allowed users to "mass delete" obsolete mass email contact notes in journals

Some of our less experienced users, when sending out mass emails or creating lists for surface mailings, have requested that contact notes be made in the journal of each recipient. These contacts quickly become obsolete. I have identified dozens that are junking up the journals of thousands of accounts on our database. In order to delete them, I am currently required to hire an eTapestry programmer and pay (estimated is $600+). As administrator, I'd like to delete them myself - at no cost.
  • Larry Christensen
  • Aug 7 2015
  • Planned
  • Attach files
  • KC Bridges commented
    December 12, 2015 00:55

    In general, mass deletion should be an option for administrators. There's no reason that we shouldn't have control over our data in this way. I personally am often frustrated by the inability to take away something, especially if it has been done by someone else and is incorrect, or if we started tracking data in one way and decided to track it in another way later on.

  • Ian Howlett commented
    April 29, 2016 15:07

    removing journal entries - of any sort - should be a no-brainer.

  • Guest commented
    May 10, 2016 16:58

    If we can't mass delete Contacts, then we should at least be able to FILTER OUT certain TYPES of contacts, such as mass emails.  This would allow users to quickly search through MANUALLY-ENTERED contacts where there has been personal communication with a donor.

  • Guest commented
    July 21, 2016 13:19

    I agree we need to have an override of some sort for Administrators. I simply mass updated new contact journal entries to indicate a relationship touch we did with specific accounts Date/method was email/subject was Relationship Contact 2... well after we realized we should have included a note stating we emailed them a video.  when I tried to update those journal entries the system did not see my query of just 51 accounts it thought I wanted to update 1000's of contact journal entries so naturally I stopped it and thought I'd add a new entry altogether with the note and then i would just delete the original entries that did not include the note.  Well now I realize because the method and subject are required fields and cannot be used to remove that I now manually have to remove those original entries... defeats the whole mass update purpose of using remove... 

  • Admin
    Mike Rusche commented
    August 12, 2016 17:55

    I need some feedback on this.  We are looking at a way to at least "filter" out the mass added communication items (ie adding a journal contact for each mass email sent).  What are your thoughts on this?  1) Separate Tab in journal that houses these? 2) What do you need to see when you click on the mass added journal item? 3) What do you need to query and report on from mass added communications in the journal?  How many? Who it was sent to? Other?

  • Guest commented
    August 12, 2016 18:13

    I agree that mass deletion should be for administrators only.  I don't see a need for a seperate tab.  Our people want to see all the journal entries on 1 tab.  We also need a way to delete the journal entries for old contacts ourselves, we wouldn't delete the gift journal entries at all. We would need at the least contact method, type, and date (for a date range).  Just my 2 cents worth.

  • Maggi Junor commented
    August 12, 2016 18:31

    I totally agree that the administrator should be able to delete all these mass communication contacts.  I would like them to go on a separate tab because our ED likes to look at whether someone got a certain email but I would really like it not to clog up the journal.  I need to see the contacts that are actual contacts and the gifts because we use contact to track their attendance at support groups.  

  • Sarah Gudgin commented
    August 15, 2016 13:45

    I would definitely appreciate a 'mass delete' option for mistakenly populated Journal entries on e-Tapestry. I am a fairly new user myself and have made a number of mistakes whilst learning to use the new system and in order to correct my mistakes I have had to edit journal entries individually! Needless to say I was cursing the system for weeks!

    If there is a 'mass update' why is there not a 'mass delete?'.

  • Michael Skinner commented
    March 08, 2017 12:59

    Agreed, this is a needed function, there are lots of obsolete journal entries floating around that we need to get rid of.

  • Maggi Junor commented
    April 26, 2017 16:12

    I REALLY would LOVE it if we had a quicker way to delete journal entries.  As I clean up my data and merge two duplicate entries it creates double journal entries which I then have to laboriously delete one by one.  This is a major time suck when a constituent has over 150 journal entries which now just jumped to 300. I want to make sure that anything from one record that is not in the other goes into the merged record but I do not want each and every journal entry duplicated.

  • Maggi Junor commented
    28 Feb 21:46

    It says planned but how do I find out when?  This idea has been in here for three years.