LFC4eva

It wasn't intended as a serious suggestion - just on a par with the OP wanting a tick box to confirm the log has been signed. I'm not pedantic enough to require proof of signature / proof of visit etc. and if a group of cachers find my caches together I am more than happy for them to sign in as a team with one signature - and that would apply even for high D/T caches. If a finder posts a photo log for whatever reason, then that's fine too.

Maybe there also needs to be photographic evidence requirement on high D/T caches too so that everyone in the group can be seen *actually* at the cache location and signed the log for themselves? After all, anyone can sign someone else's name on a log sheet - they don't even have to be there. On a serious note - there is no need for a tick box at all. Not all CO's are pedantic and most are quite happy to accept photo proof of finding a cache. Those that are pedantic can exercise their right to delete the log. Problem solved.

I'm sorry you have suffered at the hands of cyber-bullies - these cowards really are despicable.. but believe me, I wouldn't ever use these words in a trivial manner. Cyber-bullying can take many forms, and when someone embarks on a deliberate and sustained vendetta against someone they have never met, using social media, in my eyes, that is cyber-bullying.. and while I understand your desire to defend your friend, I am surprised that someone who has been a victim of this kind of torment them-self would try and justify these actions and pass them off as something trivial.

He must have edited it when he realised he couldn't spell. Funny thing is there is no regional infighting as such, I don't think the two have ever met.. it's just a geostalking troll who uses the forum to try and get the community to rubber stamp his vendetta by agreeing with him.. and the sad thing is this forum is facilitating this cyber-bullying by allowing him to use this platform, despite the fact that personal attacks are against the TOU. Maybe he can hide behind the fact that he hasn't actually named names.. but everyone local to the OP knows exactly who he is referring to and even those across the pond have their suspicions. It was an interesting discussion though. We all have our favourites whether that be cache types / containers / locations. One man's meat is another man's poison.

It's not just CO's who can be abusive and insulting.. some cachERS feel the need to behave that way too. I had a couple of unfound EC's on my watchlist (potential FTF's) and only last week a local cacher posted a Write Note one each which said (FTRN) is that a project GC statistic another boring earth cache answers to follow - how rude when an ECO has gone to the effort of putting together an interesting earth science lesson for others to enjoy - especially when it later transpired that the cacher slating them as boring, hadn't been anywhere near GZ. I've no problem with anyone preferring a traditional to an Earthcache.. but if Earthcaches don't float your boat.. ignore them. Don't belittle the efforts of Earthcache owners just because they aren't your thing. In answer to the OP - I have no preference. There are good and bad in all cache types.. and variety is the spice of life. One of the great things about geocaching is that it caters for everyone, whatever your preference. As an aside.. does anyone know what the acronym FTRN means? It's not one I have come across before.

And who would be the judge? An automated system like the one which allocated the virtual rewards - some of which were poorly chosen? How would one know whether an OM has been applied appropriately without visiting the cache? I'm sure it's not just in my area where hider clear the OM almost immediately - some say "will sort this out".. others say they have performed maintenance when they haven't been anywhere near the cache. It would be a lot of effort for the volunteer reviewers to police and an automated system couldn't possibly know if the OM is genuine. Some NA logs are posted in error by newbies and are absolutely unnecessary - it would be harsh if one was excluded from the *top hiders* list because of that.. some NA logs are posted out of spite. I had a NA log posted on one of my tricky puzzles because a searcher (who hadn't solved the puzzle) couldn't find the cache. I deleted the log.. but I don't think it disappears from the system completely so would I be excluded until next year? Already, because of the CHS - which, for the record, I think is a good idea and I don't mind the automated emails telling me my cache *may* need maintenance after a couple of DNF's - some CO's are actively encouraging folk NOT to post a DNF unless they know for sure the cache isn't there and if you dare to post a NM you are publicly vilified on social media and at events. Imagine how much worse it will be if there is a "top hider" statistic at stake. In my experience, once you turn something into a competition it doesn't always bring out the best in people. Sure, some hiders will up their game and that can only be a good thing.. but those who are already reacting badly to the CHS will be even worse.

You could always just activate them and keep them in your collection / take them to events for others to discover. You score the points for activating - you would get anything extra for *dropping* them because you only earn points for dropping trackables which you don't own.

Thank goodness this wasn't touted as a suggestion in the survey.. anything which gives CO's the ability to make their caches *exclusive* only those folk they like would be a huge step in the wrong direction. Back on topic.. I completed the survey last night and while I thought that some of the questions were pertinent to improving cache quality I found others quite bizarre. Unlimited Favourite Points for example. I'm not sure how that might help with cache quality. I am by no means a prolific cacher.. in fact this year I am on target to have my poorest tally since 2010 but I do have 116 FP's in the bank for when I find caches which are deserving... and I'm not stingy with them either. The only thing having an unlimited number of FP's would encourage is folk handing them out willy nilly just because the can. The thing about FP's is they don't automatically indicate quality. One man's meat is another man's poison.. and after finding a cache with 100's of FP's which turned out to be a magnetic nano hidden behind a green box which was stuffed with rubbish and dirty cobwebs I decided that was the last time I would seek a cache just because of it's FP reputation. On paper it looked like the *must do* cache in that particular city.. in reality it was a big disappointment. I quite like the idea of non-premium cachers being able to award FP's though. I also like the suggestion that hiders would need to sort any issues with their current caches before they can place more.. but not in an automated way. There can be many legitimate reasons why a cache is disabled which the CO has no control over so it would be unfair if they were suspended from hiding because of it. But if the issues are genuine maintenance issues.. lots of NM's because the cache is in a poor state / long term disabled after a string of DNF's.. those issues should be sorted before any more caches are placed. Giving status to those deemed to be *quality* hiders? Really? This was by far the worst suggestion put forward. Who is going to judge which hiders deserve recognition? The FP system is already flawed.. the automated virtual rewards offered last year was poorly implemented. A recipe for disaster IMHO.

I'm not sure the promotion will result in more trackables released to the public.. You earn the points by activating them.. you get nowt for dropping them other than disappointment when they go missing. I have half a dozen or more beautiful coins which I haven't yet activated.. so that's 60 points sorted. They won't be going anywhere though.. they will sit in my collection like the rest of my most recent coin purchases. I'm not releasing them to be stolen a few months down the line.

I can't imagine what kind of conflicts might occur while completing that particular logging task.. walk past the shop, check the colour of the floor with the slightest of head movements and move on. The company and employees - I expect - would be more than happy to have as many folk as possible visiting their store.. unless they might complain that the geocaching folk are spending too much time looking at the floor instead of their best lingerie. If there are geocachers who are uncomfortable about fulfilling that particular task - perhaps it could have been suggested you make it optional - after all, there are 7 more questions to satisfy the logging tasks... or better still, they could just not bother looking for that Earthcache at all.. not ALL cachES are for ALL cachERS. This store is not a family friendly store front - I'm quite sure that if that were the case they would be expected to have blacked out windows because there must be thousands of families walk past that shop front every single day. Is there really something distasteful about a plastic model wearing underwear or pyjamas? The mind boggles.

It beggars belief that an Earthcache which has been active for over 2 years / has had 52 finders and awarded 20 Favourite Points can be deemed NOT *family friendly*.. just because you need to look at the floor in a lingerie shop! Heck you could answer the question after walking past with nothing more than a side-ways glance if it bothered you that much. I can't imagine how many times me and my kids have been shopping for underwear.. doesn't every family? Are we supposed to leave the kids at home if we are visiting *that kind of shop*? It's that kind of mentality that turns something as innocent as a lingerie shop into something less innocent.

How do we determine *correct procedures* in a game which we all play our own way.. within the guidelines? For example, to keep on topic with FTF's.. in my area if a cacher arrives at GZ after a cache has been found but the cache and/or logbook are still in the hands of the person who FOUND it.. the FTF will offer to share the FTF and I've not known many (if any) who reject the offer and log a 2TF.. but if we are playing to the letter of the law (a law which doesn't exist coz we only have guidelines and they don't give guidance on FTF's) the cacher who arrived 2nd shouldn't claim a Joint FTF because they weren't even there when the cache was found. How about group caching at events? In my area we have monthly events which have caches published mid event and a group of cachers dash out to find them. Sometimes it's a large group and those at the front sign the logbook with a team name and ALL in attendance deem it a Joint FTF, despite some of them never having seen the cache, let alone the log book!

Nail on head... YAWN... same old petty vendetta. Not your cache = not your business. Build a bridge and get over it.

Not strictly accurate.. From one direction, the first cache she came to is disabled and presumed missing.. the 2nd cache she logged a DNF.. the 3rd cache is the one you have posted above. Maybe when she realised she didn't have a pen she called it a day and decided to take her son to look at the deer instead? Maybe he's a very young child and after walking half a mile he was fed up and wanted to return to the car.. or maybe she hasn't finished logging yet. Edited to add.. she is quite a new cacher with only a handful of finds. It looks like a devious hide - maybe you could ask her to describe it to prove she was there and explain that you are usually a stickler for the rules and had she not been a newbie with young child you would have deleted her log.

Instruct / Request Potato / Potahto If a logbook disappears before you have the opportunity to verify the signature, it is not necessarily a bogus on-line log.. it could be a perfectly legitimate find and just because the finder didn't take a photo of their signature as instructed you have no proof that they didn't and IMHO the onus should be on you to justify deleting their log.

Please, be logical. I do not require the photo, so there is no additional requirement. There is always some delay between signing the logbook and verifying that it is signed. If, for any reason, I do not see the signature when verifying the logbook, I will delete the bogus on-line log as I have promised. I have no other options or otherwise there is no meaning to verify signatures from the logbook at all if real signatures are as good as imaginary ones. I was being perfectly logical.. though in light of the post below I think I may have misunderstood the full scenario. I can understand you deleting bogus on-line logs where you have verified there is no signature in the logbook - that is your right as a CO - although IMHO if someone has a photo of the logbook showing all the other signatures as a proof they visited and held the logbook, then that should be enough proof of a find. But in the case of a missing logbook, where a cache has been muggled and the logbook is not available, I think the onus is on you to prove that the online find is bogus - and if you can't do that, you have no right to delete the log. Groundspeak do not allow ALR's so it is unreasonable of you to request that finders show photographic proof of their signature. IMHO. However, that said - I am now thinking this is some kind of puzzle container where the logbook may not be easily accessible.. in which case I can understand why you may request it and as a finder, I would probably oblige - just in case.

Blimey - and I thought the OP was a pedant. I don't believe there is anywhere in the guidelines / rules which says that one must PROVE they signed the log book. Asking finders to take a photo of the official logbook showing their signature so they have proof is an ALR and if you are so bothered that someone might be able to take advantage of a muggle stealing the evidence of their *non-signature* then might I suggest that the onus is on YOU to check the logbook after EVERY online log is submitted.

Per your original statement, this was part of the original instructions. I'm not saying your a bad person, or that you would even carry through on such a threat, but it's likely this single sentence that got the attention of the EC Reviewer. Since Logging Requirements are backed up by documentation in the Guidelines and Help Center, such threats of deletion are pointless, and by no means improve the chances of people actually following your instructions. Apologies if this is a daft question - but are you saying that an Earthcache Owner is NOT allowed to deleted logs if they don't receive any answers to the logging tasks? I appreciate the guidelines don't specifically say that they can.. but they do say: People do not need to wait for permission to log your EarthCache. Requiring someone to wait is not supported by the EarthCache guidelines. People should send their logging task answers to you, then log your EarthCache. This suggests that there is an correct procedure - send answers first.. then log - which is exactly what the OP requested in his initial submission. The guidelines then go on to say: When you review their logging task answers, if there is a problem, you should contact them to resolve it. If there is no problem, then their log simply stands. Which is perfectly reasonable.. But what if there is a problem? I would say not receiving any answers at all IS a problem - and as a ECO I wouldn't expect to have to send more than one reminder before deleting - in reality I usually send two, but them my EC is not visited very often so I am not having to keep track of who has / hasn't sent any answers. Or is it simply a case of you are allowed to delete a log if no answers are received but you aren't allowed to say that on the cache page?

Ah.. that's OK then. Selective permissions depending on what mood the CO is in.. No wonder that family with the 8 year old were confused. They see that others are allowed to log a find despite finding nowt.. even though *the rules* state that you *must* find the cache AND sign the log to claim a find online.. but when they found the cache but were unable to sign the log for whatever reason, so they took a photo as proof.. but this CO doesn't allow photo logs so their log is deleted. IMHO you either stick to the rules rigidly, no exceptions, no matter who you are or what the circumstances.. or you allow a little leeway depending on the circumstances. The should be no wishy-washy middle ground depending on which side of the bed you got out of.

It's not often I am speechless.. but on this occasion I am on two counts.. 1. That a *private* message is shared on a public forum 2. That a CO, who is usually so critical of anyone who in his opinion is cache police, could be so pedantic over something so trivial despite knowing that the guilty party is a child.. I'm also slightly bemused by the fact that such a stickler for the rules would allow several of their caches to be logged virtually because they were missing.. How is it OK from some cachers to log a find despite not even finding the cache.. yet others who find the cache and take a photo of it are labeled lazy cheats? @CHEZRASCALS

Blimey - are you stalking me? That's exactly what happened to me today.. I left the house, knowing I was going caching but I arrived at GZ and didn't have a pen/pencil to sign the log, so I posted a photo log. In my defence - the above isn't entirely accurate. I did have a pencil case full of pens in my car - I just forgot to take one with me when I set off on my walk. I blame too many birthdays and the fact I'm not and never will be perfect. I've been geocaching for almost 10 years and that is the first time that has EVER happened - and I did state in my log that I would sign it next time I was passing.. and contrary to your belief, while I might be disappointed if my log were deleted, there would be no complaints. I know the rules.. but I must admit than in my 10 years of geocaching, I have never known a CO who was pedantic enough to delete a find when a photo was provided as proof.

I'm glad you think we did the right thing.. however, looking at the wider picture, was it the right thing to do? The CO hasn't found a cache for over two years. They moved away from the North West several years ago and since then haven't maintained a single one of the caches they left behind. Of their 58 owned caches - all but 4 are now archived, many of them were served notice by the reviewer and archived by him because his request that the cache was checked by the CO was ignored. Of their 58 owned caches - 36 of them have a red wrench (many of them have several DNF's and NM logs) all of which have been ignored. Of their 4 remaining active caches, 3 have a red wrench going back months. One of them is a nation-wide counties quest which holds information for a final.. this was a soggy mess with the numbers for the final unreadable for several months until a previous finder performed community maintenance on it.. so yes, there is a shiny new cache in place and cachers can continue to gather information for the final, but the red wrench will never be cleared.. and the abandoned cache will continue to limp along until the next time. I fully understand that the grid-fillers NEED these old caches for their grids.. but at what cost? New cachers like the OP being disappointed to find a pile of junk.. cache saturation because no matter how bad the condition of the cache we are urged to embrace *community spirit* and clean them up rather than post a NM and allow them ultimately to be archived by the reviewer, thus freeing up a nice spot for someone who cares to place a new cache there.

I don't actually believe that any automated algorithm could evaluate a "good maintenance history" sufficiently - but it would be a shame to see cachers with a poor maintenance history being rewarded. To me, having a good maintenance history would mean acting promptly to any issues on your caches. Of course in reality, any CO can respond immediately to a NM log by posting an OM log despite not going anywhere near the cache. Example Owner Maintenance log I see regularly - "I'll sort it out soon" "It's not my fault the log is wet" "if the DNF's keep mounting up this will be archived" None of the above are active maintenance so unless there is going to be some human input during the algorithm process, it's not going to work. I would hope the algorithm can distinguish between a Reviewer Note and a Reviewer Disable Listing / Reviewer Archive log. Not if it is implemented correctly it wouldn't. A remote cache with 5 finds and 5 favourite points has exactly the same percentage FP's as the frequently visiting cache which has 1000 finds and 1000 FP's. What I would hope to avoid is the algorithm seeking out CO's with high volumes of FP's scattered over high volumes of hides. e.g. 2000 FP's when you own 1000 caches is not a high percentage FP's.. you might have 10 caches which are frequently visited which receive a high percentage of FP's and 990 mediocre caches which receive none. Yes - hosting / attending CITO events shows you have a genuine desire to give something back to the community and the environment.. something which should be actively encouraged.

That's interesting. I know of at least one sock puppet account which is a regular on the forums.. they've never posted anything but they usually appear soon after the genuine account has posted something. As for the OP.. Good maintenance history No reviewer intervention - maintenance reminders / archiving High percentage of FP's to owned caches ratio Regular CITO host / attendee

I suspect that is one of the reasons why virtuals were phased out in the first place.. once quality goes out of the window *oh look there is a statue of someone - go and visit it and take a photo of you and your GPS* with little or no thought into making the visit / cache page interesting.. they become nothing more than a smiley for the sake of a smiley. I haven't done many Virtuals.. but my favourite would have to be the one I did for my 5000th milestone cache.. https://coord.info/GLQPKW5P not long and complicated with numerous stages, but something which involved a nice and interesting walk of around a mile between the two stages. My 2nd favourite would be this one https://coord.info/GL6952TK which could come under your *single photo virtual* criteria.. but it took around 8 hours to get there and back.. and considerably more effort than the new two stage Virtual you consider a poor example simply because it has two stages which are 4 minutes walk apart.