Pruning the Membership List

[Admin]

This subject was closed to further posting on 7-30-03.

If you have additional comments on this subject, please post them in the "Comment on Site Rules" area of the Site Administration section of the Forum.

Thanks to everyone who took the time to comment on this issue.

THIS IS THE TEXT OF THE ORIGINAL ISSUE
AS PUBLISHED IN THE FORUM ON 7-01-03:
========================================

Greetings everyone,

Now that the site has been comfortably ensconced on it's new server, it's time to start implementing a number of long-delayed improvements in the operation of the Forum. The list of potential improvements includes activating the private messaging system, adding a chat room, splitting the USA and International Forum's into separate Forums, cleaning up the membership list, revising the membership system, changing the registration system, cleaning up the Forum, revising the posting requirements, revising the User Name guidelines, and a review of the Forum's current operating policies.

My plan is to address each subject, one at a time, in this opening page of the Forum, stating the current situation along with my proposed modifications, and then to invite everyone who has an interest in the subject to continue the discussion in a special thread I will create in the Site Administration section of the Forum. After a suitable comment period of approximately two weeks (or until it seems that everyone has had their say), I will make I final determination on the subject and move on to the next issue.

The Current Topic: Cleaning up the Membership List

20,693 Members. Sounds impressive, doesn't it? The problem is that this includes 3,516 people who never confirmed their address, 4,577 who have been members for more than a year but have never posted a single report, and my favorite category: 687 members who have posted exactly one message that contained only their email address and a request for information to be back-channeled to them, never to be heard from again.

I want to prune the membership list down to the people who actually use or expect to use their membership. Why is this an issue? For several reasons:

First, many of these inactive memberships belong to current users who forgot their original membership, their password, etc. and simply decided to re-register. I know this because of the numerous times I'll get a registration for a "WildMan2002". I'll then find "WildMan" in the membership records with no posts, and when I email the prospective new member and ask him if he knows anything about "WildMan", I'll get an answer back to the effect "Yea, but I forgot my password ( lost access to my original email, etc)". After confirming that he knows the original email address, I'll activate the original User Name that he really wanted anyway.

Second, many of these "Inactive" users have locked up a number of great user names, which of course means they are not available to other, possibly more active members.

Third, in the future I would like to edit the Membership list so that all User Names conform with the latest Guidelines. Relax, there will be a comment and discussion period before this begins. Obviously though, it makes sense to prune the list prior to engaging in this secondary endeavor.

My proposed plan to prune the membership list is as follows:

1. For all the prospective members who have never confirmed their email address: These "members" will be culled immediately.

2. For all "Inactive" members, defined as users who have been members for more than one year, and who have never made a single post: I am planning to post a notice on the front page of the forum advising them that they have 30 days to post at least a test message in the Site Administration section to preserve their membership, after which I would delete the remaining Inactive members.

3. For the 687 members who have completely used this forum by using their membership solely for the purpose of posting one message requesting back-channeled info along with their email address: I will save this discussion for another date.

The Pros: The membership gets culled down to real members, a number of user names are freed up for others to use, and I have less work approving new members.

The Cons: Of course, I'm going to get angry emails months down the road from some people who return to the site after a year of never posting anything, and yet who will demand their old handle back because it has been in the family for generations, they use it on other websites, etc. Of course, I'm sensitive to some posters who are members of other forums wishing to maintain their universal user name, but then all they have to do is post a test message during the 30 day window to preserve the User Name here on the WSG. In addition, I'm planning to offer later a "synchronization" plan specifically designed to encourage members of other sites to post here at WSG by offering to give then the same name here as they may enjoy on the other forums. This will need to be handled diplomatically, and will be the subject of another discussion.

My questions for the members of this Forum are: Does this plan make sense? Do you think I need to do this at all? Am I being too harsh on the inactive members? Will this have an adverse effect on the number of contributions to the Forum? Have I forgotten to address a specific sensitivity? Can you identify any specific ramifications I may have overlooked? What do other forums do in this situation? Would you suggest another strategy?

The thread in the forum for discussing this plan is located in the Site Administration section of the Forum under "Site Improvements". This discussion will be finalized on July 15th, 2003.

[J Wadd]

Jackson,

I'm still planning to leave you in my will, or a key to the club I start in Brasil, whichever is more valuable.

JW

[Batman]

I have not read the thread but I will say this, if all you do is sit back and watch and don't participate with your insight you are a part of the problem and not a part of the solution. I sometimes depend on this site to help me find from a persons that has been there's view what is going on and I reach out to those people that are there for help understanding the local scene. If you cant contribute at least by offering help to those who seek this help it defeats the purpose of the forum.

I hope I have not offended anyone JACKSON with my perception of why this forum is in place but I stand by my thoughts.
Sonnysan.

Feed back is welcome

[The Beaver King]

Sounds like a great idea. I love the site and hope for your continued success!

[Hollywood]

Dear Jackson,

I do agree with the general consensus of the board. I have been using the site for the past decade or so and have used it as a source and I have posted regarding my travel spots in the USA, Israel, Germany, South Africa and Europe.

Out of carelessness I have used different user names in the past, but since you last enabled my current user name I am trying to be consistent!

Anyway, I am greatly thankful for this site and am very happy that you are continuing this service in such a dedicated manner.

Regards from Hollywood

[Murilloa]

In my opinion you are doing all the right things and should be congratulated on taking an active interest in honing the site rather than letting it take its own flabby course.

I also admire your insistence that spelling, punctuation and grammar should not descend to chatroom standards.

Congratulations, all power to you. Un gran trabajo, che.

[Travlr]

Jackson;
Whack em if they can't place a post. Bad take on an old line I know, but if after a year one is still a lurker.

And if you ever get a chance to check out the August issue of GQ there is a story about Buenos Aries, If that is your real location ;)

Thank you for all the hard work over the past year +

Yes, Buenos Aries is my home for mos tof the year, and thanks for the info about the GQ article.

Jackson

[Waggy88]

Hi,

I have visited the forums many times over the years and, have to admit, have never yet contributed.

The main reason for this is that I live in Bangkok, and previously lived in the Philippines and Hong Kong (almost 14 years in Asia now), and have not been to anywhere that didn't already have a report. I just didn't feel I had anything to offer.

Now, having said that, I did recently spend some time in Myanmar, and will be going back there in November. Aditionally I had a few fun days in Laos.

The thing is, who the fuck wants to go there? I only went for business, and honestly would not go again unless somebody was paying me to do so.

I will however gladly answer any and all questions I can, either individually or through the forums, on any location in Asia that I have information on, in lieu of submitting reports.

Jackson, what do you think? Would you just prefer me to submit a report on Myanmar and done with?

All the best,

Waggy

Every contribution is welcome.

[EddieC]

Here, here, Jackson,

The way I see it, you put a lot of effort into a great product. Of course you have the "free rider" problem and that may never change. But anything that makes your life easier and keeps the Board up and running is in all of our best interests.

Many thanks,

Ed

[Dogs Body]

Jackson, as owner of the board has every right to change it but in fact, if someone uses the board properly, does the research, you may not generate a report of any interest to members and irk the serious experts. For example, I was in BA for about a week. 1/3 of the time ill with "SARS" and the rest of the time, never got beyond Madero's. ( it would take a long trip to "get thru" so many ladies)
Did the board need another report on Madero's? I did not think so. Did I have bad service, no. Did I have amazing service, no. Do you want a report of how my amazing member caused the hardened pro's to swoon, no. Do I want to bore you all to death, no.
That being said, I hopes of a useful report on my next trip if...if... I have new or useful information.

Baskerville Hound

It only takes ONE report, ONE time, in ANY section, to preserve your membership.

How hard can that be?

Jackson

[globewalker]

jackson,

The ideas sound great, I have not been that active in the last several months having moved internationally. But I am back and will endeavour to keep my posting active.

[Nat Zass]

Hello Jackson;

I appreciate the chance for imput, even though my personal philosophy is summed up as; your world, your rules.

I enjoy the site as is, now that I can utilize it. (My original attempt somehow never allowed access. Attempt #2 was successful).

Your thoughts on pruning the list makes sense. I don't care about the great names; the imput from other users is why I visit your site. I lurked for weeks until I decided that I had valid useful info for others. With you shaking the tree, I'm sure make inactive apples with decent info and stories will fall out onto the discussion boards.

Good luck in finding moderators who are truly helpful.

Nat

[Magic]

"Your hard work on the forum is very appreciated, and it's your show. Do what you gotta do."

"Sounds like a good idea to get rid of the non-contributors. Your plan seems like it should work."

Excellents ideals!

I support this fellows. Find some moderators Jackson.

[Holland Report]

Hi Jackson,

I kind of admire you for posting my previous DELIBERATELY PROVOCATIVE posting. Seriously, what DOES motivate you to do this. Money?? Philanthropy????? What????

Free dinners from all the members who visit me in Buenos Aires.

I guess this is kind of a central question in terms of finding a 'good' moderator.

HR

ps- PERSONALLY, I find your reports too UNmoderated. What's the point in having a website (allbeit with porno advertising, sycophantic members, etc, etc) that CLAIMS to be respectable, which, by the evidence of it's postings really isn't. Fuck the hypocrisy and double standards! :-)

Porno advertising? What the fuck are you talking about?

Jackson

[LoveLOS]

Originally posted by Fool4FishNets
Genesis according to the Fool.
In the beginning DARPA created the Internet. {We shall ignore the "Gore invented the internet heresy"}
{Cliped, but go back and read it....}
The question before the WSG forum is not whether lurkers should be culled. The question is whether we retain our freedom or lose our souls.

Of course I think that is all pretty much bullshit, if someone isnt contributing then they are leaching and may reasonably be removed from membership. [/i]

Oh Foolish one, why is it that you consistantly leave me ROFL?

Jackson,
Your ideas are more than reasonable. I would suggest automation to cull the non posters after six months or so and cull the single question posters if they cannot contribute at least once a year. I mean how hard is it to ask "Where are the SW's?" when you travel at least once a year? If you make it a rule, then those chosing to use the site must abide.

Another round of kudos to Jackson,
LoveLOS