What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 128 Stack Exchange communities.

In Delete old, unloved, users I argued that we should delete unloved users because it's a fairly good way of getting rid of those whose sole purpose is spam, as per Is spam in the "about me" field a reason to worry?.

However, this was back in prehistoric times and far more harshly than I would have done; can't complain! Shog9 wrote in his answer and a comment that the number of users that are deleted each iteration is capped:

Note that due to the extreme number of qualifying accounts on Stack Overflow, only a fraction of these actually get deleted on each pass.

... Yes, @Ben. I forget the number, but it is capped.

As there are 237,625 users who reach the minimum qualifying criteria 1 can this now be done better? This can also be read as I don't believe this is "completed" if there's this number of users who qualify.

By better I mean can we do one of:

  1. Prioritise those who've added a website or About Me, thereby getting rid of the only users who both fit the criteria and are capable of spamming via these fields.
  2. Prioritise those who've had posts deleted, and therefore have contributed detrimentally to the site.
  3. Delete more users each time the script is run; or run the script more regularly.

1. 1 reputation, not visited for 6 months and no posts - I can't test for other accounts so it's less than this but for cookie based accounts the minimum reputation is higher so this is roughly accurate.

share|improve this question
4  
Is this a serious problem? If a user is dormant, they're not really contributing much overhead even if they're a spammer. Their profile isn't very likely to be discovered and viewed, so I'm not seeing much harm. What am I missing? :) –  Anna Lear Sep 9 '12 at 22:12
    
No :-)... having seen the linked question bumped a few weeks ago it was just something I was considering. It seems like it would be a very easy fix and as it's something that has obviously been implemented before why not fix it? –  ben is uǝq backwards Sep 9 '12 at 22:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .