Free Limited Membership tier for NPN

Free Limited Membership tier for NPN
0

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

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.

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.

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

\ 45x45

guy Guy Nelson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

bruce Bruce Omori 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

Jared_Atencio 0 0 0 0 1 8 5
\ 45x45

daniel Daniel and Loana Vigo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

kevin Kevin Barry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

jim8 Jim Deasy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

matt1 Matt Dennison 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

ivan Ivan Fildishev 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

Ryan_Kimball 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

debbie1 Debbie Sussman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

john6 John Fortner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

david10 David Lightner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

ivan Ivan Fildishev 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

Bill_Ferris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

ajit Ajit Huilgol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

arno Arno Gourdol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

Alain_Briot 0 0 0 0 2 27 4
\ 45x45

Bruce_King 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

nancy1 Nancy Lamb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

Gary_Crabbe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

albert Albert Darmo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

sanjay Sanjay Sundaram 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

pat Pat Sampson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

james James Campbell 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

clinton Clinton Bauder 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

yun Yun Gao 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

chip Chip Phillips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

Candee_Watson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

Kyle_Tansley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

Buck_Ward 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

Scott_Eliot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

andy1 Andy Rouse 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

richard6 Richard Olsen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

ken1 Ken Smith 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

jim Jim Arvanitis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

rajiv Rajiv Chopra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

dave2 Dave Knight 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

lee Lee Tallier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

durwood Durwood Edwards 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

varina Varina Patel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

sujinder Sujinder Pothula 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

Jody_Grigg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

andrey Andrey Antov 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

floris Floris van Breugel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

louis Louis Pattis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

rohn Rohn B. McKee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

katie Katie Jones 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

zack Zack Schnepf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

Jon_McCabe 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
\ 45x45

ry1 Ry Birge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

michael3 Michael Kowolenko 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

elizabeth1 Elizabeth Moon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

rob Rob Graham 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

helena Helena Watkins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

waleed Waleed Marhoum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

Eric_Djemba 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

Jason_Frye 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
\ 45x45

glenn Glenn Miles 0 0 0 0 1 4 1
\ 45x45

rick4 Rick Dunn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

gary Gary Banzhoff 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

bill2 Bill Maile 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

Chris_Klapheke 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

roger Roger Baut 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

jim6 Jim White 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

Anthony_Pollard 0 2 1 0 31 257 32
\ 45x45

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

jeffrey Jeffrey C Fracher 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

scott1 Scott Fricke 0 0 0 0 17 60 2
\ 45x45

ralph Ralph Kerr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

richard5 Richard Hahn 0 1 0 0 2 3 5
\ 45x45

matthew Matthew Cromer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

Harachi_Log 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

Denis_Frelot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

katja Katja Rosvall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

hisham Hisham Atallah 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

ruediger Ruediger Merz 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

kane Kane Engelbert 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

andy Andy Morrison 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
[\ 45x45]

Rob_Patterson 0 1 0 0 6 18 8
\ 45x45

erik Erik Lundh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

debbie Debbie McCulliss 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

paul2 Paul Marcellini 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

bob1 Bob Paulding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

bob2 Bob Kline 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

tjie Tjie Poo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

Mildred_Vasquez 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

alison Alison McCoy 0 0 0 0 1 2 3
\ 45x45

bill4 Bill Kellermeyer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

howard Howard Cheek 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

chris3 Chris Stenger 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

sonja Sonja Otto 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

jeffrey1 Jeffrey Hoffman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

Chris_Ebright 0 0 0 0 3 24 2
\ 45x45

Julian_Olmedo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

andrew Andrew Phillips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

(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
\ 45x45

michael6 Michael Salzlechne 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

Frederic_Hore 0 0 0 1 3 18 1
\ 45x45

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

gerald1 Gerald Liddelow 0 0 0 0 20 120 5
\ 45x45

joe Joe Cosentino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

harry Harry Lichtman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

jay1 Jay Levin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

tom2 Tom Webster 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

luke Luke Ormand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

dave3 Dave Hutchison 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

myer Myer Bornstein 0 0 0 1 1 19 4
\ 45x45

myer Myer Bornstein 0 0 0 1 1 19 4
\ 45x45

gary5 Gary Gulash 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

mark Mark Cillo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

aaron1 Aaron Rozeboom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

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
\ 45x45

may May Harrington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

Nathan_Buck 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

Dan_Schwartz 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
\ 45x45

Brad_Hill 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

pmusaraj1613479 Pmusaraj 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ 45x45

1 Like

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

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.

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. :slight_smile:

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.

Back
Forward