Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by JoLTeam

  1. 1 hour ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

    The four year old log that was accepted being deleted as revenge would be unfair, I agree.


    I have two virtual caches that require a photo at GZ.  I do everything I can to help the cacher if they log without a photo, including sending them a link to the log, coaching them through uploading a photo, etc.  My caches say that I'll delete a log if no photo after 24 hours but I usually wait a week or so and give the cacher every chance I can.  Ultimately I just delete the log if they don't communicate back to me.  I work to be very communicative with each cacher, even asking one cacher to change a "found it" to a "write note" because they arrived when the park was closed and never made it to GZ, which they did very understandingly.


    I'll use messenger to communicate with a cacher, I won't write an email to their personal email address.  I like the messenger because it keeps the history and I can find it easily.  I don't think the OP exclusively requires an email to their email address even though the wording does sound like that, but I would take that wording out personally.

    I'll gladly help out beginning cachers, but the user I'm talking about has 45,000 finds. It's always the "high volume" cachers who complain and get bitchy  after their log gets deleted. They are so focused on getting the numbers up that they don't even read the listing. Cacher in question has logged a multitude other caches on the same day (in different areas), including two other virtuals which were logged, of course, without a photo. I'm even wondering if these aren't armchair logs. I'm sure answers of virtuals and Earthcaches (and final coordinates of unknowns and multis) are shared among "high volume" cachers... 

    • Upvote 4
  2. 11 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

    What the other cacher did is indeed unfair.  However, your virtual cache requirements do not meet the guidelines and your, well, aggressive enforcement of them is inappropriate as well.


    Two wrongs do not make a right.



    What is aggressive about requiring a photo at a certain WP with the additional requirement that something personal must be shown to prove they actually visited the location? If that's aggressive, then 95% of the virtuals are aggressive.

    The thing about the e-mail address has never been enforced "aggressively" and has been dealt with by changing the listing. I invite you to read the listing now and tell me what on it is against the guidelines.

    I have visited several virtuals in the past, not read the listing fully and thus missed one or two logging requirements. I have logged and have gotten several of these logs deleted. In my opinion, this is normal. Moreover, every CO should check the logs of his/her cache for validity. I don't see what's aggressive here.

    • Upvote 8
  3. 3 minutes ago, Keystone said:

    As for the logging dispute, HQ will sort it out.  It is possible that they'll say to let both logs stand.


    In my opinion that would be unfair.

    - My log is 4 years old and has been validated by the CO 4 years ago. Which means my log is valid, and shouldn't be suddenly invalidated years after logging.

    - Other users' log does not fulfill the logging conditions of my virtual, hence is invalid, and has been invalidated by the CO. Actually, this would cut my wings as a CO: CO's should be allowed to delete bogus logs. This IS a bogus log, since the evidence does not support the user actually visited the place.


    • Upvote 5
    • Surprised 1
    • Helpful 3
  4. 1 minute ago, Max and 99 said:



    If it's okay with you they use the message center, then why do you tell them not to do it except in rare circumstances? Telling geocachers to not use the message center, and that they must use a specific email is where you violate the guidelines for virtual rewards. You don't get to choose which method they use.

    Okay, I will change my listing, but it has been like that when it was published, and I never got a remark about it, neither at the time of publishing nor later. 

  5. 11 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

    That's not what you say on the cache listing:



    You're still missing the point. This is not about the way which answers are provided, this is about the log photo.

    What guideline says I can't have an automated e-mail system? Like I said, a small percentage of the loggers doesn't read the listing and sends a message. If their log photo is fine, that's ok for me.

  6. 3 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

    Dude, you can't do this.


    Do not contact me via the message center about the cache "Gravensteen Virtual Reward" unless you have a very good reason to do so (technical problems or a problem with the cache). Read the listing: your answers have to be sent to a specific e-mail address!


    Dude, what's the problem? If a users sends the answers via the message center, I accept the log, although I prefer the other way. Lots of owners of virtuals use a similar kind of automated mail system.

    Moreover, the reason I deleted their log was not the answers, but the log photo.

  7. I have a virtual cache which has rather strict conditions for logging. One of the conditions is that the log photo must be taken in a certain location, and that something personal must be visible in the photo. That is stated several times on the listing. User logs the cache, uploads several pictures of which none fulfill the conditions. All are at the wrong location and none of the photos show anything more than just surroundings. I delete the log, user logs again, I delete the log again.

    Four years ago I logged an EarthCache by that same user. I received log permission at the time(of which I have proof) , so all was well. Log even includes a photo with gps at the correct location. Today user says my answers for the first question is wrong, and threatens to delete my (four year old) log. I reply with the correct answer (it's a very easy question with an easily findable answer). User deletes my log stating that that is not the answer which is on the info board.

    In my book this is an obvious retalation, and very childish behaviour. I will ask HQ to reinstate my log.

    • Upvote 2
    • Funny 1
    • Surprised 3
    • Helpful 2
  8. On 8/24/2021 at 8:19 PM, JoLTeam said:

    Only one new since the start of Covid: Aland , country#37. We made a small ferry detour on our Sweden-North Cape trip.

    In '22 we're hoping to add Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro and Canada.


    Just got back from the HQ Celebration (+HQ, APE and Jasmer), and of course we've added Canada as country #40. Earlier this year we got Bosnia and Montenegro, so the goals for '22 are all achieved.

    Next year we'll try to go to Scotland, and add Isle of Man to the list.

    Aso on the short (or long)list: Costa Rica, Malta, Guernsey, Iceland, and, oh yes, San Marino!

    • Helpful 1
  9. Only one new country since the start of Covid: Aland Islands, country#37. We made a small ferry detour on our Sweden-North Cape trip.

    In '22 we're hoping to add Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro and Canada.

    Geographically closest "countries" which we don't yet have are Guernsey and Sark. But these are quite tedious to get to, especially out of the summer season.

    Countries which we might get in the following years: Iceland, Malta, San Marino, Costa Rica. And if we ever get to make that Caribbean cruise...


    • Upvote 1
  10. I would love to see Virtual rewards 3.0 focus on Webcam caches, but of course there shouldn't be as many as 4000, like the Virtual Rewards 2.0. 400 would be a viable number, since the amount of Webcam Caches would then triple, which would make them a tad less rare, but still very rare and thus interesting.

    • Upvote 1
    • Funny 2
    • Helpful 1
  11. Small steps this year, indeed. We were due for Bosnia, Montenegro and Canada (border hop) + 9 US states (4 week RV camping trip)  this year, but we got none of that.

    Even Guernsey was off limits.

    Instead we got a bunch of new Swiss Cantons and German Landkreise. Which is nice of course.

  12. Last week we were on a Baltic cruise and grabbed countries #35 and #36 (Finland and Russia). We were glad there are two virtuals and an EC in Saint-Petersburg (and at very touristy locations) , otherwise we wouldn't have been able to grab a cache there (we were visaless and thus condemned to a guided excursion). 

  13. 18 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:


    PLEASE post a link to that log. Not out of any salacious intent, but out of real interest. I'd seriously like to know how they dealt with it and how, if at all, they chose to share the experience.


    Yes, I could go through your hides, but I'm asking, in case you don't want this discussed further. Personally, I think it's very much on-topic for this thread.


    Well, they chose to not mention anything in their log. They just chose to share the experiency orally.

    And I just disabled the cache for a month, and afterwards reactivated the cache.

    The guy's family erected a small memorial at the tree, and that memorial is mentioned several times in the logs afterwards.

  14. Actually, friends of ours found a dead body at GZ of one of our caches. The cache is on a trail which isn't used much (in an otherwise urban area) and a guy hung himself on the tree where our cache is hidden. The guy was dead for almost a week when he was found... Needless to say, our friends were - and still are - a bit traumatized. They actually thought, upon arriving, that the guy was logging the cache, as he was "leaning" against the tree...


    • Upvote 2
    • Surprised 1
  • Create New...