Lack of interest Additional Filter Criterion For Batch User Updater

[The Sandman]

I'd like to see an additional filter added to the Batch User Updater - "Last Visit Date Same As Registration Date" or "Hasn't Visited Since Registering".

 

[Jeremy]

This could be accomplished with a combination of the last visit date & registration date fields.

 

[The Sandman]

This could be accomplished with a combination of the last visit date & registration date fields.

How would you do that?

 

[Jeremy]

Set them to identical values.

 

[The Sandman]

Set them to identical values.

I think you mean identical ranges, not identical values. Regardless, I don't think either strategy would work unless you set identical values in each range and ran every day your forum has been up separately, one by one.

 

[Jeremy]

Range, value, they imply the same thing. Its a work around that will accomplish what you want. If you don't want to put in the work, then don't.

 

[The Sandman]

Range, value, they imply the same thing. Its a work around that will accomplish what you want. If you don't want to put in the work, then don't.

One of us needs to put in more work.

Semantics maybe, but "values" in this context are single dates, while "ranges" are the span between dates. Here we have 4 values defining 2 ranges. When you said "set to identical values" it wasn't clear if you meant setting each range to single value (which is then a single day) or setting the ranges to span identical dates (which can be any length of time).

Anyway, how for instance would you use the existing options to find all users who joined a forum before December 31, 2012 and never visited after registering. Assume the forum has been online since January 1, 2010.

 

[The Sandman]

See what I mean - no amount of work is going to get this done *unless* you're willing to do it one day at a time.

If you set:
Registered between: 2010-01-01 and 2012-12-31
Last Visited between: 2010-01-01 and 2012-12-31

It will not separate those who registered between 2010-01-01 and 2012-12-31 and never returned from those who registered between 2010-01-01 and 2012-12-31 and also visited the forum again between 2010-01-01 and 2012-12-31.

 

[Jeremy]

My previous posts still stand and work as a valid work around. If you don't want to do it day by day, that's up to you.

 

[The Sandman]

My previous posts still stand and work as a valid work around. If you don't want to do it day by day, that's up to you.

I don't know you well enough to know if you're serious or joking, but if you're suggesting that a reasonable answer to the example I gave above is to do 731 consecutive batch searches (2012 was a leap year) you're out of your mind.

You may or may not think this would be a useful filter, but your idea of a workaround is just silly.

 

[Jeremy]

Where did I say that this suggestion was silly? I'm saying that it can be accomplished in the current system if you want to put the work into it. My work around is not "ridiculous", it just requires work.

 

[The Sandman]

Where did I say that this suggestion was silly? I'm saying that it can be accomplished in the current system if you want to put the work into it. My work around is not "ridiculous", it just requires work.

Sure, and you could recreate the Panama Canal with a shovel, if you put in the work. It's not a reasonable project though.

If Mike or Kier don't think this is a reasonable request perhaps one of the add-on developers will. Maybe I'm alone, but if the option was there I would use it.

 

[DRE]

+ 1