Members Banned Statistics

Discussion in 'Site and Forum Feedback' started by mscriv, Aug 29, 2013.

  1. macrumors 601

    mscriv

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    #1
    I've noticed a lot of folks banned recently or maybe they've been banned a while and I'm just now seeing it. Now, of course, per forum rules we do not discuss the specific nature of any member's moderation or banning. And, I'm not asking about any information regarding any specific member or the details surrounding any specific incident.

    Simply out of curiosity, and seeing the other stats thread in this section, I wonder about the statistics of membership banning here at MR. I would love to see some general information broken down across the "bannable offenses" categories. For example, what offense is most often the reason that a member is banned? How many peopler per year are banned for X offense? It would just be interesting to see what negative behaviors seem to be the most troublesome in our community. As a social sciences kind of person I would think this information could prove helpful in seeking out ways to educate and shape our community members for the better. Maybe it could be added to the appropriate section of the FAQ and Forum Rules.
     
  2. Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    Kite flying
    #2
    Interesting idea. Actually, I'll go further: Some sad, atavistic impulse would prompt me to peruse such statistics, should they ever be posted here......
     
  3. macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #3
    It would be interesting to see, my guess is that the vast majority of bannings are accounts with only a couple posts that were created for spam purposes. As for long term members getting banned it seems like most of them are ones that are fairly active in the PRSI so it's probably them crossing a line in there one too many times.
     
  4. Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #4
    Putting my Doctor Q hat on for one moment, early statistical analysis has generated an interesting pie graph:




    [​IMG]


    = Breaking the Forum Rules



     
  5. macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #5
    Too hysterical! :D And true!
     
  6. macrumors 601

    GermanyChris

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Here
    #6
    :D

    But I think he means immediate ban, not ban after many times in the corner..

    Some of us are on our last straw so it's no surprise.
     
  7. macrumors 65816

    ejb190

    #7
    Awsome! I needed that laugh!

     
  8. macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #8
    It wouldn't make any difference. All bans are the result of breaking forum rules, whether they're broken one time or many times.
     
  9. macrumors 601

    GermanyChris

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Here
    #9
    too broad, all people pay taxes, all people die the keys to are how much or how long
     
  10. Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    Kite flying
    #10
    That is brilliant. Cue the sound of prolonged and sustained applause......:D Indeed, if there was an icon to indicate enthusiastic applause, that is what I would have added, here.....
     
  11. Administrator

    HexMonkey

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2004
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #11
    We don't have a way to collate aggregate statistics on ban reasons, although I can confirm that the vast majority of bans are for spammers.

    We do gather statistics on post reports, but that's not quite the same (eg a report for spam is likely to lead to a ban, whereas reports for most other issues are less likely to).
     
  12. macrumors 68020

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #12

    I laughed too but doesn't the op mean WHICH rule was broken?
     
  13. Administrator

    Doctor Q

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #13
    It looks like a very useful analysis. I only wish I had color vision so I could understand it!

    :D
     
  14. mscriv, Aug 29, 2013
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2013

    thread starter macrumors 601

    mscriv

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    #14
    Well played Blue Velvet, that was very funny. :D

    You are correct. I know this is a sensitive subject, but I was just curious about it. I would love to know how much of a problem, (i.e. frequency) it is that people are trying to create a second user account or generally what percentage of our community has gotten the boot for being inappropriate in how they communicate with their forum peers.

    Thanks for the info about spammers. I didn't even think of that as I assume most spamming is done by bots and not real people. Good to know.
     
  15. macrumors 65816

    m4v3r1ck

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #15
    Is banning not the virtual equivalent for "The Naugty Chair"? ;-)
     
  16. macrumors 65816

    Astroboy907

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Location:
    Spaceball One
    #16
    Nah, getting a thread in the Wasteland is ;)
     
  17. macrumors demi-god

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #17
    I believe Banning is more like..."Go away and don't come back...ever!":eek:
     
  18. Administrator

    annk

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Location:
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    #18
    I just have to post to say I agree, absolutely brilliant. :D

    That's "time-out", the temporary suspension. ;) Banned is usually used for the extreme ends of the scale: a member who has one spam post, or the result of increased moderation escalation of a long period of time, where reminders, warnings, and temporary suspensions just didn't make a difference. But I guess it depends on how any one person defines the naughty chair. :p

    If HexMonkey says it can't be done, then it can't be done, but I too would've been interested in this. So I definitely get why the question was asked.
     
  19. macrumors 68020

    pastrychef

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    New York City, NY
    #19
    How long does a time-out last? Are there any consequences to being placed on time-out multiple times?

    Thanks.
     
  20. Moderator

    OllyW

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    Location:
    The Black Country, England
    #20
    Have you read the Moderation FAQ?

     
  21. macrumors 68020

    pastrychef

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    New York City, NY
    #21
    Thanks for the link. Never even came close to seeing it.
     
  22. macrumors G5

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #22
    If you do any statistics, I think pure spammers should be excluded - someone who joins just to spam shouldn't be counted as a member at all.
     
  23. macrumors G5

    Macman45

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    Location:
    Somewhere Back In The Long Ago
    #23

    :D:D Superb!
     
  24. macrumors G3

    roadbloc

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    #24
    That'd be a time-out I think. Banning is a final 'kbaidontcomeback' thing as far as I'm aware.
     
  25. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #25
    I don't think it's completely final. The user named "eric/" was banned for some time, but his current status is "Guest".
    http://forums.macrumors.com/member.php?u=617977

    Just sayin'.
     

Share This Page