Our user count

Joined
Dec 4, 2003
Messages
3,411
I just flushed out about 1,000 unactivated user accounts, many of them spammers or spambots (and many of those intent on just being in our memberlist to get indexed by Google and drive up their search rankings). A few others are just people who never sent in the application essay (which is the only way we see a new signup) or used a nickname to sign up (which is strictly barred on all the application forms).

This is just a sampling of what we had to weed out:

Code:
TWM546 , ulberto555 , ultrabait , ultrixost-n77 , umbrella964 , uoytukhgjk , vadim , valar2006 , Valliant , Vashti , Vazzelinnn , VCBon , VCBondf , VdovinAnt , Ventup , Vernonvin , VFbX74sB4 , viagrrt , videofriends770 , vip , Vireona , Vortex Times , VortexTimes2 , vortextimesks , Vovik , vpn vpn vpn , vsedvd , vudutu , warren , Wayne Adams , WeatherRuler13 , Webcams

Now that all is said and done it appears we have 760 legitimate users on board. Of course only a fraction of those are regular visitors.

Tim
 
That sounds like a good idea, but my only concern with something like that is that people wouldn't be posting quality items and they would only post to keep active.
 
I definitely agree with something like that... In addition, I would also make it mandatory for ALL members to contribute to severe weather discussion, and not join the board for such things as, uhhh... Pullution :wink:
 
I tend to be a seasonal poster myself. I will always be most active from about January through mid June. Once the boring Summer pattern sets in, I usually take a break from weather (as I tend to be pretty burned out at that point in the year) and focus on other interests. So I am not around a great deal for about 4-6 months per year. While I try to make a few posts here and there, I don't really see a need to post just for the sake of posting. What's the point in that?

I notice there's lots of other people who tend to be most active in the Spring as well. Therefore I would be opposed to any minimum posting requirement of once every 6 months. Even if some members aren't posting much or only seasonally, what harm is their lack of participation causing? It isn't like the site is depending on them to be here all the time to function. So I could honestly care less if a person posts 5 time per year or 500 times, so long as they post quality stuff and don't cause trouble.
 
With the last moderator votes the number of members that actually voted was 63 on the first vote and 74 on the second, out of 843 registered members (although all 843 haven't been approved). That is a sad ration.
How hard is it to click on a dot and vote.
I think quite a few are here just so they can say that they are a "member" of a storm chasing site.
 
Getting rid of the non-posters is going to be tricky, but getting rid of those who haven't even logged on for a certain amount of time would be much easier. I'm not sure that hasn't already been done though.
 
With the last moderator votes the number of members that actually voted was 63 on the first vote and 74 on the second, out of 843 registered members (although all 843 haven't been approved). That is a sad ration.
How hard is it to click on a dot and vote.
I think quite a few are here just so they can say that they are a "member" of a storm chasing site.

As far as voting, I didn't get to vote in the first vote. That thread was open less than 24hrs before a winner was declared (which was who I would've voted for anyway). I barely got to vote in the second one before it closed. It was open about 4 days I think. I usually log in almost everyday, but due to a system crash, house guest, etc., I wasn't able to login in as frequently.

Now, the number of votes might not have gone up much if the polls were open for a week, but just saying this might not be the best reflection of active members.

As far as punting members that don't post, I totally agree with George on this. What problem is it causing any of us if these members don't actively post? Unless their membership is taking up too much space on the server or something, I don't understand the reasoning behind all these "get rid of 'em" comments.
 
Hmmm?? ... I am also a "seasonal" poster.... just because I don't post much, if any, during the off season doesn't mean I'm not an active chaser "member" during the "on" season ...

Maybe now that the "on" season is just around the corner.. YEEHAA!!, we may be getting more "non" posters to be more active?? I know I will be... :)

Dave
 
I lurk more than post, even though I have been signed up pretty much from the begining.

One of the main reasons, is that I am a novice when it comes to forecasting / analysis compared to some around here! However I do post more during the "season" as I am usually chasing during that time.
 
I would have to agree with the others in that I am basically a seasonal poster. I do log in from time to time though, so maybe the best thing to do would be to delete the people that haven't logged in, not the people that haven't posted, because I also tend to agree that if you make people post you will have posts that will be totally useless, and disrupt the S/N ratio.
 
While I tend to dislike people who only "take" and not "give", I think that mandated posting is a bad idea. Any good resource should do more than "preach to the choir". It should be available to those who at various interest levels - including those who are new enough (or inexperienced enough) that they don't feel that they can contribute anything useful to the conversation.

Some people (unlike me) are afraid to show their ignorance or say something that may not be quite right. Others may just have terrible typing/spelling skills and read a lot more than they write. Others (like some who already posted) are present on the board seasonally.

It is a balancing act for any special interest community to encourage and foster growth among its members and keep out those that would degrade the quality of the "signal" that they provide. I would encourage erring on the side of caution when cutting off members or limiting readership.

Darren Addy
Kearney, NE
 
I am one of those members that hasn't posted much. That's primarily because I'm new to chasing and believe in keeping my mouth shut unless I have something valuable to add to the conversation (the old adage about letting others just THINK you are stupid rather than opening your mouth and removing all doubt applies here) ;).

That being said, I DO have an opinion on this issue :) I think it would be a bad idea to delete members simply because they haven't posted much or recently. In my case, I may not have much to add as far as meteorolgy discussions go, but if you ever need help with programming, I'm around and willing to help. Having a diverse community on the discussiong board is good for everyone IMO. As far as I can tell, the only thing that it does is make it difficult to wade through the memberlist to find out how to contact someone.
 
Originally posted by nickgrillo
I definitely agree with something like that... In addition, I would also make it mandatory for ALL members to contribute to severe weather discussion, and not join the board for such things as, uhhh... Pullution :wink:

I don't post very much...case in point. I lurk most of the time. But, one of the reasons I don't post much, especially when discussing meteorology is because generally someone has already beaten me to the punch and has said exactly what I was going to say. There's not a need for me to take up bandwidth quoting someone and saying, "I agree," and not having anything to elaborate.
 
I teach 9th grade Earth Science to 165 students and the Stormtrack forum has been an excellent resource for current events. We are in our weather unit from early March until the end of the end of the school year in May. The sky is one large laboratory and this forum allows my students to better understand the dynamics of the atmosphere. While the kids like the photos, they also take part in class discussions and forecast their own target areas for severe weather. I don't post much but don't want to get booted just because I don't! I use the forum often this time of the year. :)

Mike Ridgeway
http://idahostormchaser.com
 
Well, I don't post much either, but i follow whats going on around here and chime in when I accually have something to say. But i'm on here often, so i'm not just here to say I "belong" to this site.
 
To all you serial posters out there who are wringing your hands about lurkers: Get a life.
I'm a lurker because I signed up to ST mainly to get information to help my chasing. That's the original
reason I subscribed to Tim Marshall's newsletter back in '88. He didn't require us to submit a regular response or get knocked off his circulation list.
So why should I have to post something at a prescribed interval or get drummed out of the lodge?
I'll wager I've been chasing longer than most people signed up to ST. But because I only chase for one two-week period per year and don't gush all over the forums about it, doesn't mean I'm not dedicated.
I've made a few trenchant comments from time to time, and I probably will in the future.
There, I've made my post for 2006. What a load off my back. Can I now hang around for another year?
 
I just flushed out about 1,000 unactivated user accounts, many of them spammers or spambots (and many of those intent on just being in our memberlist to get indexed by Google and drive up their search rankings). A few others are just people who never sent in the application essay (which is the only way we see a new signup) or used a nickname to sign up (which is strictly barred on all the application forms).
This is just a sampling of what we had to weed out:
Code:
TWM546 , ulberto555 , ultrabait , ultrixost-n77 , umbrella964 , uoytukhgjk , vadim , valar2006 , Valliant , Vashti , Vazzelinnn , VCBon , VCBondf , VdovinAnt , Ventup , Vernonvin , VFbX74sB4 , viagrrt , videofriends770 , vip , Vireona , Vortex Times , VortexTimes2 , vortextimesks , Vovik , vpn vpn vpn , vsedvd , vudutu , warren , Wayne Adams , WeatherRuler13 , Webcams
Now that all is said and done it appears we have 760 legitimate users on board. Of course only a fraction of those are regular visitors.
Tim
[/b]

VortexTimes...I think that is Brian Stertz. Whoops!!

Not sure my opinion on this topic. Seems the guy above has a point about his right to lurk. Not everyone wants to be active in talking. Some are too busy - others don't really have anything to say. I do think ST needs a way to get rid of bogus accounts and spambot memberships though. If there were parts of ST that are private it would require log in every so often, but I don't think this should be short fuse 3 months either. 6 months to a year of inactivity probably at least.

Well maybe, it all depends on the goal of the forum and membership. This isn't necessarily ST the periodical. This is an interactive forum membership for active chasers, and I know administration wants this to be an active chaser resource. They want people to contribute and not just leach off everyone else. I'd think it's ok to lurk and use other's insight as long as you sometimes give back. Personally I think some of this should be private. I think it's ok to lurk if it is a pay account - similar to a periodical. I can't think of any other forums such as for pc support that are free and allow you to get in and find answers to all your questions without joining and perhaps having a subscription.
 
No need for anyone to worry I don't think. Currently, I don't believe anyone is deleting any real people with little or no posts. Tim, myself and a couple of other mods went through right after the new board software came online and cleaned out (at that time) all of the user names that didn't conforum to our real name requirment (i.e. nicknames etc) which as quite a bit, I guess some people just can't read when they sign up.

There are some other's with real names that gets weeded out after a period of time that never bothered with sending in their litle essay. There area few that are still waiting to be approved, but not very many. But no one (that I am aware of) is just deleting low/non posters.

Just a quick response to William, my goodness, with that long of chasing experience, seems like it would be others that could learn from your posting rather than the other way around, don't you think?
 
Back
Top