Regarding the recent news on user purging

[soph]

If you've seen the recent LJ news post, please be aware that it was written from the wrong spec. While I (soph, the original author of this post), am not staff, this has been confirmed officially by staff and the news post has been rewritten accordingly.

Only accounts that have no entries, or have only the initial welcome entry, will be purged.A new

Comments

[djonn]

This is much clearer than any other formulation I've seen, and that's excellent. However, I'm still slightly confused on one point:

Most of the comments to the news post -- including mine -- have read "entries in their journal" (your fourth "user will not be deleted" case above) to include entries posted on the user's own journal page, but to exclude comments made in other users' journals and posts made to LJ communities.

If this reading is correct, then it follows that an account which has zero or 1 posts on its user page, but which has made many comments in others' journals and/or posts to communities, still goes "inactive" after 24 months, and that the comments and posts made from that account in other journals/comms are subject to deletion when the inactive account is purged.

If this reading is incorrect (as suggested by a post from bluemeringue deep in the comments to the news post), then it follows that accounts such as I've described are in no danger of being counted as "inactive" under present definitions -- but the wording of the

[soph]

A user which fits all the points listed in my post will be considered inactive regardless of the number of comments they have made in other journals or the number of posts they've made in any communities, and will be purged. However, none of these posts or comments in other journals/communities will be deleted; that would only happen if the user was suspended.

So if I became inactive and my account was purged, my comments to other journals (for example, news) and my posts in other communities (for example, ljskins) will remain intact. The exception is if I was suspended for some reason, and my account was purged while it was suspended. If that were to happen, all of my posts and comments would be deleted, no matter where they were.

[edit: Sorry, the above isn't true, because I forgot I have posts in my journal, obviously. :) Let me rephrase: If I made a new journal and used it to comment in news and make posts in ljskins, but did not otherwise update my own journal, the above would apply. Sorry for the confusion!]

Does that help clarify things?

[djonn]

Unfortunately, it doesn't...though that isn't strictly your fault.

Ther difficulty from my perspective: you and bluemeringue appear to be 100% in disagreement on whether my hypothetical user case (no posts on journal page, many comments/posts elsewhere) would count as "inactive" after 24 months of not posting to their own journal. You say yes, this thread says no (see the 4th and 5th posts from the top). And from the outside of the sandbox, I don't have a good way to reconcile the disagreement

[soph]

I see what you mean about the staff disagreement. I'll see if I can get more details.

In the meantime, as far as I know, there are three components here, not just two:

1. The current code that kicks off the purging for suspended accounts.
(I don't know where these files are as I haven't looked for them.)

2. The pending code that automatically notifies and purges inactive accounts.
This is covered by three files:
* bin/worker/inactive-accounts-find,
* bin/worker/inactive-accounts-notify,
* cgi-bin/LJ/User/Inactive.pm.

3. The backend code which purges accounts however they eventually get purged.
This is covered by:
* cgi-bin/LJ/UserManage.pm,
* most files in the cgi-bin/LJ/Worker/UserManage/ directory.

The code that I was looking at was a combination of #2 and #3. Of particular note to your query is the "is_inactive_user" subroutine in the cgi-bin/LJ/User/Inactive.pm file. This is what implements the checks described in my post, and it's worth noting that the other two files call this in some way; the first one (inactive-accounts-

[djonn]

Regrettably, I don't speak codewrangler worth beans, so the code-neepery is of limited use to me (OTOH, it's probably helpful to others who may be following this, and that's a Very Good Thing). But I get enough to see the outlines, and this is certainly a good framing of the neep.

And you're right that I miscued the bit about the 24-month window being logins rather than posting activity of whatever sort.

So it sounds like what we all need is for Upstairs to get its collective brain sufficiently organized to clarify its intentions. Meanwhile, thanks again -- very much -- for the concise and clear summations both in your parent post and your response to me.

[soph]

No worries. :)

I asked on IRC about it and this is what a staff member said (note: "d" == dnewhall):

19:18 < d> a journal with no posts and no activity for 2 years will be purged.
19:18 < d> a journal with no posts, 100 comments elsewhere, and no activity for 2 years will be purged.
19:18 < d> The comments stay.
19:18 < d> All we lose is the bio, etc.

I'm guessing, based on that, that bluemeringue hadn't quite understood what was being asked.

[wendymr]

The issue here is that some people create LJs just so that they can read/comment on other people's LJs and/or take part in communities. They're not that interested in posting on their own journal. (Or it could be an RP journal and the user's only activity is to post on an RP comm). I get that as long as they log in more than once every two years the journal will remain, however, even if they don't post in it. Right?

I think, though, that as long as it's clarified that comments STAY most people won't have a problem with this.

[soph]

Yes, as long as the account logs in at least once every 2 years, it won't get automatically purged even if it has no posts. And don't forget, there will be warning emails sent for over a month before it happens, which should give plenty of time for most people to log in.

[sophinisba]

Thank you very much for explaining this!

[djonn]

That's pretty straightforward, and should indeed get to the root of most people's concerns, mine included...

...with the proviso that when dnewhall says "comments", that includes both comments to others' journals (and communities) and posts to communities. I am 99.9% certain that this is in fact what's meant, but this is one of those situations where nailing down that last 0.1% is likely to be very helpful in calming the Irate Hordes[tm].

Again, many thanks for the patience, precision, and grace with which you're documenting this situation. It's an invaluable service, and deserves to be recognized as such. As a certain Charles Schulz character might suggest, a root beer should be quaffed in your name.