Are we members at risk for hacking?

Could that Mod comment be posted here, so we all know what was said???

Thanks Barred Owl. I should have put the link.

I've been curious and have asked before on the privacy thread, but received no answer, about all the many "members" in the Members List who have no "postings" and no "topics" and haven't been "seen" in many years--sometimes as long as 12 plus years. I doubt they have been "lurking" all this time. Do all those seemingly false accounts increase our risks for hacking on the threads?

Why does BCO keep those accounts on the rolls other than to inflate the number of supposed members for marketing purposes? Do the current "hackers" accounts being discussed here remain on the rolls or are they deleted immediately and totally? Whenever I've needed to search the member list for someone, I'm always quite amazed that it looks like, at most, only one in ten "names" listed are active in the last 4-5 years. That means the number of active members is closer to 18,000 than 180,000. Sounds like it is past time to clean up the database of members to those who are active within a generous period of time--say 3-5 years, or email these inactive members to warn them that they might be dropped--then drop them if they do not reply or the email comes back as "undeliverable." Love to hear back on how these inactive accounts affect our risk.

I reported a post this morning.....NO EMAIL DELUGE!!!!!. Thanks Mods!

Speaking of unused accounts all public forums and boards have many. People register but don't necessarily use them. Sadly, a high number of old accounts on breastcancer.org may be explained by deaths from BC. Also, many frequent this site soon after diagnosis and during active treatment and then move on. The latter is actually quite healthy but it doesn't mean they necessarily need to be cut off. and their accounts deleted.

I have two thoughts about the unused accounts - both agree with Muska & Traveltext. I do get more cynical as I get older, but I really think BCO is doing a marvelous job. They are on my good list and not my suspicious list (and believe me my suspicious list gets longer & longer)

Many people come just to read. I was a lurker for a long time before I jumped in, and some people will never post. I hope they feel welcome. I would not want to see them deleted.

Personally I dropped out after my first bout with cancer, but was sure glad that my account was still there when I had a recurrence. You never know when you might need to check back - even if it's for something like the onset of LE years after treatment instead of an actual recurrence. Or osteoporosis. I can't see that it hurts anyone to let the accounts rest until they are needed again.

Just to clarify, I am not suggesting long term members be deleted if they haven't posted or "viewed" lately or if they've set up preferences or favorite topics. I'm talking about people who haven't had any "recent activity" or used their accounts EVER. Maybe they just thought they had to create an account to lurk--which no one needs do.

In just two random pages from the "Member List" available in the blues tabs in the left hand column, I could have copied at least 18 examples. They have no activity ever or haven't been "seen" since the day they created an account. I'll give you 3 without showing the member name as an illustration of those I think are accounts the mods should purge:

I, too, think the mods do a good job. The database of membership just needs to be cleaned up.

It is not unreasonable or unheard of for a site to purge very old unused accounts especially where there's been zero posts. BCO would know by logs whether these people were utilizing the board in other ways. In any case, since these account holders have never posted anything, there's nothing to lose by simply making another account if need be. I can't see the big deal about doing that.

Ceanna, I was mainly answering your question and how it was unlikely to be hacked in relation to your first paragraph. I doubt they are spammers also. To reflect that, I've bolded the relevant part in my previous post.

As to the zero posts, I wouldn't rule out that your "speculative" thoughts have substance, that it's boosting numbers. It's possible and therefore you can't rule it out. As far as trust goes, in such a setting as the internet, where you typically DO NOT personally know people like MOds, admin etc, it's prudent to be cautious. I do not just blindly trust.

I said (from the link) ....

"Regarding the old accounts with zero posts - I clicked on "member list" in the left panel > the first page has 50 entries, 32 of which are zero topics zero posts."

This proportion of zero posts I think is remarkable. Going by the first page, well over 50% of people have made accounts and never used them. Have a look at my sample screenshot. What is creepy is these type of accounts can be made to see more private information such as in members' profiles, than if they never signed up. Personally I think this board should be tightened up so that it doesn't include just anybody. As has been mentioned by some, I hope BCO instantiates some sort of post limit for newbies.

Edit: Ceanna I was posting this and so missed your last post. Thanks for your sample.

Edit #2 well interestingly your last 2 entries reflect the same "last seen" date as the "member since" date. That means they would not have used their accounts from that point on and thus not utilized other board features such as PMs.

Mods - I thought I understood that newbies were not going to be allowed to start theads. Yes, read & post on existing threads, but not start new threads at the drop of a hat. Maybe I just missed seeing this before but i am seeing tons of new people starting one thread after another telling long stories and asking for help. I'm beginning to feel like some of these new posters are just putting us on.

What did you determine about the length of time someone needs to be a member before they can start a new thread???

MinusTwo, I don't recall that being part of the changes. As much as I want to eliminate spam and as much as I believe that there needs to be more control over newbies' posts (so that an anxious newbie can't start a half dozen threads within her first few hours on the board), I don't think it's realistic or practical to stop newbies from starting at least one new thread. Newbies come here because they have a specific concern related to their breasts or breast cancer; for this board to serve it's purpose, they need to be able to start a thread that states their concerns and asks whatever questions they have.

What I recall about the changesis that newbies wouldn't be allowed to include links/URLs in their posts. But as per my post a couple of days ago, the spammers have already found a way around that, by including the link in their signature line.

I wish they could be limited to starting one new thread until their diagnostics are resolved, but I don't know how that could be done. I don't care how many they comment on, unless they are stirring up unnecessary hysteria with the "this is so scary and we're all going to die from our cysts" BS among other undiagnosed new members.

I don't see why you need to worry about links anywhere but in the thread topic - just don't click on them. I never had a problem even in the thread topic, since I recognize a link and don't click on it. What is the business about "diagnostics are resolved"? That it shows or what? Notice you don't see mine (for the very reason of this thread topic) and I am not a newbie. I just don't see a need to share my health information with others.

We are looking into not allowing new members to post links in their signature line! Also, they may not have a link in their topic title. Very sneaky, these spammers. Also, considering limiting new member's number of posts! Thanks for your input!

cive: Not true. Spam links that could lead to either harmful or junk sites should not be allowable in ANY part of a post. It's not just about knowing not to click on the link, but it gives the forum the appearance of unprofessionalism just by their presence. Also, people can accidentally click on a link while scrolling. Spam links should not be allowed anywhere on this board.

Not to speak for Melissa, but the business about "diagnostics are resolved" has to do with the concern over new members without a diagnosis who are worried, starting a bunch of new posts before they've been given a diagnosis. Some of us feel that new members who have not been given a diagnosis (either that their concerns are benign or malignant) should not be able to start repetitive threads voicing the same issue because it clutters the board, makes their concerns difficult to follow and give advice/offer support, and can whip up frenzy in frightened newcomers.

Thanks, Mods