Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
No such thing as a small change
 
PerlMonks  

Re: The ability to delete

by herveus (Parson)
on Oct 22, 2005 at 13:55 UTC ( #502207=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to The ability to delete

Howdy!

I'm glad that the ability to delete a node is not widely available. Deleting nodes should only occur after appropriate consideration (whether formal or not). Whacking nodes can destroy the context of a conversation, rendering the work of respondents much closer to useless or nonsensical.

If you inadvertently make a duplicate post, it's probably productive to check the ChatterBox and ask for help there. A janitor may well be able to do something productive. At the least, you could probably find someone to consider the duplicate for deletion.

Another way to deal with a duplicate is to edit one into an entirely different post, since you can change the title as well as the body. Look at it as a way to get twice the XP! *grin*

Your proposal is intriguing, though. It might be interesting to examine just how often a node gets deleted (and why) to discern how much demand there might actually be for this feature. How many deleted nodes would have qualified for poster-deletion under your proposal (ignoring the minimum xp requirement), and how might they have been grouped by the then-current xp of the poster?

yours,
Michael


Comment on Re: The ability to delete
Re^2: The ability to delete
by kiat (Vicar) on Oct 22, 2005 at 15:28 UTC
    Hi herveus,

    A user is able to edit her post after she has gained a certain number of xp's, including deleting the entire content of the post, leaving an empty slot. Since she can be "trusted" to edit her post responsibly, it puzzles me that the same person can't be trusted to delete her post responsibly.

      Your making the assumption that emptying a node is responsible behaviour. It is not.

      Considering a writeup for being a duplicate will usually result in a fairly quick deletion, If the author has other reasons for wishing the post to be retracted, they'd better be very good - IMO it's usually better to update the node (by adding a statement, crossing out lines, whatever) than clearing it out or deleting it.

        I think you might have misread my post above. I don't think I implied that "emptying a node is a responsible behaviour". What I said was, when you give the user the power to edit, you're potentially giving her the power to remove the entire content of the post - not deleting the post and making the node (id) disappear but emptying its content. So the question is, why empower the person to potentially remove a post's entire content and yet not allowing her to delete it?

      I think that if you removed the content of your post, it would be restored in most cases. I have encountered instance where someone wished to recant an opinion or some statement, requested that the post be deleted, and was turned down. The explanation was that our posts are part of the Monastery's history, and it's not good to try to rewrite history.

      The only times I've seen actual "deletions" is when someone posts blatantly offensive text, or when it's a duplicate. Even then, you can access the original text if you care to - it's only moved to a less conspicuous place.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://502207]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others contemplating the Monastery: (5)
As of 2014-12-25 08:41 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    Is guessing a good strategy for surviving in the IT business?





    Results (159 votes), past polls