ender - 29 June 2010 07:53 PM
Dylan Smith/ContextDesign - 29 June 2010 02:25 AM
Instead of nuking information that may or may not be outdated, and may or may not be damn valuable to people, why not preface any thread with a last entry date older than XXX ( a few months or so?) with a note saying that the info is probably outdated, as it applies to 1.6. I can’t believe you’re hurting for storage space or anything.
this is a much better solution than deleting things that you didn’t create yourself. I can think of no better way to make a community not trust you with the storage of future conversations than to delete years of participation.
Hi Ty,
99.9% of the information deleted needs to be deleted primarily because it is outdated and harmful to the community. We know this based on years of experience in providing tech support and curating these forums.
We believe in pruning and removing information as it leads to better quality current information.
Let’s put this in perspective. Over the years we have removed over 700,000 forum threads and well over 1,000,000 posts. This is the first time we’ve had a misstep in the process. And we’ve corrected it in less than 24 hours by the direct involvement of the President and the CTO. I hope that establishes enough trust and shows our commitment level.
All the data and experience we have (collected over the last 7+ years) demonstrates conclusively that pruning the data is the right decision in terms of supporting our products and providing the best technical support to our community. Until the data proves differently, that is the philosophical way we’re going to continue to operate our forums.
Here is just one example. When you search on our forums, there are over 1,000,000 useless posts, including ones that have harmful information to the current versions of EE, that are simply no longer available. We could go on and provide a number of other reasons as to why archiving the vast majority of this data in anyway is simply not a good idea.
Going forward what we need to do is provide ways for the community to influence what needs to be preserved and to redefine what we used to consider current. In other words, there needs to be a solution that allows the community proper ownership in the pruning process to ensure that the gems amidst the hundreds of thousands of outdated and potential harmful information are preserved in a seamless fashion. This conversation has greatly influenced that and again, I want to thank everyone for the feedback in that regard.