to porn....easy. I am not interested in 1001 "thanks" posts as these add zero also. id purge every one of these type of users if i was the admin 😄

This is a private site paid for by a single person, the more traffic comes thru here the more he will have to stump up to keep it running for all the leechers. Aint got nothing to share or say? goodbye 

 

 

 

 

[quantaxe]

If people with 0 posts are to purged, then before it happens they should get a forum message and email warning that they are about to be removed. I personally like to observe and read, rather than post if i don't have anything important to say.

[Da Chief of Staff]

2 hours ago, quantaxe said:

If people with 0 posts are to purged, then before it happens they should get a forum message and email warning that they are about to be removed. I personally like to observe and read, rather than post if i don't have anything important to say.

Just like when you receive a warning, all users that are slated for deletion will be provided with a message that they have to acknowledge before gaining access to the site again. We're evaluating all options and looking at other popular sites for ideas. Whatever we implement clearly not everyone will be happy.

Personally, I don't like the whole having to post to see content. I hate seeing the same generic message multiple times down the thread but I do agree with @monkl. Everyone should be able to contribute in somewhat to the progression of the forum if they want to stick around. Its as simple as thumbing up a thread that you liked or providing us with a stash of your favorite porn or posting your feedback or reporting underage content or even requesting something you would like to see in the thread. 

As the owner of this site, I pretty much setup the base and let the community take over. I only step in when I need to. This shit costs money lol. I was tired of every site that came about being broken within a week so I created something for everyone to use that benefited as many people as possible while be within my monthly side project budget (ie < $50).

I don't want to turn this site into Snahp.it where it's purely invite only but the exponential growth of the site and the ever increasing server costs has me weighing options. As long as the community is using it and people are involved this site will be up but there will be changes going forward.

Anyone that is just on here to gain content but not give anything in return will be limited in some shape or form in the coming future.

[Guest TheJuli]

Before some "restriction" is set to the users, can or will we receive a guideline on how to behave? Better said, what counts as a contribution or active memeber so we are not purged?

[SirKenros]

18 hours ago, monkl said:

title says it all.

 

users with zero posts add nothing to the forum.  I suggest purging them all greater than say 2 weeks old.....long term membership should be earned not given, even if thats just responding to a few posts.

Whilst I do agree 0 posts users add no value to the forum, I am not a proponent of your proposed user purging/culling. Not everyone can nor needs to add value in my opinion.

At the time of writing, there are currently 2,792 registered members. Following your proposed user purging criteria, given that only 96 users have posts greater than zero, 1,680 users (60% of users) would get purged.

Those few posts that you are hoping for are not going to be quality posts. So what value does that add? A lot of members have already mentioned concerns along the same lines:

11 hours ago, DukeM said:

So, should we just write anything on posts just so we don't get deleted? I don't think that adds anything either.

 

11 hours ago, maijing said:

I get what you're trying to do, but it's impossible to force people to truly contribute. All this will do is lower the site users. I don't see how less users, less thread views, and less site visits are good for the forum.

 

11 hours ago, Odysseus said:

I agree with those above, would this not simply cause users to post blank spam posts simply containing "." or other similar "non-posts".

 

11 hours ago, maijing said:

Wouldn't having a minimum post requirement just cause people to spam "thanks"? I don't see how that really contributes to the site. Uploaders deserve thanks, but shouldn't it be genuine? If everyone has to reply "thanks," doesn't that diminish its meaning?

I do agree with you @maijing, though, I would add that it's a good idea to require people to "thank" the uploader before they can view the download links.

In conclusion, I am pretty sure we are hardly at a point where server resources have become a limitation. I have hardly ever seen multiple users on the website within the same minute. @Da Chief of Staff, check the server resources usage statistics and tell me I am wrong.

As such, this proposal should be postponed and revisited when it becomes a requirement. By then, we would already have a flourishing community that people would be more eager to actively engage in rather than continue to be passive lurkers.

Edited October 23, 2019 by SirKenros

[Da Chief of Staff]

55 minutes ago, SirKenros said:

Whilst I do agree 0 posts users add no value to the forum, I am not a proponent of your proposed user purging/culling. Not everyone can nor needs to add value in my opinion.

At the time of writing, there are currently 2,792 registered members. Following your proposed user purging criteria, given that only 96 users have posts greater than zero, 1,680 users (60% of users) would get purged.

Those few posts that you are hoping for are not going to be quality posts. So what value does that add? A lot of members have already mentioned concerns along the same lines:

 

 

 

I do agree with you @maijing, though, I would add that it's a good idea to require people to "thank" the uploader before they can view the download links.

In conclusion, I am pretty sure we are hardly at a point where server resources have become a limitation. I have hardly ever seen multiple users on the website within the same minute. @Da Chief of Staff, check the server resources usage statistics and tell me I am wrong.

As such, this proposal should be postponed and revisited when it becomes a requirement. By then, we would already have a flourishing community that people would be more eager to actively engage in rather than continue to be passive lurkers.

Like I stated previously, even interacting with a thread gives you credit. A simple like of the topic or post is enough to give you credit. Every human can do that.

I never stated server resources was an issue. I have worked out much of the load with tuning the crap out of Apache, MySQL, PHP-FPM, and PHP 7.3 to where load and memory are no longer being taxed so high. They hardly go over 50 percent. This site is sharing resources with three of my other project sites and does just dandy.

In the first month I ran into three issues.

• Disk got full due to forum using it for executable template caching and killed everything on the site.
• The DO Space solely for this was using over 1TB of bandwith in a month and I was being charged over that amount for every GB
• CDN credit went negative and killed asset resources across all my projects (Profiles images and shit were broken for a couple hours)
• Cloudflare was being iffy af. (Forum couldn't keep track of IP so was forcing people to keep logging in)

I'm preparing for the future. If we got close to 3,000 users in two months who knows what the fuck is next? Like I said we're evaluating options and if we implement anything, everybody will be given clear notice. If you want to start your own forum go for it.

Nulled.to another very popular site based on the same platform has well over 2 million users and does a combination of ideas all mentioned here. They have a points based merit system that assigns risk and automatically blocks users that consistently spam threads to get to content and they require users to post to see content and they consistently clear usernames of users that aren't interacting.

What @monkl said is something that other sites do and in due time, may be something we need to look into as well. Case Closed

[SirKenros]

32 minutes ago, Da Chief of Staff said:

Like I stated previously, even interacting with a thread gives you credit. A simple like of the topic or post is enough to give you credit. Every human can do that.

I agree, and as suggested in my previous post, requiring users to "thank" the uploader before they can view the download links is a much better solution than the proposed user purging to increase the type of engagement you suggest.

37 minutes ago, Da Chief of Staff said:

I never stated server resources was an issue. I have worked out much of the load with tuning the crap out of Apache, MySQL, PHP-FPM, and PHP 7.3 to where load and memory are no longer being taxed so high. They hardly go over 50 percent. This site is sharing resources with three of my other project sites and does just dandy.

If server resources aren't an issue even though they are being shared with 3 of your other projects, why is user purging required?

42 minutes ago, Da Chief of Staff said:

Disk got full due to forum using it for executable template caching and killed everything on the site.

Relevance to matter at hand (user purging)? Plus, it sounds more of a case of poor cache configurations than anything else.

45 minutes ago, Da Chief of Staff said:

The DO Space solely for this was using over 1TB of bandwith in a month and I was being charged over that amount for every GB

What are you storing in the DO Space for this website? From what I can see, there aren't any substantial assets on this website nor the traffic to require stated data transfer (not bandwidth). I am not insinuating that you are lying, but this is my judgement based upon the limited information available to me.

52 minutes ago, Da Chief of Staff said:

CDN credit went negative and killed asset resources across all my projects (Profiles images and shit were broken for a couple hours)

Very few users even have a profile image so I am going to assume that this is a non-issue. Caching of web images, pages, libraries, etc; at least for this website should not be an issue, especially with proper usage of cache headers on assets to leverage client-side caching. Due to lack of information, I am still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on this.

1 hour ago, Da Chief of Staff said:

Cloudflare was being iffy af. (Forum couldn't keep track of IP so was forcing people to keep logging in)

Relevance to matter at hand? Anyhow, forum couldn't keep track of user's IPs? A user changing their IP whilst logged into this forum (Invision Community/IP Board) does not log them out. Must have been another issue.

1 hour ago, Da Chief of Staff said:

I'm preparing for the future. If we got close to 3,000 users in two months who knows what the fuck is next? Like I said we're evaluating options and if we implement anything, everybody will be given clear notice. If you want to start your own forum go for it.

It's good to plan and prepare for the future — I'm all for it. Whatever plan and preparations you do come up with, I recommend that you only implement them when it becomes necessary as I alluded to in my previous post.

Your highlighted statement strongly resonates with "My way or the highway". Such attitude or comments are uncalled for. I am merely sharing my opinions in a respectful manner and if you disagree with them then there's no need to become hostile — just move on if you cannot reply to them in a respectful manner. I have never been rude in any of my previous posts, as for that matter, neither in this post. Might I add, I do not need your permission to start a forum and can do so whenever I wish. However, it is not my intention to further fracture the community but rather contribute to it.

2 hours ago, Da Chief of Staff said:

Nulled.to another very popular site based on the same platform has well over 2 million users and does a combination of ideas all mentioned here. They have a points based merit system that assigns risk and automatically blocks users that consistently spam threads to get to content and they require users to post to see content and they consistently clear usernames of users that aren't interacting.

Do you not see the fallacy of comparing House Of Mega's scale to Nulled.to? Their actions are warranted due to the sheer number of their users. We are 0.0015% the size of that website and our server capacity is not constrained at this point; why must we do all that they do? One size does not fit all.

2 hours ago, Da Chief of Staff said:

What @monkl said is something that other sites do and in due time, may be something we need to look into as well. Case Closed

I agree that in due time such measures will become a necessity but that time is not upon us yet. I recommend a postponement of such measure until said time.

Case closed unilaterally? 😐 Okay...

[rons77]

This is my first post here. I “thank” posters for their content and appreciate the site. I work all the time so I’m not able to post much content.

I’ll try to post more content in the future

[thekingslayer4]

But doesn't purging 60% of the users = less AD revenue?

[Guest joker2019]

On 10/24/2019 at 8:38 PM, rons77 said:

This is my first post here. I “thank” posters for their content and appreciate the site. I work all the time so I’m not able to post much content.

I’ll try to post more content in the future

Samesies

[Guest ostento]

Speaking as a lurker, I would not like to see such a policy enacted without further official warning.

Given that this board is run by private individuals, I submit to their whims on who's appropriate and not.

[monkl2]

content split to this post: -

 

 

[Ayrton]

at theat the will of the individual who runs this place too

[anon_jerry847]

On 11/3/2019 at 9:57 PM, ostento said:

Speaking as a lurker, I would not like to see such a policy enacted without further official warning.

Given that this board is run by private individuals, I submit to their whims on who's appropriate and not.

I agree. Can't enact policy without some warning.

Additionally, I wouldn't mind having users either post or donate to keep the site up (if they don't feel inclined to post)

[Guest sixemptybottles]

Considering this forum contains XXX materials, some users might be too shy or too embarrassed  to post. This fact has to be taken into account before being purged. 

[SirKenros]

1 hour ago, sixemptybottles said:

Considering this forum contains XXX materials, some users might be too shy or too embarrassed  to post. This fact has to be taken into account before being purged. 

This is a moot point. One can create a unique handle, and therefore persona, for their XXX purposes for privacy and anonymity. You would be surprised how effective these methods are in addressing the stated concerns. Furthermore, they are "supposedly" 18+ and should start to learn to cope with such emotions in order to fulfill their desires. 

[Da Chief of Staff]

On 11/1/2019 at 9:39 PM, thekingslayer4 said:

But doesn't purging 60% of the users = less AD revenue?

I make 60 cents a day lol. I'm not to worried about ad revenue because it's not there. 😄

I'm not making a fortune running this site. Didn't intend on it. Just was tired of seeing sites I used shut down so I threw something up and people started using it. 

[Guest firedddfoxs]

9 hours ago, Da Chief of Staff said:

I make 60 cents a day lol. I'm not to worried about ad revenue because it's not there. 😄

I'm not making a fortune running this site. Didn't intend on it. Just was tired of seeing sites I used shut down so I threw something up and people started using it. 

since you only make 60cents a day in ads, can we donate a dollar to get rid of them ?

[thekingslayer4]

Ad revenue or not, it is never a good idea to limit your user base. Someone may not post anything for months but then come across some good content and decide to post, increasing the content on the site. There is potential benefit in keeping inactive users but absolutely no benefit in removing them, so why do it? just to be petty?