Feature request: 'Reason for deletion' field when deleting someone's log

[+Delta68]

I've just deleted someone's duplicate Found log on one of our caches (this is the second one this week)

 

It would really handy if there was a text input on the confirmation page so an optional 'reason' can be added and then included in the notification email

 

It's not nice to receive log deletion notices, it might just soften the blow a bit to have an explanation at teh same time

In cases where it's a duplicate log being deleted, the finder would probably be baffled as to why they received an email anyway as it would not be apparent that log had even been deleted...

 

 

Thanks

 

Mark

[jholly]

I've just deleted someone's duplicate Found log on one of our caches (this is the second one this week)

 

It would really handy if there was a text input on the confirmation page so an optional 'reason' can be added and then included in the notification email

 

It's not nice to receive log deletion notices, it might just soften the blow a bit to have an explanation at teh same time

In cases where it's a duplicate log being deleted, the finder would probably be baffled as to why they received an email anyway as it would not be apparent that log had even been deleted...

 

 

Thanks

 

Mark

 

I'm curious, why do you need to delete a duplicate found log? Seems to me your violating the guidelines by deleting a valid found log and could incur the wrath of the frog.

[knowschad]

It has been suggested before, and I've never heard a reason for why it hasn't been done. Of course, you could always send your own email warning them that it was about to happen, but it would be convenient to have it available when deleting a log.

[+StarBrand]

I have long thought this would be a great site addtion. Save me a step for the extra email.

[BCProspectors]

I'm curious, why do you need to delete a duplicate found log? Seems to me your violating the guidelines by deleting a valid found log and could incur the wrath of the frog.

It's not a valid found log if it's a duplicate found log.

[+Max and 99]

I love the idea!

[jholly]

I'm curious, why do you need to delete a duplicate found log? Seems to me your violating the guidelines by deleting a valid found log and could incur the wrath of the frog.

It's not a valid found log if it's a duplicate found log.

 

I'm still confused. They found it again and signed the logbook again. Why is that not a find? It is not in good form and what is not a generally accepted practice, but it was found. There is nothing in the guidelines that states a second found log is invalid, but does point out it is bad form.

 

I think a better policy would be to write to the finder and point out that they logged the cache a second time and inquire if they were trading travelers or something else. If they were trading travelers they you could point out a note is more appropriate, or ask that subsequent logs be changed to notes. But then they could just simply be un-organized and did not realize they found the cache previously. But this is all speculation because we don't have the logs to look at.

Edited May 19, 2010 by jholly

[BCProspectors]

I'm still confused. They found it again and signed the logbook again. Why is that not a find? It is not in good form and what is not a generally accepted practice, but it was found. There is nothing in the guidelines that states a second found log is invalid, but does point out it is bad form.

I think what the OP meant was accidental duplicate logs during the logging process. A server glitch sometimes causes the person logging being shown an error after clicking Submit, even though the log was submitted successfully. The user refreshes the page or clicks back and then Submit again, unknowingly making a second log. Edited May 19, 2010 by BCProspectors

[jholly]

I'm still confused. They found it again and signed the logbook again. Why is that not a find? It is not in good form and what is not a generally accepted practice, but it was found. There is nothing in the guidelines that states a second found log is invalid, but does point out it is bad form.

I think what the OP meant was accidental duplicate logs during the logging process. A server glitch sometimes causes the person logging being shown an error after clicking Submit, even though the log was submitted successfully. The user refreshes the page or clicks back and then Submit again, unknowingly making a second log.

 

Could well be. I guess I would send and email pointing this out and asking for the logger to delete one of his logs. If after a couple weeks there is no response then I might delete the log.

[+Telecacher]

How does someone find a cache twice? If you found it before, you already know where it is.

[BCProspectors]

Could well be. I guess I would send and email pointing this out and asking for the logger to delete one of his logs. If after a couple weeks there is no response then I might delete the log.

There's really no need to ask the finder to delete the log in a circumstance like that. The duplicate log is accidental and it's fine to simply notify the finder about the situation so they don't get upset and then remove the log.

[+GeekBoy.from.Illinois]

How does someone find a cache twice? If you found it before, you already know where it is.

Actually, there have been a few caches I did find twice. I was working on a particularly difficult series once and found one of the caches. About a year or so later, I realized I had lost the clue from that cache, so I went back to retrieve it again, but the owner had moved the cache, so I had to find it again, in its new location. Now, even tough I did have to find that cache a second time to get it's clue, I still only wrote a note for my second visit since I had previously logged a find on the cache. I know that some cachers would log that as a second find, as it was a different hide than the one I had originally found, but that's not how I play the game.

 

Additionally, I live near an 11 stage multi-cache. It was originally hidden as an 11 cache series, but the reviewer would not publish it as 11 separate caches, and would only publish it as a multi cache. The owner left the 11 original ammo cans out, each with its own log book,swag, etc. When it was published as one cache, the owner said they would accept multiple "found it" logs as it was originally intended to be 11 separate caches. Some finders log 10 notes (one for each of the first 10 stages) and one "found it", while others gladly log 11 "found it" logs on that one cache.

 

Another case I have seen is for some events near my home. The event holders will place temporary caches out for their event, and since they are not permanent caches, they suggest logging multiple "found it" logs for their event, one extra for each temporary cache found.

 

All of these are cases where I could see/have seen someone logging multiple finds on a single cache. Have I done any of those? Not intentionally, like I said earlier, it's not how I play this game. Others play be slightly different "rules" than I do, so they might log multiple finds for some or all of those reasons...

Edited May 20, 2010 by GeekBoy.from.Illinois

[+Kryten]

"Another case I have seen is for some events near my home. The event holders will place temporary caches out for their event, and since they are not permanent caches, they suggest logging multiple "found it" logs for their event, one extra for each temporary cache found."

[+Delta68]

I think what the OP meant was accidental duplicate logs during the logging process. A server glitch sometimes causes the person logging being shown an error after clicking Submit, even though the log was submitted successfully. The user refreshes the page or clicks back and then Submit again, unknowingly making a second log.

 

This is correct

 

Examples

• Accidental duplicate logs (seems to happen more frequently these days with people using the iPhone app)
  
• When new cachers log a find instead of a note when dropping a TB on the same occasion as the find
  
• Actual bogus logs. ie no corresponding name in logbook
  

A few of our caches have genuine multiple finds on them because different members of a family team visited independently on different days. Strange, but OK

 

 

Thanks

Mark

[+BlueDeuce]

Okay, so now we know there are reasons to let a second Found it stand and that sometimes people make mistakes and you can certainly ask them to post a Note instead, BUT when it comes time to delete a log I think being able to add a comment the additional communication is a very good thing.

 

I vote - yes.

Edited May 20, 2010 by BlueDeuce

[+MastahMatt]

I don't think someone should be able to find one of my caches twice and log it twice. I don't care if they think it's valid or not. it's MY cache, and I'd delete it. Some caches that are moved get owner encouragement to re-find and re-log, and this is fine and dandy, but finding the same cache twice makes no sense except in those circumstances.

[+baloo&bd]

Another case I have seen is for some events near my home. The event holders will place temporary caches out for their event, and since they are not permanent caches, they suggest logging multiple "found it" logs for their event, one extra for each temporary cache found.

 

What about when you are in a area for an appointment and have a hard time finding the address. You should be able to log a another find on a nearby cache for that too.

 

There are also cases where parking is difficult to find when shopping, you need somewhere to log that. There are many equally valid reasons for duplicate logs.

Edited May 22, 2010 by baloo&bd

[+baloo&bd]

Okay, so now we know there are reasons to let a second Found it stand and that sometimes people make mistakes and you can certainly ask them to post a Note instead, BUT when it comes time to delete a log I think being able to add a comment the additional communication is a very good thing.

 

I vote - yes.

 

How many logs are you deleting that it becomes a problem to just use the regular email link for the user?

[+GeekBoy.from.Illinois]

Another case I have seen is for some events near my home. The event holders will place temporary caches out for their event, and since they are not permanent caches, they suggest logging multiple "found it" logs for their event, one extra for each temporary cache found.

 

What about when you are in a area for an appointment and have a hard time finding the address. You should be able to log a another find on a nearby cache for that too.

 

There are also cases where parking is difficult to find when shopping, you need somewhere to log that. There are many equally valid reasons for duplicate logs.

Dang! Thanks for pointing out all those possible "found it" logs I've been missing. I'll hit 10K finds sooner than I thought!

[BCProspectors]

What about when you are in a area for an appointment and have a hard time finding the address. You should be able to log a another find on a nearby cache for that too.

 

There are also cases where parking is difficult to find when shopping, you need somewhere to log that.

I don't get how that works.

[+BlueDeuce]

Okay, so now we know there are reasons to let a second Found it stand and that sometimes people make mistakes and you can certainly ask them to post a Note instead, BUT when it comes time to delete a log I think being able to add a comment the additional communication is a very good thing.

 

I vote - yes.

 

How many logs are you deleting that it becomes a problem to just use the regular email link for the user?

 

Hundreds.

[+thedeadpirate]

What about when you are in a area for an appointment and have a hard time finding the address. You should be able to log a another find on a nearby cache for that too.

 

There are also cases where parking is difficult to find when shopping, you need somewhere to log that.

I don't get how that works.

 

I could be wrong, but I think it's called sarcasm.

 

Put me down for yes vote. I've only deleted one duplicate find and email worked just fine for explaining. However, it would be better to be able to put the reason in the actual delete email.

[+Gushoneybun]

Great idea. I have deleted a few from newbies, I have always sent emails as well. But the delete log would look better with a reason on it.

[+ADTCacheur]

What about when you are in a area for an appointment and have a hard time finding the address. You should be able to log a another find on a nearby cache for that too.

 

There are also cases where parking is difficult to find when shopping, you need somewhere to log that.

I don't get how that works.

 

I believe BCProspectors was making a joke. You foundthe address for your appointment, you found parking at the shopping mall, you can't log that online so you log a geocache in the lampskirt in the mall parking lot as found.

[Rhialto]

If we focus on OP request only, I think the idea is VERY welcome. No need to discuss all the possible reasons we can put in the text box...

 

Sometimes I wish we could hear GS opinion on feature request.

[+Delta68]

 

Sometimes I wish we could hear GS opinion on feature request.

 

Too right!

 

I personally have made numerous suggestions which have received very positive responses here on this forum but I don't recall ever getting a reply from TPTB saying it's a good idea or even ruling it out entirely

 

 

 

Thanks

 

Mark

[BCProspectors]

I think they like seeing us discuss and argue over feature requests.

[+palmetto]

However, it would be better to be able to put the reason in the actual delete email.

 

The email that goes out now is NOT from the person who deletes the log, it's from "noreply" - a bot generated notice with name of cache, date and time of deletion, URL to log, URL to profile of the person who deleted it.

 

2 emails would have to be sent: the current bot generated email, and another, from the account of the person doing the deletion. The second email from the "deleter" would probably be optional.

 

To send that email now simply click the link of the username owning the log that you just deleted.

 

I suspect the quickest fix on this might be a prompt in red to pop up on that page, once you've deleted the log - something like, please click the username to send a email to the log owner, explaining the log deletion.

[+Delta68]

 

The email that goes out now is NOT from the person who deletes the log, it's from "noreply" - a bot generated notice with name of cache, date and time of deletion, URL to log, URL to profile of the person who deleted it.

 

 

Er... 'contacting' emails come from 'noreply' as well.

 

I'm obviously not privy to the inner workings of the deleted log emailer, but surely passing another parameter to it in the form of a bit of text isn't going to be too tough

 

 

Mark

[+palmetto]

right now a [LOG] Log Deletion Notice email does not have this at the bottom:

 

User's Profile:http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=xxxxxx......

------------------------------------------------------------

Forward abuse complaints to: contact@geocaching.com

 

 

It's a facts only email. There's no issue of "abuse complaints".

 

You want it to include text, your text. And that is definitely going to open the door to abuse complaints !

 

To incorporate your text, it's going to have to come from you. Yes, it could have the noreply@ return, as emails from logs do, but it's really a whole different animal then the current facts only [LOG] Log Deletion Notice.

 

I like the idea of prompting the log deleter to explain the deletion, but I don't foresee that explanation being incorporated into the current [LOG] Log Deletion Notice. and I don't really support the idea.

 

Something to make sending an explanation email obvious and easy does seem like a good idea to me.

[+thedeadpirate]

However, it would be better to be able to put the reason in the actual delete email.

 

The email that goes out now is NOT from the person who deletes the log, it's from "noreply" - a bot generated notice with name of cache, date and time of deletion, URL to log, URL to profile of the person who deleted it.

 

2 emails would have to be sent: the current bot generated email, and another, from the account of the person doing the deletion. The second email from the "deleter" would probably be optional.

 

To send that email now simply click the link of the username owning the log that you just deleted.

 

I suspect the quickest fix on this might be a prompt in red to pop up on that page, once you've deleted the log - something like, please click the username to send a email to the log owner, explaining the log deletion.

I understand fully how the deletion email works.

 

The whole point of this thread is to be able to put a reason in the 1 delete email rather than the person receiving a deletion email and maybe a seperate email from the CO explaining why he deleted it.

 

This could be handled easily by giving a list of the top reasons for deleting an email such as duplicate or no signature in physical logbook.

 

As long as there are a set number of choices to choose from, I'm not sure where the abuse would come from.

[+Delta68]

 

This could be handled easily by giving a list of the top reasons for deleting an email such as duplicate or no signature in physical logbook.

 

As long as there are a set number of choices to choose from, I'm not sure where the abuse would come from.

 

Yeah, I though about that as well.

A set of 'radio button' options would be a neat solution

 

Duplicate logs or logging a find to drop a trackable are my usual reasons for deleting logs

 

If there was no name in the log book (or no proof received in the case of an EarthCache) I would contact the cacher first asking for an explanation before deleting anything just in case there's a good reason for no log

 

After all, we set caches for people to find!

 

 

Mark

[+baloo&bd]

We have established in this thread that;

 

- There is no valid reasons for duplicate logs.

- Cache owners are to monitor caches for bogus logs.

- There are several reason for deleting logs.

- When deleting, you should notify the logs owner.

 

However after these facts have been established, I still think it happens so rarely that it doesn't warrant any work on adding a button so I vote no.

 

Now, if someone were to propose 1 GC# = 1 LOG, my vote is different.