Deletion of account at owner's request

[+FireRef]

I was asked to ask my questions in a separate thread from the one they started in, because of the sensitive nature of the specific question originally asked. So here it is:

 

Will Groundspeak delete an account at the owner's request? I do not mean disable, lock, etc. I mean completely delete. If a person requests that their account be deleted, will it get removed from the site, all logs, TBs, caches, etc get removed from the site?

 

I understand that there are arguments for keeping that account in the system, but there must be a way around this. Changing the "account" to something generic (Deleted user #4372, or whatever) to keep the counts accurate for caches, etc, deleting the owner's profile page, replacing logs with generic "This user has requested deletion of their account", etc.

 

Also, would this change if it was a family request? The request of a parent of a minor? Someone with legal Power of Attorney?

 

Again, I'm not referring to the "disabling" of an account that is referenced on the "So I'd like to have my account deleted" page. I mean completely removing it at the person's (or other legal representative's) request.

[+briansnat]

Will Groundspeak delete an account at the owner's request? I do not mean disable, lock, etc. I mean completely delete. If a person requests that their account be deleted, will it get removed from the site, all logs, TBs, caches, etc get removed from the site?

 

Being that deleting a once active account will affect others, I would hope they wouldn't. As far as I know that has been their policy so far for that reason.

[+Milbank]

As far as I know that has been their policy so far for that reason.

 

That's a good policy to have too.

I don't see how it could be deleted without affecting so many others.

[+trainlove]

They can delete 'totally unused' accounts. To free up names I think, but only if that person asks. But how many people who create an account to see if a name is available will remember that name and password... So Those will linger forever.

 

I know they can disable accounts. The only experience with such was a sockpuppet who had no finds, no hides, no photo gallery, no bookmarks, no anything other than an atitude. Anyone seeing one of his logs can try to click on the link but will not get to his profile it says something like 'that account is locked'. I canclick on his profile from an email of a log since I have the 128 bit GUID to get exactly to his account.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

I like the idea of changing the name to something like "Deleted #12345". That way, user names are freed up but the history is maintained. I doubt they would re-issue a cacher's ID number anyway.

[+Tequila]

If they changed the name to "Deleted # 12345 you would lose the history of who it was who originally placed that cache. If they do this, it would be nice to include a "orginally created by .........." so we would still know.

[jholly]

In the thread where this request was made, eventually the original poster state the reason for the request was so the account of the deceased cacher would not be taking up space on the server. This person was doing what was thought to be a considerate move. Groundspeak is not worried about a few Mb used by an individual cacher and I believe the resulting action was the account was disabled. This stops the emails coming to the account and freezes any future activity on the account and leaves the history in place.

 

GS did contact the person involved and they reached a mutually acceptable position. So what is wrong with GS talking to the person and finding a mutually acceptable solution? Why do we need to fry the frog just because they didn't immediately do what was originally requested when an perfectly acceptable solution exists?

 

I, for one, think the correct and appropriate action was taken.

 

Jim

[+FireRef]

This is not the previous thread. This is a new one. I am asking if GS will delete an account if that is what is desired, no more, no less. Other mutually acceptable decisions would not be relevant here, because in the circumstance I am describing, the person requesting the change is not interested in anything less than having the data removed from the server.

 

They have the ability themselves to go back and delete all of the logs on their own caches, and delete their own logs on other people's caches, which would create a large number of holes in the data on their own. But this is their right as the cache owner/person posting the logs to do so. So this would be one solution if GS.com refuses to delete the account completely. Yes, I realize this would change some counts for people. That is not my point - I just want to know if they would respect the wishes of the user or not in this regard.

[+StarBrand]

Based on the follow from the knowledgebase - I'd say - "no" they won't delete an account. Note the "never".

 

Although usernames are technically never permanently deleted, Groundspeak can certainly disable your account. You will first want to verify the email address that's registered to your account by checking your profile page.

[+MissJenn]

Everyone,

 

FireRef already knew the answers to his questions before he asked them in this thread. The "Knowledgebase article about "Deleting My Account" was pointed out in Post #2 of a thread in which FireRef was active and which spawned this current thread.

 

FireRef may then attempt to point out (or has already done so, or maybe has already done so repeatedly) that all the decisions made here are based on keeping Groundspeak safe from legal liabilities rather than based on anything else (such as perhaps customer satisfaction or stewardship of the game on an international level). Regardless of anyone else's opinion or any other facts, he will say that he is right and Groundspeak is wrong - using more words.

 

 

FireRef,

 

Once you are done reading the KB one more time, here are the Terms of Use: http://www.geocaching.com/about/termsofuse.aspx

I'm pointing them out because I am done here now and I know they will need to be brought up again later. Read them one more time before saying that we are being unclear about something. That's a pretty clear document. Long, but clear.

[+FireRef]

Everyone,

 

FireRef already knew the answers to his questions before he asked them in this thread. The "Knowledgebase article about "Deleting My Account" was pointed out in Post #2 of a thread in which FireRef was active and which spawned this current thread.

 

FireRef may then attempt to point out (or has already done so, or maybe has already done so repeatedly) that all the decisions made here are based on keeping Groundspeak safe from legal liabilities rather than based on anything else (such as perhaps customer satisfaction or stewardship of the game on an international level). Regardless of anyone else's opinion or any other facts, he will say that he is right and Groundspeak is wrong - using more words.

 

 

FireRef,

 

Once you are done reading the KB one more time, here are the Terms of Use: http://www.geocaching.com/about/termsofuse.aspx

I'm pointing them out because I am done here now and I know they will need to be brought up again later. Read them one more time before saying that we are being unclear about something. That's a pretty clear document. Long, but clear.

 

Miss Jenn:

 

Incorrect - It is not very clear. It is very "grey". And you have not answered my simple, clear question.

 

What you are saying is that you will refuse to "delete" an account completely if this is the wishes of the person? This is a yes/no question - please answer it as such, rather than talking in circles, pointing out guidelines which don't clearly answer this question, and berating me because I point out parts of your company that I (and many others) are not partial to.

 

I also do NOT appreciate you telling people things which you do not know. You state that I knew the answer to my question before I asked it. This is completely incorrect, and inappropriate for someone to tell me what I supposedly know. I take severe offense at you thinking that you know what I know or am thinking.

Edited December 16, 2008 by FireRef

[+JPatton]

Why don't you send an email asking for your account to be deleted and then you'll know. I don't see why you're so concerned about getting an answer anyway, you're going to complain about it no matter what the answer is.

[+Tequila]

Why don't you send an email asking for your account to be deleted and then you'll know. I don't see why you're so concerned about getting an answer anyway, you're going to complain about it no matter what the answer is.

 

[+Arrow One]

The answer is NO

[+The Jester]

Incorrect - It is not very clear. It is very "grey". And you have not answered my simple, clear question.

How can you say it's a grey area? If you've read the two item linked, it's very clear.

 

Knowledge Base:

Although usernames are technically never permanently deleted...

TOS:

By submitting any Submission to Groundspeak, You grant Groundspeak a worldwide, non-exclusive, transferable, perpetual, irrevocable, fully-paid royalty-free license and right to use, reproduce, distribute, import, broadcast, transmit, modify and create derivative works of, license, offer to sell, and sell, rent, lease or lend copies of, publicly display and publicly perform that Submission for any purpose and without restriction or obligation to You.

(bolding mine)

[+FireRef]

Ok - I will accept that.

 

I don't agree that they should refuse to delete an account if that is the user's request. But that is apparently what the answer to this is.

 

Again, I did read both of the things that are in there. Saying that I didn't read them is inappropriate. I may not have understood them in that context, but I did read them. Thank you for your opinion on what I should/should not have done or did or did not do.

 

Since the question has been answered, although not by the people I wanted to answer it (clearly and concisely, like this last poster), this thread can be closed. Thanks.

[+StarBrand]

Look in post #9 - I said the same thing!

[jholly]

 

Since the question has been answered, although not by the people I wanted to answer it (clearly and concisely, like this last poster), this thread can be closed. Thanks.

 

Seems to me the answer came from the frog herself.

 

Jim