Suggestion: Inactvity Ban!

[GiorgioB]

The only people that the forum needs to get rid of is spammers and that is what moderators do. I don't know why you have so much hate for these poor people who would rather read than write, but I really don't think they are harming the forum in anyway, on the contrary as many people have pointed out, they are actually helping generate revenue.

They are not diluting the quality of the forum.. however forcing them to post stuff when they don't want to.. yes, that will dilute the quality of the forum with lots of useless posts. Just give it a break bro.. you seem vexed that some people are exploiting your shares.. you share something because you want to, if you don't want to, then don't share. If you do share, don't expect anything back in return.

 

[sn0rt]

Erm, isn't it separated somewhat already with a blue section and above?

Some use a translator to understand what they read here, do you really want to force those people Babblefishing 50 posts to be stored in the DB forever? Tons of problems arise, including spam deletion by Mods.
Also, I wonder why you worry about it. You shared something and now get stalked for the password. Why not post the password somewhere and be done with it?

You have a point with the attitude tho.

I'd suggest a place a "minimum character" count. Where your post won't count unless it is above a certain amount of characters.

I'm not complaining about people PMing me at all. I knew what I was going to face when I did it. I'm perfectly OK with it. What the password thing did was bring all the leechers into the light.

 

[WizGizmo]

I'd suggest a place a "minimum character" count. Where your post won't count unless it is above a certain amount of characters.

We don't work it exactly like that, but if we (the staff) see a trend of an individual
posting short comments like, "Cool, thanks", "Nice share", "Thanks bro!", etc.,
then we give them an infraction for attempting to increase their post count.
Then, if the trend continues, we may temp ban them or in some cases, perm
ban them.

 

[sn0rt]

I could easily say you're a leech for not giving over 97 dollars for donor, and not another 97 for Jr. VIP.

So what?

Look, most of those people won't succeed. The spirit of this forum lies in it's community of successful (or at least people with drive) members who help each other.

Yes, you have those people who leech.

If you want to get ahead, look up, not down.

edit - there is a pruning tool in vbulletin... mods could do it with a few mouse clicks.

P.S. - Some of those leeches buy things from members with BST threads. More traffic, good or bad, is better for everyone.

Well, you'd be able to call me anything you'd like, technically. A leech would be someone who doesn't positively influence the community in any way and only uses it for what they can take from it.

I at the least contribute and help where I can. Plus, you guys have a section of your own already anyway

And that's exactly my point, the spirit of this community lies in the people who are being a positive influence. Why should we then allow those who aren't amongst us? You don't simply allow bums in your house.

 

[SEO_Alchemy]

I understand where you're coming from, but also realize this:

There may be points of time where "valuable/contributing" members may be going through personal tragedies, undergoing transformational experiences, be too freaking busy with work.... or hell maybe even get locked up for any sort of reason, and not be able to, or want to make some sort of posting requirement for that year. Should they be expelled? I don't think that's fair, do you?

 

[xxf8xx]

Wouldn't forcing people to post more just produce more spammy, useless posts? eg. "Oh no it's the end of the year, better make my 50 post quota in the next ten minutes!"

 

[sn0rt]

Hello sn0rt:

Your concern and good intentions are appreciated. However, there are so many
variables in regards to why a particular individual might be inactive on BHW. For
instance, someone may be ill for an extended period of time, or unfortunately, in
jail for an extended period of time, or, as stated above, someone may have
joined mainly to buy services.

It is difficult, if not impossible to know why an individual may not be active on BHW.

Cheers! - "Wiz"

Thanks for chiming in Wiz,

That's actually a tough one for me to work through and try to find a solution. Let's see what I can come up with...

You're right in that it would be tough to find out why they were inactive, but would we be able to maybe then limit the account to areas other than the member downloads instead of banning them completely until they did meet the requirements?

 

[WizGizmo]

And that's exactly my point, the spirit of this community lies in the people who are being a positive influence. Why should we then allow those who aren't amongst us? You don't simply allow bums in your house.

You are being a bit extreme there. BHW has a great spirit. Some members have a more
prominent presence because of their prolific posts and ongoing contributions and they are
greatly appreciated and often rewarded. Others who may participate less or not at all
should not be condemned. We want everyone to feel welcome as long as they follow
the rules and do not cause trouble.

Cheers! - "Wiz"

 

[sn0rt]

As someone once pointed out, those 'leeches' also generate impressions for ads on the forum.. why don't you open a BST, and see how many of these leeches come and give you business.

Another problem would be this.. There is already a minimum post count to send PMs.. and we see a fair share of noobs going around posting "great idea" or "thanks for the share" or my favorite "I'm just posting here because I need 15 posts to PM people". Imagine what crap we will start seeing if you must post something or you will get banned..

Well, that's why I also suggested to limit the accounts to areas where the member can get free downloads instead of completely banning them. The accounts could be limited up until they were considered an active account again.

There could be a minimum character limitation where it won't count the post if they're under a certain amount of characters.

 

[jr D.I.P]

Dont ban our buyers ! :d

 

[lancis]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Its like democracy - the more laws you create, the less attractive the idea becomes for everyone.

 

[MidKnight]

I'm also in the grey area with this, but I like these last two options. Maybe have just a buyer acct for those that only want the BST sections, or use your idea of 50 posts/year requirements for just the download area, and maybe include the freebies/giveaways section with that requirement. Seriously, I saw a thread that was horrendously spammed by people with old, zero post accts that were abusing the service a member was kindly providing. It's not the first time I've ever seen that, but it's that kind of abuse that cause OPs to give up on their services here. If we can at least limit (or even better, eliminate) that kind of annoyance, it'll be an improvement. Just my opinion.

~MidKnight

That is understandable.

I can brainstorm a few ideas in regards to that. Ideas to which I'm not sure whether or not such technologies would exist.

• Have an option to set up a "buyers" account.
• If they fail to meet the criteria, than they can only have access to threads that don't involve downloads

 

[sn0rt]

Just because someone can participate, doesn't mean everyone should participate. More power to you sn0rt, but i disagree.
I buy services from here, i have my methods, but i have not reached the point to participate, so i STFU and learn.

Instead of banning the account, we can limit the account instead until they became contributing members.

Or have members sign up for a "buyers" account where they would have access to forums only related to buying.

 

[sn0rt]

but sn0rt, the 50 posts per year may create useless posts. members could just feel compelled to post something...
the act will become useless, most likely would create a deficit in knowledge. i for one don't want to read someones post just because they feel they have to post it.
look at crappy Facebook and the useless posts people have there. (not saying you have to post to facebook, but the quality of the posts)

Then there can be a minimum character post count limitation. Where the post won't count unless it meets a certain number of characters.

 

[srb888]

Calling inactive members "leeches" is unfortunate and completely unjust. I apologize to those inactive members on your behalf if you don't mind.

Better instead, let's find a great solution to stop scams before they happen. Any similar inputs on that please?

Sharing something valuable should be a completely selfless action, without expectations in return! That would be so nice!!


BTW, BHW is a great community of all types of members, and not an army of contributors and commentators only who need to complete a quota of work or risk a court-marshal... let's preserve the original friendly spirit for at least another century!

 

[sn0rt]

The way you set up your poll is utterly ridiculous. Those answers are completely biased and meant to have people answer they way you want them too. I mean cmon "leaches need to eat too"

How about phrasing it like this:

Yes: Fuck everyone that doesn't contribute as much as I want them too

No: This is a community and everyone has the right to be here

See what I'm doing here?????????????????????????

50 posts a year is not difficult. You're averaging a little over 417 posts a year. Not so hard is it?

 

[mdsurf]

50 posts a year is not difficult. You're averaging a little over 417 posts a year. Not so hard is it?

That is in no way relevant to the point I was making. The point I was making is the way you phrased the poll creates a bias and thus the results of your poll are useless.

 

[Furious George]

Would you ban everyone who doesn't click on ads from viewing your site?

 

[krzysiekz]

I agree somewhat with your idea - but it needs a lot more in depth thought and it is no where near a stage where it is implementable right now.

We need to do somewhat of a risk analysis on your ideas and identify any risks that we have not yet accounted for. Sure, we might be eliminating those who leech by implementing the ideas in the OP - but are we, at the same time, eliminating those who are actually worthwhile contributors?

Just because someone has been here a few years does not mean they need to have X amount of posts. More specifically, 50 posts per year is such a general and blanket rule that it would be immensely unwise to implement.

All it takes is one post - one golden thread - to inspire and motivate people. By enforcing 50 posts per year, we're eliminating those who would otherwise post less than 50 posts per year, but have the ability to really share something of value with the community.

I do agree those who leech should be removed, but I don't think a X posts per year period is a good way to filter out those people. I don't have a better idea, but I just wanted to voice my opinion on the original idea or requirement.

 

[Black.Cat]

When I started out here I was a total leech. Even when I could think of a simple twist to an existing method, I never shared it. I just came here to get elegant themes from nativepro and read methods and make money online. But overtime, primarily because people shared their resources and knowledge, I started opening up. Nowadays, whenever I improve something about my methods or if I see a newbie taking action (not those who just blindly ask how to make money online), I try to give out whatever little bit of info I know.

On the other hand, I still see spammers posting their affiliate links, and some very useless posts ( I myself posts some of these from time to time to get the steam off but I keep it to a minimum). So I really can't decide.

Now, I'm pretty sure this can't be automated because it would be hard to judge the banning of accounts that you've described by using some general standard. Some may get banned unfairly. The alternative would be or the mods to check on them and God knows those people already have a tough job as it is. So I don't see it happening soon.

On the other, other hand, from my own experience, pure leechers who do not contribute may get a freebie here and there but do you really think that kind of attitude (leeching) will get them anywhere? I've been there and I know what its like to purely leech. When I started contributing, even my methods improved.

And in the off-chance that we make a pure leecher successful, then good for him. You never know when a guy like that will start thinking about donating stuff to the forum... in forms of giveaways, information or a Jr. VIP donation.

On the other other other hand, I can't help but agree with your concern for the forum.Like I said in my first post in this thread. I think the idea has potential but something's wrong with it.

All right. I'm done debating with myself about this topic.