Given that:

  • chat rooms are public at the moment of creation (i.e. there is no point in hiding something what was not private)
  • chat rooms are not actually ever "deleted" (mods and users with enough reputation can see them)

I request that all expired chat rooms transcripts and transcripts for rooms deleted automatically for whatever reason (like having too few messages) are made public (i.e. accessible by a link).

For example, a chat room can be created from prolonged comments. This discussion is valuable but not accessible.

Until inactive chat rooms are made readable moving comment discussion to chat rooms is a counter-productive move. All comments are left on the site for years but chat room transcripts which are intended as a replacement evaporate for some reason. Like it or not comment section is a source of information for users too. It is a bug from user perspective.

I am not talking about rooms that were explicitly deleted.

  • You mean like an archive? – Anthony Pham Dec 22 '16 at 15:49
  • @PythonMaster kinda. – Euri Pinhollow Dec 22 '16 at 15:49
  • "forever public" - you mean let all users see the transcript of deleted rooms, not only moderators and high rep users? – Shadow Wizard Jan 8 '17 at 11:06
  • @ShadowWizard as a user I do not know what "deleted room" is. From a user perspective I want to see whatever was written in a chat room spawned from comments by moderator or users forever, like with comments. – Euri Pinhollow Jan 8 '17 at 11:33
  • 1
    @EuriPinhollow current behavior is consistent with deleted question and answers, which only moderators and high rep users can see. – Shadow Wizard Jan 8 '17 at 14:11
  • 4
    @ShadowWizard as a user I am not caring about it. I only care about chat transcripts being as available as comments which they are thought to be substitute of. – Euri Pinhollow Jan 8 '17 at 14:22

The marriage between move-comments-to-chat and chat's features is not quite perfect, but like a good marriage it has been slowly improving. Something like this would drastically improve the usability of move-to-chat by better matching expectations. After all, isn't littering Main sites with

let us continue this discussion in chat

… which turns out to be just a dead link, doing a disservice to regular Main-site readers and users? Sure, those could be cleaned up as obsolete, but why not make a small change to chat to make these links follow the principle of least surprise and not be dead links.

It's odd that we would automatically create so many dead links, when dead links are so anathema to SE.

Counter-proposal: Only freeze move-to-chat rooms

Move-comments-to-chat rooms are a distinct category of chat room and shouldn't be treated exactly the same. However, the easier the change, the more likely we'll actually get the feature, right? So instead of changing links and messing with transcripts, why not just not delete the room?

A frozen room can be accessed and read just as easily as a transcript.

(Aside, this would have the bonus of making valuable move-to-chat rooms more likely to stay alive and useful, as a visible but frozen room is easier to for someone to notice & request to be unfrozen by flag, just like regularly happens with more “normal” chat rooms that occasionally get frozen, but are active enough to not be deleted. This improves the viability of move-to-chat rooms, and by extension the practical utility of our moving comments to chat feature.)

Adding an exception to the freeze/delete script to detect and not delete chat rooms that have an associated post would solve this, giving us accessible moved-to-chat rooms. They shouldn't be too hard or processor-intensive to identify: the first message is always a link to the question posted by the “Stack Exchange” bot.

One con

We'd have more rooms littering chat. But then, I don't think we're actually worried about this, since we're OK with frozen rooms littering chat's room lists anyway, and we're already eager to create move-to-chat rooms. Having a few more frozen rooms hanging off the bottom of the lists of rooms is not much of a real problem.

  • Undeleting existing rooms is a task too. – Euri Pinhollow Jan 10 '17 at 22:57
  • @EuriPinhollow Yes. But for this purpose, a frozen-not-deleted room would fully satisfy the feature request's goals already, no flags or mod action necessary. Being able to more easily request unfreezing is just a bonus feature of this counter-proposal. – SevenSidedDie Jan 10 '17 at 23:09
  • Ok I was somewhat off my stance as a user. Actually undeleting rooms would be easy enough from a programmer perspective. Let's see what staff say. – Euri Pinhollow Jan 11 '17 at 1:28
  • @EuriPinhollow Trivial to program, yes, especially since it can be done manually now by a mod. I'm not sure how an algorithm would decide when to undelete though since there's no meaningful event (other than serving the first 404?) after deletion, so I expect that would be the non-trivial programming challenge. Better just to not delete in the first place, leveraging the existing flow control in the daily scripts. – SevenSidedDie Jan 11 '17 at 2:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .