Timeline for Destroying users does not delete answers posted by other users, even though the question has been deleted
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 8, 2017 at 16:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://content.screencast.com/ with https://content.screencast.com/
|
|
| Jun 8, 2011 at 11:34 | comment | added | Tamara Wijsman | @Sathya: I'm not claiming anything, I'm just repeating your example. You could as well interpret the behavior that you see every day as a bug given that you don't have a reference which explains why it is implemented that way, which allows for other ways to look upon this. So it isn't necessarily non-standard behavior... | |
| Jun 8, 2011 at 4:11 | comment | added | Sathyajith Bhat Mod | er @TomWijsman reference would be the behaviour that I see every day when I delete/undelete questions. I'm not sure how you can claim that's the design without having seen how either one works. The current implementation that you claim is not standard behaviour for a deleted question, but one that pertains specifically when you destroy a user. | |
| Jun 7, 2011 at 21:31 | comment | added | nhinkle Mod | @TomWijsman that's how the system works. Yes, it's confusing when some of your rep goes away, but that's just part of how it goes. The reputation is only lost when a user's rep is recalculated, either by the user, a moderator, or as an automated process. If you want to make a feature-request to show in the rep report what changed when doing the recalc, you can do that, though I doubt they'd approve it since that would be too CPU intensive. | |
| Jun 7, 2011 at 21:10 | comment | added | Tamara Wijsman | @nhinkle: On the other hand, it's also confusing to suddenly have a drop of 100 to 200 reputation in such edge cases without being able to figure out why. It does happen, unless you were to check all the question when you destroy an user... | |
| Jun 7, 2011 at 18:56 | comment | added | nhinkle Mod | @TomWijsman it's inconsistent, which is bad. Users shouldn't get rep for answers that don't exist to the public any more. Phantom rep is confusing, and should be eliminated. | |
| Jun 7, 2011 at 18:34 | comment | added | Tamara Wijsman | @DMA57361: You would consider it bad because it's doesn't result in right calculations given the answers visible to an user. But I could consider it good as they got reputation for their good answer... | |
| Jun 7, 2011 at 18:29 | comment | added | DMA57361 Mod | @Tom, the info that I didn't give out in my first comment (not sure why :/) was that the non-deleted answers on the deleted question couldn't be accessed by any user with under 10k, and they didn't appear on the users' profile pages for non-♦s (we checked) - so these non-deleted answers could have been essentially been giving the users "phantom" reputation (which would be bad). | |
| Jun 7, 2011 at 18:27 | comment | added | Tamara Wijsman | Of course it could be implemented the other way by deleting them too, but it really rather looks like it's an OCD to just get the answers deleted rather than there is something useful to it. I agree with your suggestion as I have nothing against it, but just changing something that seems by design feels rather unnecessary... | |
| Jun 7, 2011 at 18:14 | comment | added | Tamara Wijsman | @DMA57361: That's what I said with the first edge case. Your note doesn't apply, as shown the answers remain to be there and deleting them isn't really useful. Why implement extra logic that determines by who it has been deleted if the answers can just remain to be there? If you were to delete this meta question, I would consider the deletion of my answer to be a bad thing as I can't get it back through my profile anymore. However, as a user that has moderation privileges I should be able to find my answer... | |
| Jun 7, 2011 at 18:08 | comment | added | Tamara Wijsman | @Sathya: Do you have a reference for your first two statements? Because that's simply not how it currently is implemented as you have shown, and as I explained there is really no useful reason to implement it that way. As for your last sentence, think about why you should delete the answers in this case? ;) | |
| Jun 7, 2011 at 12:30 | comment | added | Sathyajith Bhat Mod |
Few things (a) Deleting a question deletes all the answers posted (b)undeleting a question will undelete all the answers on the question. (c) When you destroy a user, then you are essentially deleting all their questions - so why should it keep the answers in this case? It's not status-bydesign - it is a bug.
|
|
| Jun 7, 2011 at 12:18 | comment | added | DMA57361 Mod | In my opinion a deleted question should always have the same behaviour wrt to not changing the rep of anyone involved, and so questions that need saving (as per your edge case example) should just be undeleted. Note that undeleting a question will undelete the answers that were "deleted" by the question's deletion (and leave those manually deleted by the OP, ♦ or community), so I don't think there's a concern about time taken to revert - it's just a simple question undelete. | |
| Jun 7, 2011 at 11:17 | history | answered | Tamara Wijsman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |