You know that validation email that gets sent out from Links SQL when a user signs up? Well someonen actually replied to it rather than click the validate link in it (which is just as easy as bothering to reply... in fact it may even be less key strokes)

He wrote: "to much trouble"

I visited his web site... "Under Construction".... what an ass.


http://www.iuni.com/...tware/web/index.html
Links Plugins

This is surely the same guy that went out on his first date and when the girl said "Take me out for dinner and you might get lucky after" said "too much trouble"!



hehehe

LOL.

He just had to cut-and-paste the validation code (ctrl-c 2 clicks), click the link (1) and paste it (ctrl-v 2 clicks) then click submit (1) that is 6 clicks I estimtate...


http://www.iuni.com/...tware/web/index.html
Links Plugins

LOL...

Some people think life is hard I guess!

Just shove his IP into the ban list

Done.

I am thinking of making a "Bottom List" to compiment my top lists on this particular site. "See Canada's Worst as Voted by YOU!" This will surely generate more activity!

That ass, just gave me a good idea.


http://www.iuni.com/...tware/web/index.html
Links Plugins

Oh my!

the F_ _ _ ED COMPANY of top sites! LOL

AWESOME IDEA!!!!

Now if we could just put negative numbers in the rating system and allow only negative numbers to generate the lists....

http://www.rearend.com/PREVIEW/bik.jpg

....that ass gave me an idea too

Hmm, I can live with those kind of asses


http://www.iuni.com/...tware/web/index.html
Links Plugins

There were better ones than that believe me but a little to risky to post here

Negative numbers... hmmmmm


http://www.iuni.com/...tware/web/index.html
Links Plugins

Paul....

Have you no shame? hehehe

Maybe that was the ass that attempted signup on my site


http://www.iuni.com/...tware/web/index.html
Links Plugins

Ut oh!

Is that smoke I see coming from the Great White North?

>>
Have you no shame? hehehe
<<

Why should I be ashamed at looking and lurrrvely ladies?

What would you have said if I had posted a half naked man :)

That you should be ashamed of course!

Now if you would have posted a half naked sheep I would have reported you to the Humane Society! LOL

That is ridiculous. It is not that complicated to validate oneself.

I would not even add that person's link into your directory. He or she doesn't deserve to be listed, IMO.
========================================
Buh Bye!

Cheers,
Me

Yeah..it takes more clicks to validate the user in admin (if you have it turned on) than it does for them to validate themselves!

Andy (mod)
andy@ultranerds.co.uk

---

Want to give me something back for my help? Please see my Amazon Wish List
GLinks ULTRA Package | GLinks ULTRA Package PRO
Links SQL Plugins | Website Design and SEO | UltraNerds | ULTRAGLobals Plugin | Pre-Made Template Sets | FREE GLinks Plugins!

Or banning the user for that matter.
========================================
Buh Bye!

Cheers,
Me

I just cleaned out all of my un-validated users, people who couldn't be bothered to validate themsevles after signing up I guess, and it totalled 77 users! I can't beleive there are so many of these guys out there.


http://www.iuni.com/...tware/web/index.html
Links Plugins

Ian,

Pretty low, huh.

Well, one thing I've done is written a script to notify Non-Validated accounts with the validation code on a daily basis up to five days. After the fifth contact, the account/record is deleted.

You should consider that some (very few) of the non-validated accounts may have had technical problems while attempting to validate their accounts. So, offer them other opportunities to validate their account would be appropriate.
========================================
Buh Bye!

Cheers,
Me

Nice idea... I might borrow the concept


http://www.iuni.com/...tware/web/index.html
Links Plugins

That is a good idea but what about bogus email addresses clogging up your email server with Bad Return errors?

Well, for already registered or validated users whose email addresses become "bogus", then they are BANNED (since some user's email addresses bounce due to "exceeding their disk space"). And for those "non-validated" accounts, sending them reminder messages is not intensive, and when I find out that their email address is bogus, then they are deleted from the database before the fifth contact.
========================================
Buh Bye!

Cheers,
Me

>>
Well, for already registered or validated users whose email addresses become "bogus", then they are BANNED (since some user's email addresses bounce due to "exceeding their disk space").
<<

You say you ban bogus emails but then go on to give a good reason as to why banning would be totally unfair.

Where did I state that "banning users" is unfair? You are either misunderstanding what I have stated or twisting my words. Banning users is legitimate for many reasons and I agree with the feature.

WHERE did I state that I was against banning users?

Please enlighten me...
========================================
Buh Bye!

Cheers,
Me

Hi Stealth...

So you are saying that you would send an email out to a NON validated user over and over again even if it is sending you bad return notifications until you see that the bad return is there. Then you would delete the NON validated user with the bad email right?

What percentage of you NON validated users give you a bad address?

What percentage of them have an equipment failure?

What percentage just don't care to be on your system?

Just wondering!

1) Yes, I send out emails to users FIVE times before deleting the record (unless I see that it is a bad email address, which I will delete outright).

Average # of non-validated users per day: 5
Average # of new users per day: 10

2) Percentage of bad email addresses: less than 5%

3) Percentage of "equipment failure": less than 10%

4) Percentage of "non care users": difficult to answer, what do you mean?
========================================
Buh Bye!

Cheers,
Me

So what you are telling me is that in any given month you would have the following:

150 Non validated users of which:

7.5 of them would have a bad return
15 would have equipment issues
127.5 of them would just not care to be on your system then.

Hmmmm....Interesting!

Thanks for the information

Uh...I think your calculations are bit off...especially with the "not care" stat. I forgot to mention that of the average of 5 non-validated users, about 3 on average do end up validating themselves after being sent the reminder message.

Thus only an average of 2 non-validated users would be deleted.

Where do you get 127.5 users not caring to be in my system? Huh? I'd be interested in knowing how you came up with that number!
========================================
Buh Bye!

Cheers,
Me

Hi Stealth,

No problem...I will explain.
(and take into effect the non validated that do validate late)

150 Non validated user per month (based on 5 non validated per day)
15 would be equipment issues (based on 10%)
7.5 would be bad returns (based on 5%)
76.5 would validate after the fact (new data)
51 would be the remainder that don't care to use your site (with the new data)


This is very different from mine as I have over 90% with bad returns (of non validated), I have no clue as per equipment issues as they were never validated (so there is no way I could know unless each one emailed me seperately), and any residual after that is up in the air as per why they didn't validate. So I can only confirm the bad returns as being what they really are.

That is a good question, how did you know that 10% or 15 users had equipment issues? Did they all email you?

Hmmmm....Interesting!

Okay...thanks for explaining. One thing that I didn't mention was that I "ban" about 30 users per month with invalid or exceed limit email accounts (returned mail). The main problem is that a majority of my site visitors are high school and college students (based on domains and also online surveys and user feedback) and as you may know, these populations are highly transitory, so their email addresses change quite often and they do not update their online profiles with different web sites.

And regarding the "equipment trouble", yes, they email me to "re-activate" their account since when they try to login, they can't and the reported error message I receive from their mail server is posted for them. And I have a column that tracks whether the account has been "re-activated" with a status report correlated with it.
========================================
Buh Bye!

Cheers,
Me

I was actually saying that you gave a good reason as to why you shouldn't be banning someone, ie "a full mailbox" in my opinion is not a good enough reason to ban a user.

Paul,

The BAN is temporary. When the person with a faulty email address tries to login, they are reminded that their email address is no longer valid and for certain features in my web site, a valid email address is necessary, thus, to avoid receiving more bounced emails from that person, their "subscription" status is set to NO and they are temporarily banned.

Got it?
========================================
Buh Bye!

Cheers,
Me

Sure have :) ....your original post was just a little ambiguous:


That didn't sound like a temporary ban :)

Well, sorry for the confusion. Let me re-state for the record...

"Current or registered users whose email addresses become invalid are TEMPORARILY/SHORT-TERM WISE/LIMITED MANNER BANNED from logging in BECAUSE many features in my site are dependent on valid email addresses."

Clear enough for ya?
========================================
Buh Bye!

Cheers,
Me