Suggestion to bring in more members.

[Immenseman]

Granted there are downsides. I agree with you there. However, I think the point which overrules any of the other points is that we know by making it mandatory more people will sign up and therefore become members. Say for arguments sake 50% sign up. I think quite a few of those will become regular posters. We know this can't be proven until it's tried ~ with the obvious lack of activity at the moment, new ideas have to be tested.

If no members sign up and we lose guests then we revert back. I'm pretty comfortable in saying that this won't happen - by being members and being able to post they're more likely to do so. At the moment the guests probably just can't be bothered to sign up. Regardless to if they actually want to contribute or not ~ signing up is seen as time consuming.

I can see both sides of the argument but I just feel in times of need so to speak where HxF needs many fresh new faces to lighten up and ensure the forums level of activity increases then we should at least give new ideas like this one the benefit of the doubt. It could go either way ~ we won't know until we try. Things aren't going to get better by sticking to the ideas and schemes that has led to this lack of activity.

[Chippiewill]

I personally don't see any problem with losing guests at all. If we have a general decrease in page views but an increase in active posters then the server strain would at least be decreased, it's not as if guests are doing anything for us.

[FlyingJesus]

Say for arguments sake 50% sign up. I think quite a few of those will become regular posters.

Got some figures I'm collecting to post in a new thread to counter this - basically the gist of it is that we're getting plenty of new members just none that are becoming regular posters, so the issue's changed

I personally don't see any problem with losing guests at all. If we have a general decrease in page views but an increase in active posters then the server strain would at least be decreased, it's not as if guests are doing anything for us.

We've gone over this bit before if you'd care to go back a page or so

[scottish]

Now, if you're saying 50 ACTIVE members, then maybe its worth it. However I find it hard to believe that those 1,000 guests will never turn into members or that those 50 users will all be active. AS FlyingJesus showed, most members don't even post anyway.

you can't simply say theres no chance of it having as you have no proof, times change, if someone is registering tehres a lot more chance of them posting than if they weren't registered

What nobody has considered is the amount of people that can (and do) appear offline

People who appear offline still show in the online users number, just doesn't show the persons name on whos viewing what list, i appear offline and i'm still counted as +1 person online but my names not shown to normal members, etc.

That's a good point about limiting instead of forcing. As far as numbers, you're absolutely right. I didn't mean half literally I was sort of referring to a portion, I probably should have said some. At the same time, proponents of this change can't prove how many people it will attract/put off. My question at the start was - is it worth the risk? People have avoided that question and instead tried to prove that the question was not necessary - which it is. Unless someone wants to give me a statistically accurate forecast of exactly what will happen - which is completely impossible for a number of reasons.

Thats why you can put it on a trial, like the post validation i'm sure that pissed alot of people off and cause alot of people not to post after registering, yet here we are members still joining and posting.

[StefanWolves]

you can't simply say theres no chance of it having as you have no proof, times change, if someone is registering tehres a lot more chance of them posting than if they weren't registered




People who appear offline still show in the online users number, just doesn't show the persons name on whos viewing what list, i appear offline and i'm still counted as +1 person online but my names not shown to normal members, etc.




Thats why you can put it on a trial, like the post validation i'm sure that pissed alot of people off and cause alot of people not to post after registering, yet here we are members still joining and posting.

Totally agree. If we have 100 new members join up this month, and 20 become active, then that is only 20%. If we introduce this limit and get 200 newer members this month, of which 40 become active, that is still 20 more than we could be getting, which is quite a big difference.

As said, the only way to find out if this actually works is to trial it for a month or two.

[nvrspk4]

Sure it is, but the question is if we want to take the risk we face by implementing this rule. I think its a definite maybe but I also think everyone's avoiding the question (with a few choice exceptions.)

[StefanWolves]

Trial it for a month, then you should see a difference, be it less members or new members, and if there is loss of traffic etc.

[Chippiewill]

Sure it is, but the question is if we want to take the risk we face by implementing this rule. I think its a definite maybe but I also think everyone's avoiding the question (with a few choice exceptions.)

I would like to point out that people (in the poll) want this force people to register thing. Can we please stop arguing about it and make a decision?

[adaym]

I think the poll results are overwhelming.

[StefanWolves]

20-4 says it all, changes need to be made. (that means only 1 in 6 disagree with these ideas. If you want me to put that into a percentage then that means that 83% of the people who voted in the poll agree with me.)