Prune users with 0 postcounts

ApTyp · Post by **ApTyp** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:20 pm

Total number of registered users: 3584
Number of users with 0 postcount: 1753

That's 48.91%

Surely the ruling caste will decide to do something about it?..

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:26 pm

Who cares?

ApTyp · Post by **ApTyp** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:28 pm

It'll make the site a bit faster, and the database a bit smaller, so do it, somehow?

Blargh · Post by **Blargh** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:29 pm

As long as we all get a meal out of it. Can the offending 0 post users be ground up into a nutrient rich (or so I hope) paste, frozen and mailed to active users ? That'd be nice.

ApTyp · Post by **ApTyp** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:31 pm

Blargh: the new Susan?

Blargh · Post by **Blargh** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:32 pm

Funny, you're the one gunning for 1000 posts . . .

ApTyp · Post by **ApTyp** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:33 pm

You're the one gunning for 3000, fucking hypocrite?

Blargh · Post by **Blargh** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:36 pm

Except I'm not. 'Tis incidental. Twit.

ApTyp · Post by **ApTyp** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:38 pm

Why do you lie?

Blargh · Post by **Blargh** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:39 pm

Why do you steal ?

ApTyp · Post by **ApTyp** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:40 pm

Fuck it. This is childish.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:42 pm

Again, many of the 0 post users are lurkers who want the cookie features but don't want to post. This is okay.

Perhaps it could be arranged for lurkers to tag their account (when they create it) as a "lurker" account and be exempt from such purges.

ApTyp · Post by **ApTyp** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:44 pm

I guess I can see the point. Making the lurkers tag the accounts would probably not work, anyway. It's better to give them the option to do so AFTER they register.

But for all practical purposes, it might be just as fine to leave things as they are...

Blargh · Post by **Blargh** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:46 pm

Thank you for scraping together some dignity, ApTyp.

For the record, the possibility of lurkers being purÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â©ed and mailed around the world would not sit well with me at all.

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:42 pm

ApTyp wrote:Blargh: the new Susan?

How and why?

ApTyp · Post by **ApTyp** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:50 pm

You both spam and you're both nuts, somewhat.

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:54 pm

Makes it 3.

ApTyp · Post by **ApTyp** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:56 pm

What?

Blargh · Post by **Blargh** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:57 pm

ApTyp wrote:You both spam and you're both nuts, somewhat.

I DIDN'T KNOW YOU CARED ! WHY WERE YOU SILENT ALL THESE YEARS !? WHY ?

SHHH, DEAR. DO NOT ANSWER. DO NOT RUIN THE MOMENT.

LET US ENJOY IT FOR WHAT IT IS. YES.

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:05 pm

Still, who cares? Will pruning really make that much of a difference to the site, speed-wise? I highly doubt it.