4

I got some criticism for editing a question. I personally don't think I mutilated the question but others may feel differently.

Original question:

I am trying to find a long-term method of storing RAW photos. I'd like to keep it as simple as possible, while minimizing data loss (obviously a balance needs to be struck).

I currently archive my photos on two HDDs that are only running once a week or so which. Both drives are backed and kept in a different location. For day to day purposes I use an SDD.

My biggest concern is the ongoing degradation ("digital decay") on the HDDs, rather than mechanical failure.

I continue reading that HDDs have a lifetime of 3-5 years. But my understanding is that digital decay is an ongoing process, so it makes little sense to me to speak of a lifetime in this context.

My questions:

I understand one way to mitigate digital decay is to rewrite the files on the HDD every so often (let's say once per year). Is this a viable strategy to keep my photos safe long-term and can you provide sources for your answer?

My second worry is data corruption that has already happened before I copy, I would just copy already corrupted data then. Are there ways to prevent this?

Thanks for your answer.

I feared the question violated some guidelines and would get downvoted. I was considering a downvote myself but remembered 'review' suggests the possibility of editing a question to make it meet guidelines. Then I decided to try that. meanwhile indeed downvotes were casted.

My final edit:

I am trying to find a long-term method of storing RAW photos. I'd like to keep it as simple as possible, while minimizing data loss (obviously a balance needs to be struck).

I currently archive my photos on two HDDs that are only running once a week or so which. Both drives are backed and kept in a different location. For day to day purposes I use an SDD.

My question

I understand one way to mitigate digital decay is to rewrite the files on the HDD every so often (let's say once per year). Is this a viable strategy to keep my photos safe long-term and can you provide sources for your answer?

Thanks for your answer.

My goals were, focus and try provoke fact based answers. In my humble opinion the edited question addresses what I deem the main worry of the original poster, is more to the point and less likely to provoke opinion based answers.

But in comments I read for example:

your edit entirely changes the question in a way which encourages wrong answers and hides the OP's goal

Trying to avoid discussion in comments, I am posting here. I personally feel I sufficiently maintained the central theme, but I can be wrong. Indeed I dropped a question to make the question meet guidelines.

So my question is, did I screw up?

3
  • 1
    The most upvoted answer on the edited question by @cybernard talks extensively about SMART which is a red herring. The original question made it clear the original poster was only interested in ongoing degradation (digital decay) and not mechanical failure. Removing this, and his following paragraph which shows confusion about digital decay and disk longevity altered the nature and focus of the post in a way which I believe obscured the question intent and encouraged irrelevant answers.
    – davidgo
    May 31, 2023 at 0:11
  • 1
    BTW, please don't take any of this personally (and thank you for striving to do right!)
    – davidgo
    May 31, 2023 at 0:13
  • Thanks for answering. But the decay part is still part of the question? In fact, in't it the question now? I assumed the OP's main concern and question was about decay, it's why I maintained that question. My edit does not mention drive or mechanical failure at all. May 31, 2023 at 1:45

1 Answer 1

1

I personally feel I sufficiently maintained the central theme, but I can be wrong. Indeed I dropped a question to make the question meet guidelines.

The last edit you made was definitely incomplete, since it fails to remove unnecessary statements (I.e “Thanks for your answer”) or the fact the author asked for sources (that is an implied requirement for quoting external sources).

I personally believe you didn’t address underlying problem with the question. I wouldn’t have approved your edits, if you didn’t already have the reputation, to perform edits with approval from the community.

Indeed I dropped a question to make the question meet guidelines.

You didn’t drop the other question that also doesn’t meet the community guidelines

3
  • Thank you. I don't understand half of it. Asking for external sources is a no-no? Are you saying the only remaining question does not meet guidelines? Then could such a question be asked in any way or form and could you give an example of how it could be improved, if at all? May 31, 2023 at 11:39
  • @JoepvanSteen - Asking for sources is unnecessary, it’s already implied, if a source is required to answer the question. I personally would not have spent time trying to improve that question.
    – Ramhound
    May 31, 2023 at 12:41
  • Ah, thank you, understood. I was going on this "insist that opinion be backed up with facts and references" in help and may have interpreted this incorrectly. May 31, 2023 at 12:48

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .