Currently, when a QandAEditor deletes a Categorized Question or Categorized Answer, the node is nuked, which means it's wiped out of the system, and there's no (publicly visible) record of the delete action. Perhaps it would be better if this were changed so that nodes so deleted by QandAEditors are reaped instead?

Update: I have determined that if a Categorized Answer node is simply reaped, it continues to be listed under its Categorized Question (with the usual skeleton left for reaped nodes). And there is (currently) no user setting for disabling the display of such reaped nodes. This could be remedied, of course. A user setting for this could be added; the user setting for display of reaped replies could be used; or the node type could be changed, upon reapage, to something other than Categorized Answer.

We're building the house of the future together.
  • Comment on Reap deleted CatQA nodes instead of nuke?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Reap deleted CatQA nodes instead of nuke?
by jdporter (Paladin) on Dec 07, 2006 at 21:44 UTC

    More update: It also doth appear that when a categorized question gets SOPWified (by a QandAEditor), it does not get removed from its parent category. For example, the QandASection: references category still lists this question, even though it has been SOPWified. This is definitely a bug.

    We're building the house of the future together.
[reply]
Re: Reap deleted CatQA nodes instead of nuke?
by Anonymous Monk on Oct 30, 2006 at 05:50 UTC
    Why?
[reply]
Re: Reap deleted CatQA nodes instead of nuke?
by Marza (Vicar) on Oct 30, 2006 at 08:26 UTC
    It also means adding to the storage. What is gained by this?
[reply]
      Howdy!

      What is gained? History/audit trail. Suppose the deletion should ought not to have been done? A reap might well allow ready undoing, while a reap nuke is for keeps.

      Update: fixed typo above

      yours,
      Michael
[reply]

        Most "nukings" can be undone. However, the "gain" is a record of why the node was deleted so that a determination can be made as to whether or not it should be undone. It also addresses issues like someone bookmarking a question and coming back to find that it disappeared. A reaping would likely leave a pointer to a better source of similar information, for example.

        Also, a reaped node doesn't require more space than a nuked node. And the percentage is so incredibly tiny that it doesn't matter anyway.

        I think the idea is fine. I doubt it will be done, however. Someone would need to implement filtering of reaped nodes from all of the several CatQ+A displays and then implement the reaping mechanism.

        - tye        

[reply]

Back to Inner Scriptorium