(I swear one of these days I will Get It Right and send it to the list correctly the first time)
For duplicate handling, looking at either the user-set time or the server-set time, then comparing entries made within $x minutes of each other can narrow down the list of possible duplicates, and then a compare the full text of the entry -- or hash relevant attributes and compare that instead. But that leaves the problem of merging comments (merge all the comments from one source first, before working on all the comments from another?), possibly of merging tags, and what if one entry was manually edited afterwards, it wouldn't be a duplicate/wouldn't be marked as such, but could be similar enough that it would seem inconsistent (at first glance) that they weren't merged. It may be much simpler to do without merging altogether, but given how some people are crossposting to two/three/four sites these days, I can see how that would feel redundant. On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 5:57 AM, Denise Paolucci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Aug 14, 2008, at 1:14 PM, Emily Ravenwood wrote: > >> This one was addressed in the 'plans for launch' post >> (http://lists.dwscoalition.org/pipermail/dw-discuss/2008-June/000209.html). >> It looks like the answer is a big yes, which makes me, for one, sparkle >> with glee. >> >> I was actually kind of wondering whether the import could be done more >> than once. That is, if I have my DW journal and want to import both my LJ >> content and my IJ content (non overlapping), could that be done? It seems >> like it should be entirely possible, but I don't want to assume. > > Yup, we're hoping to pull that off too -- the only question is going to be > how to detect & handle duplicates. >> > > > --D > For duplicate handling, looking at either the user-set time or the server-set time, then comparing entries made within $x minutes of each other can narrow down the list of possible duplicates, and then a compare the full text of the entry -- or hash relevant attributes and compare that instead. But that leaves the problem of merging comments (merge all the comments from one source first, before working on all the comments from another?), possibly of merging tags, and what if one entry was manually edited afterwards, it wouldn't be a duplicate/wouldn't be marked as such, but could be similar enough that it would seem inconsistent (at first glance) that they weren't merged. It may be much simpler to do without merging altogether, but given how some people are crossposting to two/three/four sites these days, I can see how that would feel redundant. - Afuna _______________________________________________ dw-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss
