Visible or obscure placeholder for moved/removed content; and/or access control?

Posted by Graham Perrin on Feb 05, 2009; 12:36pm
URL: https://support.nabble.com/RFE-simple-placeholder-leading-from-old-to-new-location-of-a-topic-thread-that-is-moved-tp2268445p2274637.html

Graham Perrin wrote

• (re)move from a forum that is private.

… leave it with me (I'll revisit this second aspect in due course)

I view the overt labelling of foul content as akin to a placeholder. (Maybe technically different, but from my user perspective it is essentially a first thing that warns me before I proceed to a second thing.)

I might view a flame war as equally foul. I have commented on part of <http://n2.nabble.com/Very-confused-why-admins-can-not...-tp1322377p1331598.html>. For a moment, I'm ignoring everything that followed that October 2008 post.

<http://n2.nabble.com/Ratings-tp2230797p2274577.html> discusses a YouTube example.

@ Nabble

I don't know how much of this is feasible but here goes…

Placeholder type (a): a normal visible reference (not redirect) to the new location of a normal topic or thread.

Placeholder type (b): an obscure reference to the new location of a contentious, flaming or foul topic or thread. This type of placeholder — at the original location of the content — visible only to the poster and the forum owners. Other users may find their way to the content only if the new URL is known/disclosed. Something like a sin bin or swear box, if you like.

Type (c): access control (without move, remove or placeholder). Forum owner applies an access control to the content so that no-one other than the original poster(s) can view or edit that content. If/when the posters edit the content to an acceptable state, then the AC can be cleared by the forum owners.

Hmm. Complicated?