Jump to content

Feature Request: Log deletion communication


debaere
Followers 9

Recommended Posts

Hello lackeys!

 

I have a feature request. As a cache owner it would be handy to be able to add a reason for why I deleted a log. For example the following situations have occurred to fellow COs in the past few days:

 

A cacher posted duplicate log entries - same day, exact same wording. CO deleted one of them, but it would be nice to add a note to inform the finder that it was due to duplicate logs, and his find still counts.

 

Another was a cacher that posted a Found It, with the text of "did not find it". It would be nice in this case to be able to add a note explaining that the finder seems to have selected the wrong cache type (or typed in the wrong contents for the log).

 

As it stands right now, all the finder gets is a note saying the log was deleted, but no explanation as to why. This can lead to angry emails back to the CO, and starts the whole conversation off on a negative context. If the CO could start by explaining himself I think it would alleviate some misunderstandings about why a log is deleted, and at least make the experience less adversarial.

Link to comment

Seems a good suggestion. I agree with it and would like to have it implemented.

 

As a cache owner, I were involved in some of the above situations. Of course one can post a Note in the cache page - and this is what I do, now - but sometimes the finder doesn't check the cache page for an explanation why his log was deleted and reacts immediately against the cache owner, by email. The other option i know, is to ask the cache finder to delete the duplicated or the unduly find log but this barely has effect and those logs remains forgotten.

Link to comment

Whenever we've had to delete a log, we've sent an email explaining why.

Maybe a handful returned with angry emails, but most were aware of what they did wrong.

How would an immediate (though sending one before is close...) email change their attitude?

Seems the others could care less.

How would an immediate note with the delete message improve that?

Lately, we're getting people who have never been in the site and do not have a validated email.

They're hitting found it when not even in the area and double logging.

How would an immediate system work? There's no way to contact them.

Link to comment

Whenever we've had to delete a log, we've sent an email explaining why.

Maybe a handful returned with angry emails, but most were aware of what they did wrong.

How would an immediate (though sending one before is close...) email change their attitude?

Seems the others could care less.

How would an immediate note with the delete message improve that?

Lately, we're getting people who have never been in the site and do not have a validated email.

They're hitting found it when not even in the area and double logging.

How would an immediate system work? There's no way to contact them.

 

 

The answer seems obviuous for me: Groundspeak should start by enforcing the email validation to everyone who has access to the gecaches database. I know this is off-topic here and that there is another topic to this issue, but if cache onwers are responsible for geocaches maintenance, and for "quality control of logs in the geocache listings" then the geocache owners, and their work, should be protected against persons that are not accountable for their actions on the geocache sites.

 

Then, an automatic system that sents an email to the geocache finder explaining why his log was deleted, would reach its destiny.

Link to comment

Whenever we've had to delete a log, we've sent an email explaining why.

Maybe a handful returned with angry emails, but most were aware of what they did wrong.

How would an immediate (though sending one before is close...) email change their attitude?

Seems the others could care less.

How would an immediate note with the delete message improve that?

Lately, we're getting people who have never been in the site and do not have a validated email.

They're hitting found it when not even in the area and double logging.

How would an immediate system work? There's no way to contact them.

 

 

The answer seems obviuous for me: Groundspeak should start by enforcing the email validation to everyone who has access to the gecaches database. I know this is off-topic here and that there is another topic to this issue, but if cache onwers are responsible for geocaches maintenance, and for "quality control of logs in the geocache listings" then the geocache owners, and their work, should be protected against persons that are not accountable for their actions on the geocache sites.

 

Then, an automatic system that sents an email to the geocache finder explaining why his log was deleted, would reach its destiny.

Okay, you kinda solved a minor inconvenience...

For the rest, it really isn't too much more time consuming to simply send an email yourself.

Link to comment

I like it. One of my logs was deleted and the CO was kind enough to send me the reason why. Turns out I had posted a find log to his cache that was meant for another and described problems that didn't apply to his. I resubmitted it with the right language and it worked out fine.

 

I had one deleted and the CO didn't send a note. I emailed him and he said I took TB's without trading. I relogged explaining that his policy violated the official policy and he left it that time.

 

Would have been nice to have the reason in the original and would have saved some trouble.

Link to comment

For the rest, it really isn't too much more time consuming to simply send an email yourself.

In addition to making it easier for the CO that's going to send an e-mail anyway, it also encourages the CO that's not going to send an e-mail to explain why they're deleting the log. In addition, it keeps the action of deletion tied to the explanation, avoiding possible confusion because the receiver, for one reason or another, fails to relate the two: not only is there a single message informing the receiver of the deletion, but that message would automatically point to the cache in question, something the CO might forget to make clear when they send the explanation manually. Finally, such a feature could, if we wanted, attach the explanation to the cache so that a reviewer can read it.

 

I agree we could live without this feature, but I want to make clear that it accomplishes a little more than just saving the CO from having to go to the user's profile in order to send the e-mail.

Link to comment

For the rest, it really isn't too much more time consuming to simply send an email yourself.

In addition to making it easier for the CO that's going to send an e-mail anyway, it also encourages the CO that's not going to send an e-mail to explain why they're deleting the log. In addition, it keeps the action of deletion tied to the explanation, avoiding possible confusion because the receiver, for one reason or another, fails to relate the two: not only is there a single message informing the receiver of the deletion, but that message would automatically point to the cache in question, something the CO might forget to make clear when they send the explanation manually. Finally, such a feature could, if we wanted, attach the explanation to the cache so that a reviewer can read it.

 

I agree we could live without this feature, but I want to make clear that it accomplishes a little more than just saving the CO from having to go to the user's profile in order to send the e-mail.

Okay, I can see that.

We've never had a log deleted and other than these new unvalidated folks (don't get 'em anyway...) we always sent an email if we had to delete a log or pic.

- Guess I thought it was common courtesy / sense.

Link to comment

Yeah...I agree it would be a nice feature. It would have saved the back-and-forth stuff over the spoiler log I had to delete a couple weeks ago. It also would have saved me having to unnecessarily write a second email - referencing back to the cache in question - explaining to one person why I deleted their log because it was a duplicate 'found it' log.

Link to comment

A very good idea and one I have requested before. Yes, you could send a separate email, but I think it would make sense for the 'reason' to be included in the log deletion email they get.

 

As I have learned from personal experience, if you don't give them a reason, you can get some angry emails. :huh:

 

I too would like to see this feature implemented. I've only deleted one log, I'm a new CO, but I emailed the cacher before hand and cited the guideline that states that the physical log has to be signed before the find can be claimed online. His caching partner returned and signed the log, but the other cacher didn't and so after 3 weeks, I deleted his log.

 

Cheers,

 

b.

Link to comment

Okay, I can see that.

We've never had a log deleted and other than these new unvalidated folks (don't get 'em anyway...) we always sent an email if we had to delete a log or pic.

- Guess I thought it was common courtesy / sense.

 

Had a Needs Maintenance log deleted (for a nano we could not open), because the CO thought deleting the NM would delete the red wrench. Would have been nice if he'd told me that! I won't bother going back looking for that one!

Link to comment

I wonder if it might be useful to also include a drop-down with common reasons (i.e., "duplicate log" or "spoiler log" or "did not meet challenge requirements", etc.) There could be an "other" option which would then allow the sender to write in an explanation in a form field on the page.

Link to comment

I like this idea as well. I haven't had to delete Found logs often, but (except for the NVMs) I always send an email first explaining what the problem is and suggesting that the poster delete or edit it themselves. Only if they don't comply within what I consider a reasonable time do I delete it. Then when they ask why, I have my previously sent email to refer them to. As to what I consider to be a reasonable time, it depends on the situation; if the log is a spoiler, the time is pretty short, maybe 24 hours; if it's just a duplicate, the time is longer, maybe a week. I haven't had any of my Found logs deleted, but NM/NA and Note logs have been deleted, and I know why--it's "How dare you suggest that my cache isn't perfectly wonderful??!!"

Link to comment

I wonder if it might be useful to also include a drop-down with common reasons (i.e., "duplicate log" or "spoiler log" or "did not meet challenge requirements", etc.) There could be an "other" option which would then allow the sender to write in an explanation in a form field on the page.

Meh. I hope no one has to delete logs so often as to need it to be convenient. I'd be concerned that a drop down list would encourage people to pick one and not say anything else, which reduces the good idea of allowing an explanation to be reduced to a minor improvement over deleting without any comment. A perfect example is "spoiler log", since just saying "spoiler" would leave the finder trying to resubmit the log guessing what exactly the CO was objecting to.

Link to comment

I wonder if it might be useful to also include a drop-down with common reasons (i.e., "duplicate log" or "spoiler log" or "did not meet challenge requirements", etc.) There could be an "other" option which would then allow the sender to write in an explanation in a form field on the page.

Meh. I hope no one has to delete logs so often as to need it to be convenient. I'd be concerned that a drop down list would encourage people to pick one and not say anything else, which reduces the good idea of allowing an explanation to be reduced to a minor improvement over deleting without any comment. A perfect example is "spoiler log", since just saying "spoiler" would leave the finder trying to resubmit the log guessing what exactly the CO was objecting to.

 

Fair enough. I would at least like to see a form field requiring the sender (CO deleting the log) to describe the reason. Otherwise, I'd bet that more than half the time there would be no explanation at all. It seems like if GS decides to implement the feature at all, it needs to be mandatory...otherwise it's not even worth changing.

Edited by J Grouchy
Link to comment

That would be nice although the couple of times I have deleted a log I send an email advising why. Also I have had two deleted. One by a noob who messed up the coords of a cache although it could be found by the hint and he wanted a fresh start when he did the new coords and deleted the five logs already there. I had to email him and we got it straightened out. The other was when I wrote a log for a cache that clearly had been for another I found that day., The CO emailed me and I redid the log starting with thanking him for emailing me. While it doesn't happen often it would be nice.

Link to comment

Bumping this thread back up, because it's a great idea. I just went through and deleted some logs for my earthcaches where cachers never sent in their answers even though it's very clear on the cache page that logs without answers will be deleted without notification. I wonder how many people actually read the cache pages these days? I think all log deletions should require a short explanation. I know I've never deleted one without a good reason, and I'd love to be able to tell people why without having to follow up with an email.

Link to comment

Bumping this thread because it can't be a huge amount of programming effort, and it would enhance relations between players.

 

For example, I just ran this Project-GC script http://project-gc.com/Profile/FindBadLogs?profile_name=YOURNAMEHERE&submit=Filter which shows all multiple found logs on caches owned by a player. I then deleted the duplicates, reasoning that most people would not want to have their stats falsified by inadvertent multiple logs. A couple of people sent me rather upset e-mails asking why I had deleted their logs. When I pointed out that they were duplicates, and that if they opened the cache page they would still see "Found It" at the top, they went from upset to grateful. Had I been able to put "deleting duplicate Found It log", this would have saved everyone time and emotional strain.

Edited by sTeamTraen
Link to comment

Bump. This comes up quite often these days, now that many people are using phone apps to log their finds. Multiple logs because the phone didn't react quickly enough so the sender hits "Send" again.

 

It would seem to be a rather quick programming assignment to do this. Comment field would be best instead of a drop down. Also, it doesn't HAVE to be mandatory, a good CO would want to give a better reason than nothing at all.

 

Good to learn that it's on GC's backlog list but that was two years ago. Can we get it pulled from the bottom of the list? Much nearer to the top!!!

Link to comment

+1 I've been wanting this for a long time now. This feature is included when you delete a picture from a log on a cache you own, so I don't see why it couldn't be included when you go to delete an entire log.

 

Yup, similar to deletion of a pic. Why wasn't this done a long time ago, especially since it is a simple and useful request from users?

Link to comment

They apparently adopted a work management that is ineffective. They are not capable of a simple action like this.

 

In steps:

1) add a text form field to the log deletion confirmation page, mark it "Reason"

2) add the text field's content to the e-mail for the owner of the log being deleted with a header: "Reason:"

Edited by Pontiac_CZ
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 9
×
×
  • Create New...