5 ms·

It's not as easy as you think it is. I can remove a row from the user's table, but want do I do with everything that's attached to that record? Edit: BrandonMT

It's not as easy as you think it is. I can remove a row from the user's table, but want do I do with everything that's attached to that record? Edit: BrandonMTurner has a better writeup http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3457973 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3457973

derefr 15y ago
I think the issue here is that the word "delete" is being applied to two mostly-unrelated operations: removing users who no longer want to be part of the system/have been banned/etc., and removing accounts which were never operated by a human being at any point at all. The former is "hard", since even though you might not want the user around in the present, you usually want their history to persist. However, the latter case is comparatively simple. If a spambot posts on my wall, then yes, emphatically, delete that wall post when you delete the spambot. Delete any photos they uploaded. Nullify all their votes/likes/plus-ones/whatever. Make it so that the whole thing never happened, other than perhaps as a line in an abuse log. It is critical, though, that this should never happen automatically in a case where an automated account might be confused with a human one. It probably shouldn't even be exposed as part of a bulk "check off these accounts and purge" moderation view. But in cases where the automatedness of an individual account is out in the open and there's no contradictory evidence whatsoever, the "tactical-nuke" button could be a viable option. (Whether you can trust your community's moderators to not misuse this button is a whole 'nother can of worms.)
SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago
It's really easy. Have a boolean flag called "deleted" or "defunct". if the bit is set, never display that account or allow it to log in. From the outside, it does not exist. But for referential integrity and other auditing, it does. This is pretty common.
- RexRollman 15y ago
  Exactly. Thank you.

derefr 15y ago

I think the issue here is that the word "delete" is being applied to two mostly-unrelated operations: removing users who no longer want to be part of the system/have been banned/etc., and removing accounts which were never operated by a human being at any point at all. The former is "hard", since even though you might not want the user around in the present, you usually want their history to persist. However, the latter case is comparatively simple. If a spambot posts on my wall, then yes, emphatically, delete that wall post when you delete the spambot. Delete any photos they uploaded. Nullify all their votes/likes/plus-ones/whatever. Make it so that the whole thing never happened, other than perhaps as a line in an abuse log. It is critical, though, that this should never happen automatically in a case where an automated account might be confused with a human one. It probably shouldn't even be exposed as part of a bulk "check off these accounts and purge" moderation view. But in cases where the automatedness of an individual account is out in the open and there's no contradictory evidence whatsoever, the "tactical-nuke" button could be a viable option. (Whether you can trust your community's moderators to not misuse this button is a whole 'nother can of worms.)

SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago

It's really easy. Have a boolean flag called "deleted" or "defunct". if the bit is set, never display that account or allow it to log in. From the outside, it does not exist. But for referential integrity and other auditing, it does. This is pretty common.

RexRollman 15y ago
Exactly. Thank you.