"Hide"

[Tanax]

I'm not really a fan of the naming of this feature. I realize that it's a simple phrase in ACP to edit but I still wanted to start a discussion about it and see what others think.
The problem, as I see it, is that content that has been deleted shouldn't be viewed as "hidden", it should be viewed as "deleted" - even if the content is in fact only hidden(e.g. soft-deleted or "deleted in-line").

Having it say that content is hidden decreases the severity of it and it almost feels like a feature that regular members would have access to.
So what could be a more suitable name? I don't know. I just feel that "hidden" sounds "not-deleted".

If a member posts something bad I want to delete it. Instead I now have to "hide" it? Should I send a message to the user in question, stating that his message "has been hidden"?

Soft-deletion was PERFECT(almost) and it really didn't lack many things at all. It allowed you to let users see soft-deletion notices aswell as letting them see soft-deleted content with the appropriate permissions. After this update, will I be able to let them see hidden notices? Not very hidden then?

To me, it sounds like you've started out with a great idea to simplify possible confusion between unapproved content and soft-deleted content by merging them into a "hide" content but couldn't really come up with a good name. IMO, go back to soft-delete and just remove the ability to unapprove content.

What are your thoughts?

[Aiwa]

What i took from it... Soft-delete was moved from the 'delete' option and combined with 'unapprove'. Since if you want to soft-delete, you don't actually want to DELETE it, you just don't want it visible. And unapproving a post to make it not visible was causing unwanted side effects for boards with heavy topic/post moderation.

All functions are still there, they just rearranged them a bit...

You can still delete something and move it to the trash can as always..

[Marcher Technologies]

.... all soft-delete ever DID was hide it... I can not think of a more appropriate name... its not deletion.
Using the phrase delete at all when it does no such thing is more confusing by far IMO than Hide, which is exactly what that does.

[Aiwa]

.... all soft-delete ever DID was[u] hide[/u] it... I can not think of a more appropriate name... its [u]not[/u] deletion.

I was just going to say that too.. :)

[Tanax]

.... all soft-delete ever DID was[u] hide[/u] it... I can not think of a more appropriate name... its [u]not[/u] deletion.

Using the phrase [u]delete[/u] at all when it does no such thing is more confusing by far IMO than Hide, which is exactly what that does.

In that case they can rename the "hard-delete" aswell if you set up a trash forum since all that does is move the content to the trash - e.g. it's not really deleted either.
I realize that what soft-delete actually does is hide the content but with one important difference and that is that the content should be viewed as deleted.

[Aiwa]

In that case they can rename the "hard-delete" aswell if you set up a trash forum since all that does is move the content to the trash - e.g. it's not really deleted either.

I realize that what soft-delete actually does is hide the content but with one important difference and that is that the content should be viewed as deleted.

Yes, a trash can MAY exist, that is up to the board administrator. Options are available to NOT have a trash can. In which case, delete would truly be DELETE, gone, kaput, not recoverable.

Deleting something should make it like it was never there. Members shouldn't be able to see even a placeholder for a deleted post or topic. So, if soft-delete is leaving a placeholder members can see and not actually removing the content, then you really are 'hiding' something.

Content should never be 'viewed' as deleted. If it was 'deleted' it should just be gone, nothing left behind to show of its existence. Since the content is being 'viewed' as a placeholder to members, then 'HIDE' would be the best terminology here.

[Tanax]

Yes, a trash can MAY exist, that is up to the board administrator. Options are available to NOT have a trash can. In which case, delete would truly be DELETE, gone, kaput, not recoverable.

Deleting something should make it like it was never there. Members shouldn't be able to see even a placeholder for a deleted post or topic. So, if soft-delete is leaving a placeholder members can see and not actually removing the content, then you really are 'hiding' something.

Content should never be 'viewed' as deleted. If it was 'deleted' it should just be gone, nothing left behind to show of its existence. Since the content is being 'viewed' as a placeholder to members, then 'HIDE' would be the best terminology here.

It isn't deleted, it's soft-deleted(<- meaning; recoverable).

You can delete a file from your harddrive(and trashbin) and still be able to recover it with special programs. Is it not wrong of Windows(and Mac OS X) to call it delete then aswell?
Ohwell, the point of this topic was to start a discussion, not an argue - which it seems to be pointing towards. It also seems like I was the only one feeling like this so we'll just have to wait and see how it feels to "hide" an offensive post instead of "soft-delete" it.