Well, that’s all well and good, but I repeat, who cares? The inactive accounts are people who registered screen names but never activated their accounts. Don’t know if he still does it or not, but John used to purge the unactivated accounts after a month or so. We still have somewhere in the general neighborhood of 300,000 registered screen names. Whatever the number of registered screen names, it’s my guess that there has been considerable interest in what the FReepers have to say.
Freedom’s just another word for nothing’ left to lose:
Nothin’ left is all she left for me.
Feeling good was easy, Lord, when Bobby sang the blues.
Buddy, that was good enough for me;
Good enough for me and Bobby McGee.
La da da la la na na na
La da da na na.
La la la da, Me and Bobby McGee.
La la la la la da da da
La la la da da.
La la la da, Me and Bobby McGee.
La la la la la na na na
La la la da da.
La da da da, Me and Bobby McGee.
La la la la la da da da.................
LOL, there is the big oops to all that time the OP put into counting accounts... I wonder how many wasted hours of counting that just shot down?
lalalalala ...just donated....good enough for me!
Obviously, I do - and I thought you should...
The inactive accounts are people who registered screen names but never activated their accounts. Don’t know if he still does it or not, but John used to purge the unactivated accounts after a month or so.
Indeed? Then he hasn't purged anything since Feb 2010, and/or the registration process has changed. OTOH, these purges have been quite selective, as thousands of obvious automatically generated spam accounts haven't been erased (have a look at all the accounts with "webcam" in the name), even before Feb 2010 (the month of the last purge).
We still have somewhere in the general neighborhood of 300,000 registered screen names.
If we are taking the same criterion as in Dec 2008 when the number was changed to 300,000 (i.e. ID numbers assigned), we have way surpassed the general neighborhood of 300,000 registered screen names. There are more than 370,000 ID numbers assigned. But at least 100,000 don't match editors who have completed the activation process. And I suppose that your technical team is well aware of this fact - at least since Feb 2010.
But of course, these are not the important figures. It was rightly stated that the number of page views and the number of unique visitors are quite more meaningful. And I don't doubt these numbers. But shouldn't we try to get every number on the main page right?