Yesterday it was brought to our attention that there were an usually high number of profiles that were removed from the site during the routine cleanup process where inactive accounts are suspended to make way for those that are active. At first I thought it was a major bug and that a lot of people were falsely auto-suspended. But it actually turned out to be a much more minor issue.
When I first received the news, I quickly leapt into action to restore everyone that had activity in their account within the last 30 days. But then I started looking into how/what could have caused it, and I was stumped! Everything seemed to be working just fine in all of the tests. However there was a discrepancy in the ladies profiles of showing very recent activity. How could that be!?! I checked and checked again, until I finally thought to myself… why don’t I have an inbox full of support requests from ladies asking why their photos are gone (due to the suspension script running on their profiles)?? Or a lot of their friends asking why their friends are all gone?? And then it dawned on me… these ladies must not actually be active at all. And that’s exactly what was happening. The “Last Activity” value on profiles was being falsely reported ever since the recent changes to how we log activity. For at least 2 years now, we’ve always excluded logins as a trigger to show someone as active. Activity is defined as interacting with the site and contributing in some way. But for about the last 2 weeks log-ins were falsely triggering an activity update.
So that’s why you may have seen a larger than normal drop in active accounts, quickly followed by a spike in active accounts (after I restored them), and then again followed by another drop after the cleanup routine ran again. The cleanup routine was right all along. But rather than be sorry, we played it safe and restored them all until the root cause could be found.
So the only real downside from this bug, was that some ladies had a window of about 14 extra days that allowed them to appear active from “false activity” simply by logging in. Luckily no major crisis, and no ladies where wrongly deprived of any donations (in fact they got to hold onto them for 14 extra days).
Some had suspected that the new Stealth Mode feature may have been the cause of this, but it wasn’t at all. But one should be aware that the Stealth Mode feature will by design prevent that last activity value from being updated. So Stealth Mode really does allow you to be active on the site, yet not appear active. Clearly this is something I doubt many women would want to use, but then again so is the ability for them to return donations, yet that does get used from time to time. So it’s just another tool in the toolbox really, and people can choose to use it how they best see fit.
The obvious side affect of this however is that it’s technically possible now for people to have Last Activity dates greater than 30 days yet still have an active profile. This of course is because we track actual activity separately regardless of stealth mode to determine if someone should be auto-suspended.
I hope this helps to clear up any confusion on the matter.
48 COMMENTS
Leave A Comment@CCR/J Coverman: I threw my comment out there for 2-way testing purposes. I’ve done my share of testing like this online where I want to make sure that if a model opts for a 0 (incoming), that she is still able to request a chat (outgoing) with a bene without that 0 (incoming) option preventing it.
I’ve never run into the issue of having more than one chat request on my end, but it makes sense to have the same option for benes.
@Jim: Now with the current stealth mode, can i request a chat from a lady – if being i am in stealth mode and having the chat link. And vice versa of course, a lady in stealth mode can request a chat from a bene who is not in stealth mode.
Maybe i have misunderstood you, i don’t know… But i like Coverman’s ideas.
On another note: i had 1 day without any membership option, ladies could request chat from me as the link was there. I do not know what happens if a lady do, if i get the request or not and if i can chat if i get the request.
Correction:
“if i am in stealth mode and having the chat link gone”
I believe the feedback went back to 3 when it was pointed out that a certain benefactor was getting pics for free and then blocking women when they’d sent him 4 messages so they couldn’t leave feedback explaining what a scumbag he was.
@CCR: if you are in stealth, yes, you can request a chat with a model, but a model cannot request a chat with you. But the current scheme is an all-or-nothing type situation. Either you are available, or not available, for chats: an on-off switch. J-C’s idea turns it into more of a rheostat (it goes to 11). I am just suggesting that if this is an avenue Jason chooses to go down, that sufficient testing is done to assure that if your setting is 0 (meaning a model cannot request a chat with you), that you still have the ability to request a chat with an available model, and vice versa.
Yeah if Im on stealth I can still request chats from guys that are considered online. So Id imagine itd be the same on your part and I think it was a good idea about changing the feedback rating thing to 3 instead of 5. Alot of guys were getting away with a lot before, now its a bit harder for the scammers. =)
@Jim: ok ok i follow now. As i thought too.
@Italianita: yes ladies got away with a lot too so scammers on both sides have harder to get away. Please, Italianita, do not think it is just guys that are scammers. Ladies are too.
Still i wish i could disable chat requests without being in stealth mode. I do not understand why they need to be connected.
Yup, your right it goes both ways… so overall its all good=)
Ive heard some crazy stories with the ladies just as much as the guys.