41–50 of 93 posts
There's been quite a few well constructed and thoughtful apologies circulating HN lately, one of which was Andrew Mason's apology for Groupon's Japan blunder. Hopefully, Flickr will pick up the torch, and issue a more official, and hopefully more well thought out, apology. After all, it's been less than a day since the incident.
Of course, the deletion in itself is inexcusable. I just hope Flickr steps up.
Would someone really trust Yahoo/Flickr to all their images and not have backups? Hopefully they didn't really care much about the images, else they should have copies elsewhere.
people belong to either of the 2 groups: 1. people who've been in the situation of lost data when somebody else responsible for its backup hadn't backed the data up. 2. people who don't belong to the first group. After graduating from the second group into the first, i've always been classifying my data as either "can loose, fnack it" or "i'm backing it up myself, right now"
Maybe they'll do the latter after some rethinking!
If I were Yahoo, I dont care how much it would cost, I would have someone, or someones, recreate his account as it was, even if that meant calling in a data forensics team.
I keep hearing about this coming up, yet no one ask talked about why the data is irretrievable. What it implies is that the internal tool(s) that the support staff uses was designed to do deletion instead of status changes. I imagine they have a web interface that fires off some backend script which a) runs sql deletes on an account ID and all tables and b) fires off scripts that physically deletes all photos across…
> "some backend script which a) runs sql deletes on an account ID and all tables and b) fires off scripts that physically deletes all photos across all servers." Neither should happen. You never actually delete rows from your tables. You mark them as deleted, sure, but the data needs to be able to come back. Space is cheap, there are simply very few cases where outright deletion from a DB table is warranted. I have a…
I keep hearing about this coming up, yet no one ask talked about why the data is irretrievable. What it implies is that the internal tool(s) that the support staff uses was designed to do deletion instead of status changes. I imagine they have a web interface that fires off some backend script which a) runs sql deletes on an account ID and all tables and b) fires off scripts that physically deletes all photos across…
The lack of a retrieval system could be from a lack of Yahoo wishing to invest in upgrades to the platform in general. The last few years have seen few changes for users beyond geotagging and tagging persons, and competitors (free and otherwise) have stepped far ahead in terms of personalisation and galleries.
I'm very curious to see if Flickr turns into another 'Delicious' situation in a couple years.
Time for backupify.com?
Back up your data on clay tablets for ultra-durable (thousand year) reliability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Would someone really trust Yahoo/Flickr to all their images It's a paid service[1]. So yes. [1] he had a pro account.
I'm not siding with or against you or Flickr or anyone else here, just pointing this out: I see nothing in the FAQ or Upgrade page that indicates a Pro account ensures your files will be backed up. (Point being, nothing site-wide in my quick glance seems to indicate a promise of the integrity and forever-ness of your data.)
I keep hearing about this coming up, yet no one ask talked about why the data is irretrievable. What it implies is that the internal tool(s) that the support staff uses was designed to do deletion instead of status changes. I imagine they have a web interface that fires off some backend script which a) runs sql deletes on an account ID and all tables and b) fires off scripts that physically deletes all photos across…
http://www.observer.com/2011/tech/flickr-accidentally-delete...