I like this site.
I have seen it grow from Sally's beginnings to the reference site it is now, and I while here frequently.
When I registered my nick I did so because I wanted to leave a remark under a profile, the forums did not even exist then.
Next the review system grew, and this, aided by your iron policy of not deleting anything, has made this site stand out from any other!
Of course I did contribute.

There is a wealth of information stored in the forums, and reading inbetween the lines will get you even more.
This proves reliable for those who can weigh the entries, helped by the poster's stats plus the search facility.
However, this has changed, not for the better I think.

You have allowed members to unsubscribe themselves - a commendable feature for those really needing it, let that be said.
However it has some serious drawbacks, and is even abused by some.
Let me explain, starting with the latter, abuse.

As a random example this thread refers: www.esa.co.za/forum/thread.php
The poster posted a question and next deleted his membership.... so, no wonder he got no replies?
This currently also happens under the Review system, where [deleted] leaves an anonymous review.
If one is quick enough though you can see the poster is newly registered, leaves his first and only post (the review), and next deletes his membership!
No stats of any kind of the poster visible later leaves a per definition dodgy review - irrespective of it being good or bad - because, why on earth would one erase a brandnew membership, which is as anonymous as an ant in an anthill?
That's malicious posting I think, and this being possible undermines the integrity of your review system's rules.

Then there's established members with perhaps many posts to their name deleting (for whatever reason) their membership.
In doing this they force erasure of their nick (of course) but also their joining-date & post-count - and especially the latter is of crucial importance!
Generally speaking someone with over a hundred posts is more believable than someone with only 1 post, hence he 'weighs in' more.
However, also this bit is [deleted], rendering all these posts left on the site totally useless for the readers, they cannot attach any value to them.
This fact, especially over time to come, undermines the value to be had from perusing the forums.

I realize you have done this (erasing all) for confidentiality/privacy reasons of members here, as said commendable.
However, keeping displaying the post-count in modified form will not diminish the privacy rendered, see my suggestion below.

Keep in mind that already a good number of members are now [deleted], therefore multiple verbatim entries will be created making differentiating or tracing impossible!
If for those [deleted] only their post-count would be displayed as per below then any reader is still in a position to attach value to a post.
I think this would cure the potential ill the forum currently has.
Note that a gliding scale is adhered to, quite like the post-counter displayed for current members (a handy feature if anything!).
[single post] - for any first post or single-post user (those who abuse the unsubscribe facility as mentioned above)
[under 10 posts] - similar as per above, and this would include those posting with malicious intent trying to add some credit by posting more posts before they unsubscribe
[under 50 posts] - this unsubscribed user probably was somewhat reliable
[under 100 posts] - this poster I will likely trust, of course depending on what he has to say and how he says it
[under 500 posts] & [over 500 posts] - rather unlikely that these posters are unreliable, the latter just weighing in more than the former
Modify the above as per you wish, but something like it will help the forum's value.

However, the above would ruin those posts of members which post very little, sometimes only after years of being registered as member.
I have recently mentioned an example of someone posting after more than 2 years being registered, and, of course aided by what he wrote, I trust his opinion.
The above post-count indication would ruin his entry however, as it would suggest his was possibly a malicious post.
If an indication of joining date (remember, the posting date is always visible!) would remain under [deleted] then such would be prevented, and also this can be done rather anonymously.
Again, anonymity comes from numbers, and there's already a good number of [deleted]'s on this site!
How about [new member] as an example, or [joined ~5 years ago] whilst James builds in a random generator to flex the cutoff dates a bit?
Can't get more anonymous, however it leaves an important fact for those reading here.
Call me funny but I trust old hands here more than newbies, hence I attach more value to their posts.

In short, leaving some (disguised) stats visible next to the posts of [deleted] members will add some value to their posts which remain.
Maybe others will comment on this, I doubt I am the only one noting this shortcoming.
As said, love your site!

Allow me to push this up, I think this is important - and would like others to comment on also.

Well, Hi there... Welcome back

Makes good sense
Excellent question as to why someone would delete a new nick after a few weeks and a single review. Strange indeed

Keep pushing it up to top...is of a major importance. Or so I consider it very important.

I have saved to draft an incomplete writing with exactly the same questions and suggestions but I haven't finish it yet...

I am more than glad that the Legend put it all together and posted it!!!!

I can't talk about this now but I will be back here later!

Chmok ...Luv you 1000000000s and thank you.

Bump!.............!! Bump...........

I fully agree!

I had the same thing on my Melina profile where the member posted a review which was under moderation as it did not show imediately after the review was done when i went to look at the reviewe the profile was deleted. I asked esa to look into it nothing came of it. now i know why.