So here's a question. Is there any thought being given to code to import an entire site, rather than just a journal? I'm still interested in converting Inksome to the DW code.
KP On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 17:57, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Comment Important is a hard problem because it allows users to > attribute arbitrary words to other people. This is the reason no > "migrate" tool uploads comments -- no LJplatform allows a user to > upload comments attributed to someone else. > > I'm quite certain that Comment Import is the do-or-die adoption > feature for DWS. If you don't have it, the only sufficient motivation > to move to DWS for 99% of users will be the complete eradication of > their journals, i.e. they'll only move if LJ tanks. > > Possible solutions/approaches: > > 1) Allow uploads, but MARK them as uploaded. Add a column or two to > the the comments table, "uploaded BOOL" and maybe an appropriate > datestamp. Display them with appropriate disclaimer "UPLOADED BY > JOURNAL OWNER ON $DATE". > > 2) Provide means of original comment maker finding and authorizing the > comments. (See azurelunatic's recent post, re doing this with OpenID.) > Could be combined with the above to strike the "UPLOADED" flag. Note > this will confront many users with thousands upon thousands of entries > to approve. Batch approval would be both necessary and a gruesome > security hole. > > 3) Provide original comment maker a means to proof some/all uploaded > comments against an authoritative server, i.e. upload from text files > then compare against livejournal.com to see if the comments match. > Have *no* idea if this is feasible at all, but even if it could allow, > e.g., just all the public comments to be programmatically authorized, > that would reduce how many the user needed to approve manually. This > would involve some serious coding. > > 4) Allow uploads as screened, and unscreenable and frozen, comments, > so that the journal owner has them to read, but they're published to > no-one else. > > 5) Only allow uploads directly from authorized servers, such as > livejournal.com. Involves divulging one's user/pass to the importing > server (so it can log in as you directly to LJ), which is another sort > of security breach. > > That's what I got so far. > > Finally, a non-solution anyone thinking seriously about this problem > needs to consider very hard: > > A) HTML snapshot of the comments on the original journal, dropped > right into the body of a post on the new journal. > > This is a grody, grody kludge and SHOULD NOT be promoted. HOWEVER, it > makes a point: there's NOTHING stopping the end user from doing this > already, so any solution DWS comes up should be compared to that as a > reality check! There is a tendency to make things more righteous than > they need to be, and reminding yourself "Or, of course, the user could > dump a scrape of the comments into the body of the new post" helps > cool that fever. > > This is why I think importing with labeling (option 1) is quite > reasonable: it's better than the kludge (option A) without sacrificing > security over it. > > -- Siderea > _______________________________________________ > dw-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss > -- GPG public key fingerpint: 1A12 04B6 0C80 306A B292 14FD 2C7A 1037 F666 46A7 _______________________________________________ dw-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss
