Lurkers With "0" Post

[Excelsius]

Hello to all of you,

Recently, I have notice that some people have subscribe on ADISC, like many month ago, but never write a single post, nothing, nada, zero. I have no problem with people lurking on this site, but why subscribing on a forum and not participate if most of ADISC’s content is accessible to visitor?

I want to know if admins of ADISC have ever studied the possibility to delete those lurkers, only those with 0 posts, if they do not post a message in the first 2 weeks of the subscription (only an example, could be 1 or 4 weeks if they want).

I really don’t want to be considered like the bad guy and I’m for the liberty of Internet but I’m feeling that those people are not here for the good reasons: to help this community to grow (not only in number.)

What is the position of the staff of ADISC on that issue?

Thanks

[mattjones4]

I agree with that idea. I think a lot of people can be shy and nervous about posting on here for the first time (I know I sure was), but if they have to post something hopefully it can get them to break out of their shell. I think a lot of people are just content with reading other peoples discussions.

I have never joined a forum before because I was just too shy, I guess I was just a lurker. This is the first one I ever joined in on and started posting. Since my first posting I feel more open to express my thoughts, and am much more fulfilled by joining in.

[Mesmerale]

They're already forced to sign up to the site.

After a certain amount of page views, the site will lock them out, and they have to sign up.

And their access is restricted when they don't post. They can't PM, can't become regulars, etc., etc. To delete their accounts just because they haven't said anything would be extremely restrictive, don't you think?

[Peachy]

Deleting lurkers would only cause them to make a new account when they want to visit again. That, however, will create a fair bit of work for admins and mods, so just leave them their original account even if they only log on every once in a blue moon and never say anything.

Peachy

[Excelsius]

Originally Posted by Mesmerale

And their access is restricted when they don't post. They can't PM, can't become regulars, etc., etc. To delete their accounts just because they haven't said anything would be extremely restrictive, don't you think?

Maybe yes, there is surely enough restriction for being lurkers, admin here are surely not stupids, but I don't think it's "extremely restrictive"... as you said, maybe it's a little bit extreme to said that in my point of view And this is not extreme since I have seen things 10 times more restrictive on other forum.

It's only a question on "how admin wants to manage the forum"? If they don't want to be bother with that, that totally fine, and if they want to ban every member who do not post at least 100 times per week, fine again. It's not our site and admins should be free to make whatever they want.

Originally Posted by Peachy

Deleting lurkers would only cause them to make a new account when they want to visit again. That, however, will create a fair bit of work for admins and mods, so just leave them their original account even if they only log on every once in a blue moon and never say anything.

Peachy

I totally agree with that!

[Lukie]

Remove forceful sign-up. Let people lurk for as long as they want.

That way, the people who do sign up are those who actually want to get involved.

[Woollyneck]

Originally Posted by Lukie

Remove forceful sign-up. Let people lurk for as long as they want.

That way, the people who do sign up are those who actually want to get involved.

I agree. If they don't want to participate, don't force them.

[Raccoon]

Originally Posted by Lukie

Remove forceful sign-up. Let people lurk for as long as they want.

That way, the people who do sign up are those who actually want to get involved.

I must say, it is nice to see people sign up who are serious about participating, not just so they can continue to lurk, and stay inactive after registration. I once sided with the limited pageviews, but especially with the high and increasing member to mod ratio, anything that doesn't waste staff time is a good thing. They have lots to do as it is.

Members should realize, and be reminded perhaps, that they should write as though it were public domain; things like non-vip restrictions make less likely public viewing, but by no means prevent it.

[Baby Jake]

I personally have really no problem with lurkers. I don't understand the big fuss.

If people feel like being antisocial even on the internet, power to them I guess. I have quite a few accounts on quite a few sites just for the sake of reserving my user name in the even I ever feel like going there. I'd be pretty damn annoyed if my user name were to get removed.

To put it in a real world's scenario...

In a certain class of mine, there is often a huge amount of discussion regarding various topics, every single day. Everyone is expected to participate, and give some input in these oral discussions. But I personally do not. Why? Because for one, I generally have nothing of relevance to say. Secondly, I enjoy simply absorbing the conversation and listening. Unless spoken to, I usually keep quiet. Now, should I be kicked from the class? I don't think so.

It's basically the same thing. There's no big deal that I can think of.

I think Lukie's point is the best resolution to this "issue" though.

If they feel like talking, they'll talk. If they feel like reading... well... I guess let them.

[ANT]

Here's my first post...

People join and "lurk" to learn about the topics being discussed. While some may be open and proud of who they are, others are much more self conscious and are intimidated by posting personal information in a forum such as this.

Kicking lurkers would simply serve to alienate a group of people that could, in the future, become contributing posters.