Well in a few months Xisto will be open for 2 years and has seen it success but since spring is coming up time for some spring cleaning:I think we should take into serious consideration any topic that 6 months or older should be closed and archieved in a forum called 2004-2005 Topics. For 1 it will cut down on the spamming on some of the seriously old topics, 2 it will give a chance for some new topics to be introduced and fresh posting. Most of us know you only can post so much on the same topic before its overkill, like when someone needs help a few posts are made and the problem is fixed and then 2-3 months later some posts are made that they could help out or another solution is posted even though its been fix months ago.I believe in the acp you can search index dates and then mass close, correct that If im wrong, been awhile since I looked at a acp. I know nothing will go wrong about the searching through google or yahoo, but we should look into a more advanced version of the search feature for the forum, i believe I seen a few mods for that, have to double check that though.Now on to another favorite subject members accounts for those who don't know we banned 23 accounts 2 days ago cause some moron and his friends were creating accounts just to spam the shoutbox for pure joy and when I have ip them I found accounts dating back from september of last year.but now we should consider about working on staying organized since this site has pretty much done what we and most everyone else expected it to do and that gain and mind very quickly popularity., but by the numbers we have we should have over 10,000 websites hosted by Xisto alone but I done some research we have only 200 hosted accounts against 13,737 people that registered here, 11,850 of those accounts have 10 posts or less most of them are from 2004 and early to mid 2005 I have a feeling most of them havn't post in months or some some cases 2 years. To me that doesn't seem right, of course I can't vouch for the number of Xisto.net or Xisto - Web Hosting accounts, but still with those kind of numbers are actual post count should be a few hundred thousand more posts. Heres the simple math to it all by using todays stats:if every single member were to post once a day for 7 days we have 96,159 posts a week now times that by 30 days we would have 2,884,770 a month. Now to we times that number to the number of months since trap been here and we get 63,464,940 posts. technically we would be over that number since it cumaltive but we only have 216,045 posts as of date. To me the numbers just don't add right to it, we should have alot more posts then what we have now. But if we do the spring cleaning we would have 1887 actual active accounts that would equal the number of posts and to the number of hosted accounts. But of course some other factors come into play as well I would say about 2-5% of those account are use to advertise their sites around mostly clan websites we should kill that immediately if you want to advertise you must talk to the admin about advertising or join the gfxtrap affiliates, I'm not the only one who does that make an account make one post about your website and disappear. The other factor which would be the 1% of those accounts go towards the gfx forum. so roughly 3-6% of the accounts have nothing to do with webhosting in general, so we will use 5% for those who advertise in one post that would have 5,925 accounts that just spam for advertisement. Now with the graphics forum I would say less then 200 people actively post in that forum in the different topics we have in there. Mind you not everyone gets a chance to post cuz of something but most posts here can make up for that 1 person on a daily basis.Those are estimated number they could be higher or lower all depends on other stuff as well, but those are my thoughts if somewhat understandable, but thats what I see for this website and also for effective website management. But to some it all up.-Archive Topics dating back from 2004-2005-Limit the accounts to 1 per ip number (that will be the hardest to pull off)-any non-hosted accounts with no posts in them that are month old should be deleted-any accounts that have 1-10 posts but havn't been posting 2-3 months should be deleted.So if you can understand all this post your disagreements or your agreements to what I said and other opinions. But like I said this is what I see and what I know about website management.
Wow! some great facts there Mikey!I am sure that it must have taken good amount of time to compile that data :)As far as cleaning up is concerned...Even I feel that the forum needs to be cleaned up a bit!May be not in the way..you are saying..but may in a different way...Lets see what others have to say about it and what idea they may come up with to clean up the forum
One of reasons that older posts cannot and should not be archived is because search engines still show links to older posts made to Xisto forum. When posts are archived the links provided by search engines go to deadend page(s). This is a bad news to Xisto forum.Deleting posts are big no no (unless they are pure spam) for Xisto forum. Daily search engine spiders are sniffing through our posts and the more quality posts we present and have, the more likely Xisto would be the top 10 when search engine returns key word searches.Limiting 1 account for 1 IP is up to each of us to catch it. That's why the forum shows IP address used to post and reply, only to admins and mods.OpaQue would like to present Xisto as the same hosting service as paid ones. Which means no restrictions except for few--they are already well known to all of us. This means Xisto and Xisto cannot tell a hosting member what and what not to use for advertising. And since Xisto was founded for games and gamers, quick introduction to other sites are okay. That's why I'm assuming OpaQue made "non-hosted by Xisto" section and "Internet - Reviews."
Well, I see both sides of ths one, but there are several issues involved. Certainly deleting old Topics which are driving traffic here is not a good idea, so nix that one. As for deleting old worthless topics, like "Hi, I made a zillion dollars one click at a time...." and never posting again, delete the topic and the user, sure. As for simply deleting by last activity date, not for the topics, and for users with a small number of posts over six months ago, sure thing... Might make the db retrival speed up a little bit. Wonder if there could be a script written to whack old topics with zero replies?
I do believe this is mod with more advanced pruning features to it that can delete 0 posts and what not.@buff I thought google had a way to update their search engine when links get moved around or what not the spiders would pick that up and thus update accordingly.@mayank well i just used a simple calculator for the post stats that it.But of course I'm now thinking about the overposting post and how those numbers would be effected since its getting harder and harder to come up with new stuff to post about.Perhaps it's possible now. But the other day, I searched for a phrase and Xisto came up. I went to visit the link and it was linked to totally wrong and different post. This is perhaps due to two possible reasons--either spiders are still unable to distinguish the intended key words and just caches the page to search engine database or forum modification on our part that lead to "unavailable" post and shown the next available post.
@buff I thought google had a way to update their search engine when links get moved around or what not the spiders would pick that up and thus update accordingly.
This is what I mean. On the friendly URL link, you can now see the topic title. The older one only had post number. For example, now http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ instead of http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/.
If you notice when you edit a topic title, the old topic title still remains in the friendly URL. So if you change a topic title from A to B, the friendly URL still shows as http://forums.xisto.com/post=A.
What does it all mean? I am no expert on SEO but when this forum is requested for post that no longer exists it calls for the next possible post. But the search engine cache rarely gets updated unless the number of visits are high. Therefore, the search engine will show one description but the link clicked will show another. I don't know about anyone but when I click to the link I thought I wanted to see and leads to something different, I immediately close and go back to the search page for the next one.
We could start by removing the "Forum Lead by" from all the forums, since that was implemented in 2004 when the group "MODERATORS" were not global moderators, and need to be giving certain permissions. Right now, it's quite pointless considering the fact that all [MODERATORS] are global moderators, hence require no "assignments" to certain forums.In other words, go to all the forums and remove the section that says which group that leads the forum (not the group itself, obviously, the group alias to the forum)...]lol do I need to take a screenshot
hmmm well thinking about it some more and seeing some other forums yeah the spider wouldn't pick up the change so easily when you move a topic around what not.google updates caches what ever month or is it every week? cause updating it daily for few billion sites would put some nasty server loads to the search engine.@dooga yeah that would make some sense to remove it since everyone is global mod and its not really forum spefic for some mods.
|VIEW DESKTOP VERSION||REGISTER||GET FREE HOSTING|