Erasing old inactive users?

[+Team_FussyPants]

So I've been thinking about changing my username, the one I have I never really intended to be permanent, just used it to log on and check things out the first time. I looked up the username I would like to change too, but its already been taken, but its by a user who found one cache in 2004, and hasn't logged on since then. Any chance an old inactive username like this could be erased so I could take it over?

[+sledgehampster]

Nope, won't happen if it is verified.

[+Team_FussyPants]

Nope, won't happen if it is verified.

 

Yeah, thats pretty much what I figured.

[+Flo.]

I had the same problem. So I just put a "." after the name. Maybe that will work and you can still have your name, just with a dot after it.

[Mr.Yuck]

I had the same problem. So I just put a "." after the name. Maybe that will work and you can still have your name, just with a dot after it.

 

Not the same problem at all. The name the OP wants found 1 cache. That name is gone forever. I actually agree with this.

 

"Flo", without a period on the end joined in 2001, last visited in 2002. Never found or hid a cache. This username needs to be purged. Try opening a Yahoo or Hotmail email account, never use it, and see if it still exists after 6 months. It won't.

 

Besides, I think you have a misunderstanding there, and you could actually get "Flo"; it's never been validated. Me, I was refused a 0 find, 0 hide, one day visit in 2006 account simply because it was validated. I have no clue why they won't purge such accounts, and they ain't sayin'.

 

EDIT: It's possible "Flo" was once validated, but they changed their email address, and never validated the new one. Not that I'd agree with that, the name needs to be purged and opened up for a "real" user.

Edited February 17, 2010 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

I agree that there should be a purge system. For no specific reason other than it allows people access to a username that may have some special meaning to them.

 

Haven't a clue as to what I would like to see as guidelines for purging/erasing.

 

Perhaps they are held as is, sort of like a retired hockey/basketball/baseball/football jersey.

[Mr.Yuck]

I agree that there should be a purge system. For no specific reason other than it allows people access to a username that may have some special meaning to them.

 

Haven't a clue as to what I would like to see as guidelines for purging/erasing.

 

Perhaps they are held as is, sort of like a retired hockey/basketball/baseball/football jersey.

 

Why? No one else on the internet is doing this, as far as I can tell. I guess I'll just be left to speculate that the reason for it is so they can tell advertisers they have 3,000,000 acounts.

[+Renegade Knight]

I agree that there should be a purge system. For no specific reason other than it allows people access to a username that may have some special meaning to them.

 

Haven't a clue as to what I would like to see as guidelines for purging/erasing.

 

Perhaps they are held as is, sort of like a retired hockey/basketball/baseball/football jersey.

 

I've thought about this. I'd create a system to archive caches and user names. They would be a separate database from the active caches. That would allow the reclying of names over time. Long periods of time true, but there is a lot of history in the logs and caches worth preserving.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Now that I think about it for a bit -- yes, it certainly could figure into log history, etc.

 

Perhaps a possibility of screening out those that only have "0" finds and "0" placements, plus a l-o-n-g time since logging on at all?

 

Just a thought.

[Mr.Yuck]

I agree that there should be a purge system. For no specific reason other than it allows people access to a username that may have some special meaning to them.

 

Haven't a clue as to what I would like to see as guidelines for purging/erasing.

 

Perhaps they are held as is, sort of like a retired hockey/basketball/baseball/football jersey.

 

I've thought about this. I'd create a system to archive caches and user names. They would be a separate database from the active caches. That would allow the reclying of names over time. Long periods of time true, but there is a lot of history in the logs and caches worth preserving.

 

Don't get me wrong, I agree with TPTB; if someone has found or especially hidden even one cache, the name is gone forever, and can never be erased. There is history there.

 

However, I'm baffled at not purging 0 find 0 hide acounts. They consider them "used" if they are validated. I put some random intergers into URL's, and quickly came up with these usernames that are laughably gone forever under this policy: snowflaketree, Doc530Rino and Playful1

 

And of course I know all this, and am bringing it up again in this thread, as I was denied the unused username of a 0 find, 0 hide one day visitor, who signed up in 2006.

Edited February 17, 2010 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+Harry Dolphin]

Guess I'm lucky that my handle was available. Yeah. Handle. I've been Harry Dolphin more than twenty years. Dates back to bulletin board days... They were 'handles' then. Not 'user names'. Otherwise, I would have to be Harrison Jeremiah Dolphin. And that takes too long to type!

I don't know why they don't archive three day wonders who've never hidden or found a cache. But that's their prerogative. In the meantime, you go with what's availabe.

[4wheelin_fool]

I agree that there should be a purge system. For no specific reason other than it allows people access to a username that may have some special meaning to them.

 

Haven't a clue as to what I would like to see as guidelines for purging/erasing.

 

Perhaps they are held as is, sort of like a retired hockey/basketball/baseball/football jersey.

 

I've thought about this. I'd create a system to archive caches and user names. They would be a separate database from the active caches. That would allow the reclying of names over time. Long periods of time true, but there is a lot of history in the logs and caches worth preserving.

 

Don't get me wrong, I agree with TPTB; if someone has found or especially hidden even one cache, the name is gone forever, and can never be erased. There is history there.

 

However, I'm baffled at not purging 0 find 0 hide acounts. They consider them "used" if they are validated. I put some random intergers into URL's, and quickly came up with these usernames that are laughably gone forever under this policy: snowflaketree, Doc530Rino and Playful1

 

And of course I know all this, and am bringing it up again in this thread, as I was denied the unused username of a 0 find, 0 hide one day visitor, who signed up in 2006.

 

So you wanted the ID Playful1, and you got TheWhiteUrkel?

 

Wow, I'd be furious.

[Mr.Yuck]

I agree that there should be a purge system. For no specific reason other than it allows people access to a username that may have some special meaning to them.

 

Haven't a clue as to what I would like to see as guidelines for purging/erasing.

 

Perhaps they are held as is, sort of like a retired hockey/basketball/baseball/football jersey.

 

I've thought about this. I'd create a system to archive caches and user names. They would be a separate database from the active caches. That would allow the reclying of names over time. Long periods of time true, but there is a lot of history in the logs and caches worth preserving.

 

Don't get me wrong, I agree with TPTB; if someone has found or especially hidden even one cache, the name is gone forever, and can never be erased. There is history there.

 

However, I'm baffled at not purging 0 find 0 hide acounts. They consider them "used" if they are validated. I put some random intergers into URL's, and quickly came up with these usernames that are laughably gone forever under this policy: snowflaketree, Doc530Rino and Playful1

 

And of course I know all this, and am bringing it up again in this thread, as I was denied the unused username of a 0 find, 0 hide one day visitor, who signed up in 2006.

 

So you wanted the ID Playful1, and you got TheWhiteUrkel?

 

Wow, I'd be furious.

 

Funny guy. No, I actually just plugged in about 10-12 random integers into the URL's for Geocaching.com profiles, and I came up with 3 (almost 25% of them) that were 0 find 0 hide one day visits from years ago. My point being they probably have 1,000,000 such accounts, and for some undisclosed reason, will not purge them.

 

I actually wanted a shortened version of my username, TWU. I just go by that, especially in paper logs. I looked again though, and it was a one day visit from 2007, not 2006.

[+simpjkee]

I see the demand for a purge function, but I completely disagree with such a thing. Keep in mind that if you delete a user, you'd delete all their logs also. That, to me, is like deleting history, and I do not want to see that happen.

[+Ike 13]

I would prefer Groundspeak focus on other issues.

 

But if a 'user' has no finds, no hides, and hasn't logged on in over two years I see no reason they shouldn't be deleted if Groundspeak chose to do so. IF this happens I suggest an email to all accounts to let everyone know just in case one of those 'users' wanted to come back

[AZcachemeister]

Those 'never used' accounts aren't hurting anything unless someone wants the handle for themselves. I believe I read an official statement somewhere that if a user wants one of those that have ZERO finds it might be arranged by request.

[+bittsen]

It would be a small task to retain user numbers for MIA members and allow the "name" to be freed up.

Each user is assigned a number. The number is the identifier in the system more than the name.

 

I suspect that whenever a user asks to change their name, the PTB just goes in and changes the association with the name. Easy peasy that way.

[+NeecesandNephews]

While I agree completely with preserving the log history on the site, I would point out that most of the responses have been directed at "0-hide, 0-find" users. What log of theirs is it we are trying to preserve???

 

I agree with the proposed screening and purging of "the zeroes" who haven't logged on in...say 2 years.

[Mr.Yuck]

Those 'never used' accounts aren't hurting anything unless someone wants the handle for themselves. I believe I read an official statement somewhere that if a user wants one of those that have ZERO finds it might be arranged by request.

 

Oh no you di'nt!! They will give away unvalidated 0 find 0 hide accounts. If the person validates the account, even if they logged in for just one day in 2002, that name is gone forever. I was denied a username being "used" by a 0 find 0 hide one day visitor from 2007 who validated their account. Believe me, I went back and forth with the Groundspeak Lackey several times. They consider this account "used".

Edited February 22, 2010 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+smstext]

you could email the inactive user and ask them if they still use their account, if not could they let you have it and just change the password, personal details and email to yours... just a thought????

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

 

Funny guy. No, I actually just plugged in about 10-12 random integers into the URL's for Geocaching.com profiles, and I came up with 3 (almost 25% of them) that were 0 find 0 hide one day visits from years ago. My point being they probably have 1,000,000 such accounts, and for some undisclosed reason, will not purge them.

 

Could advertisers be paying partly based on the number of registered users? Newspapers are known to inflate their circulation numbers so they can charge advertisers more.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

you could email the inactive user and ask them if they still use their account, if not could they let you have it and just change the password, personal details and email to yours... just a thought????

Haha, thinking outside the box. That could work if the user is willing. Adopting usernames, whodathunk...I guess smstext woulda.

[+cache_us_if_you_can]

While I agree completely with preserving the log history on the site, I would point out that most of the responses have been directed at "0-hide, 0-find" users. What log of theirs is it we are trying to preserve???

 

I agree with the proposed screening and purging of "the zeroes" who haven't logged on in...say 2 years.

They may have zero hides and finds listed, but some of those cachers have logged notes, which don't show up on their profile listing. (One of our local cachers used to only log his finds as notes.... Just sayin')

Edited February 23, 2010 by cache_us_if_you_can

[+NeecesandNephews]

See?? There's one of the things I like about the forums! The opportunity to be made aware of something that had not occured to me. I have noted several cachers mention they don't log finds, some do say they log notes. Thank you for pointing that out!! Its nice to ask a question and get an answer!!

[+Cowboy Camper]

I'm not familiar with this particular Forum's Software package, but the ones I am familiar with do have the ability to alter certain settings that will remove inactive users, thus freeing up the user names. (Maybe?)

 

Maybe Not. And here's why:

 

The methods I'm aware of will "Ban" a member by using the IP Address (on the computer) of the said User ID. This will prevent the guy with the user name 'John Doe' from ever logging into the forum again by associating the user name and password with Any computer's IP address that the user can find. Let's say that 'John Doe' was Banned from the forum due to misbehavior from his Home computer and thus the IP address linked to that computer. Thinking that he can get back into the forums by logging in at his Work computer, he tries to stir up the same trouble that got him Banned in the first place. Before too long the System (Software Package of choice) will pick up on that and thus ban that user again by associating the new IP address of the work computer under that User ID and password.

 

If 'John Doe' tries a friends computer with it's own IP Address (and yet another perhaps...) the process will only repeat itself to keep that guy out. This is the Option that a Forum Owner has to keep out a bad pickle, and to the best of my knowledge, this is what is designed into the forum's software packages that are available for the Owner/Operators to use.

 

By this design/automatic process, I do not believe there is a way to free up an expended User ID. Once the ID has been taken (for good or for bad) it's taken. If that ID is never again used by the Owner of the ID, that is his or her prerogative. If that ID was banned, I do not believe there is a way for the PTB to make any adjustments.

 

I'm not about to claim myself as any Expert on this though. I'm just sharing what I do know and understand as a user and an Owner Operator. Maybe a Moderator here will come along and set us all straight on this one, huh? I'm just sharing what I understand about these types of forums in the hopes of lending a helpful answer. I'm more than willing to know more from the PTB myself, ya know?

 

Take care, Folks.

[Mr.Yuck]

While I agree completely with preserving the log history on the site, I would point out that most of the responses have been directed at "0-hide, 0-find" users. What log of theirs is it we are trying to preserve???

 

I agree with the proposed screening and purging of "the zeroes" who haven't logged on in...say 2 years.

They may have zero hides and finds listed, but some of those cachers have logged notes, which don't show up on their profile listing. (One of our local cachers used to only log his finds as notes.... Just sayin')

 

Most of the 0 find 0 hide accounts I've seen are one day visits, people just signing up for a free account on the internet. For example, I replied to Cowboy camper's post. I clicked on his profile, changed the URL by one digit, and voila, the guy who joined about 2 seconds before him in 2008 is such an account: here.

 

I've become totally convinced it's a "we have 3,000,000 accounts" thing. Especially since just within the past couple of weeks, the bottom of the main page of Geocaching.com has verbage saying there are an estimated 3,000,000-4,000,000 Geocachers worldwide.

Edited February 23, 2010 by TheWhiteUrkel

[Mr.Yuck]

 

By this design/automatic process, I do not believe there is a way to free up an expended User ID. Once the ID has been taken (for good or for bad) it's taken. If that ID is never again used by the Owner of the ID, that is his or her prerogative. If that ID was banned, I do not believe there is a way for the PTB to make any adjustments.

 

I'm not about to claim myself as any Expert on this though. I'm just sharing what I do know and understand as a user and an Owner Operator. Maybe a Moderator here will come along and set us all straight on this one, huh? I'm just sharing what I understand about these types of forums in the hopes of lending a helpful answer. I'm more than willing to know more from the PTB myself, ya know?

 

Take care, Folks.

 

I'm no expert either, but I disagree. If you don't log into a Yahoo Mail or Hotmail account for 6 months, it's history. Definitely happened to me (or family members) more than once.

 

I also once had a cheesy website for a little league football organization, made with a free template driven sports website provider, deleted and my account erased for not logging in for a few months during the offseason. No biggie, my kid left the organization anyways, and someone else made a new one.

[OpinioNate]

Not archiving barely or unused accounts is a courtesy we extend our users. They might return some day and want to reclaim their original handle. Yahoo may delete them due to inactivity but they also have orders of magnitude greater number of users.

 

Sorry TWU, I know how you feel.

[Mr.Yuck]

Not archiving barely or unused accounts is a courtesy we extend our users. They might return some day and want to reclaim their original handle. Yahoo may delete them due to inactivity but they also have orders of magnitude greater number of users.

 

Sorry TWU, I know how you feel.

 

Well, OK then. I did go back and forth with a Groundspeak employee on the matter (forgot the name, but it was a female). But now I've heard it from "the top". I guess I can be TWU. with a period on the end or something like Flo,, in the 2nd or 3rd post.

 

Don't worry about Nate. OpinioNate is actually much cooler.

[+cache_us_if_you_can]

While I agree completely with preserving the log history on the site, I would point out that most of the responses have been directed at "0-hide, 0-find" users. What log of theirs is it we are trying to preserve???

 

I agree with the proposed screening and purging of "the zeroes" who haven't logged on in...say 2 years.

They may have zero hides and finds listed, but some of those cachers have logged notes, which don't show up on their profile listing. (One of our local cachers used to only log his finds as notes.... Just sayin')

 

Most of the 0 find 0 hide accounts I've seen are one day visits, people just signing up for a free account on the internet. For example, I replied to Cowboy camper's post. I clicked on his profile, changed the URL by one digit, and voila, the guy who joined about 2 seconds before him in 2008 is such an account: here.

 

I've become totally convinced it's a "we have 3,000,000 accounts" thing. Especially since just within the past couple of weeks, the bottom of the main page of Geocaching.com has verbage saying there are an estimated 3,000,000-4,000,000 Geocachers worldwide.

I was thinking about this some more and can think of another legitimate reason why the zero-hides/zero-finds/only-on-one-or-two-days should be preserved: Some of these accounts may have been set up by land owners and managers (the very same ones we get permission from when hiding) to watch a cache that has been placed on their property. They may set up the account and click 'watch this cache' to get the email notices, but never feel the need to log back in as long as things are on the up and up.

 

Not archiving barely or unused accounts is a courtesy we extend our users. They might return some day and want to reclaim their original handle. Yahoo may delete them due to inactivity but they also have orders of magnitude greater number of users.

 

Sorry TWU, I know how you feel.

And that's the best reason of all: Because they're nice

*EDIT: I hadn't noticed Nate's Post*

Edited February 24, 2010 by cache_us_if_you_can