At least on the communities i follow. Every so often I come across a thread where i recognize most of the users there even in the big communities with over 30k members and I haven’t even been on lemmy that long.

  • Andrew
    link
    fedilink
    22 days ago

    It’s a trade-off, I guess. Admittedly, there’s not much benefit the user (though they could be warned via email if their account is going to be de-activated). There is however a benefit to the community, in that it can provide more reliable data to see if it’s trending in popularity (a 100 extra users isn’t significant if it thinks it has 30k users, but it moves the needle if that number is at a more realistic level).

    • @Crackhappy
      link
      English
      32 days ago

      Shouldn’t popularity be based on activity, not membership though?

      • Andrew
        link
        fedilink
        32 days ago

        It’s a useful metric. Maybe it’s the better one, but personally I’d like to see good data from both.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          4
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Lurkers need to subscribe for the content to appear in their Subscribed feed. Kicking them out may simply result in them rejoining again. It would be a constant struggle against that.

          Plus, if such purges occur routinely, then what about a major poster who takes a break, even if for like a year (let’s say they have a baby)? Actively getting rid of lurkers sends a signal that they are not welcomed. Especially if in the future Lemmy adds the ability for mods to have to approve join requests.

          Whereas simply using “monthly active users” avoids all of that. Do as you please with any of your communities - in which case it would be helpful for the sake of transparency to literally add it to the rules (those who don’t participate will eventually get purged) - but I thought I would list out some of these issues, in case it helped!:-)