Love ItLove It

5,043 active members

I guess I really don’t understand what an active member is here. I would think that if you don’t sign in for a certain amount of time you probably wouldn’t be considered active. I think if you ever signed up you must be an active member. 

It seems like at some time it would be best to remove information of those who have really gone inactive. I assume it all takes up memory. (Sorry to all the tech people who are cringing at my thoughts.)

  • Do you think inactive members should be removed?

    • Yes
    • No
  • Do I overthink everything?

    • Yes
    • No

What do you think?

19 points

Written by Ghostwriter



Wordsmith BuddySmarty PantsBeastBookwormLoyal BuddyPoll MakerStory MakerQuiz MakerImage MakerEmbed MakerUp/Down VoterEmoji AddictGallery MakerList MakerVerified UserContent AuthorYears Of Membership


Leave a Reply
  1. Removing inactive members might help the active community, but at the same time, I’m afraid it would be unfair. Perhaps, not all of those who left, did so for good. Some might not want to lose the content they created, or they don’t want to lose access to the site (are registrations for new users still locked?). Well, Virily might wish to remove content that creates no traffic and keep the profitable posts up, even when the author is inactive. It’s their right.
    A tag or symbol next to the usernames of those who haven’t logged in for more than 6 months could be helpful and cause no damage.

  2. ok so there are three sides to this discussion.

    1. having members = greater flexibility with Google and other online advertising (drives greater revenue) that is why you keep them.
    2. Signing up a user takes more system resources, than just having an account that is not active.
    3. It is frustrating because realistically there are 400 or so truly active users of the site. So I would land right in the middle, yes we should delete inactive users. No we shouldn’t delete inactive users.

  3. We all live in a world that is bounded by time limitation. Every individual has his/her own priorities. We tend to temporarily set aside things and focus on those things that we deemed more important. But it doesn’t mean that they don’t like to become member anymore. There is a chance that inactive members will return and be active again. So, it’s not fair that those inactive members will be removed.

    On the part of the site, having a great number of members can encourage more individuals to join the site. Other sites even send invitations to inactive members to return to the site if the need arises.

    • While that is also true, life is not fair. I have long given up that as a reason for anything. If life were fair my brother would not have this horrible disease ~ he is the kindest person on the planet. He would gladly give his life if a stranger needed it.

  4. I think it wouldn’t be good as some inactive members have published articles and that’s what revenue sharing site is all about. Theirs is sitting and waiting for their articles to earn them money. But we can never know how many just gave up on this site. It would be an uphill task for the editors to differentiate the accounts of those who had given up and those who are relaxing letting their articles earn them money.

Leave a Reply