|
The following question has just been deleted, along with all of the comments and answers: http://sqlanywhere-forum.sap.com/questions/11538/client-cannot-access-sql-anywhere-server-by-odbc The question may not have been very good, but there was quite a bit of good content in the comments and answers from other people. Now it's all gone, because for some reason the person who asked the question wanted everything deleted. I don't think that's right, and (if memory serves) I don't think it was possible in the original version of this forum. The original question should have been edited to improve the quality. What do you think? |
|
Ideally, yes I agree. If there is useful information on a question or answer, it should be left around. In this case, however, the customer asked us to remove the question because some sensitive data was inadvertently included in the posting. Since prior revisions can be seen even if the question was edited, the only way to remove the data entirely is to delete it. Note that the user who asked the question cannot delete it once an answer is posted, only an administrator can. 1
Wouldn't it be possible for the administrator to delete only the prior revisions?
(16 May '12, 02:51)
Martin
Replies hidden
While I strongly agree with Breck, I sure do feel comfortable that postings with sensitive data can be fixed, too - and if there's no other way for an administrator to fix this besides deleting the complete question, then I agree on that part, too. Apparently, the question poster could still post a similar question with insensitive data - and add the contents of the former answers to that (at least the "relevant" ones)...
(16 May '12, 04:12)
Volker Barth
Replies hidden
Since I was asked via private email to help with the deletion, I had plenty of warning... and I
(16 May '12, 07:24)
Breck Carter
AFAIK, it's the first time a question has been deleted in this forum. Therefore it seems quite common that one might find something to improve "next time!":) FWIW, I wonder if "deleting undesired postings" works on the old newsgroups, too - not that I'm trying to test that...
(16 May '12, 07:28)
Volker Barth
No, there is no mechanism to do that other than hand-editing the database itself, which I am loathe to do.
(16 May '12, 09:01)
Graeme Perrow
That's a very honest point of view - though not necessarily expected within a DB-centered community where "fixing data" will be an all-too-common task:) (Note that I'm not at all saying that honesty wouldn't be excepted here - it's surely here all over the place. Thank God!)
(16 May '12, 09:25)
Volker Barth
"old newsgroups" ...what are they?
(16 May '12, 09:55)
Breck Carter
I've seen plenty of posts get deleted from the old newsgroups. Usually spam. I guess if somebody has a message cached in their news reader, then deleting it from the server isn't perfect. But you could easily keep a page cache of this forum as well.
(16 May '12, 10:00)
Phil Mitchell
2
Agreed. IMHO, one of the strongest points in favour of managing our own forum rather than relying on a service like stack exchange is that we control the data, where it's stored, and what's done with it. This incurs some overhead cost, but it's nice to be able to help protect our users' privacy.
(16 May '12, 10:07)
Phil Mitchell
@Breck: I'm sure you have understood the "old newsgroups = all newsgroups" hint, haven't you? - (Yes, they are still alive.)
(16 May '12, 10:08)
Volker Barth
|
