https://e621.net/pool/show/7420

Wouldn't it be prudent to delete this pool as it only has deleted content? Unless it's being left there just for the book link in the pool description. I just lurk.

i think someone said that pools with only deleted content are left bcs staff might need them intact for their work

We keep pools with deleted art in case we need to restore them.

It would help if they could be automatically marked inactive so they don't show up in searches by default. I'm reasonably sure that ordinary users won't want to find such pools.

(although they should be *able* to if they really want to, otherwise there could be confusion about whether a pool for a particular work exists)

Chaser said:
We keep pools with deleted art in case we need to restore them.

A good point. Feel free to lock the thread. My question has been answered.

savageorange said:
It would help if they could be automatically marked inactive so they don't show up in searches by default. I'm reasonably sure that ordinary users won't want to find such pools.

(although they should be *able* to if they really want to, otherwise there could be confusion about whether a pool for a particular work exists)

Seems useful, but wouldn't that add extra overhead to moderation?

It could add some moderation overhead (although it doesn't need to add any[1]), but the key question IMO is how often pools would actually need restoration. Isn't it true that we have a lot more cases of pool contents being invalidated by DNP/takedown than cases of DNP/takedowns being reversed?

[1] AFAICS both deactivation and reactivation could be completely automatic -- simply by the criteria 'any pool with >= min(poolsize,1) [2] non-deleted post should be active, other pools should be inactive'. Server could process that every 24 hours, say.

[2] this formula accounts for zero-size pools correctly, which is why it's not just >= 1

savageorange said:
It could add some moderation overhead (although it doesn't need to add any[1]), but the key question IMO is how often pools would actually need restoration. Isn't it true that we have a lot more cases of pool contents being invalidated by DNP/takedown than cases of DNP/takedowns being reversed?

[1] AFAICS both deactivation and reactivation could be completely automatic -- simply by the criteria 'any pool with >= min(poolsize,1) [2] non-deleted post should be active, other pools should be inactive'. Server could process that every 24 hours, say.

[2] this formula accounts for zero-size pools correctly, which is why it's not just >= 1

Just be carefull not to activate all pools inactivated for other reasons, like being completed.