Inactive BBF profiles

[The_Badger]

I think Helene would be a great choice. She's been here for a very long time and has a good grip on who's active and who isn't.

 

I second that Phil. helene_t will do us proud :)

 

However, what concerns me beyond that are two matters:-

 

First, there seems to me a small number (less than 100 perhaps - a guesstimate) of regular posters generally. I realise many bridge players may post on Bridgewinners as opposed to BBO, and some may use the two. But BBO Forums do need a few more regular posters, I feel, as opposed to waiting for the 'usual suspects' (myself included now) to provide the replies.

 

Secondly, and perhaps more alarmingly, BBO forums has 1069 pages of profile names at 20 profiles per page. That equates to over 21,000 registered on here. From pages 50-1069 there are the names of members who have contributed 30 or less posts, many of them never to be seen again, I assume, some deceased no doubt, but BBO still might have their personal data on file. There are quite a few who have registered on here and have contributed no posts and no views either too!

 

My view is that BBO needs to trawl these profiles and certainly erase any profile that certainly hasn't been accessed for the last two years. I personally don't know if BBO has any procedure in place to delete (or possibly more humanely, archive) a profile if a person is deceased. I've always wondered if players who have entered their date-of-birth details on their profile will always have their birthdays celebrated on BBO, irrespective of their mortal status?

Edited September 22, 2016 by diana_eva
Split from 2016 Posty Awards

[barmar]

I don't see what any of that has to do with the Posty Awards. What's the problem with lots of forum profiles for inactive users? Were you planning on going through all the profiles to look for candidates?

[The_Badger]

I don't see what any of that has to do with the Posty Awards. What's the problem with lots of forum profiles for inactive users? Were you planning on going through all the profiles to look for candidates?

 

After that less than helpful (even clumsy, bordering on condescending) response barmar (Barry) you can count me out from ever posting again! I can certainly say hand on heart that I didn't hijack helene_t's post to raise genuine issues with BBO.

 

Here I am spending hours - as a hobby and to keep my brain active - providing help to your members on BBO for diddley squat - I do not seek remuneration - and all BBO can do is hide behind its façade as the largest bridge community in the world, what a wonderful place it is, unable to accept constructive criticism when things are patently wrong.

 

In one post earlier in the week, a member who had complained direct to BBO Abuse some time ago about a player and his various aliases regularly cheating was so frustrated with your service that he resorted to posting the details on here. And yes, I had the cojones to agree with him that this player and his aliases were indeed cheating, and their actions were ruining the enjoyment of the game for others. No doubt that post was moderated/deleted.

 

Various posters have highlighted some of the technical (play and bidding) issues with GIB, and let's face it if I was paying for a service that is far from perfect, rather like in a restaurant, I would certainly consider not returning.

 

I expect this post to be moderated/deleted. Please don't bother replying as I am gone from here. Forever. Shame really as I was enjoying the challenge of accessing BBO Forums daily and getting involved as I do love this game. Been playing for it for nearly 40 years. Time for a change...

[sfi]

Well that escalated quickly...

[hrothgar]

Well that escalatedy quickly...

 

I think it was some kind of performance art in the flame war category...

[jjbrr]

After that less than helpful (even clumsy, bordering on condescending) response barmar (Barry) you can count me out from ever posting again! I can certainly say hand on heart that I didn't hijack helene_t's post to raise genuine issues with BBO.

 

Here I am spending hours - as a hobby and to keep my brain active - providing help to your members on BBO for diddley squat - I do not seek remuneration - and all BBO can do is hide behind its façade as the largest bridge community in the world, what a wonderful place it is, unable to accept constructive criticism when things are patently wrong.

 

In one post earlier in the week, a member who had complained direct to BBO Abuse some time ago about a player and his various aliases regularly cheating was so frustrated with your service that he resorted to posting the details on here. And yes, I had the cojones to agree with him that this player and his aliases were indeed cheating, and their actions were ruining the enjoyment of the game for others. No doubt that post was moderated/deleted.

 

Various posters have highlighted some of the technical (play and bidding) issues with GIB, and let's face it if I was paying for a service that is far from perfect, rather like in a restaurant, I would certainly consider not returning.

 

I expect this post to be moderated/deleted. Please don't bother replying as I am gone from here. Forever. Shame really as I was enjoying the challenge of accessing BBO Forums daily and getting involved as I do love this game. Been playing for it for nearly 40 years. Time for a change...

 

[Phil]

Time to create a new posty award category?

 

The "M..... (you know who)" best GBCW speech on BBF.

[661_Pete]

Isn't it a fact that everyone who registers on BBO automatically gets a registration on BBF - even if they never use it? If so, no wonder there are so many inactive profiles on this forum. I may be the "exception which proves the rule", but I've been a bit of a 'forum addict' for some years now - with results which are not always happy! :unsure:

 

you can count me out from ever posting again!

I can't speak for the others, Badger, but may I ask you to re-consider? I've noticed several of your posts on here (the non-flaming ones, that is, if there have in fact been any flame wars) and I've found them useful reading. Even if I don't always agree with your POV (oh dear there I go all Voltaire again!)

[barmar]

Isn't it a fact that everyone who registers on BBO automatically gets a registration on BBF - even if they never use it? If so, no wonder there are so many inactive profiles on this forum.

No, that's not how it works. The forum has its own user database. It just uses the BBO user database for checking username/passwords when you login. The first time you login to the forum, it will create the forum profile.

[barmar]

I just checked the forum's member management tool. It has a way to filter members by the last time they logged in or posted, and then remove all the members found. But it doesn't seem to have a filter based on the number of posts. So I can't easily do something like "Delete all users who haven't logged in in 5 years and have never posted".

 

Here are some statistics:

 

Total forum accounts: 21,385

Number that have >30 posts: 983

Number that have logged in since 2011: 13,893

Number that have not logged in since 2011, and have 0 posts: 5,316

 

We have lots of lurkers: people who read the forum, but never post. There are over 2,000 who have logged in in 2016, but only half of them have ever posted.

[StevenG]

We have lots of lurkers: people who read the forum, but never post. There are over 2,000 who have logged in in 2016, but only half of them have ever posted.

Maybe people who aren't going to post don't bother to log in, even if they have an account.

[661_Pete]

No, that's not how it works. The forum has its own user database. It just uses the BBO user database for checking username/passwords when you login. The first time you login to the forum, it will create the forum profile.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

I should add, that my in own experience with numerous forums (not bridge-related), the statistics you quote are quite typical. The number of lurkers and non-posters always heavily outnumber the 'regulars'. Perhaps BBF should be thankful for the regulars who do contribute useful or interesting stuff.

 

What I would find useful, is if one could have an account on BBF totally separate to that on BBO, with a different username and all. But without having two accounts on BBO (for obvious reasons!)

Two reasons:

1. If someone wants to put up a problem or puzzle of some sort, they might want to not reveal all the hands, or the bidding and play, at the outset. But if it pertains to a hand which they played on BBO, it's all too easy for people to look up their BBO hand records and learn everything about the hand in question!

2. As happened with me recently, we can get a discussion on BBF turning into a spate of heavy criticism of my partner (or an opponent). I do not feel comfortable with that if the partner can be identified.

[661_Pete]

Incidentally, I had to google "GBCW*" - shows how out of touch I am with modern idiom! :unsure: I have posted several GBCW speeches in my years as a forum addict, though none of them matches up to the one posted above. Here is one of them, dated about eight years ago:

After giving the matter much thought, and for reasons which I shall not elaborate upon here, I have come, with regret, to the decision to step down, sine die.

I would like to thank all the many forummers here with whom it has been a pleasure to communicate, and to wish the forum well for the future.

So long, and happy cycling!

Pete.

[As you will guess, it was a cycling forum which I flounced off from].

 

I suppose I was being a bit pompous. We all change, over the years.

 

And that was it. I never went back (though the problems didn't go away, not for some time after).

 

I still hope "Badger" will return some time. We don't want to lose people.

 

*Stands for "goodbye cruel world" apparently.

[nullve]

I still hope "Badger" will return some time. We don't want to lose people.

Ditto.

[Vampyr]

Maybe people who aren't going to post don't bother to log in, even if they have an account.

 

I think that lurkers would log in so they could view new content.

 

Anyway, what is the problem with inactive members anyway? Are they somehow hogging bandwidth? Do we wish to make it difficult for currently inactive but valuable posters (eg David Burn, Phil King) to come back and post again?

 

What am I missing that I don't see a problem he Really?

[diana_eva]

I think that lurkers would log in so they could view new content.

 

Anyway, what is the problem with inactive members anyway? Are they somehow hogging bandwidth? Do we wish to make it difficult for currently inactive but valuable posters (eg David Burn, Phil King) to come back and post again?

 

What am I missing that I don't see a problem he Really?

 

No problem, I think badger was just raising some issues about how come so many members and so few posters, and what to do with obsolete profiles and what happens when someone dies. It is rather creepy to see their birthday featured in the forums TBH and facebook had similar problems which they addressed meanwhile.

[Lovera]

I just checked the forum's member management tool. It has a way to filter members by the last time they logged in or posted, and then remove all the members found. But it doesn't seem to have a filter based on the number of posts. So I can't easily do something like "Delete all users who haven't logged in in 5 years and have never posted".

 

Here are some statistics:

 

Total forum accounts: 21,385

Number that have >30 posts: 983

Number that have logged in since 2011: 13,893

Number that have not logged in since 2011, and have 0 posts: 5,316

 

We have lots of lurkers: people who read the forum, but never post. There are over 2,000 who have logged in in 2016, but only half of them have ever posted.

But there is using "Overall top poster". Infact you can find Lovera on page 9 and changing filter around ten position (excluding anyone no more active) for profile views.