Does the number of members slow the serverdown any??

[tgpo]

I just noticed that we have 21294*members with zero posts. If they were to be deleted would that in any way help the server?

[gll99]

tgpo says:

I just noticed that we have 21294 members with zero posts. If they were to be deleted would that in any way help the server?

Don't know about that but...

Sure seems to affect the search engine when there are too many visitors on the site.
Could it be time to force guests to sign in before browsing and searching the advanced forums?

Forum search temporarily disabled when there are too many visitors, use the search later or you can search using Google in our forum.

[Baldrick]

I just noticed that we have 21294 members with zero posts. If they were to be deleted would that in any way help the server?

No. But I will anyway remove some members.

Could it be time to force guests to sign in before browsing and searching the advanced forums?

I could fix so the search always works if you are logged in.

[stiltman]

I could fix so the search always works if you are logged in.

That's a great idea, but being a lurker for a few years before I registered, I bet it would increase the amount of registered users that find the solution without registering....

does that make sense??

[gmatov]

TGPO,

Don't take this as gospel, but I'd think the only place the # of users being reduced would help is searching the database to see if the user was allowed to post or not, the lower right hand corner rules, i.e., registered or non-.

As there are only 65,000 total members, purging a third of them for being " non-productive ", not tying up the server with posts, seems a bit harsh.

The Forum Statistics show a max of 243 users on line at one time, Jan 23, 2003. This doesn't seem excessive to me.

I don't know what revenues are generated by this Forum, but it also seems reasonable that they would be less if the user base was a third lower, maybe enough less that Baldrick would have trouble keeping the board up and the other 44,000 of us would have to go, also.

Yes, it may be slightly annoying to have to wait 10 seconds to refresh your screen ( cable and DSL has certainly spoiled us, hasn't it? ), but the search engine is more likely to be down due to a glitch, than due to too many hits.

Personally, I wouldn't PO people by telling them they're unproductive, take your browsing elsewhere.

gll99,

I've been to a few sites that would not even let you peek without registering; most I have left without a second glance.

I've been wrong before, may be way off base here.

Cheers,

George

[gmatov]

Man, I type slow, answers to my remarks before I can hit submit.

If Baldrick is going to delete members, it must not mean anything to the sponsor revenues.

My machine logs me in soon as I click DVDRHELP; I don't know if most people deselected that at registration or not. I personally don't like logging in every time, so Otto does it for me, on sites that I frequent.

And, I don't know if there's a cookie set on my machine or not, but every time I do log on, it tells me there are X new posts since my last visit.

But if I use one of the other machines, there might be 4000 new posts since my last visit, so, unless it differentiates that machine from this machine in some other way, I assume it is a cookie. ( No problem. )

Having to register to use the site was what caused me to stay away from the few sites I mentioned above. They seemed mildly interesting, but too advanced or esoteric for me to use often enough to register.

Some on here have admitted to lurking before joining must have found it worthy of finally joining, and if they could only look at the headers, no searching possible, they would probably just go away or join up immediately and add to the number of dreaded " newbies " some of the veterans seem to hate so much.

I mean, if they can look and search, theyll maybe get more of the basics before they decide to ask " stupid newbie questions ". Reasonable? And, before you say "We already have " stupid newbie questions "! ", we'd probably have more.

I've only seen a handfull of " Guest "s in posts. Don't know how that works, but seems to show that almost all posters are already regged, and logged in.

Cheers,

George

[Baldrick]

I removed 9000 members(everyone that hadn't logged in since january 2003 and had 0 posts). It doesn't speed up the site but it frees up a lot of usernames.

[gll99]

Baldrick wrote

I could fix so the search always works if you are logged in.

I love that idea

gmatov wrote:

I've been to a few sites that would not even let you peek without registering; most I have left without a second glance.

I know what you are saying. I belong to a couple of sites like that. It could drive away some business. Some Developper sites are more demanding and don't encourage casual browsing or the general downloading of source code or binaries.

My basic idea was to leave the newbie stuff accessible without logging on but require logging on for the advanced forums. One variation of that would be that the search function would be available to the logged on users only.

That suggestion may no longer be an issue if Baldrick can ensure that the search function works for logged on users all (most of) the time.

tgpo:
My apologies for expanding on your topic line without starting a new thread.

[tgpo]

My apologies for expanding on your topic line without starting a new thread.

Naw man expand away.