We are NOT going to just go around haphazardly deleting inactive/old journals!
Before we start deleting anything, we're going to have very clear and published rules, and they're going to be very conservative.
We haven't thought it all through yet, and we won't start anything until we do, but here are some examples of exceptions:
-- ever a paid account: not deleted
-- listed as deceased (we have a list, and we'll solicit others for the list): not deleted
-- notable number of posts over a notable amount of [real] time: not deleted. (real time is server time, not when they said the post is from back/future-dating it)
-- notable number of comments on any post from other valid users: not deleted.
-- was invited in some notable way: not deleted. (notable is vague here, but we can tell a lot about how users join from the invite code they used....)
-- recent posts: not deleted
-- recent comments: not deleted
-- recently logged in or did any changed in their account: not deleted
So what does this leave us?
Very, very little.
We'll only be deleting journals that are empty, old, and had no influence, probably made just to hog a username, or made and promptly forgotten. But we'll be super paranoid about it, and even back them up first. (because of the rules above, the backups should be very small)
And we'll also mail the account first, warning them of the impending action.
Now, please relax. The mention of this plan in the news post was just so people wouldn't complain about username grabbers. We've thought about it, and there are solutions. We don't have them all yet, but we're not going to do anything drastic.
← Ctrl ← Alt
Ctrl → Alt →
← Ctrl ← Alt
Ctrl → Alt →