Jump to content

Deleted User?


colleda

Recommended Posts

I chanced upon this one today noticing CO as a "Deleted User". There was also a mention that the cache was locked. I am curious as to the circumstances by which this has happened. There appears to be nothing untoward re cacher activity, unless it has been deleted by a Lackey or Reviewer. Can anyone enlighten me? I'm curious.

 
Link to comment

They were a fairly new caching family when we were quite new - very keen, put out several caches, always maintaining them. Then basically stopped, then she started (responsibly) disabling/removing and archiving caches when they decided they'd had enough - this one is now left? HQ may as well just archive it as well.... this could be a situation for an enforced adoption?

Addit - actually it does appear to be archived, although there is no archive log.... 

Edited by lee737
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, lee737 said:

They were a fairly new caching family when we were quite new - very keen, put out several caches, always maintaining them. Then basically stopped, then she started (responsibly) disabling/removing and archiving caches when they decided they'd had enough - this one is now left? HQ may as well just archive it as well.... this could be a situation for an enforced adoption?

Addit - actually it does appear to be archived, although there is no archive log.... 

That seemed strange to me that it is archived but no log, just locked. I knew of the family and enjoyed their caches but wondered what happened to have their name deleted as well as locked. I'm guessing it may be a legal thing (not of GC's making) has gone  on behind the scenes. Even a name search comes up zilch.

Link to comment

Erasing all traces of a geocaching account (profile, forum posts, logs, etc.) is an automated process done by HQ when requested.  It indeed arose from GDPR, although anyone can request an account deletion regardless of whether they're located in the EU.

 

The owned cache pages remain (without an owner) in an archived and locked state, so that finders can view them as part of their history.

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 6
Link to comment

I wonder if they understood this would happen. I can easily see someone thinking they were just being polite to ask for their unused account to be cleaned up, not realizing what a hole it leaves in the record. Although, at the same time, I can imagine someone wanting to erase their footprints.

Link to comment
21 hours ago, Keystone said:

Erasing all traces of a geocaching account (profile, forum posts, logs, etc.) is an automated process done by HQ when requested.

So if requested, all logs of this user vanishes?

For the sake of keeping also the history of cache visits and TB movements would it be possible instead to replace this logs with anonymized logs with a boiler plate logtext but correct dates?

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Hynz said:

So if requested, all logs of this user vanishes?

For the sake of keeping also the history of cache visits and TB movements would it be possible instead to replace this logs with anonymized logs with a boiler plate logtext but correct dates?

 

It could be too difficult for the CO to verify that an unknown visitor signed the logbook.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

 

It could be too difficult for the CO to verify that an unknown visitor signed the logbook.

 

It's often too difficult anyway. I have no idea who this entry is in one of my early caches as I can't decipher their writing and the date doesn't match any of the online dates. Maybe they use a different name online to what they write in the book (I've seen that a few times) or maybe they logged some months after they'd visited the cache and didn't change the date (I've seen that often too), or didn't log it online at all. Trying to match logs on a popular cache can be an exercise in frustration.

 

image.png.c0eea3ba5e8717eac4c4edbda5d5f0bc.png

 

I would imagine it'd be even harder on a nano log where people are likely to use initials rather than their full name.

Edited by barefootjeff
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

It's often too difficult anyway. I have no idea who this entry is in one of my early caches as I can't decipher their writing and the date doesn't match any of the online dates. Maybe they use a different name online to what they write in the book (I've seen that a few times) or maybe they logged some months after they'd visited the cache and didn't change the date (I've seen that often too), or didn't log it online at all. Trying to match logs on a popular cache can be an exercise in frustration.

 

image.png.c0eea3ba5e8717eac4c4edbda5d5f0bc.png

 

I would imagine it'd be even harder on a nano log where people are likely to use initials rather than their full name.

 

It Looks as if it could have been a group or a child that had found it.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, speakers-corner said:
4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

It's often too difficult anyway. I have no idea who this entry is in one of my early caches as I can't decipher their writing and the date doesn't match any of the online dates. Maybe they use a different name online to what they write in the book (I've seen that a few times) or maybe they logged some months after they'd visited the cache and didn't change the date (I've seen that often too), or didn't log it online at all. Trying to match logs on a popular cache can be an exercise in frustration.

 

image.png.c0eea3ba5e8717eac4c4edbda5d5f0bc.png

 

I would imagine it'd be even harder on a nano log where people are likely to use initials rather than their full name.

 

It Looks as if it could have been a group or a child that had found it.

I'm going with child on that one.  Handwriting is comparable to my daughter's, about a year ago.  (She's 6 and it;s getting pretty legible now.)

 

On 10/22/2019 at 9:36 AM, lee737 said:

it does appear to be archived, although there is no archive log....

 

Apparently it was archived by the owner - because the archive log, like all their others, is gone, not even visible in my reviewer account.

 

What's interesting is that you get to see all the caches by any [deleted user], regardless of location, if you click the "caches hidden by this user" link.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, hzoi said:

......

 

Apparently it was archived by the owner - because the archive log, like all their others, is gone, not even visible in my reviewer account.

......

 

Of course - that makes sense.... I do remember when she was disabling and then archiving their caches. I got the impression she was going around collecting them as she did.....

Link to comment
5 hours ago, hzoi said:

Apparently it was archived by the owner - because the archive log, like all their others, is gone, not even visible in my reviewer account.

 

If that were the case and the CO deleted the archive log, wouldn't you be able to see that?

 

I suspect that the cache was set directly to an archived state in the database by an automated process, rather than the standard route of an archive log being logged. If that's the case, HQ should tweak this process to create an archive log that explains why the cache is archived.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, The A-Team said:

If that were the case and the CO deleted the archive log, wouldn't you be able to see that?

I was wondering too but I guess to comply with the GDPR rules the deletions must be definitive.

Which again calls (in my view) for an anonymous but informative recording of events which truly happened in the public and can not be removed from history.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
12 hours ago, Hynz said:

Which again calls (in my view) for an anonymous but informative recording of events which truly happened in the public and can not be removed from history.

 

I would have thought that any logs would remain in place, but the personal information (ie. the cacher name and the content) would be redacted. I guess that isn't what happens, though. Wiping out the logs completely only leads to confusion for no apparent gain.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

 

I would have thought that any logs would remain in place, but the personal information (ie. the cacher name and the content) would be redacted. I guess that isn't what happens, though. Wiping out the logs completely only leads to confusion for no apparent gain.

 

All options leads to confusion. What bothers me is that the content of cache pages belongs to the cache owner but they are not erased. Why?

 

I think that logs and cache pages could be erased but not deleted, leaving IDs but not the content. Not the best solution but there is no such thing.

Edited by arisoft
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, arisoft said:

What bothers me is that the content of cache pages belongs to the cache owner but they are not erased. Why?

The TOU stipulates that Groundspeak have the rights to use/reproduce any content members upload/submit, so technically they could refuse to erase the cache page content if they wanted.

 

On the other hand the cache page content is one thing that the CO has pretty much unrestricted access to and I have seen COs in the past who deleted the cache page details before archiving and just leaving a completely blank cache page, if the CO in this case cared enough they could have done the same.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, MartyBartfast said:

The TOU stipulates that Groundspeak have the rights to use/reproduce any content members upload/submit, so technically they could refuse to erase the cache page content if they wanted.

 

If this is a GDPR matter the TOU have no effect. Maybe this is not a GRPR matter at all. I am not going to find out this :)

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, colleda said:

I didn't think GDPR applied in this country.

 

GDPR officially applies only to citizens of the EU. However, it's easier for most companies to apply their GDPR-compliant policies to all of their customers, rather than go through the trouble of trying to apply different policies to different customers.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
8 hours ago, arisoft said:

Maybe this is not a GRPR matter at all

GDPR is all about identifiable content (names/usernames etc.) pretty sure it doesn't cover generic content "you are looking for a small plastic box" etc. So once the username(s) has been redacted from the page I don't think there would be any problem with GDPR.

Link to comment
On 10/23/2019 at 10:58 PM, The A-Team said:
On 10/23/2019 at 5:01 PM, hzoi said:

Apparently it was archived by the owner - because the archive log, like all their others, is gone, not even visible in my reviewer account.

 

If that were the case and the CO deleted the archive log, wouldn't you be able to see that?

 

Normally all deleted logs, and all automatically archived logs (reviewer notes pre-publication), are visible to those who have access to archived logs.  But I don't think the CO deleted the log (or even if they did, it might not matter).  I think the CO archived the cache, and then requested a privacy wipe of their account, and that made all their logs get wiped from the face of the earth, not just deleted.

Edited by hzoi
Link to comment
7 hours ago, hzoi said:

a privacy wipe of their account, and that made all their logs get wiped from the face of the earth

 

I sure hope that's not what actually happens.  Suppose there's a string of DNFs on a cache, but the most recent log was a find by [DELETED_USER] saying "The cache is fine, it's just hidden really well".

 

Shouldn't that anonymized log still exist for all to see?

 

If it's the case of some idiot, a monkey-typer, being ejected from the site, that'd be different...

 

Edited by Viajero Perdido
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Viajero Perdido said:

I sure hope that's not what actually happens.  Suppose there's a string of DNFs on a cache, but the most recent log was a find by [DELETED_USER] saying "The cache is fine, it's just hidden really well".

 

Shouldn't that anonymized log still exist for all to see?

None of the logs of a [DELETED_USER], be it finds, DNFs, whatever, are visible any longer. There is one such user within my home zone, who was a very active cacher. All his logs are gone, leaving a few caches with a slightly strange log history (e.g., no find log on the cache saying "FTF!!" ;) ).

So in your hypothetical case, there would indeed be no indication, that the cache has been found after all the DNFs.

Link to comment
On 10/23/2019 at 4:57 AM, barefootjeff said:

 

It's often too difficult anyway. I have no idea who this entry is in one of my early caches as I can't decipher their writing and the date doesn't match any of the online dates. Maybe they use a different name online to what they write in the book (I've seen that a few times) or maybe they logged some months after they'd visited the cache and didn't change the date (I've seen that often too), or didn't log it online at all. Trying to match logs on a popular cache can be an exercise in frustration.

 

image.png.c0eea3ba5e8717eac4c4edbda5d5f0bc.png

How do you search for a user? I know I can view logs and such, but let's say your sister in another state just started geocaching, and she gave you her username but hasn't found any caches yet. How do I search for her by name only? Is this a premium feature?

 

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, pictom said:

How do you search for a user? I know I can view logs and such, but let's say your sister in another state just started geocaching, and she gave you her username but hasn't found any caches yet. How do I search for her by name only? Is this a premium feature?

 

On your dashboard, you should see "Find another player" under the "Friends" heading.

 

image.png.3107a25b67964625be759c74325ff8c0.png

 

Clicking on that and entering the user name will take you to their public profile.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...