Conquer Club

Recently, my usergroup was deleted.

Apparently, one post per month is enough to keep it alive. I think if mods are taking the time to delete usergroups, there should be a button for the threads to just be put into a huge folder where the threads can be looked up for posterity.

I saw your post in Q&A about this and it struck me as odd. Considering the moderator policy around here is pretty much to NEVER DELETE ANYTHING, I'm real surprised that entire usergroups and their fora would be "disappeared" like that without even archiving them. I can't claim that I know what the actual policy on this is. Perhaps we can get another mod to stop by and enlighten us

it really pissed me off when they deleted the usergroup for sig making, the Sigatur Lounge.

i posted a request for help with something just before it was deleted but that wasn't enough.

that subforum was full of great threads explaining how to do different graphics or where to get fonts.

it wasn't always a place to go to post but often a place to go to read, like a library - but's gone now.

greenoaks wrote:it really pissed me off when they deleted the usergroup for sig making, the Sigatur Lounge.

i posted a request for help with something just before it was deleted but that wasn't enough.

that subforum was full of great threads explaining how to do different graphics or where to get fonts.

it wasn't always a place to go to post but often a place to go to read, like a library - but's gone now.

And doom's was the experimental gamers forum, I believe. I'm sure there was interesting reading there, too. The more I hear about it, the more odd I think that it is given the non-deletion policy that we have. If these are truly being deleted without being archived, that is a shame.

As for archiving, I don't know what phpbb allows, but I can think of at least one other forum that I've seen that archives old topics into sort of a condensed, text-only simplified view. It's not the prettiest thing, but it seems like a reasonable compromise.

They're deleted to keep the page from overflowing in the control panel, I believe. When I looked into a clans/usergroup update, this was something I addressed. It's also possible that the forums simply be hidden and not deleted completely.

blakebowling wrote:They're deleted to keep the page from overflowing in the control panel, I believe. When I looked into a clans/usergroup update, this was something I addressed. It's also possible that the forums simply be hidden and not deleted completely.

I'm pretty sure it's deleted. I remember greenoaks posting about it in Q&A when it was deleted and he was basically told sorry.

chapcrap wrote:

blakebowling wrote:They're deleted to keep the page from overflowing in the control panel, I believe. When I looked into a clans/usergroup update, this was something I addressed. It's also possible that the forums simply be hidden and not deleted completely.

I'm pretty sure it's deleted. I remember greenoaks posting about it in Q&A when it was deleted and he was basically told sorry.

I'm saying it's possible for them to hide them instead of deleting them. I know the current process is to delete them.

blakebowling wrote:

chapcrap wrote:

blakebowling wrote:They're deleted to keep the page from overflowing in the control panel, I believe. When I looked into a clans/usergroup update, this was something I addressed. It's also possible that the forums simply be hidden and not deleted completely.

I'm pretty sure it's deleted. I remember greenoaks posting about it in Q&A when it was deleted and he was basically told sorry.

I'm saying it's possible for them to hide them instead of deleting them. I know the current process is to delete them.

Oh, ok. Well, that would certainly be better, IMO.

Ok, submitted?

It's possible that a lot of space is actually cleared up by the deleting of these threads. I mean the policy is surely in place for a reason. Also, I'm not sure that we need to archive everything. But I don't have all the info. I guess what I'd like to hear is what the exact policy is for deleting old threads/groups. Do any of the mods who stop by know exactly what the policy and procedure are? If not, I can post a question in the mod forum and hopefully get an answer.

I feel like we need to know what the policy is currently before we can start talking about how to change it.

agentcom wrote:It's possible that a lot of space is actually cleared up by the deleting of these threads. I mean the policy is surely in place for a reason. Also, I'm not sure that we need to archive everything. But I don't have all the info. I guess what I'd like to hear is what the exact policy is for deleting old threads/groups. Do any of the mods who stop by know exactly what the policy and procedure are? If not, I can post a question in the mod forum and hopefully get an answer.

I feel like we need to know what the policy is currently before we can start talking about how to change it.

I don't honestly know the reason, but I do have a theory. Until one of the techies drops by with a better explanation, consider this:

The problem is not storage space. In today's world binary storage space is ludicrously cheap, and as you've pointed out we have huge archival subfora full of nothing but old junk that nobody looks at.

The problem is checking permissions. For every limited-access subforum, the server has to check whether you have permission to enter every single time that it does something like look for your unread posts in order to populate your main forum index. This, I think, is a fairly time-consuming check for the server. (Time-consuming in computer terms. Probably a matter of microseconds, but all those microseconds add up.) We delete old usergroups not to save the trivial amount of space those messages take up, but to save the CPU cycles that it takes to constantly check who can look into those usergroups and who cannot.

It's a shame to lose stuff like the Siggattar Lounge and Experimental Gamers. I'd like to see this problem resolved, but myself I don't know enough to suggest a solution.

it would be good is we could salvage some threads and junk the rest

Dukasaur wrote:

agentcom wrote:It's possible that a lot of space is actually cleared up by the deleting of these threads. I mean the policy is surely in place for a reason. Also, I'm not sure that we need to archive everything. But I don't have all the info. I guess what I'd like to hear is what the exact policy is for deleting old threads/groups. Do any of the mods who stop by know exactly what the policy and procedure are? If not, I can post a question in the mod forum and hopefully get an answer.

I feel like we need to know what the policy is currently before we can start talking about how to change it.

I don't honestly know the reason, but I do have a theory. Until one of the techies drops by with a better explanation, consider this:

The problem is not storage space. In today's world binary storage space is ludicrously cheap, and as you've pointed out we have huge archival subfora full of nothing but old junk that nobody looks at.

The problem is checking permissions. For every limited-access subforum, the server has to check whether you have permission to enter every single time that it does something like look for your unread posts in order to populate your main forum index. This, I think, is a fairly time-consuming check for the server. (Time-consuming in computer terms. Probably a matter of microseconds, but all those microseconds add up.) We delete old usergroups not to save the trivial amount of space those messages take up, but to save the CPU cycles that it takes to constantly check who can look into those usergroups and who cannot.

It's a shame to lose stuff like the Siggattar Lounge and Experimental Gamers. I'd like to see this problem resolved, but myself I don't know enough to suggest a solution.

To an extent this is true. However from what I've been told, the issue lies with the cluttering of the admin interface when filled with many groups / group forums.

Why not merge the threads into a dusty corner of GD that everyone can look at?

blakebowling wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

agentcom wrote:It's possible that a lot of space is actually cleared up by the deleting of these threads. I mean the policy is surely in place for a reason. Also, I'm not sure that we need to archive everything. But I don't have all the info. I guess what I'd like to hear is what the exact policy is for deleting old threads/groups. Do any of the mods who stop by know exactly what the policy and procedure are? If not, I can post a question in the mod forum and hopefully get an answer.

I feel like we need to know what the policy is currently before we can start talking about how to change it.

I don't honestly know the reason, but I do have a theory. Until one of the techies drops by with a better explanation, consider this:

The problem is not storage space. In today's world binary storage space is ludicrously cheap, and as you've pointed out we have huge archival subfora full of nothing but old junk that nobody looks at.

The problem is checking permissions. For every limited-access subforum, the server has to check whether you have permission to enter every single time that it does something like look for your unread posts in order to populate your main forum index. This, I think, is a fairly time-consuming check for the server. (Time-consuming in computer terms. Probably a matter of microseconds, but all those microseconds add up.) We delete old usergroups not to save the trivial amount of space those messages take up, but to save the CPU cycles that it takes to constantly check who can look into those usergroups and who cannot.

It's a shame to lose stuff like the Siggattar Lounge and Experimental Gamers. I'd like to see this problem resolved, but myself I don't know enough to suggest a solution.

To an extent this is true. However from what I've been told, the issue lies with the cluttering of the admin interface when filled with many groups / group forums.

Now that you are red, can we get an update on possibly changing this policy?

Metsfanmax wrote:

blakebowling wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

agentcom wrote:It's possible that a lot of space is actually cleared up by the deleting of these threads. I mean the policy is surely in place for a reason. Also, I'm not sure that we need to archive everything. But I don't have all the info. I guess what I'd like to hear is what the exact policy is for deleting old threads/groups. Do any of the mods who stop by know exactly what the policy and procedure are? If not, I can post a question in the mod forum and hopefully get an answer.

I feel like we need to know what the policy is currently before we can start talking about how to change it.

I don't honestly know the reason, but I do have a theory. Until one of the techies drops by with a better explanation, consider this:

The problem is not storage space. In today's world binary storage space is ludicrously cheap, and as you've pointed out we have huge archival subfora full of nothing but old junk that nobody looks at.

The problem is checking permissions. For every limited-access subforum, the server has to check whether you have permission to enter every single time that it does something like look for your unread posts in order to populate your main forum index. This, I think, is a fairly time-consuming check for the server. (Time-consuming in computer terms. Probably a matter of microseconds, but all those microseconds add up.) We delete old usergroups not to save the trivial amount of space those messages take up, but to save the CPU cycles that it takes to constantly check who can look into those usergroups and who cannot.

It's a shame to lose stuff like the Siggattar Lounge and Experimental Gamers. I'd like to see this problem resolved, but myself I don't know enough to suggest a solution.

To an extent this is true. However from what I've been told, the issue lies with the cluttering of the admin interface when filled with many groups / group forums.

Now that you are red, can we get an update on possibly changing this policy?

This isn't exactly my call, but I'll see what the other admins think.