Back to top


20 posts / 0 new
Last post
WS Member Piotras's picture

Ref: “ws member count vs responsiveness”, post # 16.

Hi Randy!

You say: “At the end of every calendar year we delete those who haven't logged in during that calendar year.”

Why this strange principle of linking one year long passivity to the frame of a calendar year?

You mean that not being active between the 1st of January and 31st of December (+ possible time before 1st January) is a punishable passivity, and this is the only case that counts . So a member “X” that signed in, let say 10th January and next time when “X” opened “X”s account to send a request was 20th December following year, all together two years (minus 20 days) of complete passivity, is still an active member because “X” avoided to meet the requirement of a full calendar year of inactivity. Is not that so?

It took me 10 minutes to create this compilation.

You mean, all of them are active members. Are you serious?

WS Member WS Member's picture
Having a rolling purge has

Having a rolling purge has been discussed previously though I didn't encounter much enthusiasm. As it stands in large cities with the numbers of new members coming on board it would certainly make it easier for guests to find active hosts but with the possibility of smart, filtered searches now on the horizon I don't think it will ultimately be so essential.

I would just look at it as a bit of honest bookkeeping at the end of the year - something a number of other hospex sites should have a look at implementing.

WS Member @wsadmin@'s picture
Yes, those are users who will

Yes, those are users who will likely be deleted when we delete at the end of the year, as explained earlier. They have not yet been inactive for a calendar year (2015).

Unregistered anon_user's picture
So many in one city and so

So many in one city and so many 1 year ago. Did they get duplicate identities as we did?

This might be whining but we are off the track for tourists yet have had several stay with us unlike your record keeping.

Rant over.

WS Member Piotras's picture
reply to #3

Thanks, Randy, you have your own sense of how long one year of passivity in reality is.

But you haven’t answered my question: “Why this strange principle of linking one year long passivity to the frame of a calendar year?”

I insist, I would like to know the reasoning behind this “calendar year” rule. Having the rolling purge would probably reduce the number of WS members with 20 % before the end of the year, and would make this percentage even higher with each subsequent month.
I really don’t want to suspect that you need all those trash members to justify the level of your salary.

WS Member @wsadmin@'s picture
Most websites never delete

Most websites never delete members. We have always done deleted members that we considered "gone". Thanks to the generosity of the community we are building new tools to make determinations on responsiveness.

You should understand that there are thousands of hosts who get few requests. So if they don't get a request for a year (as many don't) and don't log into the site, you'd be deleting them very early. But they've valid, real members.

What we do is send the people who haven't logged in a "pester" email in October, November, and December, and then delete if they haven't logged in in January.

I think, as widely discussed, we need to make sure that people have their availability properly set, and to set availability (or even delete) based on poor responsiveness.

We're working on all these things, but we can't do everything at once. Right now we're working on probably the biggest project we've done since the site started, doing the mandatory security update to Drupal 7. You may be interested in the features discussed in

WS Member Piotras's picture
Passivity – the present state of the question

I think it is time to touch this subject again, having reply #6 as a reference.

“What we do is send the people who haven't logged in a "pester" email in October, November, and December, and then delete if they haven't logged in in January.”

Looking at the compilation of inactive memberships, OP#1, one might wonder how the above mentioned mechanism of delating passive members from the ,membership list in reality works.
If it worked as declared, these accounts should be already removed from the list:

But they are still there. The administrator, your comment, please.

WS Member WS Member's picture
TBH I'm not sure if we've had

TBH I'm not sure if we've had the purge this year, haven't seen any confirmation. As official participation in the forums seems to be almost zero it might be easier to contact WS directly.

WS Member Piotras's picture
Official participation almost zero

Yes, this is something I also noticed recently … Not so long time ago Randy and the others from the hierarchy were visible in our common space, but today they seem to close themselves in an ivory tower of the better knowledge…

WS Member WS Member's picture
Ivory Tower needs repair

The Board is MORE than aware of the problems currently existing in the infrastructure of the website. As has been said in other forums, the original site was developed for a membership base of about 5,000 members. We are nearing 80,000 and the platform needs to adapt to be able to handle this. I have a newsletter that has been ready since the first of the year, but due to Drupal/Mail Chimp/other factors, we have been unable to send this out.

The Board is a group of international volunteers who put a huge amount of hours into this organization. Due to logistics, it is difficult at times to coordinate and move forward (all while keeping in line with Bylaws and member's interests in mind).

By and large, the site is working to do just what its mission states, to provide a platform for the exchange of hospitality to touring cyclists by those who support them. We are not a paid service like Air BnB. We are a supportive adjunct to those touring by bicycles. We are not responsible to provide actual accommodations. This needs to all come from the creator community.

And we are hoping to have all major problems in the site corrected by early this summer. ;-)

WS Member WS Member's picture
Ivory tower shouldn't exist

So have we or haven't we purged inactive members this year?

WS Member WS Member's picture

Yes, this is the type of member we wish to get off the grid. For someone cycling, it is very discouraging to see hosts on the map, but then ask for hosting and not getting a response. We are trying to find ways to discourage inactivity, even if it just means logging on to read the WS Newsletter.

Unregistered anon_user's picture

Hi WSers,

I read the post, I understand the most.

But I don't understand, why delete the inactive members? Some people need time for other responsibilities (family, job, health ...) and would like to come back later.

I mean a better idea would be to sign them with a friendly symbol "last login in ..." in the searching list or in their profile.

Have a good ride, Sebastian

WS Member WS Member's picture
Your examples are not

Your examples are not pertinent to what was being discussed in the post anyway, we were taking about members who have not logged in for more than two years (ie: they have passed through at least one purge with a last log in of > 1 year).

WS Member WS Member's picture

I'm not aware of any other hospex site that routinely removes inactive members. If Randy wanted to justify his salary with padded member numbers why wouldn't he just let inactive members accumulate like the other sites?
(Apart from the fact that you have failed to take into consideration that this was implemented years before there were any paid staff).

WS Member WS Member's picture
I have not read all about the

I have not read all about the purges or anything, but one thing worries me, I'm not "active" on this site really, I have a profile and if I get a message about hosting I'll go on and reply, but it can be months and maybe even up to a year between if the season turns out like that.
Is there a possibility to set users to inactive, rather than delete?
That way feedback and things would still be available should said user wonder why there are so few requests or something?

WS Member WS Member's picture
Members are sent warning

Members are sent warning messages before their profiles are removed.

If you are still worried why not just log in once a year? Profile purges have traditionally occurred early in January or February, make a reminder in your calendar in July each year to log in to Warmshowers. I see a lot of people fret about this but surely a couple of minutes a year set aside to log in to the site isn't much to ask (regularly logging in has traditionally been a way for hosts to show that they are active to potential guests on hospex sites anyway).

WS Member WS Member's picture
As long as there is a

As long as there is a notification I'm cool.
Not going to put in reminders to log on to a site just to log on, I log on if we need to change something, or I for some reason get reminded about it, like this week when we got a guest request.

WS Member WS Member's picture
I am asking same question.

I am asking same question. Why there are still members whose last login was in 2014? They should be throwen away. And I support those who.asked.setting a new member not available by default.

WS Member WS Member's picture
No Purge in 2016

There has not been a purge this year. Despite a Drupal upgrade last year, the upgrade was missing several important features. The "designer" of Warm Showers left the organization last October, and there are just a few volunteers with limited tech capabilities keeping the organization afloat. This week, we just lost our Board chair.

As we have the funds, we are presently reviewing proposals from IT management firms to contract web support. We are also still searching for an Executive Director, other Board members, and various volunteers. Once we overcome these administrative hurdles, hopefully we can make the purge, send emails and newsletters, and upgrade the profile page template.

Topic locked