Handle a guest who submits the same inquiry twice

The decision this workflow supports

A slow connection or unclear receipt can lead someone to submit again. Staff need a way to recognize likely duplicates without assuming that every similar request is accidental or discarding a genuine update.

Put the review process in place

Review matching contact and event details within a sensible period chosen by the owner. Compare the content before merging anything. Keep the later message if it contains a correction, and let one reviewer own the response so the guest does not receive contradictory follow-ups.

Worked example for your team

A fictional organizer submits an inquiry, sees no clear receipt and sends it again with a corrected contact number. Staff should recognize the likely relationship while preserving the correction. Compare both records before choosing the current contact and assign one response owner. A simple identical-name rule would be insufficient because the second message contains new information. Ask the reviewer to explain the link between the records and the reason for any merge. The guest should not receive two inconsistent follow-ups or lose the update they were trying to provide.

Sample wording to approve

“If you already sent this inquiry and need to add something, include the earlier reference if you have it. The team can review the messages together and confirm the next step.” This wording is a draft for the restaurant owner to approve before use.

Fields for the staff handoff

Staff need possible matching reference, submission times, changed details, merge decision, and response owner. Mark uncertain details explicitly and keep the requested action separate from anything restaurant staff have already confirmed.

Acceptance tests before use

A repeated inquiry has one assigned responder. A changed event date is not discarded. Staff can see why two records were linked. Record the observed result, assign any mismatch, and repeat the affected scenario after correction.

Related guides