DubbleG

I don't agree with any of this. There was no messaging system until fairly recently, only email. How would opting out of messaging impact the ability to provide answers to Earthcaches or Virtuals via email? In addition, conceivably, the CO of caches requiring feedback wouldn't opt out. And the mere fact that I can block some users means that there are valid cases to do so. All I'm saying is that it would nice to be able to do it as a default rather than having to block individuals.

I think it would be a nice enhancement to be able to "opt out" of messaging or, better still, provide a list of cachers that are allowed to contact you. (e.g. friends list). Or does that already exist and I just missed it?

In the strictest sense I agree with you that the 'rights' are the same. Just because you "can" do something doesn't mean that you "should". From a societal perspective I would disagree. I was taught "if you don't have something nice to say don't say anything at all". So expressing a positive opinion, solicited or not, would be OK but expressing a negative would be frowned upon. It is more than likely that the wording of the PM is what set me off and started all this. However, I still feel it is wrong to send an unsolicited critique to someone you don't know and who has not expressed interest in feedback. I'm clearly in the minority here with regard to what is appropriate with regard to unsolicited feedback. As I was the one who instigated this little "fact finding" inquiry I have to suck it up and accept that.

Irony - absolutely! Where's the hypocrisy? (Seriously, I don't see it and would like to know).

Interesting. When you put it like that I have to consider that, yes, my objection is more related to "messaging" and the appropriate use of it. My original post started with "I had a cacher that I've never met or even corresponded with send me a message..." and what I find objectionable is that he had the nerve to make an unsolicited comment about my log. I suppose "technically" it is his business since my log was "public domain" but I think he is wrong inasmuch as he stepped over the line once he PM'd me. I'll have to think about it a bit more but I do appreciate the perspective. I also am somewhat bemused to find that I got caught up in the argument and lost sight of the original issue

His unsolicited comments were expressed via PM, not via the logs, so that does not apply.

So I can just walk up to you and give you my unsolicited opinion that I don't like your shirt and that's OK because you're wearing it in public? Again, there are no absolutes. We have freedom of speech in this country but I can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. There are limits. Clearly we are at an impasse so at this point I am bowing out of this bickering because it is pointless.

Things aren't always as black and white as you're making them out to be. Something doesn't have to be %100 one or the other. But perhaps we are getting caught up in semantics. How about I restate it as it is "bad form" to critique another person's log that is not in violation of the guidelines and rude to PM someone out of the blue to express unrequested criticism. Again, public vs. private is moot. The issue, to me, is that he had no business making a comment in the first place. It was none of his business. And you're incorrect about the person having had no choice. He had one that he disregarded - to keep his mouth shut. Yes, posting on the logs is a rule violation but not posting and not messaging would have been just fine. Was it "Pearl Harbor"? No. A spitball in class is still an attack of sorts and, again, one that shouldn't have been made in the first place. Maybe if he needed to approach the "highest court in the land" he would have thought twice about spouting off. As things stand it is apparently too easy for anyone to express their unwanted opinions. A PM isn't like these forums where one has an option to participate or not.

Having forgotten to unsubscribe to this thread I saw this and had to reply. (I guess I'm not yet ready to "sign off" on this topic ) The short answer to your question is "I would rather the criticism not have been made at all since it was none of their business to do so in the first place." If the CO is unhappy with a log then they are within their rights to comment. If someone else isn't happy then they can raise an issue with Groundspeak but shouldn't directly contact the logger. That is the crux of my argument. I should note that even the CO has restrictions. I had a CO delete one of my logs because they were not happy with the opinion I expressed. They didn't refute my find, just didn't like that I felt their cache placement was disrespectful. I relogged my original statement and told them that if they removed it again that I would take it up with Groundspeak myself. They then proceeded to encrypt my log .

In rereading the messages on this thread I've come to the conclusion that I have not properly expressed my thoughts about "privacy" with logs. I may have actually made things worse with a bad analogy. Hopefully I can restate things better here... Logs are "public" inasmuch as as they are in an open forum and available for anyone to read. Logs are "private" in that it isn't anybody's business to critique another person's log (unless they are violating the regulations). Doing so via PM is, to me, more egregious as they are then moving the conversation from a public forum to a private one. The CO and the log author should, IMO, be the only ones to comment on a log's contents. Obviously that isn't absolute inasmuch as other logs may reference helpful information, or refute incorrect information, in other logs. I took offense at the tone of the PM which I felt was an unwarranted attack on a my innocuous log. Silly, in retrospect, but I'm human and entitled to having a bad day. I still have no regrets about my log nor about blocking the cacher who felt he had the right to stick his nose where it wasn't wanted nor warranted. At this point further discussion isn't likely to change my thinking so I will close by thanking you for your opinions on the topic and will "sign off" from this thread. Happy Caching!

I would equate this to two people having a conversation on a plane. While the conversation may be overheard by others, I would consider it rude for someone to barge in with their opinion where it wasn't asked for. That's what the individual who sent the PM did. He made it worse by doing so in the manner he did but even had it been done in a nicer manner it was still unwelcome. The key with what you wrote is "politely join in" which he most certainly did not. That's probably what set me off in the first place. Had it been a "nice note" I likely would've ignored it. From the perspective of whether or not he was wrong to send the PM in the first place we will simply have to agree to disagree. (I wonder if it is a generational thing. Today people seem to have a lot less sense of privacy than my generation. I'm not saying that as a criticism, just as an observation. I also think people are much too free in how they express themselves online. I doubt anyone would say something like that to a total stranger if it were face to face.) I do feel somewhat vindicated inasmuch as the general consensus seems to be that his PM was a bit over the top compared to my original, unedited post.

A number of replies want the "whole picture" and rather than post numerous, individual, replies I think it is easier just to provide a link to the cache where my log can be read. Cache with log

There was nothing in my log that I wanted private. Yes, anyone can read the log. What I felt was wrong/rude was for someone who doesn't even know me to sent an unsolicited PM with their opinion of my log.

No, it's not okay. I would have suggested that they mind their own business.... then block them from my message center. Exactly what I did

I had a cacher that I've never met or even corresponded with send me a message which read as follows: My opinion is that a log is between the author and the CO and nobody else's business (assuming, of course, it adheres to the guidelines). I found it quite rude that someone I don't know would PM me with such a snarky message. I was wondering if others think it is OK to message a complete stranger and offer up an unsolicited opinion on their log.

There are a couple of COs in my area that don't maintain their caches. I grew tired of finding containers with mold, pulpy logs, etc. and now just ignore their caches.

A new cache had been placed and I headed out to find it. I met up with another cacher also seeking the FTF and we teamed up to find what was listed as a unique container. I eventually found what I thought was the container. It seemed like it "had to be" but neither of us could find a way to open it so we discounted it and continued looking. I actually thought it was a piece of trash and took it with me to discard with some other debris I found lying about. After an extensive search turned up nothing I took another look at the "trash" and decided what I'd found must be the cache. I decided I had to see what was inside figuring if it was garbage I could do no harm. In forcing it open I damaged the container. The damage was unintentional but definitely beyond "normal wear and tear" and I apologized to the CO in my log. A day or two later I got an email from the CO asking me to pay for a replacement. I agreed to do so, feeling it was the right thing to do, but I'm curious what the greater community thinks. Isn't damage to a container part of the risk a CO takes in placing a cache? Should a seeker be responsible for unintended damage?

I was performing my monthly GSAK cleanup to remove recently archived caches and, purely by chance, noticed one which I'm convinced is the cache in question. I reviewed all the logs and must say that there was no reason for this to be archived in the first place. Some quotes: I interpret the log itself to meet the requirement of "other type of log". Frankly, this should never have even been considered by the reviewer. Here's the original NA request: No reason listed and why would you not post a NM if that were all that were required? Then it gets worse... So now we're archiving caches because one cacher took offense at some good-natured teasing? All I know is that I will make it a point to go after this one, archived or not, as long as it is still physically there to be found. I hope never to run into the cacher (yes, I know who he is) who put in the NA requests.

I keep an eye on caches that I logged a DNF for so I know when to return to try again. Either I missed it the first time and a subsequent "found" will tell me I need to return to look harder or a string of DNFs will confirm that it wasn't my failing eyesight . On occasion I run across a log that says something like this one: The date in the log predates the first of a string of DNFs but the date of the log itself is after them. I won't debate whether or not the cache was actually found but I do think that it is quite misleading to log it months later and not set the date of the actual find. That changes the appearance of the cache from one that has a string of DNFs to one that was recently found. I find it quite rude since now the CO and potential cachers may be led to believe a cache is available when it really is MIA. Thoughts?

Are people still harping over that? Well, then lets just modify the quote to be a little more accurate so it reads "I see the cache in the tree but can't reach it so I will log as a find as was previously done for this cache w/o repercussion". The gripe was as much an inconsistent application of the rules as anything else. "But officer, everyone speeds on this road. Why are you giving me a ticket? So 2 cars are speeding on the same road and it is OK to pull one over but not the other? Giving the ticket isn't the problem, giving it out arbitrarily to one speeder while allowing the other to speed is the issue. No, the problem is justifying breaking the law/rules because someone was doing it and managed to get away with it. To take the 2 cars speeding scenario to geocaching, suppose there are two caches hiding up in two different trees (which require climbing to retrieve the container) owned by two different geocachers. Someone goes to both cache locations, spots the caches from the ground, doesn't climb the trees to retrieve them, but logs a found it on both of them. The cache owner on the first one lets the find stand, but the owner of the second one deletes the found it log after reading the finder didn't even touch the container. In order to be consistent one of the two cache owners would need to change how they feel about how others log their cachers. Shouldn't each cache owner get to decide how they apply the "sign the log sheet, log a find" guideline? Absolutely. Each CO should decide how they apply the rule for their caches (within reason - I'm not advocating removing signed logs on a whim). What I'm saying is that the CO should apply the rule consistently. Whether or not they want to accept or reject the unsigned finds is up to them. But the situation that originated that other thread was one in which the same CO applied his rules differently to two cachers which is simply unfair. I don't have an issue with not accepting the log, I do have an issue with them accepting it for one cacher and not another. Either it is OK to not sign for everybody or it isn't for anybody. I don't think I can be clearer than that.

Are people still harping over that? Well, then lets just modify the quote to be a little more accurate so it reads "I see the cache in the tree but can't reach it so I will log as a find as was previously done for this cache w/o repercussion". The gripe was as much an inconsistent application of the rules as anything else. "But officer, everyone speeds on this road. Why are you giving me a ticket? So 2 cars are speeding on the same road and it is OK to pull one over but not the other? Giving the ticket isn't the problem, giving it out arbitrarily to one speeder while allowing the other to speed is the issue.

Are people still harping over that? Well, then lets just modify the quote to be a little more accurate so it reads "I see the cache in the tree but can't reach it so I will log as a find as was previously done for this cache w/o repercussion". The gripe was as much an inconsistent application of the rules as anything else.

I definitely think your locale has a huge impact on your numbers. I have 600 caches to my name and am not even close to the top of the list in my area. Here in SouthEastern PA there are several dozen cachers with over a thousand and at least one that I've met with over 30,000. Of course you need to factor in what constitutes a "found" cache and how legit the finds are. For instance, one cacher with 2000+ has a log that reads "I did not find this cache, but after water, mud, stinging nettles. I'm logging it. It appers to be gone. I searched for about an hour. Figured for what I went through to get there I wasn't giving up. Alas to no avail Well I tried." which is not a valid find. Others have inflated numbers because they attend events and the like.

Sure, you are Wood badge, and a 3 beader, but what patrol. Everyone knows there is one patrol that is better than all the rest. "I used to be a Buffalo, and a good old Buffalo too........." But now that you're finished Buffaloing, do you know what to do? I'm a Buffalo too!

The future is now. They have a Geocaching merit badge today.