I miss newbies. June 2, 2003 3:07 PM Subscribe
Newbies. I miss newbies. Are there still any newbies out there? Remember newbies? I miss newbies. [More inside.]
They are:
bluedaniel
Venux
Joi
h3athrow
Pericles
brewsterkahle
ariana
ascullion
poordelia1
necessitas
lobakgo
posted by timeistight at 3:25 PM on June 2, 2003
bluedaniel
Venux
Joi
h3athrow
Pericles
brewsterkahle
ariana
ascullion
poordelia1
necessitas
lobakgo
posted by timeistight at 3:25 PM on June 2, 2003
I have no opinion one way or the other on the newbie issue migs, but looking at the front page, I'd say this place is active enough to not have any concerns.
posted by Salmonberry at 3:31 PM on June 2, 2003
posted by Salmonberry at 3:31 PM on June 2, 2003
No. I say this sincerely, as a friend.
We have plenty of interesting FPP's (the main criteria, imho) and no lack of diverse opinions.
Isn't it time the floodgates were, if not opened, at least left slightly ajar again?
Miguel, we have a fine community. With acknowledged difficulties. This is cyberspace: there is no goldrush or land grab - anyone can set up what they wish.
The barbarians at the gate can establish their own Troy.
This was never a numbers game, was it, Miggy? Do you have evidence that the quality of posting and / or commenting has declined? (Now there's a tricky one).
No. Mefi does not need new members. Tho some members may - I know not why - desire them.
posted by dash_slot- at 3:38 PM on June 2, 2003
We have plenty of interesting FPP's (the main criteria, imho) and no lack of diverse opinions.
Isn't it time the floodgates were, if not opened, at least left slightly ajar again?
Miguel, we have a fine community. With acknowledged difficulties. This is cyberspace: there is no goldrush or land grab - anyone can set up what they wish.
The barbarians at the gate can establish their own Troy.
This was never a numbers game, was it, Miggy? Do you have evidence that the quality of posting and / or commenting has declined? (Now there's a tricky one).
No. Mefi does not need new members. Tho some members may - I know not why - desire them.
posted by dash_slot- at 3:38 PM on June 2, 2003
It's a worrying trend, imho.
The status quo is rough times? I'm liking the current post levels, and I also think it's mathowie's perogative to judge the server load (especially in light of the prior thread on the MeTa frontpage).
You just want more fresh meat for yourself, don't you, Cardoso?
posted by j.edwards at 3:40 PM on June 2, 2003
The status quo is rough times? I'm liking the current post levels, and I also think it's mathowie's perogative to judge the server load (especially in light of the prior thread on the MeTa frontpage).
You just want more fresh meat for yourself, don't you, Cardoso?
posted by j.edwards at 3:40 PM on June 2, 2003
What, leave the door open and let just anyone walk in? One of the best parts about being inside where it is warm is being able to point and laugh at those outside.
Naw, let them figure out how to sneak/bribe/hack their way in like the rest of us.
posted by dg at 3:48 PM on June 2, 2003
Naw, let them figure out how to sneak/bribe/hack their way in like the rest of us.
posted by dg at 3:48 PM on June 2, 2003
Like the newly converted, amberglow, you've always been a Me-fite (",)
posted by dash_slot- at 4:04 PM on June 2, 2003
posted by dash_slot- at 4:04 PM on June 2, 2003
[I say that in the ironic knowledge of a username fully 616 - or maybe 1 day - ahead of you ]
I'm new to this every day.
posted by dash_slot- at 4:07 PM on June 2, 2003
I'm new to this every day.
posted by dash_slot- at 4:07 PM on June 2, 2003
I'm going to re-open new user signups once some technical upgrades are made, and it will be limited to probably 10 people a day. I don't think I'll be doing the "donate five bucks if you don't feel like waiting each day" thing though.
We could use some new blood, though I think we have plenty of new threads and comments every day. What we have been missing in dozens of threads are involved and interested parties that wanted to comment. At least once a week I get an email from someone saying "people at MetaFilter are talking about the X project. I was the writer of the X project and would love to have given my input but cannot due to sign ups being closed." Those are the worst comments to lose.
See the previous thread to see what technical problems we are currently experiencing with our current membership levels.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:08 PM on June 2, 2003
We could use some new blood, though I think we have plenty of new threads and comments every day. What we have been missing in dozens of threads are involved and interested parties that wanted to comment. At least once a week I get an email from someone saying "people at MetaFilter are talking about the X project. I was the writer of the X project and would love to have given my input but cannot due to sign ups being closed." Those are the worst comments to lose.
See the previous thread to see what technical problems we are currently experiencing with our current membership levels.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:08 PM on June 2, 2003
Dashie and Edwards: Don't make me get up and go up there to tell you that if the same attitude had prevailed at the time anyone of us joined, none of us would be here!
Does anyone today lament the great Summer of 2002 influx? All living organisms need fresh blood when the overall production rate is declining.
It's either that or get all the lazy old farts and fartesses to start posting too - and the sedentary lurkers to delurk once in a while - instead of just selfishly reading and whining.
That would be too much, surely. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:10 PM on June 2, 2003
Does anyone today lament the great Summer of 2002 influx? All living organisms need fresh blood when the overall production rate is declining.
It's either that or get all the lazy old farts and fartesses to start posting too - and the sedentary lurkers to delurk once in a while - instead of just selfishly reading and whining.
That would be too much, surely. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:10 PM on June 2, 2003
If you had a seven day stretch where no one but newcomers (< 6 months) could post threads but everyone could comment, I wonder what the front page would look like. "Rush Week" might be an interesting experiement.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 4:27 PM on June 2, 2003
posted by Shadowkeeper at 4:27 PM on June 2, 2003
What's the official word on the idea of taking in new users by invitation (only?)? I know someone must have brought it up before, I'm just too lazy to search for it. I think it's a good idea.
posted by Hildago at 4:31 PM on June 2, 2003
posted by Hildago at 4:31 PM on June 2, 2003
Rarely do I address the matthead directly but...
"people at MetaFilter are talking about the X project. I was the writer of the X project and would love to have given my input but cannot due to sign ups being closed."
Sign 'em up, I say. They don't seem the type to persistently start pointless and / or trollish threads, are they? Is this a democracy? No. A meritocracy?
Hmm. Maybe. Either way - all your mates from the pub could become members, and we'd have less right to complain than the NOW at Atlanta. After all, we're in your club: so far, I like your house rules.
Migs: there was a back door then. [Plus - I'm a Spring 2002 alumni - an altogether different animal!]
PS - amberglow [one of the sweetest usernames on Mefi, i reckon]: what percentage of 'newbies' do we need after us, to make us feel like oldtimers? ( - most of whom, with honourable exceptions, nop longer participate here ?)
No, I know you weren't being serious!
Shadowkeeper - the radical in the pew. Heheheh.
Hildago - god question. Tho' i know why meatspace communities are barred from that...
posted by dash_slot- at 4:32 PM on June 2, 2003
"people at MetaFilter are talking about the X project. I was the writer of the X project and would love to have given my input but cannot due to sign ups being closed."
Sign 'em up, I say. They don't seem the type to persistently start pointless and / or trollish threads, are they? Is this a democracy? No. A meritocracy?
Hmm. Maybe. Either way - all your mates from the pub could become members, and we'd have less right to complain than the NOW at Atlanta. After all, we're in your club: so far, I like your house rules.
Migs: there was a back door then. [Plus - I'm a Spring 2002 alumni - an altogether different animal!]
PS - amberglow [one of the sweetest usernames on Mefi, i reckon]: what percentage of 'newbies' do we need after us, to make us feel like oldtimers? ( - most of whom, with honourable exceptions, nop longer participate here ?)
No, I know you weren't being serious!
Shadowkeeper - the radical in the pew. Heheheh.
Hildago - god question. Tho' i know why meatspace communities are barred from that...
posted by dash_slot- at 4:32 PM on June 2, 2003
Matt-
Could you have floating "temp" logins that you assigned to people like the ones you mention, only to yoink them later (or not yoink them)?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 4:50 PM on June 2, 2003
Could you have floating "temp" logins that you assigned to people like the ones you mention, only to yoink them later (or not yoink them)?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 4:50 PM on June 2, 2003
well dash, i think a few thou would make me feel like an old-timer...i've been here almost a year, and there are only 3 thousand more members since i got in as a eager 14ker...don't i get to chastise newbies and stuff too?
(and thanks!)
posted by amberglow at 4:54 PM on June 2, 2003
(and thanks!)
posted by amberglow at 4:54 PM on June 2, 2003
I forgot to mention that I allow people that are involved with a post to get an account, but many simply don't take me up on the offer, their enthusiasm gone after being refused.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:10 PM on June 2, 2003
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:10 PM on June 2, 2003
How about an age requirement?
posted by timeistight at 5:13 PM on June 2, 2003
posted by timeistight at 5:13 PM on June 2, 2003
Don't give me any lip, sonny.
posted by timeistight at 6:44 PM on June 2, 2003
posted by timeistight at 6:44 PM on June 2, 2003
There are creative people here. There are creative things happening on the web. But, all in all, the filter part is way past dead. I don't mean to imply that MetaFilter serves no purpose, or that one can't find interesting stuff by lurking here. But the vacuous belief that new users will improve the place is just silly. That would be just more blah, blah, blah to an environ that has become increasingly ego-based-comment driven blah, blah, blah.
Maybe that is an admission that I believe that comments, not links, drives MeFi anymore. I'll have to think about that for a while, as should all of you. Or not.
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:00 PM on June 2, 2003
Maybe that is an admission that I believe that comments, not links, drives MeFi anymore. I'll have to think about that for a while, as should all of you. Or not.
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:00 PM on June 2, 2003
An idea, possibly silly but I thought I'd float it anyway.
Each day, delete user accounts that have been inactive for 6 months. If, on a given day, 15 accounts are deleted, allow 15 new signups. User membership will stay constant at a fixed arbitrary (and possibly humerous) number - new blood will constantly arrive, and users will have to hang around on Metafilter to ensure their account isn't scrapped.
posted by Jimbob at 8:02 PM on June 2, 2003
Each day, delete user accounts that have been inactive for 6 months. If, on a given day, 15 accounts are deleted, allow 15 new signups. User membership will stay constant at a fixed arbitrary (and possibly humerous) number - new blood will constantly arrive, and users will have to hang around on Metafilter to ensure their account isn't scrapped.
posted by Jimbob at 8:02 PM on June 2, 2003
Jimbob - I wrote (and then deleted before posting) a very similar idea - the problem is that you would be sacrificing inactive accounts in favor of potentially HIGHLY verbose, active people. I've long believed that the site would be just as noisy with 1000 members as it is with 17000, provided you picked the noisest 1K. As for adding newbies, if you can't get enough diversity of opinion & interest among the people who post here currently, I think you're just not looking hard enough.
posted by jonson at 8:16 PM on June 2, 2003
posted by jonson at 8:16 PM on June 2, 2003
As the type of person known to wander into the mountains for a long period of time at random intervals and then expect my MeFi account to still work on my return, I gotta say I'm against that one, Bob.
posted by kaibutsu at 8:17 PM on June 2, 2003
posted by kaibutsu at 8:17 PM on June 2, 2003
...and the sedentary lurkers to delurk once in a while
Everytime you make a comment or post, Senor Cardoso, another lurker dies :)
posted by elphTeq at 8:32 PM on June 2, 2003
Everytime you make a comment or post, Senor Cardoso, another lurker dies :)
posted by elphTeq at 8:32 PM on June 2, 2003
( lurkers unite - we can topple this tower of rhetoric! )
posted by elphTeq at 8:38 PM on June 2, 2003
posted by elphTeq at 8:38 PM on June 2, 2003
True, jonson.. I've got to admit I don't really have any great problem with how things are run currently (although, as others have said, it would be good to allow certain "special guests" access at certain times). It's the awkward way things are run around here (how many other sites let 17,000 people in, then shut off the flow) that creates the dynamic. And it's a sign of the health of the community that activity stays constant despite a lack of new members.
posted by Jimbob at 9:02 PM on June 2, 2003
posted by Jimbob at 9:02 PM on June 2, 2003
As far as comments being down, the same thing happened last year about this time-"this time" being when people go home from college.
posted by konolia at 9:08 PM on June 2, 2003
posted by konolia at 9:08 PM on June 2, 2003
Funny, konolia, I always got the impression that the average age around here was well past college age at this point... I always feel like the youngun.
posted by kaibutsu at 4:14 AM on June 3, 2003
posted by kaibutsu at 4:14 AM on June 3, 2003
where's steve at btw ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:00 AM on June 3, 2003
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:00 AM on June 3, 2003
I was wondering something along the same lines, Jimbob, and have been mentally composing a MeTa post in the shower for the past couple of days. I'd extend it, though -- I'd delete anyone who hasn't logged in in a year or even two. I'm curious as to how many of the 17K are completely inactive.
I sympathize with the anti-newbie argument. Heck, there's already a LOT to read and it's still an endlessly fascinating site. But my egalitarian streak wants others to be able to join the fun.
Besides, I have a couple of friends and colleagues who I think would make interesting contributions and be good members...I wish there was a way I could sponsor them for membership, as I feel guilty when they see me on the 'Filter and their faces get long because they can only lurk.
posted by Vidiot at 6:09 AM on June 3, 2003
I sympathize with the anti-newbie argument. Heck, there's already a LOT to read and it's still an endlessly fascinating site. But my egalitarian streak wants others to be able to join the fun.
Besides, I have a couple of friends and colleagues who I think would make interesting contributions and be good members...I wish there was a way I could sponsor them for membership, as I feel guilty when they see me on the 'Filter and their faces get long because they can only lurk.
posted by Vidiot at 6:09 AM on June 3, 2003
if the same attitude had prevailed at the time anyone of us joined, none of us would be here!
if only. if only.
posted by matteo at 6:13 AM on June 3, 2003
if only. if only.
posted by matteo at 6:13 AM on June 3, 2003
It's bad enough that we have "What Kind of X are You" threads & NYT links from members who have been here for a while. I shutter to think what crap the next generation brings in.
posted by mkelley at 6:14 AM on June 3, 2003
posted by mkelley at 6:14 AM on June 3, 2003
i dont think the problem is a need for new members,
the problem was a gigantic amount of iraq threads that beat people into submission.
posted by sgt.serenity at 6:25 AM on June 3, 2003
the problem was a gigantic amount of iraq threads that beat people into submission.
posted by sgt.serenity at 6:25 AM on June 3, 2003
Vidiot and Jimbob, on the idea of deleting inactive accounts. How are you going to determine inactivity? Should I be punished because I have a busy life and scan the front page and don't read every thread and comment once in awhile? I read, I check the place out. I log in almost every day to get a feel for what's going on. Requiring people to comment, or god forbid come up with front page posts, in order to keep their account alive is just going to increase the noise. If people don't feel they have anything to add to a discussion and are content to listen, jolly good for them I say.
posted by Apoch at 6:39 AM on June 3, 2003
posted by Apoch at 6:39 AM on June 3, 2003
I'd determine inactivity by either: time since last login, or time since last comment posted. If forced to choose, I'd go for time since last login. I think that if you haven't logged in a year-plus, it's a safe bet that you're not really engaged with the site anymore.
I read a lot (say, at work) without logging in, and goodness knows all of our lives can get incredibly busy. I also agree that we shouldn't be forcing people to post FPPs or even comments if they don't want to or feel they can put a good one together. (heck, I've commented 1K+ times but have posted <25 FPPs...)
posted by Vidiot at 6:57 AM on June 3, 2003
I read a lot (say, at work) without logging in, and goodness knows all of our lives can get incredibly busy. I also agree that we shouldn't be forcing people to post FPPs or even comments if they don't want to or feel they can put a good one together. (heck, I've commented 1K+ times but have posted <25 FPPs...)
posted by Vidiot at 6:57 AM on June 3, 2003
There, that wasn't hard, was it, Apoch? Now you're renewed for another six months. Just be sure to comment on the identical thread Miguel will be posting towards the end of November.
I like the idea of membership by recommendation, and I'd add the refinement that if the recommendee screws up, the recommender gets strapped to the MeTa foremast and we all hurl rancid haddock at them. Much more fun than keelhauling.
posted by languagehat at 6:59 AM on June 3, 2003
I like the idea of membership by recommendation, and I'd add the refinement that if the recommendee screws up, the recommender gets strapped to the MeTa foremast and we all hurl rancid haddock at them. Much more fun than keelhauling.
posted by languagehat at 6:59 AM on June 3, 2003
I don't know....we could make this like The Bachelor or American Idol and start voting people off the site...just think, we could get the bandwidth way down in a short time-especially if Miguel gets kicked off the island sooner than later...(I kid because I love!)
posted by konolia at 7:33 AM on June 3, 2003
posted by konolia at 7:33 AM on June 3, 2003
I too like the recommendation idea. Existing members could vouch for friends who they know read the site and have long desired a membership.
Of course, there's no reason to delete old memberships. If someone never posts again, there's no difference between deleting his/her account and letting it stay dormant.
posted by PrinceValium at 7:59 AM on June 3, 2003
Of course, there's no reason to delete old memberships. If someone never posts again, there's no difference between deleting his/her account and letting it stay dormant.
posted by PrinceValium at 7:59 AM on June 3, 2003
I have a great idea. Instead of recommendations, let's have all wannabes go through a 'pledge' process where the 'new class' has to undergo all sorts of humiliating acts and/or hazing; then we can pick and choose our favorites and the rest can go pledge at some other community blog. Either way, we're making metafilter into an elite, exclusive, cliquish society, but this way we can have a little fun with it, right? And we can have Friday Flash keggers.
posted by evinrude at 8:13 AM on June 3, 2003
posted by evinrude at 8:13 AM on June 3, 2003
Instead of recommendations, let's have all wannabes go through a 'pledge' process where the 'new class' has to undergo all sorts of humiliating acts and/or hazing; then we can pick and choose our favorites and the rest can go pledge at some other community blog.
I thought we already had it. Newbie posts FPP, gets called into MetaTalk, humiliation and hazing result.
posted by Vidiot at 9:13 AM on June 3, 2003
I thought we already had it. Newbie posts FPP, gets called into MetaTalk, humiliation and hazing result.
posted by Vidiot at 9:13 AM on June 3, 2003
Of course, there's no reason to delete old memberships. If someone never posts again, there's no difference between deleting his/her account and letting it stay dormant.
Absolutely. Why does this even need to be said? "17151 members" is shorthand for "there have been 17151 members of Metafilter since day one", not "17151 members are hanging out here right now"; the number of active members on any one day is a small percentage of that figure. And inactive members don't contribute to server-load in the slightest - by definition. The only reason for purging dormant members would be to reduce the total member count from one arbitrary number to another, and what's the point of doing that?
Or is this just an anti-lurker proposal? You're not all worried about the old-timers who've long gone, you're worried about the ones who are still here, watching, waiting, using valuable server cycles but rarely posting or commenting... you want to flush them out into the open air and hound them, beat them with sticks, force them to scream, "AAAAAAA, stop hitting me, don't drag me into your fifty-ninth ad-hominem-laden train-wreck about Bush and Rumsfeld, I just want to read the links, the LINKS, AIIEEEEEEEEE!", and punish them by taking away their sacred posting rights and ejecting them into the non-member night, where they'll never be able to see (5 new) at the end of a comment count again. Because if you don't post a comment every fifteen minutes you're obviously a sad failure of a human being.
Except they'll be able to sign up again right away, because you'll have reinstigated new-member sign-ups. So that's okay.
posted by rory at 9:16 AM on June 3, 2003
Absolutely. Why does this even need to be said? "17151 members" is shorthand for "there have been 17151 members of Metafilter since day one", not "17151 members are hanging out here right now"; the number of active members on any one day is a small percentage of that figure. And inactive members don't contribute to server-load in the slightest - by definition. The only reason for purging dormant members would be to reduce the total member count from one arbitrary number to another, and what's the point of doing that?
Or is this just an anti-lurker proposal? You're not all worried about the old-timers who've long gone, you're worried about the ones who are still here, watching, waiting, using valuable server cycles but rarely posting or commenting... you want to flush them out into the open air and hound them, beat them with sticks, force them to scream, "AAAAAAA, stop hitting me, don't drag me into your fifty-ninth ad-hominem-laden train-wreck about Bush and Rumsfeld, I just want to read the links, the LINKS, AIIEEEEEEEEE!", and punish them by taking away their sacred posting rights and ejecting them into the non-member night, where they'll never be able to see (5 new) at the end of a comment count again. Because if you don't post a comment every fifteen minutes you're obviously a sad failure of a human being.
Except they'll be able to sign up again right away, because you'll have reinstigated new-member sign-ups. So that's okay.
posted by rory at 9:16 AM on June 3, 2003
uh, no. Actually, I was just curious about how many "dormant" members there are that haven't logged in in a year or two. I think that logging in once every year or two is hardly a.) a strain on server load, or b.) forcing them into commenting.
posted by Vidiot at 9:28 AM on June 3, 2003
posted by Vidiot at 9:28 AM on June 3, 2003
Metafilter was fun and interesting when it had 500 members, a dozen posts a day, and a dozen or two comments in a really long thread. Now it has 15,000 members, a couple doen posts a day, and two dozen comments in an average thread, and it is still fun and interesting, albeit for somewhat different reasons. Where's the problem?
All living organisms need fresh blood when the overall production rate is declining.
1) it's only declining if you look at it in close-up.
2) why are we supposed to care about this production rate?
It's either that or get all the lazy old farts and fartesses to start posting too - and the sedentary lurkers to delurk once in a while - instead of just selfishly reading and whining.
Lurkers are a fact of online life. Better try to stop the tide than to bring all the lurkers out of hiding. At least that problem is amenable to engineering, since you can nuke the moon if you have to.
the problem was a gigantic amount of iraq threads that beat people into submission.
We had the same problem in 2000 with election threads, actually. Metafilter changed, got a little less shiny, shifted focus... and yet people still come here to share links and talk about them. Including myself, obviously, though I doubt I could explain why.
Since I feel curmudgeonly, let me point out that community cohesion develops inversely to community size. In the real world, large groups break themselves down naturally, and it's in the subgroups that real human connections are made. Unfortunately there is no such "natural" breakdown system on the 'net, and examples of successful community growth are rare. You simply can't get to know or successfully converse with thousands of people at a time. Making a successful community bigger does not make it better.
posted by Mars Saxman at 9:57 AM on June 3, 2003
All living organisms need fresh blood when the overall production rate is declining.
1) it's only declining if you look at it in close-up.
2) why are we supposed to care about this production rate?
It's either that or get all the lazy old farts and fartesses to start posting too - and the sedentary lurkers to delurk once in a while - instead of just selfishly reading and whining.
Lurkers are a fact of online life. Better try to stop the tide than to bring all the lurkers out of hiding. At least that problem is amenable to engineering, since you can nuke the moon if you have to.
the problem was a gigantic amount of iraq threads that beat people into submission.
We had the same problem in 2000 with election threads, actually. Metafilter changed, got a little less shiny, shifted focus... and yet people still come here to share links and talk about them. Including myself, obviously, though I doubt I could explain why.
Since I feel curmudgeonly, let me point out that community cohesion develops inversely to community size. In the real world, large groups break themselves down naturally, and it's in the subgroups that real human connections are made. Unfortunately there is no such "natural" breakdown system on the 'net, and examples of successful community growth are rare. You simply can't get to know or successfully converse with thousands of people at a time. Making a successful community bigger does not make it better.
posted by Mars Saxman at 9:57 AM on June 3, 2003
Actually, I was just curious about how many "dormant" members there are that haven't logged in in a year or two.
Well, you did say you'd delete them. I ask again: Why? What would that prove? If they're truly gone and never coming back, they'll never know or care that you are about to delete them, have deleted them, or that MeFi even still exists. And if they are truly gone and never coming back, they contribute precisely zero to server load. They're a non-issue. But if they do have some lingering interest in the place, and some desire to return one day, all you'll do by deleting their accounts is piss them off.
Curiosity about the number of dormant accounts shouldn't be a reason for deleting them. Hey, I'm curious about how many people didn't vote in the last election. Let's purge the electoral rolls!
posted by rory at 9:58 AM on June 3, 2003
Well, you did say you'd delete them. I ask again: Why? What would that prove? If they're truly gone and never coming back, they'll never know or care that you are about to delete them, have deleted them, or that MeFi even still exists. And if they are truly gone and never coming back, they contribute precisely zero to server load. They're a non-issue. But if they do have some lingering interest in the place, and some desire to return one day, all you'll do by deleting their accounts is piss them off.
Curiosity about the number of dormant accounts shouldn't be a reason for deleting them. Hey, I'm curious about how many people didn't vote in the last election. Let's purge the electoral rolls!
posted by rory at 9:58 AM on June 3, 2003
Good point -- I'm not on a deletion crusade...I'm more curious, as I said, than anything. But you're right -- there's no compelling reason to delete inactive folks.
posted by Vidiot at 10:12 AM on June 3, 2003
posted by Vidiot at 10:12 AM on June 3, 2003
At 16196, I suppose I'm not part of the furniture quite yet!
posted by ralawrence at 10:29 AM on June 3, 2003
posted by ralawrence at 10:29 AM on June 3, 2003
I think the question is not how many *dormant* users there are, but how many *active* users are ideal for the site. This MeFi Quotient, however, is a difficult number to home in on, and probably doesn't exist, since some people prefer large groups and others prefer small ones.
posted by vraxoin at 12:21 PM on June 3, 2003
posted by vraxoin at 12:21 PM on June 3, 2003
You're all missing the point. That's right, each and every one of you. The point is this:
Finally Miguel has gotten back to posting MetaTalk threads!
After his "pretending" to be upset about Shadowkeeper's Gold Star on his 100th, he went on sabbatical for a full three weeks. In that time, I would occasionally wander over here and look around, and leave with a vague sense that something was missing. Yesterday I realized what it was, and resolved to post my own thread about how Miguel wasn't posting any more ("Lately I've been thinking about Miguel Cardoso...") but thankfully, I've been saved from doing that.
Also, I think we should all strive to have our user pages showcase such beautifully consistent palindromic figures (as of right now):
MiguelCardoso has posted 303 links and 3003 comments to MetaFilter
and 101 threads and 2002 comments to MetaTalk
posted by soyjoy at 1:28 PM on June 3, 2003
Finally Miguel has gotten back to posting MetaTalk threads!
After his "pretending" to be upset about Shadowkeeper's Gold Star on his 100th, he went on sabbatical for a full three weeks. In that time, I would occasionally wander over here and look around, and leave with a vague sense that something was missing. Yesterday I realized what it was, and resolved to post my own thread about how Miguel wasn't posting any more ("Lately I've been thinking about Miguel Cardoso...") but thankfully, I've been saved from doing that.
Also, I think we should all strive to have our user pages showcase such beautifully consistent palindromic figures (as of right now):
MiguelCardoso has posted 303 links and 3003 comments to MetaFilter
and 101 threads and 2002 comments to MetaTalk
posted by soyjoy at 1:28 PM on June 3, 2003
you owe me $5, migs.
posted by crunchland at 2:47 PM on June 3, 2003
posted by crunchland at 2:47 PM on June 3, 2003
ah ! so THATS what it was !
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:57 PM on June 3, 2003
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:57 PM on June 3, 2003
... a vague sense that something was missing.
In the same way that you notice that a pothole in the road on your way to work has been repaired and you no longer have to remember to avoid it?
posted by dg at 3:14 PM on June 3, 2003
In the same way that you notice that a pothole in the road on your way to work has been repaired and you no longer have to remember to avoid it?
posted by dg at 3:14 PM on June 3, 2003
fresh meat. bring on the five fresh meat. the fishmeat. meatmeinsaintlouis meat. bring it on. let's go. bring it.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 6:43 PM on June 3, 2003
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 6:43 PM on June 3, 2003
I'm reminded for no good reason of Douglas Adams' memorable way of describing the Vogon Constructor Fleet in the skies over earth. Something to the effect that they were massive, yellow, slablike somethings that hung in the air in exactly the way that bricks don't.
This is not, perhaps, precisely germane to the conversation. Sorry.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:46 PM on June 3, 2003
This is not, perhaps, precisely germane to the conversation. Sorry.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:46 PM on June 3, 2003
I'm one of those lax MeFi members you want to give the heave-ho to, Vidiot! Did our night mean nothing to you? Did we not bond over ziti and cheap beer?
*sobs*
But seriously, I'm totally opposed to axing the not-very-active, because that's me! I'm rarely compelled to comment (unless, of course, my very limited claim on MetaFilter territory is threatened; then WATCH OUT, my fangs are bared!), but I do feel that every once in a very great while I should weigh in on some ridiculous subject or another. Blessed are the meek, right? Right?
posted by readymade at 7:01 PM on June 3, 2003
*sobs*
But seriously, I'm totally opposed to axing the not-very-active, because that's me! I'm rarely compelled to comment (unless, of course, my very limited claim on MetaFilter territory is threatened; then WATCH OUT, my fangs are bared!), but I do feel that every once in a very great while I should weigh in on some ridiculous subject or another. Blessed are the meek, right? Right?
posted by readymade at 7:01 PM on June 3, 2003
stav, no need for apologies, i'm right there with you. and let's freshen that drinkeepoo while we're at it.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 7:07 PM on June 3, 2003
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 7:07 PM on June 3, 2003
Here's an idea: every time someone dramatically announces they are leaving the site, delete their account at once.
posted by crunchburger at 7:20 PM on June 3, 2003
posted by crunchburger at 7:20 PM on June 3, 2003
How about deleting the accounts of all the people who manage to post 303 links and 3003 comments to MetaFilter, and 101 threads and 2002 comments to MetaTalk?
posted by crunchland at 7:30 PM on June 3, 2003
posted by crunchland at 7:30 PM on June 3, 2003
how about deleting all usernames containing the substring 'crunch'?
posted by quonsar at 7:34 PM on June 3, 2003
posted by quonsar at 7:34 PM on June 3, 2003
is that a first? double-crunching. odd.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 7:36 PM on June 3, 2003
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 7:36 PM on June 3, 2003
Whew! That was close!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:05 PM on June 3, 2003
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:05 PM on June 3, 2003
You all know where crunchie's bitterness is driving me, don't you? Yup, I've made my reservations for 333/3333 and 111/2222. Should be there, oh, by the end of the month at the latest. :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:09 PM on June 3, 2003
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:09 PM on June 3, 2003
I'm one of those lax MeFi members you want to give the heave-ho to, Vidiot! Did our night mean nothing to you? Did we not bond over ziti and cheap beer?
*sobs*
Awww...true dat. The beer was good, as was the wine, the whiskey, the tequila, the linguini, the jukebox, et cetera, et cetera. And our time together was indeed quite special and lingers tantalizingly in my memory.
But is it so frigging hard to just log in once every two years? Ya wouldn't even have to say anything.
Also, as I said, I don't really care if inactive people are deleted or not. That's up to ol' #1.
I like crunchland's idea too.
posted by Vidiot at 8:09 PM on June 3, 2003
*sobs*
Awww...true dat. The beer was good, as was the wine, the whiskey, the tequila, the linguini, the jukebox, et cetera, et cetera. And our time together was indeed quite special and lingers tantalizingly in my memory.
But is it so frigging hard to just log in once every two years? Ya wouldn't even have to say anything.
Also, as I said, I don't really care if inactive people are deleted or not. That's up to ol' #1.
I like crunchland's idea too.
posted by Vidiot at 8:09 PM on June 3, 2003
stavrosthewonderchicken, it scares me that I understood why that particular nugget came to your mind although, if pressed to explain it, I would be at a loss.
I like crunchburger's idea far better than crunchland's.
MeTa: Now with even more crunchy goodness!
posted by dg at 8:26 PM on June 3, 2003
I like crunchburger's idea far better than crunchland's.
MeTa: Now with even more crunchy goodness!
posted by dg at 8:26 PM on June 3, 2003
I knew this day would come. The 'Don't like my nick much anymore' thing on my user page is old and only partially due to my dread of patrinomic mockery. If Matt would like to change it - into Frankenberry, CountChocula, whatever- it's fine by me.
posted by crunchburger at 8:50 PM on June 3, 2003
posted by crunchburger at 8:50 PM on June 3, 2003
My idea is not serious because old-style SDB exits have gone the way of the dodo. StanChin slunk off, didn't he, without anyone realizing for a while.
posted by crunchburger at 8:52 PM on June 3, 2003
posted by crunchburger at 8:52 PM on June 3, 2003
RushMC did it fairly recently. She even did it twice, within the last six months. At least Evanizer's second exit wasn't as embarassing as the first one.
posted by jonson at 9:56 PM on June 3, 2003
posted by jonson at 9:56 PM on June 3, 2003
Perhaps it would be better to put out a call for content and discussion. It isn't that I think "opening the gates" is good or bad, but I think more directly addressing the stated problem is a better cause, especially in light of the indicated data.
I took the point of the post as "how do we encourage better discussion and finding more of the good things out there on the web". Speaking as a relative newb, I feel their may be other circumstances constricting threads and discussions. The climate for posting seems to be far more critical than open. There seems to be a very strong power law in effect for comments, threads, (community membership?), etc. These factors should change as part of "letting a thousand flowers bloom".
Things I would propose:
1) Lower the stigma of posting previous content. A good thread on previous content may not be a terribly bad thing. Threads can always be deleted. The idea is definitely for new content, but stigma should be relatively avoided, since the idea is to encourage participation.
2) Give people causes to seek out "the best of the web". Some sort of indication of general area's for a to be decided period. Let these areas be broad (art, history, science) or narrow (crazy message board threads, car tire tread patterns). The web is increasingly containing massive amounts of information, and I think people are more likely to find the acme if they are looking for a narrower area.
3) Add a guideline on the posting thread suggesting that posters add/research a few more related links.
4) Your suggestion here.
posted by rudyfink at 10:24 PM on June 3, 2003
I took the point of the post as "how do we encourage better discussion and finding more of the good things out there on the web". Speaking as a relative newb, I feel their may be other circumstances constricting threads and discussions. The climate for posting seems to be far more critical than open. There seems to be a very strong power law in effect for comments, threads, (community membership?), etc. These factors should change as part of "letting a thousand flowers bloom".
Things I would propose:
1) Lower the stigma of posting previous content. A good thread on previous content may not be a terribly bad thing. Threads can always be deleted. The idea is definitely for new content, but stigma should be relatively avoided, since the idea is to encourage participation.
2) Give people causes to seek out "the best of the web". Some sort of indication of general area's for a to be decided period. Let these areas be broad (art, history, science) or narrow (crazy message board threads, car tire tread patterns). The web is increasingly containing massive amounts of information, and I think people are more likely to find the acme if they are looking for a narrower area.
3) Add a guideline on the posting thread suggesting that posters add/research a few more related links.
4) Your suggestion here.
posted by rudyfink at 10:24 PM on June 3, 2003
rudyfink - I'm afraid I have to reject your suggestion outright, as I did a mouseover and saw that your user number is higher than mine. Better luck next time.
posted by jonson at 10:46 PM on June 3, 2003
posted by jonson at 10:46 PM on June 3, 2003
If we are going to expand, I'm all for increasing the global and the female participation. We are heavily skewed to U.S. and male. (I volunteer to do some global recruiting if y'all would just kindly cough up a paypal grant.)
I'd also like to see us ferret out some of the existing wallflowers and force them to jump in the fray every now & again...like this cool Canadian, this super interesting Brazilian or this smart Brit.
And where's girlhacker? She sounded smart & fun. And Firda from Indonesia - she's a geek girl. Or Min Jung Kim who could bolster our Korean contingent. We could probably at least excite their curiosity by storming their web pages. Come on back, people! Recruit an oldie today!
posted by madamjujujive at 10:52 PM on June 3, 2003
I'd also like to see us ferret out some of the existing wallflowers and force them to jump in the fray every now & again...like this cool Canadian, this super interesting Brazilian or this smart Brit.
And where's girlhacker? She sounded smart & fun. And Firda from Indonesia - she's a geek girl. Or Min Jung Kim who could bolster our Korean contingent. We could probably at least excite their curiosity by storming their web pages. Come on back, people! Recruit an oldie today!
posted by madamjujujive at 10:52 PM on June 3, 2003
I'll second MJJ's suggestion. I further propose that users who have "posted no links to MetaFilter
and no threads and no comments to MetaTalk" henceforth be referred to as "nullbies".
I further propose that 9622 recruit this nullbie.
posted by taz at 12:49 AM on June 4, 2003
and no threads and no comments to MetaTalk" henceforth be referred to as "nullbies".
I further propose that 9622 recruit this nullbie.
posted by taz at 12:49 AM on June 4, 2003
The important question is this:
If all the "nullbies" are removed, does everyone else's user number change accordingly? I'm looking to break into four-digit-land here.
Seriously, I have a serious compulsion not to care how many nullbies there are, or if they continue to have accounts. 17,000 probably looks better on the FP than 8 or 9k (optimistically), anyway.
Come on back, people! Recruit an oldie today!
Simultaneously the best and worst idea ever.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 1:55 AM on June 4, 2003
If all the "nullbies" are removed, does everyone else's user number change accordingly? I'm looking to break into four-digit-land here.
Seriously, I have a serious compulsion not to care how many nullbies there are, or if they continue to have accounts. 17,000 probably looks better on the FP than 8 or 9k (optimistically), anyway.
Come on back, people! Recruit an oldie today!
Simultaneously the best and worst idea ever.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 1:55 AM on June 4, 2003
You're all missing the point. That's right, each and every one of you.
Ahem. Some of us have been paying attention, soyjoy.
posted by rory at 2:04 AM on June 4, 2003
Ahem. Some of us have been paying attention, soyjoy.
posted by rory at 2:04 AM on June 4, 2003
I think this is the eight or ninth post I ever made to Metafilter:
"Hey c'mon that's not a fair thing to say. I was only replying to the issue. No need to flame just because I'm new to your country club. And what was so arrogant and clueless about what I wrote? I can see only one person being arrogant here."
posted by crasspastor at 2:26 AM on June 4, 2003
"Hey c'mon that's not a fair thing to say. I was only replying to the issue. No need to flame just because I'm new to your country club. And what was so arrogant and clueless about what I wrote? I can see only one person being arrogant here."
posted by crasspastor at 2:26 AM on June 4, 2003
massive, yellow, slablike somethings that hung in the air in exactly the way that bricks don't
/discreetly fiddles with electronic thumb
posted by walrus at 2:40 AM on June 4, 2003
/discreetly fiddles with electronic thumb
posted by walrus at 2:40 AM on June 4, 2003
We are heavily skewed to U.S. and male.
Sigh... We're also skewed heavily to the coasts. We in flyover land ought to get more uppity.
posted by norm at 6:54 AM on June 4, 2003
Sigh... We're also skewed heavily to the coasts. We in flyover land ought to get more uppity.
posted by norm at 6:54 AM on June 4, 2003
I'm back, after having Mefi blocked from work for the past few months. Does that count? I want to be a newbie again!
(Sorry, my birthday is next week and I'm a little sensitive...)
posted by JoanArkham at 9:29 AM on June 4, 2003
(Sorry, my birthday is next week and I'm a little sensitive...)
posted by JoanArkham at 9:29 AM on June 4, 2003
Vidiot, I happen to be very well acquainted with one of the newbies who was listed by timeistight way up above there. I happen to know that this person is finishing up her first year of grad school and hardly has time to eat and breathe, let alone post here. But she felt she was missing out on current events, had lurked here for quite a while, and thought that briefly reading MeFi would give her a quick idea of what's going on in the non-school world and what people are buzzing about. Thus we see that Metafilter indeed is serving its users by functioning at its highest level, filtering the web.
posted by Lynsey at 12:17 PM on June 4, 2003
posted by Lynsey at 12:17 PM on June 4, 2003
Should be there, oh, by the end of the month at the latest. :)
You'd better hope this month has 32 days, Miguel.
posted by j.edwards at 3:47 PM on June 4, 2003
You'd better hope this month has 32 days, Miguel.
posted by j.edwards at 3:47 PM on June 4, 2003
uh, Lynsey, I'm not sure why you're addressing that to me. (I'm looking forward to signups being re-enabled.)
posted by Vidiot at 9:30 PM on June 4, 2003
posted by Vidiot at 9:30 PM on June 4, 2003
You know, I first saw this thread Tuesday when I was in a jury room, cooling my heels, waiting to be assigned to a trial. It was very cool to have internet access in this jury room, but we weren't allowed to post to any forms there so I couldn't comment at the time. When I finally got back to work (we were all dismissed, the defendant pleaded guilty), I got confused after all the additional comments. So sorry, vidiot - I ♥ vidiot! Hugs all around! I love newbies and all of you, too!
posted by Lynsey at 10:39 AM on June 5, 2003
posted by Lynsey at 10:39 AM on June 5, 2003
Hey, I'm technically a newbie. I signed up for an account back in 2001 and haven't used it. Basically kept jumping in occasionally but never really posted anything. So if you need to pick on me or anything, I'm up for it but it'll cost ya. Since this place isn't taking anymore accounts I'm in high demand.
posted by pbeyer at 12:32 PM on June 6, 2003
posted by pbeyer at 12:32 PM on June 6, 2003
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Waxpancakes statistics for April and May haven't yet been published yet but my hunch is that the numbers are down again.
It's a worrying trend, imho. Isn't it time the floodgates were, if not opened, at least left slightly ajar again?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:08 PM on June 2, 2003