Suggestion, agree or disagree?

I've noticed in some posts, people mention the fact of how many members are signed up at TC to help support whatever their topic was about...Over 5,300 TCrs! WoW, that is alot of Tiki buffs! What I have also noticed is that maybe 200 or so are "true" TC participaters in subjects, meaning that less than 10% of user accounts are being utilized on a fairly occasional basis.
My suggestion to any admins would be to delete accounts with 0 posts but have been signed up for at least 2 years... Then TC may have a more accurate count of true users? When I was surfing through the "Member List" I noticed there are more inactive accounts with 1 or less postings within 3 years than there are of posters with at least 10 postings in the last year. I'm thinking "some" names were reserved in 2002 by Hanford, but I would think the majority of "0" posts accounts were initially set up by mail spammers AND OR "not truly interested" parties.
So, would it be a good idea to "trim the unused" or leave it the way it is?
The biggest benefit would be more active and current user accounts when searching through the member list.
It would Free up user names that were taken by non active members.
And it would also eliminate the false feeling of 5300+ active members.
Remember, its only a suggestion and to see what others think, not to open a can of TC worms...haha!
Whuddya think?

IMO its 100% up to the ownership of this web site. I feel participation here is very active & judging by the recent Florida Hukilau sell out overall interest in all things Tiki is very STRONG.

Thortiki

On 2006-10-25 11:46, Tom Slick wrote:
What I have also noticed is that maybe 200 or so are "true" TC participaters in subjects

How do you define a "true" TC'er? Those that post one informative post per year? or someone who posts "Yeah Dude!! That's Cool!!1!! Put me on the list" 200 times per month?

(edited for schpellink)

[ Edited by: Feelin' Zombified 2006-10-25 16:00 ]

This issue seems to creep up every now and then. Monkeyman brought up some interesting stats and points in this thread to which Hanford addresses this topic. It's interesting to bring this topic back up since TC has SOOOOO many registered members now. But my bet is Hanford's stand is probably still the same.

I use the TC number to help back up different ideas that might need the high numbers. Its a funny thing about that cause I know that the one posts aren't usable numbers but its still a correct number of TC members.

You are certainly right about the 200+ active members. Last year, it was a different 200 with a large overlapping of the 200 this year or say this month. Somethings a event like the TC mug contest drawed out was old members and created new members.

I would rather see a cleansing of the Marketplace. The Marketplace is mostly Ebay listing and the Ebay pictures and links expire in a couple of months. Some topics are totally dated material, and the rest have tons of holes from not having the pictures to go with the interesting commints. I say, if you think the thread in marketplace has some longevity, then a picture and better description, should be posted that aren't just on the Ebay site at the time.
It would help the searches if alittle spring cleaning was done from time to time. This method of leaving it pile up can not go on for ever, could it?

Thor, I agree it IS entirely up to ownership/Hanford or any other appointed administrators to make this decision. And I will not challenge the fact whether or not tiki is strong. I will challenge that ALL 3500+ Tiki Centralites do not use the board actively, that is the ONLY point I am trying to make.

Feelin' Zombified asked-
How do you define a "true" TC'er? Those that post one informative post per year? or someone who posts "Yeah Dude!! That's Cool!!1!! Put me on the list" 200 times per month?

If you read through my original message the first time, you would have seen that I am talking about the - 0(zero) post members who have been signed up since 2002. That is definately not an active account. - In fact, I think it is safe to say that an account that was signed up prior to 2005 and still has 0(zero) posts has no need holding an active account, once again only my opinion.

Afterall, you can "LURK" without signing up(I know,I did it for 2 years). Besides not leaving even an ( 1 )introduction message leads me to believe all of these types of accounts are NULL and VOID.

"TRUE TCr's" participate,period. Whether its 1 post a month or 1,000....not 0(zero) and have been on the memberlist since 2002.....Remember this topic is about eliminating the 0(zero) posters only(INACTIVE). What do the obvious "Active" members think? What does Hanford think?
I'm just curious because 5379 members is overly exaggerated and misleading.The Tiki Central world is big, but it isnt thaaat big :P

I'm curious as to why you care about this administrative issue. Does it really matter? The focus of the question just seems odd. People come and go. It's an interactive board. It seems that the focus of interest should be on the subject matter, not how many people are using it or not.

On 2006-10-25 11:46, Tom Slick wrote:
I've noticed in some posts, people mention the fact of how many members are signed up at TC to help support whatever their topic was about...Over 5,300 TCrs! WoW, that is alot of Tiki buffs! What I have also noticed is that maybe 200 or so are "true" TC participaters in subjects, meaning that less than 10% of user accounts are being utilized on a fairly occasional basis.
My suggestion to any admins would be to delete accounts with 0 posts but have been signed up for at least 2 years... Then TC may have a more accurate count of true users? When I was surfing through the "Member List" I noticed there are more inactive accounts with 1 or less postings within 3 years than there are of posters with at least 10 postings in the last year. I'm thinking "some" names were reserved in 2002 by Hanford, but I would think the majority of "0" posts accounts were initially set up by mail spammers AND OR "not truly interested" parties.
So, would it be a good idea to "trim the unused" or leave it the way it is?
The biggest benefit would be more active and current user accounts when searching through the member list.
It would Free up user names that were taken by non active members.
And it would also eliminate the false feeling of 5300+ active members.
Remember, its only a suggestion and to see what others think, not to open a can of TC worms...haha!
Whuddya think?

On 2006-10-25 17:53, Coco Loco wrote:
I'm curious as to why you care about this administrative issue.

Does it really matter?
Answer simply put, It matters ONLY when brought up in topics as defense to one's question.And don't make it out to look like I'm busting anyones cajones... I have seen a few people post in their topics about how strong our scene is with the proof of 5000+ members, and it is a false statement.

It seems that the focus of interest should be on the subject matter, not how many people are using it or not.
I have to agree & disagree with this as you can say you teach 5379 tikiphiles about a lifestyle, but in reality you are only preaching the word to a few hundred. It would seem this question bothers some TCrs here when all I am "requesting" is to delete inactive accounts. So what if the members list goes down to 500???? At least there would be a much more accurate count for TCrs to go by. Why keep the facade up to make it look bigger than it really is?

This community should be all about the topics, as it usually is a wealth of knowledge in database form. But I also think a dose of reality should be taken when making posts about how many TCrs there actually are.

I'm just curious because 5379 members is overly exaggerated and misleading.

For whom are you concerned? I'm not misled - I know what the member count reflects. Clearly you're not misled either. Have you encountered anyone who's been misled?

I recommend you pursue the DIY solution for your concerns. Go through the member list and make a count of how many meet your own criteria for true TCers, and then make a topic where you post your total. Use whatever criteria you want in counting. Maybe some people will be interested, and you will do them the service of putting an end to their misconceptions. Maybe some other people think it's a waste of time, but there wouldn't be any seriously ruffled feathers since the only time you're wasting is your own.

-Randy

On 2006-10-25 18:30, aquarj wrote:

I recommend you pursue the DIY solution for your concerns.
Go through the member list and make a count of how many meet your own criteria for true TCers, and then make a topic where you post your total. Use whatever criteria you want in counting. Maybe some people will be interested, and you will do them the service of putting an end to their misconceptions. Maybe some other people think it's a waste of time, but there wouldn't be any seriously ruffled feathers since the only time you're wasting is your own.
-Randy

Tom Slicks reply: "isn't this a a job for the admins Randy?"

Randy, I could recommend to you to enjoy a nice tall glass of freshly squeezed STFU juice, but that would afterall only be a recommendation, like the one I was making to have the memberlist trunicated. Why oh why do certain TCrs alaways stray away from the original topic to add their little childish quirks? Randy, I am not the one to treat as such,FYI....
If you disagree that the memberlist should be edited for accuracy, then just say so, I'm not asking for insults, just input.

Should the memberlist be edited, and for whatever reason, why or why not?

It is a real number. Those 5,000+ users weren't created by an anonymous machine (a few of 'em were -- there's always been the occasional spambot), they were created by people who upon finding Tiki Central liked it enough to want to create an account. Why they do this, without ever posting, I don't know. Some of them do it because they lurk, and they want to at least leave that little "I was there" imprint. Some of them do it because they want to send a PM to someone about something they've read. Some of them do it because they want to buy a Grand Membership to support a site they love, even if they don't post on it. Some of them do it because they want an Ooga-Mooga account. Some of them died before they had a chance to really say hello. Some of them just created an account and forgot about it.

Whatever the reason, it's a record of the history of Tiki Central, and while it may be a number that's meaningless to you, it's not to me, and I would be disappointed to see it go. Each one of those users is a little story, whether they've posted or not, and if you don't find it interesting, it's easily ignored.

If you're interested in a list of what you consider "active" users, that list will be impossible to create. Ask 10 different TCers what they think makes a TCer, and you'll get 10 different answers. If one counts the people who read regularly or semi-regularly but don't post, then based on my own experiences in talking to many tikiphiles in person out there, the 5,000 number comes closer than 300 does.

Basically, the act of counting TCers is a tricky one for many reasons, but removing the available data wouldn't make it any easier.

On 2006-10-25 19:00, Humuhumu wrote:

Whatever the reason, it's a record of the history of Tiki Central, and while it may be a number that's meaningless to you, it's not to me, and I would be disappointed to see it go. Each one of those users is a little story, whether they've posted or not, and if you don't find it interesting, it's easily ignored.

Well to me its the topics on here that record the history,such as "BigBroTiki" Sharing one of his finds, not invalid or unused accounts. I can say I made $3,000 today at work, but in reality after uncle sam gets his cut i really only made $1,900. It was only a suggestion, and not a knock on TC like some want to make it out to be. I see your points, but I have to use the old "agree to disagree" when it comes to unused,wasted accounts. Editing isnt a bad thing, especially when in reality only cleans things up to make it a little more user friendly...

where do you people find the time?

On 2006-10-25 19:56, TIKI DAVID wrote:
where do you people find the time?

I have no clue!!!

My vote is to disagree. It seems like more hassle than Hanford has time to deal with and since it hasn't bothered anyone before now and at least 10 people are disagreeing with the idea so far, there really doesn't seem to be much point to it.

...can o' worms! ...can o' worms!

Tom Slick's post was well stated and not frivolous, his reasons for making the post are right there in the original post. Humuhumu's answer was well reasoned and made sense, and she stuck to the topic at hand. It must have been a great effort to do so, but as we can see...It can be done.

I'm sure I'm repeating something already said but yet I plunder on...The numbers may not be as meaningless as they seem merely due to lack of posts. There are several people I have urged to join Tiki Central even though they said "I never have anything to say..." Why I have I urged them to register? Because I guess I must think the numbers mean something. But it's fairly obvious that all zillion members here don't post and therefor the numbers are kind of hollow when making an argument. A meaningless point made in defense of a position helps me determine how sound the rest of the argument is. Or something like that.

As for "free(ing) up user names that were taken by non active members..." I'd rather see folks challenged a little with their creativity. When Tiki Central first opened for business almost everyone wanted to be TikiPulpit, but of course that name got snatched up right away. So as a result of pushing folks creativity a little we have TikiPew, TikiHymnal, TikiSteeple, TikiBaptismalFont...And so on. Far more interesting.

Thank you Woof, and Humu for sticking to the topic. Your personal points were well taken. Thats all that I wanted to see is how people felt about "cleaning house" so-to-speak.....

I don't see it as a knock on TC or threat. I just don't agree. I see it as a weird thing to focus on. And an inappropriate understanding of how some utilize and approach this site.

The 5000+ number is legitimate, it's not a facade. Clearly, not all members are active. However, since they took the time to register (with no reward in doing so), they're most likely interested in the site. They're probably lurkers. Does that make them any less interested in Tiki? Probably not.

Eventually most people post. It took me two years after registering to work up the nerve to start posting. I wanted to get to know the site, understand the topics, scope out the vibe and people before posting. Plus, I really didn't think I had anything to say. Prior to posting, I attended most of the events, and got to know a lot of TCers. I suspect others are in the same boat. In fact, met many 0 -3 posters at Hukilau who said the same thing.

And by the way, Randy is a great guy and probably enjoyed a tasty cocktail tonight...not because he needed it as inappropriately suggested, but because he's a great mixologist.

On 2006-10-25 18:22, Tom Slick wrote:
On 2006-10-25 17:53, Coco Loco wrote:

It seems that the focus of interest should be on the subject matter, not how many people are using it or not.
I have to agree & disagree with this as you can say you teach 5379 tikiphiles about a lifestyle, but in reality you are only preaching the word to a few hundred. It would seem this question bothers some TCrs here when all I am "requesting" is to delete inactive accounts. So what if the members list goes down to 500???? At least there would be a much more accurate count for TCrs to go by. Why keep the facade up to make it look bigger than it really is?

This community should be all about the topics, as it usually is a wealth of knowledge in database form. But I also think a dose of reality should be taken when making posts about how many TCrs there actually are.

[ Edited by: Coco Loco 2006-10-26 01:39 ]

I thought it was a totally legit question, and I agreed with the original post. But Humus response swayed me back. I still would be interested to see something like how many people have posted this month, or this quarter or something - but thats just curiosity, Ill live without it. :)

A hot rod forum I am on deletes the bilge topics after 2 weeks of inactivity, works fine. But if there isnt a need, well,why?

I really like teaKEY's idea about the Marketplace because I use the "search" function a lot and often I think I'm finding a useful image but it is just a dead ebay link. But, I'm sure Hanford has better things to do than wade thru THAT quagmire. "Collecting Tiki" has a bunch of those dead links as well. All in all, this place is fine as is. Thanks, Hanford and everyone else who works on it.

As Humuhumu says, the number of members is a meaningful number, just not for all purposes. And trying to get at a number of active members is impossible. This is true of most forums. I don't see a reason to change it.

It could be done though. Tiki Central could be made invisible to non-registered members. You'd have to log in to see the posts. That would change everything. No more lurking without registering. But, it would keep people from discovering the place when they search Google for a Mai Tai recipe or info on the Hilton Hawaiian Village.

Randy, I could recommend to you to enjoy a nice tall glass of freshly squeezed STFU juice

I don't know what STFU juice is, but I'm guessing this means you're not interested in the do-it-yourself option.

I thought it was already established that Hanford wasn't interested in the do-it-himself option either (having written, "There's no way in hell I'm going to do that"). So I thought the question was already moot, and it was reasonable and on-topic to suggest another way for you to get the count you're after. After all, Monkeyman did his own count in the thread where he brought it up.

However, since you said you still want opinions about deleting accounts, I'm against it.

-Randy

ps - thanks Coco Loco for the nice comment

On 2006-10-25 22:48, woofmutt wrote:

As for "free(ing) up user names that were taken by non active members..." I'd rather see folks challenged a little with their creativity. When Tiki Central first opened for business almost everyone wanted to be TikiPulpit, but of course that name got snatched up right away. So as a result of pushing folks creativity a little we have TikiPew, TikiHymnal, TikiSteeple, TikiBaptismalFont...And so on. Far more interesting.

I think we should have a thread, where the existing members devise a list of new user names, which the newcomers can then select from when they become a member, if they are unable to choose one themselves. It can be a tough decision, when joining a group, when the first thing you need to do is come up with a unique identifier. Here are a few (lame?) possibilities that I have thought of

volcanojumper
sacrificed-virgin
eyehigh-in-maitais
my-oh-maitai
sourpisco
kooky4uke

I would also like to see someone devise a way to determine who posts the shortest average posts, and who posts the lengthiest posts -- purely for curiousity purposes. Anyone want to write a character counting program that works its way through each thread?

Vern

On 2006-10-26 10:52, aquarj wrote:

I thought it was already established that Hanford wasn't interested in the do-it-himself option either (having written, "There's no way in hell I'm going to do that"). So I thought the question was already moot, and it was reasonable and on-topic to suggest another way for you to get the count you're after. After all, Monkeyman did his own count in the thread where he brought it up.
However, since you said you still want opinions about deleting accounts, I'm against it.

-Randy

As for the topic posted back in 2004...Well, this is sorta along the reason of this post...DIGGING and searching isn't very user friendly. I now realize that someone ALREADY made a similar post prior to mine back in 2004. If in certain instances, the site were void of invalid topics such as expired auctions, or "Can you identify this item?" that no longer supports the imagery, stuff would be ALOT easier to navigate, since there would be no more sorting through topic after topic to find if someone already asked the question. I do realize this is Hanford & Co. decision and it IS respected. This post was only a REQUEST made prior to "discovering" the 2 year old topic. Of course, if this board did delete certain outdated topics, this original message would have never been posted to begin with. And herein lies the problem!

And for the record, the last line you posted:

However, since you said you still want opinions about deleting accounts, I'm against it.

Thats all you had to say to begin with WITHOUT the jabs.

On 2006-10-26 06:03, McTiki wrote:

Agreed. :drink:

Everyone: take a deep breath. Hold it. Now exhale. Relax. So, since the question was first asked in 2004 a few things have changed. One is that I'm a bit better with programming than I was back then, so if I wanted to do this, I would not have to do it by hand anymore.

But to answer Tom Slick's question:

So, would it be a good idea to "trim the unused" or leave it the way it is?

No. Here's why. Tiki Central is stored in a database, and I can now write some code that would render out reports for us, like "how many accounts with one post or more", or a "ratio of Beyond/bilge posts to Tiki forum posts" for each user. In short, I could generate numbers for any probably any definition we want, all without permanently changing any of the data stored in Tiki Central.

But at the end of the day, that would just be different views on the same data, and I would never label any of those statistics as a "true" count; they're just different counts. But frankly there's a lot more higher-priority things I want to get done on Tiki Central, like announce our latest moderator ....

Now, I don't think Tom Slick's original post warranted the drama that has appeared on this topic. At the same time, when ever terms like "true TCers" appear, it seems commotion is never too far behind.

Okay, back to Tiki!

WELL, there you go!

I think Hanford should put 'Over 5,300 Served' on the TC logo, just like McDonalds does.

On 2006-10-25 16:57, teaKEY wrote:
I would rather see a cleansing of the Marketplace. The Marketplace is mostly Ebay listing and the Ebay pictures and links expire in a couple of months. Some topics are totally dated material, and the rest have tons of holes from not having the pictures to go with the interesting commints. I say, if you think the thread in marketplace has some longevity, then a picture and better description, should be posted that aren't just on the Ebay site at the time.
It would help the searches if alittle spring cleaning was done from time to time. This method of leaving it pile up can not go on for ever, could it?

Having read ALL the posts the one part of this I still agree with most is teaKey's post above!

I LURKED for about my first year or more because the whole TC thing seemed rather expansive and confusing. If I were to do a search for something I was interested in it would come up with so many out of date threads or worse the threads with the old photo posts that don't appear any longer.....it all left me wondering if I was doing something wrong or couldn't figure it out!

Zoom to the present - I now have a Tiki Business of my own and the Tiki Market place listings with ebay links that are like 3 years old seem totally irrelevant to anything! I even tried to "SELF MODERATE" one of my links for a show that had passed and I didn't want it to "clutter" TC anymore. I tried to delete it but it's still there....so in that respect I guess there are parts of TC I'm STILL trying to understand!

Is there a thread on TC called INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO USE TIKI CENTRAL?

Just wondering?

And in the immortal words of Mr. F. Gump, "That's all I have to say about that".

Where the hell is that McDonalds' sign when you need it?

On 2006-10-26 16:23, tikipedia wrote:
I think Hanford should put 'Over 5,300 Served' on the TC logo, just like McDonalds does.

On 2006-10-26 14:42, hanford_lemoore wrote:

Now, I don't think Tom Slick's original post warranted the drama that has appeared on this topic. At the same time, when ever terms like "true TCers" appear, it seems commotion is never too far behind.

Okay, back to Tiki!

Hanford, thank you for ringing in on this one. I can appologize for coining the term "True TCr", but it was only made in reference to compare people who use this site on a certain average meaning participation in this interactive community vs. an account holder who has not made 1 post since 2002. I still hold firm that if these accounts have not been used once to chime in on anything for 4 years, that they are indeed inactive and not needed. It just really strikes me funny as to why a few of the responses I had were harsh and from members who obviously have more than 1 post under their belts since their signup! Thank you for explaining your side of things, and this message is done for me! :)
Now its an appropriate time for :drink:....

hmmmm. I'm on the fence. trim the fat, or keep it all like a time capsule? I'm kinda leaning towards keep it. would we throw away pictures from a family album, because we've only seen some once? tough question. but humu had a good point. aloha.

We could also try nailing jello to a tree...... Or herding cats...... :wink:

I agree that there are probably more unused accounts than anyone realizes. From my limited database knowledge that could be a bad thing. But, from my limited understanding of the mechanics of this place the only resources consumed are from views (bandwidth) and posts (storage). So.... accounts take up no space so the reward for the work involved does not make it worth it.

Unless of course, you want to change your name and one of those 0 accounts has the name you want........

So here's a funny one.... and I don't want to ruffle any feathers -
I'm more proud to be a TC-er, than I am to be an American....these days.

"You'll get my Tiki Mug from me, the day you pry my cold dead fingers from around it"