Page 1 of 1
12345 members
#3
Posted 18 October 2006 - 06:56 AM
Hehe, that's pretty cool.
Not sure what you mean by 'completely' inactive accounts though, there is certainly more than 100 accounts which contribute on a fairly regular basis. And since to be completely inactive you'd need the minimum amount of posts possible (0), I think you'll find that'd only be about 7000 completely inactive accounts.
Not sure what you mean by 'completely' inactive accounts though, there is certainly more than 100 accounts which contribute on a fairly regular basis. And since to be completely inactive you'd need the minimum amount of posts possible (0), I think you'll find that'd only be about 7000 completely inactive accounts.
#4
Posted 18 October 2006 - 07:21 AM
Hehe, that's pretty cool.
Not sure what you mean by 'completely' inactive accounts though, there is certainly more than 100 accounts which contribute on a fairly regular basis. And since to be completely inactive you'd need the minimum amount of posts possible (0), I think you'll find that'd only be about 7000 completely inactive accounts.
Yeah, only seven thousand, geez.

I would say that someone would have to have at least 0.5 posts per day to be considered even slightly active.
I have trademarked the symbol: '™'. You fail at display names.

^ Thanks to Nazy for the... thingy ^
Things which you should look at:
SKoA - http://skoa.cspacezone.com/ , if you have any Age of Empires games.
The DS Garden Festival Minigame - Link , whether you play DStorm or not.
The Most Mysterious SSSS - Link For people who don't care about...things.
Like LEGO? Play Blockland!

^ Thanks to Nazy for the... thingy ^
Things which you should look at:
SKoA - http://skoa.cspacezone.com/ , if you have any Age of Empires games.
The DS Garden Festival Minigame - Link , whether you play DStorm or not.
The Most Mysterious SSSS - Link For people who don't care about...things.
Like LEGO? Play Blockland!
I may be an Arbiter, but I'll always be a SeeDy little man.™™
#7
Posted 18 October 2006 - 01:36 PM
Well the point is that by the truly absolute meaning of his statement, we're actually 50 times more active than Jake said.
And I can't sort by posts per day, so good luck finding that number out.
Might be waiting a while on 125k, Ratty. 12.5k might be a bit closer though.

And I can't sort by posts per day, so good luck finding that number out.

Might be waiting a while on 125k, Ratty. 12.5k might be a bit closer though.
#11
Posted 21 October 2006 - 04:17 PM
I would say that someone would have to have at least 0.5 posts per day to be considered even slightly active.
There is something known as a lurker, you know... >.>
Page 1 of 1