Hi,
Lately I found I cannot delete bad or unnecessary results in my station observation lists…
I am pretty sure I could delete them before…
Anybody knows why?
Thanks…
I noticed the little trashcan is gone.
But I also noticed there are now “hotkeys”! (awesome work, SatNogs team!!!)
One of the hotkeys is “x”, delete.
–Roy
K3RLD
On a recent features push (2 days ago) we removed the functionality to delete already done observations (observations that are in the past). The logic behind this, is that there should be no reason for someone to delete observations regardless of their result (even failed and bad) since those are the recorded history of the station (and/or the satellite) and should be accounted for in our statistics and automated systems (for monitoring and alerting).
If there is a particular reason that a specific observation needs to be deleted (e.g. privacy concern - although highly improbable due to the bands we are monitoring) an observer or station owner an contact the SatNOGS admin by opening a new thread in this forum.
Of course the functionality to delete scheduled observations remains unchanged with its applicable permissions matrix.
@K3RLD hotkeys are available in other places too 
look out for the little flame icon 
2 Likes
In some cases I take my station offline but have no time to delete the already scheduled observations. With the current implementation those would have to be marked as failed, even though they should be deleted.
1 Like
Good point and indeed this is a valid scenario. I think we should address this with a UX/functionality feature that would make it easy to put the station in a “stand-alone / not networked” mode and automatically delete future scheduled obs. How does this sound?
2 Likes
I think it’s rather a bad idea not being able to delete ‘already done observations’.
Firstly, for example, when something causes the GS to fail, ie RTL-SDR suffers USB disconnect, the resultant observation is invalid. False data gets uploaded to the server.
Secondly, when a user schedules 2 observations for the same satellite, at the same time, ie tkale does this, both observations fail.
Bring the Trash Can back, please Let GS owners have control 
The first concern is handed by making it as failed. Pretty simple.
Second part is sort of rare unless there is some new bug.
It’s pointless having a GS fail observation in the system, even if it’s marked as fail.
As I understand, the fail is then recorded against the Satellite. This then gives false statistics, especially when the GS failed, not lack of signal etc from the satellite.
“user schedules 2 observations for the same satellite, at the same time” happened recently quite regularly, over multiple GS’s.
Not at all. Observations marked as “failed” are not taken into account for transmitter (thus satellite) statistics.
A refresher on how we calculate stats now:
Ground Station: Good+Bad = Success, Failed = Failure, Unknown = Orange
Transmitter (and satellite): Good = Success, Bad = Failure, Unknown = Orange (Failed are not included).
This might change in the future but this is what we have now.
1 Like
Should not have happened in the past ~2 months (since @fredy worked on the scheduling checks). Please report anything you see.
Regardless, whether or not we have a delete button for past observations should not be dependent on bugs or bad UX we might have. Instead we should focus on solving those 
A post was split to a new topic: Overlapping scheduled observations
Cool, thanks.
Good to know how it works
1 Like
Good Evening,
I read all the messages until here.
Removing the “Delete” ability from the station owner is kind of violation of the personal space and rights for me.
I own this station, I built it, I put it on the service for the public work.
It is not sounds right if someone decide to remove part of my ownership rights on my station.
If you are not happy with the results provided thru my station, I am sorry but it is your problem not mine and I strongly suggest you to think about this immature decision that you made.
Again, I built this station, I spend sources on it (money, time, energy, etc) and it is still using my sources while I am writing these lines.
It is hard to understand for me how do you think that you have limit my abilities on mu own station?
And please do not forget, I can use almost same hardware for something more beneficial for me.
I believe that decision kind of shooting yourself on your own foot.
Please re-consider the decision that you made again and I hope your will fix it back immediately.
Also please do not forget this is a volunteer project for us…
Best regards…
2 Likes
I wish to state that I don’t see how not being able to deleted observations that have already happened. (AKA finished) affects your abilities to use your own station.
You can still freely delete observations before they happen. (AKA before your station is used)
I personally. (As a station owner) don’t understand how removing finished (And already uploaded and no longer using time on your system) observations helps either that station owner or satnogs as a whole.
Plus I am not sure how you extend ownership rights of your station to the observations that are once uploaded under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
Unless your goal is so you station can always look like 100% instead of reflecting its actually reliability.
An analogy to this in my opinion is me uploading something somewhere and calming not being able to delete it is someone taking away my rights to the computer system I uploaded it from.
Which makes no sense.
Good Evening,
How come…
Is this the idea that you get from my objection, wow, what can I say, we are definitely not talking about the same thing.
Best…
Then explain what you mean. Your post before mine didn’t explain anything about why not being able to delete observations that has all ready finished causes any problems. All you did was claim that it somehow (without you explaining either) limited your rights to use your own station.
Good Evening,
I read all the messages until here.
Removing the “Delete” ability from the station owner is kind of violation of the personal space and rights for me.
I own this station, I built it, I put it on the service for the public work.
It is not sounds right if someone decide to remove part of my ownership rights on my station.
If you are not happy with the results provided thru my station, I am sorry but it is your problem not mine and I strongly suggest you to think about this immature decision that you made.
Again, I built this station, I spend sources on it (money, time, energy, etc) and it is still using my sources while I am writing these lines.
It is hard to understand for me how do you think that you have limit my abilities on mu own station?
And please do not forget, I can use almost same hardware for something more beneficial for me.
I believe that decision kind of shooting yourself on your own foot.
Please re-consider the decision that you made again and I hope your will fix it back immediately.
Also please do not forget this is a volunteer project for us…
I agree with you 100% @ta2ank.
I have considered turning off my 2 GS’s due to this latest ‘crippling of abilities’. It adds to my list of poor implementations. SatNOGS should reverse this decision unless they want to lose more volunteers.
Can someone please explain to me how its a crippling of abilities it still confuses me.
Like you can still delete observations before they happen. I don’t understand why people care so much about them after the fact.
Simple.
GS owners should have the right and capability to delete ANY observation made on THEIR system, REGARDLESS of time.
@ta2ank this is an aggressive post that was unnecessary imho.
Maybe there is a misunderstanding here, but this is not a functionality of the station.
Network functionalities (for example: the Permission Matrix) are not related to the station functionality itself.
I am a board and founding member of Libre Space Foundation, and SatNOGS is also a volunteer project for me (and the vast majority of its developers and all of its users).
@Zathras I would consider this an enhancement of abilities since we are able to better see the statistics and actual usage of the stations. Also you are talking about a list of poor implementations, yet I cannot find any issues you opened in our tracking system. Please consider making your list public so we can all improve SatNOGS through constructive feedback and public discourse.
My only comment here would be that you should have used “we” instead of “they”.
This opens up the excellent discussion around ground station ownership and data ownership (which are two separate things imho. ). For the sake of clarity I will open up a new thread expressing some views of the LSF board will inviting feedback from all SatNOGS station owners. Such a discussion needs also framing around the perceived vision of SatNOGS and as much wide input as possible from all owners, users and developers.
ps. Please abstain from raised tones and aggression posts in this forum. cc @KD9KCK, @Zathras, @ta2ank thanks!
1 Like