Free Limited Membership tier for NPN

[Sandy_Richards-Brown]

So sorry, but still don’t get it.
The “Users” list It shows 1041 users at the top - but scroll down the list a short ways, and you’ll soon start to see zeros after almost everyone’s name - showing NO activity for the week, month, year - more than 900 inactive members. Many are deceased, many more dropped out, many more never joined NPN2 for a variety of reasons - others are listed 2-4 times. more than 900 totally inactive, dead, resigned or otherwise uninvolved with NPN2.

I don’t think we have 1041 “members”. - read the list.

I think the old NPN1 list of people who were members at any time (and even many of those dropped out of NPN1) was simply imported and, ad 900 of these members are NOT active at all on NPN2 - or dead or listed several times.

Am I missing another list of truly active members??
Sandy

[David_Kingham]

The user statistics that you can see are not terribly useful. We currently have 745 ‘active’ members who are either paying or have a lifetime subscription. The 1041 number that you see will continue to grow even if members leave because if we delete a member it deletes all of their posts which we don’t want. Eventually the completely inactive users will be cleaned out automatically, but it’s not something you should be concerned with.

To get a better idea of how many active members we have you can look at this page https://community.naturephotographers.network/g and look at the groups Full Members, Monthly Members, and Trial Members. Granted, not all of them may be actively posting. All we can do to help that is to continue making the site better and give them some encouragement to post.

We average 40-50 trial members at any time, it’s hard to tell how many of those convert to paying members, but we do average 1-2 full member signups/day.

Growth is happening and it’s a nice slow, steady growth that is sustainable. I did not want the site to grow too fast early on so we could figure out all the kinks and the best membership structure. I feel we’re at a good point now and will be focusing more on how to grow the site by getting the existing contributors much more involved along with bringing in new big names for wildlife, avian, macro, and flora.

This is a rebuilding process that takes time, when I took over it was down to 250 members. NPN is still well respected but it went through a long hiatus and over time we will get the name back out there.

[Igor_Doncov]

@Sandy_Richards-Brown

The “Users” list It shows 1041 users at the top - but scroll down the list a short ways, and you’ll soon start to see zeros after almost everyone’s name - showing NO activity for the week, month, year - more than 900 inactive members

That’s 900 inactive users if you look at the weekly stats. If you look at the yearly stats the totals are much larger. That’s my theory. I think what you’re seeing is that last week 150/1050 users were active.

There’s a small triangle next to the date that lets you choose weekly, monthly, quarterly, or yearly stats.

I’m not sure the difference between read and viewed.

PS. I sorted on Reads from low to high and come out with about 250 members with zero values. That means about 750 are active members. These numbers seem to jive with what David has posted. Also about 1 new trial member signup a day. This should increase with the partial free membership.

[Sandy_Richards-Brown]

I see - that is much easier to understand. Thanks David and Igor -

The " year," however, starts May 5, 2018 before NPN2 was even in existence, (opened in September 2018, I believe) so it seems many of the old NPN1 members are being counted, which entirely skews perspective. Can the “year” be started September 2018 - then it would be accurate?)

The “last quarter” stats seems much more accurate - and there are still many, many inactive people listed but have never even opened NPN2, let alone posted, commented, or read anything.
(the 0’s mean activity in an area - reading, posting, commenting, etc)

(This is about 10% of them; the reply is only allowed 32,000 characters. )

Maybe if people see their name, they can help David update…

And we can ALL reach out to those we know and encourage them to join again and be more active.

Sandy

guy Guy Nelson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

bruce Bruce Omori 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Jared_Atencio 0 0 0 0 1 8 5

daniel Daniel and Loana Vigo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kevin Kevin Barry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

jim8 Jim Deasy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

matt1 Matt Dennison 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ivan Ivan Fildishev 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ryan_Kimball 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

debbie1 Debbie Sussman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

john6 John Fortner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

david10 David Lightner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ivan Ivan Fildishev 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bill_Ferris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ajit Ajit Huilgol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

arno Arno Gourdol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Alain_Briot 0 0 0 0 2 27 4

Bruce_King 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

nancy1 Nancy Lamb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gary_Crabbe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

albert Albert Darmo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

sanjay Sanjay Sundaram 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

pat Pat Sampson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

james James Campbell 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

clinton Clinton Bauder 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

yun Yun Gao 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

chip Chip Phillips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Candee_Watson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kyle_Tansley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Buck_Ward 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Scott_Eliot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

andy1 Andy Rouse 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

richard6 Richard Olsen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ken1 Ken Smith 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

jim Jim Arvanitis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

rajiv Rajiv Chopra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

dave2 Dave Knight 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

lee Lee Tallier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

durwood Durwood Edwards 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

varina Varina Patel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

sujinder Sujinder Pothula 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Jody_Grigg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

andrey Andrey Antov 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

floris Floris van Breugel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

louis Louis Pattis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

rohn Rohn B. McKee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

katie Katie Jones 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

zack Zack Schnepf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Jon_McCabe 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

ry1 Ry Birge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

michael3 Michael Kowolenko 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

elizabeth1 Elizabeth Moon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

rob Rob Graham 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

helena Helena Watkins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

waleed Waleed Marhoum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Eric_Djemba 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Jason_Frye 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

glenn Glenn Miles 0 0 0 0 1 4 1

rick4 Rick Dunn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

gary Gary Banzhoff 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

bill2 Bill Maile 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chris_Klapheke 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

roger Roger Baut 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

jim6 Jim White 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Anthony_Pollard 0 2 1 0 31 257 32

tim1 Tim Gregory 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
[![\ 45x45]

jeffrey Jeffrey C Fracher 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

scott1 Scott Fricke 0 0 0 0 17 60 2

ralph Ralph Kerr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

richard5 Richard Hahn 0 1 0 0 2 3 5

matthew Matthew Cromer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Harachi_Log 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Denis_Frelot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

katja Katja Rosvall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

hisham Hisham Atallah 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ruediger Ruediger Merz 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kane Kane Engelbert 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

andy Andy Morrison 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
[]

Rob_Patterson 0 1 0 0 6 18 8

erik Erik Lundh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

debbie Debbie McCulliss 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

paul2 Paul Marcellini 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

bob1 Bob Paulding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

bob2 Bob Kline 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

tjie Tjie Poo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mildred_Vasquez 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

alison Alison McCoy 0 0 0 0 1 2 3

bill4 Bill Kellermeyer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

howard Howard Cheek 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

chris3 Chris Stenger 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

sonja Sonja Otto 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

jeffrey1 Jeffrey Hoffman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chris_Ebright 0 0 0 0 3 24 2

Julian_Olmedo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

andrew Andrew Phillips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(https://community.naturephotographers.network/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/50afbb/45.png)](https://community.naturephotographers.network/u/audrey)

audrey Audrey Miller 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

michael6 Michael Salzlechne 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Frederic_Hore 0 0 0 1 3 18 1

michelle Michelle C. Parent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
[![\ 45x45]

gerald1 Gerald Liddelow 0 0 0 0 20 120 5

joe Joe Cosentino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

harry Harry Lichtman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

jay1 Jay Levin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

tom2 Tom Webster 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

luke Luke Ormand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

dave3 Dave Hutchison 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

myer Myer Bornstein 0 0 0 1 1 19 4

myer Myer Bornstein 0 0 0 1 1 19 4

gary5 Gary Gulash 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

mark Mark Cillo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

aaron1 Aaron Rozeboom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

william2 William Hollister 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(https://community.naturephotographers.network/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e495f1/45.png)](https://community.naturephotographers.network/u/rob1)

rob1 Rob Drummond 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

may May Harrington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nathan_Buck 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dan_Schwartz 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

Brad_Hill 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

pmusaraj1613479 Pmusaraj 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

[Tom_Nevesely]

David, I was just looking at the group page (from your link) and I was wondering what is the benefit of being in a groups is? Is it for more specific conversations?

Also, would the Canadian Rocky Mountains (where I shoot most of the time) fall under “Rocky Mountain Nature Photographers”?

Thanks!
Tom

[David_Kingham]

At this point groups don’t have a lot of use, the regional groups are primarily used to notify group members when there is a group meetup. We may find some other uses for them in the future, but the groups are fairly new in the software and not too important at the moment. We could create a Canadian group, but it’s such a large country we would probably need to break it up by region or province. We can take a look at this again once we have more Canadian members, there’s just not much of a reason to do it right now.

[Tom_Nevesely]

Thanks for the clarification David. I agree with what you say about a Canadian group. Having just one makes no sense because the country is so big and creating regional groups would most likely result in only having a handful of members in each on.
Personally, I like having one big group on NPN- aka everyone on NPN.

[David_Schoen]

Just a thought here. Since NPN is trying to increase membership by now having a free membership with very limited benefits, the real value of the site to me; the critiques, are not visible to the free members. If there is a way to do it, I would suggest making the critiques visible on the opening page, the most recent ones posted, be viewable by the free members. This way they can see the value of the site but in a very limited way. They would not be able to post. I realize the 30 day trial membership opens everything but this would be different. Once again, just a thought.