They probably leave the self-closed or abandoned entities open in case someone wants to come back.
I do wish they'd delete and not count the infinite roll of banned cheaters and people thrown off the site for TOS violations.
Chess.com recently hit 10 million members and there's a downside.
Sort:
Yeah, DrSpudnik has the correct idea in my opinion.
The numbers would significantly go down if they do that,looks like a good marketing strategy to keep the number as 10 million.
People have registerted to make accounts 10,000,000 times, that is an impressive number and a testimony to the site. C.C is one of the larger sites around so I have no problem with it. I'm sure the same problem goes for any sites with accounts, just take the # with a grain of salt.
Addicted-to-Chess97 wrote:
People have registerted to make accounts 10,000,000 times, that is an impressive number and a testimony to the site. C.C is one of the larger sites around so I have no problem with it. I'm sure the same problem goes for any sites with accounts, just take the # with a grain of salt.
Chess.com even makes it easier to see 'real activity'. Just look at how many games are going on.
Jul 24, 2014
0
#7
The cost of having unused accounts costs nothing compared to the active accounts. No need to delete them
Accounts sitting on a hard drive somewhere aren't costing any money. Even if they used solid state drives, the fastest and most expensive nonvolitle storage, a gigabyte only costs 50 cents.
I'd estimate storing a profile to be a few megabytes, at the most. That's 4 accounts per penny. 10 million users comes to $25,000.
This is the worst case, it's probably a small fraction of that.
?
Prosecutor153 wrote:
?
??
Jul 25, 2014
0
#11
I still think it's one person who has spent his entire life making 10 million accounts. This of course could mean two things:
a) I'm crazy but don't know it.
b) I'm the one person and you are all extensions of me.
I still think it's one person who has spent his entire life making 10 million accounts. This of course could mean two things:
a) I'm crazy but don't know it.
b) I'm the one person and you are all extensions of me.
c) All off the above.
Jul 25, 2014
0
#14
kleelof wrote:
I still think it's one person who has spent his entire life making 10 million accounts. This of course could mean two things:
a) I'm crazy but don't know it.
b) I'm the one person and you are all extensions of me.
c) All off the above.
hahaha
WOW!! Your points match your rating!!! Don't say anything else or you'll mess it up.
Last Online: Today
Points: 1219
Rating: 1219 (Online Chess)
Snookslayer wrote:
McDonalds claims 250 billion served. I say repeat customers shouldn't count.
To nitpick, I believe that is the number of hamburgers served, not the number of customers.
Jul 25, 2014
0
#17
It's a sign! 
Prosecutor153, tell us what will happen on 12/01/19!
Why God, Why!!!??
Yep, even sock puppets eating big macs counts. Unlike here.
Snookslayer wrote:
McDonalds claims 250 billion served. I say repeat customers shouldn't count.
kleelof wrote:
Snookslayer wrote:
McDonalds claims 250 billion served. I say repeat customers shouldn't count.
To nitpick, I believe that is the number of hamburgers served, not the number of customers.
Serving 50 burgers for every person on earth isn't easy, or even possible, but that won't stop anyone from trying.
Jul 25, 2014
0
#20
Some facts:
33,000 Mcdonalds stores world-wide,
Mcdonalds serves 1% of the population per day,
75 burgers per second,
even the Queen of England owns a Mcdonalds store,
one restaurant per day will open in China in the next 3 years.
----
75 burgers per second * 31,536,000 seconds in a year = 2,365,200,000 burgers per year.
I'd say it was both easy and possible.
Well, not a direct downside, but it's obvious what the problem is!
Quite a number of these users haven't logged in over 3-7 years. Perhaps it's time to deactivate all of these accounts if the user hasn't logged in for a very long time?
I know this might be a silly question, but does it cost more financially, or not, to have accumulated so many members, rather than say, removing old useless accounts?
I dunno, I guess it doesn't hurt for the site to falsely label itself on the first page with that high number. Not falsely label itself...it's misleading actually.
I have another question: how many members have logged in, in the past 3 years, 2 years, 1 year?
I'm interested in seeing the numbers.