[RFC|Accepted] Soft Delete
Re: [RFC|Accepted] Soft Delete
I am not sold on the need for unapproval as Pony just described. First, I cannot imagine this being a frequent use case. Second, if this is true you can report the post. Right now if you really need to hide it you would split it to trash can; with soft delete you can simply soft delete it. Until there is a demonstrated need for the unapproval feature I wouldn't worry about implementing it.
- Pony99CA
- Registered User
- Posts: 986
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:35 am
- Location: Hollister, CA
- Contact:
Re: [RFC|Accepted] Soft Delete
Here you go: Moderation tool: Invisible/Visible posts. While soft delete would handle this, it sort of violates your "approval and deletion should be separate concepts" principle. Unapproving a post would put a post in the moderation queue just like a post from a Newly Registered User or a user without permission to post without approval. Soft deleting would require a different flow to restore the post, and an Admin might hard delete the post thinking that the Moderator wanted it deleted.Oleg wrote:I am not sold on the need for unapproval as Pony just described. First, I cannot imagine this being a frequent use case.
A user has to report a post, but a Moderator shouldn't have to.Oleg wrote:Second, if this is true you can report the post. Right now if you really need to hide it you would split it to trash can; with soft delete you can simply soft delete it. Until there is a demonstrated need for the unapproval feature I wouldn't worry about implementing it.
A Trash Can forum seems to have some problems:
- It requires the admin to know about that kluge.
- It requires quite a bit of setup.
- When a post is moved to the Trash Can, if it is decided to restore the post (perhaps after editing), how does somebody know where to restore it to? (You can make an educated guess based on your forum structure, but there could still be some ambiguity.)
If people bought into unapproval, I suspect that most of the code done for moderator soft delete could probably be reused for unapproval, too. (Or, as I mentioned above, you could turn moderator soft delete into unapproval and only allow users to soft delete.)
Steve
Silicon Valley Pocket PC (http://www.svpocketpc.com)
Creator of manage_bots and spoof_user (ask me)
Need hosting for a small forum with full cPanel & MySQL access? Contact me or PM me.
Creator of manage_bots and spoof_user (ask me)
Need hosting for a small forum with full cPanel & MySQL access? Contact me or PM me.
- nickvergessen
- Former Team Member
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:54 am
- Location: Stuttgart, Germany
- Contact:
Re: [RFC|Accepted] Soft Delete
Unapproving posts is not being added, soft delete should be used instead.
One last big thing remaining:
Currently topics have a topic_replies (approved) and topic_replies_real (approved + unapproved). Basically that seems to be okay, but with softdelete it seems to be not suitable anymore.
The problem is, that we can not determinate whether there are soft deleted posts or unapproved posts in a topic, as both would be in topic_replies_real - topic_replies. The easiest would be to switch from that system to something like:
topic_posts_approved, topics_posts_unapproved, topic_posts_softdeleted
However that would quite break some bc. However with the fact, that we rename post/topic_ approved to *_visibility, bc is broken way more, so I would just go with it?
One last big thing remaining:
Currently topics have a topic_replies (approved) and topic_replies_real (approved + unapproved). Basically that seems to be okay, but with softdelete it seems to be not suitable anymore.
The problem is, that we can not determinate whether there are soft deleted posts or unapproved posts in a topic, as both would be in topic_replies_real - topic_replies. The easiest would be to switch from that system to something like:
topic_posts_approved, topics_posts_unapproved, topic_posts_softdeleted
However that would quite break some bc. However with the fact, that we rename post/topic_ approved to *_visibility, bc is broken way more, so I would just go with it?
Member of the Development-Team — No Support via PM
- imkingdavid
- Registered User
- Posts: 1050
- Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:06 pm
Re: [RFC|Accepted] Soft Delete
Yeahnickvergessen wrote:However that would quite break some bc. However with the fact, that we rename post/topic_ approved to *_visibility, bc is broken way more, so I would just go with it?
- Pony99CA
- Registered User
- Posts: 986
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:35 am
- Location: Hollister, CA
- Contact:
Re: [RFC|Accepted] Soft Delete
I guess that it will have to be, but that's not ideal. It's better than the current system (of nothing), though, but it doesn't seem like a lot of extra work to add Unapproval now that soft delete is implemented (especially given your next point below).nickvergessen wrote:Unapproving posts is not being added, soft delete should be used instead.
Out of curiosity, when do those get used? Is (topic_replies_real - topic_replies) used to determine when the unapproved posts icon is displayed next to the topic title in the viewforum page? Is it used for something else?nickvergessen wrote:One last big thing remaining:
Currently topics have a topic_replies (approved) and topic_replies_real (approved + unapproved). Basically that seems to be okay, but with softdelete it seems to be not suitable anymore.
The problem is, that we can not determinate whether there are soft deleted posts or unapproved posts in a topic, as both would be in topic_replies_real - topic_replies. The easiest would be to switch from that system to something like:
topic_posts_approved, topics_posts_unapproved, topic_posts_softdeleted
Steve
Silicon Valley Pocket PC (http://www.svpocketpc.com)
Creator of manage_bots and spoof_user (ask me)
Need hosting for a small forum with full cPanel & MySQL access? Contact me or PM me.
Creator of manage_bots and spoof_user (ask me)
Need hosting for a small forum with full cPanel & MySQL access? Contact me or PM me.
- EXreaction
- Registered User
- Posts: 1555
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 2:15 am
Re: [RFC|Accepted] Soft Delete
As far as topic/post counts go, what I did with my User Blog Mod when I wrote it all from scratch, I believe I made a single string field that went like:
"replys:unapproved:soft_deleted" (e.g. "12:3:1").
What might actually be best would be to use two fields. Have one with just an integer being what the "public" can see (if things can be sorted by reply count, use this), then one field hold a serialized string of 'unapproved' => 2, 'soft_deleted' => 1. This way if you or anyone else wants to add more in the future they can do so easily, and it's very easy to parse.
"replys:unapproved:soft_deleted" (e.g. "12:3:1").
What might actually be best would be to use two fields. Have one with just an integer being what the "public" can see (if things can be sorted by reply count, use this), then one field hold a serialized string of 'unapproved' => 2, 'soft_deleted' => 1. This way if you or anyone else wants to add more in the future they can do so easily, and it's very easy to parse.
I believe they are used for pagination.Pony99CA wrote:Out of curiosity, when do those get used? Is (topic_replies_real - topic_replies) used to determine when the unapproved posts icon is displayed next to the topic title in the viewforum page? Is it used for something else?
- nickvergessen
- Former Team Member
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:54 am
- Location: Stuttgart, Germany
- Contact:
Re: [RFC|Accepted] Soft Delete
Well the first thing is to display the correct number of posts for moderators, but that would also work with the current system. The other thing is what you mentioned. And for indicating that we need to differ between soft delete/unapproved/both also int fields would make it easier, when a posts status is changed then bit fields, as we don't need an additional query, to check whether there is still an other unapproved/deleted post.Pony99CA wrote:Out of curiosity, when do those get used? Is (topic_replies_real - topic_replies) used to determine when the unapproved posts icon is displayed next to the topic title in the viewforum page?
Member of the Development-Team — No Support via PM
- nickvergessen
- Former Team Member
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:54 am
- Location: Stuttgart, Germany
- Contact:
Re: [RFC|Accepted] Soft Delete
currently the columns are:Oleg wrote:unapproved -> pending? Not at all a fan of negatives especially in column names.
Option 1:
- forum_topics
- forum_topics_unapproved
- forum_topics_softdeleted
Option 2:
- forum_topics_visible
- forum_topics_pending
- forum_topics_deleted
Option 3:
- forum_topics_approved
- forum_topics_unapproved
- forum_topics_softdeleted
(Of course this also applies to the topic_posts_* columns and the forum_posts_* )
Member of the Development-Team — No Support via PM
Re: [RFC|Accepted] Soft Delete
On the subject of language we should call "soft deleting" something "trashing" and "hard deleting" "permanently delete" which I think will be clearer to users unfamiliar with this exact feature, but familiar with the concept of a trash can from their operating system. Otherwise the difference between soft and hard might confuse users.
- callumacrae
- Former Team Member
- Posts: 1046
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:37 am
- Location: England
- Contact:
Re: [RFC|Accepted] Soft Delete
I'm not really a fan of the term "trashing" - it is an extremely American word, and phpBB uses en-GB. However, en-GB doesn't really have any suitable equivalents.
I personally would vote for "deleting" and "permanently deleting".
I personally would vote for "deleting" and "permanently deleting".