InsaneJournal Announcements

Purging Old Inactive Accounts

squeaky

1/10/08 03:33 pm

I am starting the process to purge old inactive accounts immediatly. We are defining inactive accounts as accounts who have not had any activity in the past 2 years.

In the first phase I am going to immediately set the status of any inactive accounts who are not validated to deleted. This will give the account owners a period of two weeks to log in and set the accounts back to active. Since these accounts are not validated we do not have a reliable email address to contact the account owner with.

The second part of the first phase will involve emailing any validated but inactive accounts and warning them that their accounts will be set to deleted status in two weeks.

The second phase will occur in two weeks. The first part will be when the deleted accounts are automatically purged and the second part will be to set the status of any inactive but validated accounts to deleted.

The third phase will take place two weeks after phase 2 when the phase 2 deleted accounts are automatically purged by the system.

We will NOT include Self-Committed[paid] or Permanently Insane accounts in the account purge.

What this means is that when an account is purged, it is immediately available for use by an existing account via the use of a rename token. Rename tokens are available in the InsaneJournal Store for $5. If you have any questions or concerns with this process, please raise them in the comments to this post.

• Leave a comment

• medjed

  1/11/08 07:09 pm (UTC)

  

  Unfortunately, there is nothing InsaneJournal can do to stop that. To cover our own butts, every journal that may be purged is being contacted and if the owner comes back to claim it, it shows they are still 'active' in a sense. It isn't fair to anyone to delete an active account period.

  • Reply
  • Parent
  • Thread

  • konohana

    1/12/08 12:28 am (UTC)

    So you're for journal hording?
    
    Trust me, I'm all for the owners having the right to cover their butts, but I think that if the journal owner isn't paying for a journal here (in one way or another), the site doesn't really owe them anything if they aren't using the journal. You get what you pay for, after all.

    • Reply
    • Parent
    • Thread

    • medjed

      1/12/08 12:42 am (UTC)

      

      If journal sites started to do that, then they would lose business very quickly. It isn't fair nor right to take someone's journal just because they aren't paying for it or using it. It can have been abandoned, but kept around for the memories, and not everyone cares to do the lengthy (or third party way) of exporting entries to another site. Some people even have used their IJ's as a 'back up', having imported all their entries to it JUST in case another site goes down.
      
      Just because InsaneJournal refuses to delete active accounts doesn't mean it supports journal hoarding. The term actively means "holding onto a journal and never using it; keeping it for the name" roughly. If a user posts in it, even if it's every other year or so, it's still considered active.
      
      This deletion/purge is to clear up all the journals made in the earlier years of the site before it got popular. Not everyone will be pleased by this move, but for every one person pissed off I'm willing to bet there are ten glad they have a chance at a nicer username. It's just the way it rolls.
      
      

      • Reply
      • Parent
      • Thread

      • konohana

        1/14/08 02:59 am (UTC)

        Actually, all that would happen with journaling sites if they did that is save server space. Exporting entries are not as hard as you seem to think (there are programs available and I think IJ may even have a page). Trust me, I know, I've had to do it since I was informed that GreatestJournal was shutting down. On top of that, if the entries are that important to the user in question, then not only would they be willing to put up the efforct to collect them, but there's also a good chance that they would have backed them up already. Also, if they were importing entries to IJ already, the account would not be just sitting there. The one I happen to be referring to has been sitting there since 2004 with absolutely no sign of any activity what-so-ever. The last post before their most recent one was giving a URL to a journal they had moved to. That's not exactly "every other year."
        
        I was asking if you supported the idea, not IJ. Also, it may just be my personal opinion, but I hardly call making a post saying that while you're never going to use an account ever again, but you're still keeping it being "active".
        
        Yes, because those other ten are going to have a chance at the one they want because they've been watching the journal and no one has posted just to keep it so far.
        
        Obviously we don't agree with each other. Let's just keep it at that. Thanks.
        

        • Reply
        • Parent