Import with wipe

[melannen]

Title:
Import with wipe

Area:
Importer

Summary:
I would like to move my content from LJ to DW without completely breaking existing links; I'd like the importer to have the option to automatically replace the text of lj entries with a link to the DW import.

Description:
Basically, what it says in the summary: I don't want to leave my content on LJ (partly for housekeeping - I don't like to have multiple copies scattered around the webs; partly due to trust issues) but I want old links to the LJ posts to still point to the post content. I could do this manually, going through after the DW import and replacing the content with a link one entry at a time, but having an option for the importer do it automatically would be *so* much easier. And it seems like something it would be able to do.

The one caveat is you would have to make it *very* difficult to do this accidentally. Letting people do it accidentally would be bad.

Poll #2422 Import with wipe

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 58

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
39 (67.2%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
17 (29.3%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
0 (0.0%)

(I have no opinion)
2 (3.4%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Comments

[cheyinka]

As long as it is very difficult to accomplish accidentally I am 100% for this, since I can see it saving people lots of time!

[kaigou]

And then in phase 2, a way to do this as a second/separate step when the actual content's already been imported? Hey, I can wish.

[kerravonsen]

+1

[msilverstar]

+1

[schnurble]

+1

[ursamajor]

This, having imported long ago. :)

[fizzyblogic]

+1

[saekhwa]

+1

[zvi]

+1

[eruthros]

+1

[thedivinegoat]

+1

[kyrielle]

+1. Also, I'd suggest that it not do it "during" the import but as a second step anyway! So import all the content, then reprocess to add the links when the import has fully succeeded. Reduces the odds for data loss (and hey, if it's a separate step, maybe applying it back to previously imported content would be easier). It shouldn't be TOO hard to get previously imported content...the tie to the LJ post is there, else the re-import to get new comments on that post wouldn't work, right? *hopeful*

Speaking of comments, bonus points if this option (to put a link to dreamwidth) also allowed you to choose:

1. Optionally, turn off commenting on LJ on the post, so people have to comment here.

2. Optionally, choose to only redirect for posts at certain security levels (ie, redirect public posts to DW, but leave the locked ones as-is might be something one person wanted, and another might want to redirect everything).

[kaigou]

I believe the "turn off all commenting" is something you can already do on LJ itself, as a matter of course. Probably no reason for DW to duplicate that effort, when it could just point to LJ/IJ/etc as "use the original journal's site FAQ to find out how to turn off commenting".

[paian]

+1. Harder to replace the otherjournal content accidentally if it's a separate step, and it'd be less scary to use if one could see that the content had copied over successfully before running the job to replace it with links here.

[afuna]

This makes me a bit nervous. At some point, we'd be making the importer smart enough to recognize edits, so we'd need to be really really careful that wiped journals don't get imported/overwrite entries with actual text.

Having said that, I would really like this as well!

[cesy]

Yes, but it's irritating to have to go through and do that on all your past entries one by one.

[kaigou]

One by one? I did it as a single step for all entries on LJ. You just turn disable all comments as default. If you want comments to remain possible on some of the posts, then yes, you must do it one-by-one, but if all comments, then no. Just disable.

[starwatcher]

.
I agree with the other suggestions - it sounds great as a second, post-transfer step, that could be implemented even long after the move from LJ to DW has been made.
.

[pseudomonas]

oh, good point. That'd be hideous to cock up.

I like the idea of more linking and less copying, and especially not having comment threads going on in two places at once.

[susanreads]

+1

[melannen]

...I honestly did not think there would be this many people wanting to *do* this; I was thinking it would be a bit of a niche thing only for deeply bitter people like myself.

But, yes, if you have already imported, absolutely you should not be left out.

A separate step would be great. Or maybe you could re-import with the wipe option on? But it would have to be impossible to re-import entries that were already wiped...

[melannen]

Yeah, I thought about that, but I wasn't sure just what the importer is capable of regarding re-importing entries - but you'd definitely have to have some way of making sure the importer knew if an entry was already wiped and never importing it again.

[syderia]

This.

[piscinarii]

That'd be great. Make it very hard to accidentally do this!

[turlough]

+1

[piscinarii]

Would it be possible sometime in the future to add something along the lines of "only import after XXXX"... specify a date or entry or something, so the contents previously linked wouldn't be wiped?

[feathertail]

+1!

[afuna]

I think that we have a bug for that, actually! What I'd rather have is recording whether some entry has been wiped. ( well that can be worked out closer to implementation; just want this out there so I'm certain that this case won't slip through the cracks)

[afuna]

+1

[matgb]

Denise was talking ages back about having all old entries replaced by a link to the new home, which I'd personally prefer; my LJ has a lot of incoming links that boost the google presence, I'd like to transfer them to DW.

A complete wipe of all old content doesn't do this.

So yes to editing internal links to point in teh right place, but not to necessarily wipe the old LJ entries, instead to edit them to link to my DW entry as well.

[reddragdiva]

HELL YES. If I could do a "302 Moved Permanently", I would. But this is second-best option.

[melannen]

That's basically what I was suggesting? Maybe my terminology was confusing.

The changing internal links suggestion is a couple of posts down. :D

[matgb]

Ah. Um, yes. Must've misread/conflated.

Have changed vote, thanks. Hope it's doable soon.

[kate]

+1

[the_future_modernes]

+1

[archangelbeth]

I can most certainly see it as being useful, aye.

[denise]

I don't often explain why things are rejected, but I want to do so here: I'm rejecting this one on the same grounds that we reject a request for a "delete all my entries" button, the idea that a journal hijacker could destroy your entire journal (on the remote site) in one step. I thought a bit about some ways we could improve the odds that wouldn't happen, but right now, I just can't think of a way I'd be comforatble with offering this. I'm marking it as 'deferred' and not 'rejcted' outright, though, since I do want to offer it once we get a better form of backup/restore in place.

[eosrose]

I don't think I would ever have a use for this myself, but I like the idea of having the option. I can see where it would be useful.

[eosrose]

It makes me so grateful to know that you guys are being extra cautious about leaving openings for hijackers to cause problems, but at the same time it's sad that it's necessary to put aside good ideas because of potential risks. Ah, if only security could be truly assured online!