Re^3: Reap deleted CatQA nodes instead of nuke? (space, undo)

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

Comment on Re^3: Reap deleted CatQA nodes instead of nuke? (space, undo)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Reap deleted CatQA nodes instead of nuke? (space, undo) by jdporter (Paladin) on Oct 30, 2006 at 20:18 UTC
I doubt it will be done, however. Someone would need to ... implement the reaping mechanism. Oh ye of little faith! ;-) I've already demonstrated that much on the dev server. But not: implement filtering of reaped nodes from all of the several CatQ+A displays Would that really be necessary? Yes, it would look nicer; but on the other hand, it would be inconsistent with the other sections of the site, which display reaped root nodes, unfilterably. We're building the house of the future together.	[reply]
Re^5: Reap deleted CatQA nodes instead of nuke? (filter) by tye (Sage) on Oct 30, 2006 at 20:24 UTC
CatQ+A isn't much like the other sections. That is why nuking was allowed there. It makes no sense to me to include a bunch of noise in a section meant to help the relatively inexperienced find answers. - tye	[reply]
Re^6: Reap deleted CatQA nodes instead of nuke? (filter) by jdporter (Paladin) on Oct 30, 2006 at 21:16 UTC
O.k., I've done that part on the dev server now as well. What else? We're building the house of the future together.	[reply]
Re^6: Reap deleted CatQA nodes instead of nuke? (filter) by jdporter (Paladin) on Oct 31, 2006 at 13:25 UTC
Y'know, I have to say, after going through this exercise, I agree with you that the current implementation of the Q&A section is just crazy; there's no reason it should be so different. I think we should make a new section, cloned from perlquestion, and move the current Q&A content over to it. What do you think? Wouldn't this work about as easily an anything else? We're building the house of the future together.	[reply]