My Find Log Keeps Getting Deleted!

[+OzGuff]

Sorry that this happened to you CR/KBI! And on a cache in my backyard --western NC. I have not met the cacher in question so can't give a character reference. Interesting, though, that there are a number of logs mentioning the dampness of the container and/or logbook.

 

Maybe he missed a connection or got bumped from a flight and is taking it out on the air travel industry wth you as the proxy. Have you noticed an increase in the number of hang-ups on your phone?

[RexBloodman]

Can we all just log the cache in question and forget about going to it?

 

I would!

[+GeoMike11]

I apologize in advance for the newbie question, but....

 

If the owner deletes the log....does that also remove the "find" from Captn Russell's numbers? If not, then I don't see what's the big deal (other than the owner being "difficult")

Edited November 19, 2005 by GeoMike11

[+sept1c_tank]

If the owner deletes the log....does that also remove the "find" from Captn Russell's numbers?

Yep.

[+GeoMike11]

If the owner deletes the log....does that also remove the "find" from Captn Russell's numbers?

Yep.

Ah! Then it would seem TPTB "should" have a bit of a say. Not on the content...but whether or not it was a valid find.

[+sept1c_tank]

TPTB have indicated many times that "stats" are not really a part of the game, as they know it. Geocaching (according to TPTB) is not intended to be competitive.

 

This is an area where I tend to agree; who cares about the numbers?

 

If a cacher really wants the smiley (as pointed out by several above), he can do it all by himself.

 

Having said that, I think it is really petty for someone to delete a log for most reasons; an exception would be when the log included spoilers.

[+CaptRussell]

Interesting, though, that there are a number of logs mentioning the dampness of the container and/or logbook.

Yeah, I noticed that too.

[+GeoMike11]

TPTB have indicated many times that "stats" are not really a part of the game, as they know it. Geocaching (according to TPTB) is not intended to be competitive.

Hmmm.... then why are "stats" part of GC.com

 

But I know stats are part of the game for some and if the OP wants credit for a find...then there seems to additional alternatives offered (IF the 3rd attempt on the log gets deleted )

[CoyoteRed]

Having said that, I think it is really petty for someone to delete a log for most reasons; an exception would be when the log included spoilers.

Another exception would be falsely claiming a find.

[+Sagefox]

Having said that, I think it is really petty for someone to delete a log for most reasons; an exception would be when the log included spoilers.

Another exception would be falsely claiming a find.

I agree with both of these comments.

 

For OP in retrospect I felt the second find log should have simply been a found it like they did in the third post. OP's second find log still had a bit of a zing to it. OP has recognized this and I am just mentioning it for general comment. Best and quickest way to stop a Found It spat is to stop spatting and say something inert. I would be surprised if the third post gets deleted.

[+CaptRussell]

For OP in retrospect I felt the second find log should have simply been a found it like they did in the third post.  OP's second find log still had a bit of a zing to it.  OP has recognized this and I am just mentioning it for general comment.

Here’s a "general comment" for you:

 

The cache was hidden in January of 2002.

 

According to the cache page there have been 22 "found it" logs posted during the last three years.

 

Of those 22 logs, at least eight of them included so-called "negative" comments similar to mine. Here are the "negative" portions of those logs (newest first):

• Cache dry but log damp.
  
• The cache was soaking wet. I poured the water out, but that's all I could do.
  
• Everything not bagged with the log is soaked thru.
  
• This cache was not wet, it was FILLED with water. We dried it out the best we could.
  
• Cache was sodden--really lots of water in the container; everything was wet.
  
• The cache was half full of water (not half empty ). We gathered the items and dried out as best we could. The old log book was dripping wet, so I took it along with other paper items that were not salvagable. The rest we dried as best we could and rehid.
  
• This cache was mindnumblingly easy to find since the contents were strewn all over a square yard area. There was a dollar bill on the ground...so the container must have been opened by critters and not kids. The log book is soaked so I left a new one, although without a good zip-loc bag to protect it.
  
• ... the clues really did not help.
  

Others spoke of reception problems from the heavy tree cover, difficulty in getting to the cache location ... the normal stuff.

 

If the owner had a such a problem with MY comments that he thought my find shoud be deleted, then why did he let these other logs remain?

 

In his email to me he said: "My concern was that your negative posting would have kept people from visiting the cache." Huh? He’s concerned about putting off potential future finders? What about this finder?

 

The owner’s explanation for what he did just doesn’t make any sense. As someone suggested earlier, maybe he’s got some personal vendetta against me – either that, or he’s got me confused with some other person he’s got a problem with.

 

 

As of right now my (third) find log is still there. Stay tuned ...

[+Sagefox]

If the owner had a such a problem with MY comments that he thought my find shoud be deleted, then why did he let these other logs remain?

My assumption here is that you want your find to stay logged. The best way to do that is let go of the feeling that you have been treated unfairly or at least keep it from the cache page (and even the forums should the owner be tipped off that this topic is about them).

 

If you want to let the owner know what you think of this obviously unfair treatment of your qualified find than go for it. But... I don't think your find will stay put if you do.

 

By the way... Great avitar!

[+worldtraveler]

As of right now my (third) find log is still there. Stay tuned ...

Yeah, I'm waiting for the fireworks to start the next time he logs on. Your last "found it" log is definitely generic, but he sure won't appreciate the three notes posted on his cache page late last night and this morning. My only concern is that your name is mentioned, so your latest log could easily be at risk.

[ParentsofSAM]

I can not believe people are escalating this situation by posting log notes about this. What [cache owner] has done is wrong, but [log writers 1 & 2] are just going to make [cache owner] all the more mad, no matter how right they are. I hope he lets your log stand but he probably should delete [log writers 1 & 2] notes. Good Luck with this.

[+CaptRussell]

I can not believe people are escalating this situation by posting log notes about this.    What [cache owner] has done is wrong, but [log writers 1 & 2] are just going to make [cache owner] all the more mad, no matter how right they are. I hope he lets your log stand but he probably should delete [log writers 1 & 2] notes. Good Luck with this.

I agree that a cache page really isn't the best place for such discussions. I appreciate the support of ALL my friends here, and I sincerely thank those two for their comments -- but I wouldn't blame the cache owner if he were to delete those notes now that their points have been made.

[Keystone]

ParentsOfSAM is correct. Cache pages should not be used like they were forums. Please refrain from posting further logs to the cache page unless you've visited the cache or otherwise have a direct interest in it apart from this forum thread. Thanks.

[+GRANPA ALEX]

It look as if the subject has been pretty much broght to a reasonable conclusion with which we all agree . . . may I add:

 

The cache owner would have better addressed his concern by emailing the finder and asking for a log modification, as opposed to deleting the log & find. He might even have suggested why he was offended and suggested acceptable text, IF he was trying to be reasonable himself.

 

It seems to boil down to a little bitterness or over-sensitivity or mild arrogance on the part of the owner that probably had nothing to do with the finder or his log. So, we move on to the next cache, right?

[+Sagefox]

Your last "found it" log is definitely generic, but he sure won't appreciate the three notes posted on his cache page late last night and this morning.

And that, unfortunately, is one of the problems with bringing specific cacher vs. cacher complaints to the forums. People go off on tangents without having all the facts and things get said that souldn't be said.

[+Ed & Julie]

Does the cache owner know you have 2 geocaching.com Ids?

Log the find under your second account...maybe that will slip under the radar.

(just don't sign it 'ringboone'...)

Ed

[trailrunner]

I am the owner of the cache in question and I am the one that deleted the posting. It wasn't the water issue that disturbed me, but the comment about the contents being all junk. Others had placed those items. Who is CaptRussel to decide what is junk? This had been a very frequently visted cache, but after CaptRussel's comments, the visits seemed to end. Perhaps it was only coincidence, but I felt there was a definite relationship. I know that when I look at a cache page, I focus mostly on the most recent posting. This was CaptRussel's.

 

As even Capt Russel pointed out, others had noted the leaking container. Further evidence of this not being the cause for deletion. The other posts are still there.

 

I am sorry to others who may have found the cache to be leaking. It was placed several years ago and was working fine for quite some time. I had changed my home e-mail address and was not an active Geocacher for a while. When I finally remembered to change my address and checked the postings, I became aware of the issue and posted it right away.

 

CaptRussel - Why don't you post a postive & non-negative comment.

 

Regards & Happy Geocaching,

 

Trailrunner

[+Miragee]

. . . CaptRussel - Why don't you post a postive & non-negative comment. . . .

Why would you want someone's log to state something different from their actual experience at the cache?

 

If maintenance has been done, and new swag added, or junk removed, the owner can post a note making that statement. That "Note" should negate any comments made prior to that . . .

[+sept1c_tank]

Although the issue will continue, I think this thread is out of thread.

[+Bandit & Magna]

We have come across caches that had water issues before. We always do what we can to fix them. i also log with accuracy the condition of the cache if there is a problem. No one wants to go to a messed up cache. There was one we went to that just needed more TLC than we could give.

 

My log said: We dumped a lot of water from the cache, everything is soaked, we dried it out as best we could. i threw out the bar of green christmas tree soap as it was wet and getting all over everything. Mildew is setting in. We put the log book in a new bag. Cache still needs more attention than I could give.

 

Hopefully the owner comes back with : Sorry about that. I went by today and cleaned everything out and replaced it with dry items. The cache is back up and running again. Enjoy.

 

I would not have called the stuff in it junk tho - nor would I have deleted the post. I would have fixed the cache and posted up that it is even better than before.

 

Shake hands and move on - life is too short to take it so personal.

[+CaptRussell]

I'm glad you joined the thread, Trailrunner!

 

It wasn't the water issue that disturbed me, but the comment about the contents being all junk.  Others had placed those items.  Who is CaptRussel to decide what is junk?

A valid point. One man's trash is another man's treasure and all that.

 

A very good reason to ask a finder to modify their log. I offered to do so in my second email to you, but you never responded.

 

This had been a very frequently visted cache, but after CaptRussel's comments, the visits seemed to end.  Perhaps it was only coincidence, but I felt there was a definite relationship.  I know that when I look at a cache page, I focus mostly on the most recent posting.  This was CaptRussel's.

Then why did you delete the second version of my log, the one where I'd removed the parts you said you didn't like?

 

Miragee made an excellent point: You posted a note explaining the improvements you’d made to the cache. It is dated AFTER my log. Shouldn’t that have been enough to satisfy your concerns?

 

I am sorry to others who may have found the cache to be leaking.  It was placed several years ago and was working fine for quite some time.  I had changed my home e-mail address and was not an active Geocacher for a while.  When I finally remembered to change my address and checked the postings, I became aware of the issue and posted it right away.

A damp cache is nothing to be ashamed of, and I myself have occasionally been guilty of lax cache maintenance. Still no reason to delete a valid find log -- in my humble opinion.

 

CaptRussel - Why don't you post a postive & non-negative comment.

I did. You deleted it.

 

Now I've posted a third, very bland attempt at a find log. Are you going to delete that one as well?

 

 

Although the issue will continue, I think this thread is out of thread.   

I’ll leave it open a while longer so that Trailrunner can post another response if he (or she) likes.

[+CaptRussell]

I would not have called the stuff in it junk tho - nor would I have deleted the post.

A fair criticism of both sides.

 

Shake hands and move on - life is too short to take it so personal.

Consider it done!

[+Moose Mob]

After re-reading this thread and the the cache logs (including the archived logs), I am glad to see this is "moments" away from being over and the thread being closed.

 

Thanks all for keep it civil.

[+briansnat]

Who is CaptRussel to decide what is junk?

 

Someone who found your cache and had an opinion about the contents. Rather than deleting his log you should be apologizing to him for the state of your cache.

 

Hey, If you don't like negative comments about your cache perhaps you should considering waiting a little less than 2 1/2 years before addressing issues with it.

[+dogbreathcanada]

This had been a very frequently visted cache, but after CaptRussel's comments, the visits seemed to end.

22 visits in 3 years? That's a very infrequently visited cache. That a few months go by without a visit shouldn't be at all surprising, and blame can't be placed on CaptRussell for stating his opinion.

[+Touchstone]

Who is CaptRussel to decide what is junk?

 

Someone who found your cache and had an opinion about the contents. Rather than deleting his log you should be apologizing to him for the state of your cache.

 

Hey, If you don't like negative comments about your cache perhaps you should considering waiting a little less than 2 1/2 years before addressing issues with it.

Brian's pretty tough and plain speaking , but I don't neccessarily expect people to stay in this sport as a life long endeavor. Maybe people should be more of an Advocate when faced with a cache like this.

 

Sometimes you get some lemons when caching and some of us make lemonade

[trailrunner]

Again, the issue was absolutely not the leaking cache, as people seem to be assuming! It was the comment about "junk". If it was about leaking, I would have deleted many others as people have pointed out.

 

I do appreciate the comments about the leaking condition. This, and the many other preceding posts that I read with much delay, indeed led to the replacement with a very leak-free ammo box.

 

As I recall, the second post by CaptRussell was identical to the first - no change. His third was very appropriate and will forever remain unchanged.

 

Regarding the 22 visits in 3 years. This is not totally true. Most people do not log their visits electronically, and the cache has had well over 100 visits.

 

Regarding this thread and the issues at hand, I will be removing my cache forever more and will never hide another. I have hid 3 caches before and have placed multiple travel bugs. I have had one cache stolen, one washed away in a hurricane (only mother nature's fault here) and now one that is causing a rediculous amount of criticism of me. My travel bugs have all been taken and then eventually ceased to move for years, despite friendly pleas for certain geocachers to help keep the fun alive. I've found through past experience that I rarely get returned e-mails when I send e-mails to fellow cachers.

 

I have enjoyed Geocaching and have spread my joy to many others. Based on this thread my enthusiam is greatly diminished.

 

I will likely continue to Geocache, but will be more selfish only finding them and not hiding them.

 

Please realize that people who hide caches are a minority of the geocaching community. I usually enjoy the hunt and the find many times more than the actual contents of the cache or the condition of it. It looks like many others are the same, leaving nothing and taking nothing. Regardless of the contents, I am always thankful that a minority of geocachers have taken the time, effort, expense and creativity to place another geocache, often in a location that I would never have visited otherwise. If I may offer my opinion, please keep it positive and fun for all. If a cache seems to need some TLC, it may be better to contact the geocacher directly, rather than post this detail for the entire geocaching community to see. I'll admit, in my case, this would been ineffectve since I changed e-mail accounts during a busy portion of my life where geocaching took a back-burner and the e-mail would have gone to a black hole.

 

CaptRussel - I am sorry to have deleted your post. I regret not replying to your e-mail prior to deleting the second identical post. I am a busy person, working 70-80 hours per week currently. Between work and home, I get over about a hundred e-mail messages a day. It is impossible to respond to all.

 

Trailrunner

[Earthdog Patrick]

But if he deletes your log a third time, he may find his cache page inundated with factual entries cautioning others about his propensity for deleting accurate logs that he doesn't happen to like.

And he would have every right to delete those entries also. Cache pages are not forums.

[+Camping Hoosiers]

Regarding this thread and the issues at hand, I will be removing  my cache forever more and will never hide another.  I have hid 3 caches before and have placed multiple travel bugs.  I have had one cache stolen, one washed away in a hurricane (only mother nature's fault here) and now one that is causing a rediculous amount of criticism of me.  My travel bugs have all been taken and then eventually ceased to move for years, despite friendly pleas for certain geocachers to help keep the fun alive. I've found through past experience that I rarely get returned e-mails when I send e-mails to fellow cachers.

 

Trailrunner... I hope you don't quit. I would suggest that most of the folks that frequent these forums are geo junkies and do not always represent the views of your average geocacher. Had the op posted that find on one of mine, I would have simply checked the cache and repaired as needed and posted a follow up note to let folks know that I had taken care of it. I appreciate an honest evaluation of the cache from people visiting. A lot of things can happen over several months so I do like the feedback. I have 50 plus caches out there and really enjoy this part of the game. Yes on occasion something bad will happen to a cache but not very often. Here is what I suggest, hide ten more and keep on having fun! see ya, jeff'

[+Moose Mob]

So much for the civil part?

 

CaptRussell, if you feel your wquestion was answered and your issue resolved, feel free to close this thread.

 

If this thread continues to go towards personal attacks, I will close it myself.

 

Feel free resume on a constructive more course.

 

Thank you.

[+CaptRussell]

As I recall, the second post by CaptRussell was identical to the first - no change.

If that is your recollection then you must not have actually READ the second post. It was different from the first -- I removed the parts you said you didn’t like.

 

First post:

Great park, good hiding place, but the cache itself is overdue for a little TLC. I poured about a cup of water out of the container. The contents were all soaked, and mostly junk anyway, but the good news is that the logbook is OK.

Took nothing, left a toy ring that changes color in sunlight.

 

Second post:

Great park, good hiding place.

I poured about a cup of water out of the container. The contents were pretty damp, but the good news is that the logbook is OK.

Took nothing, left a toy ring that changes color in sunlight.

See the difference?

 

 

His third was very appropriate and will forever remain unchanged.

Now that we’re talking ... would I be pushing my luck if I were to ask you to allow me to revert my current, bland post back to version two – the one you implied would be okay?

 

Just kidding. It's fine the way it is.

 

 

Regarding this thread and the issues at hand, I will be removing my cache forever more and will never hide another.

I would strongly encourage you to reconsider such a decision. Hiding caches is half the fun, and your location is a particularly interesting one!

 

 

I've found through past experience that I rarely get returned e-mails when I send e-mails to fellow cachers.

Tell me about it.

 

 

I have enjoyed Geocaching and have spread my joy to many others.  Based on this thread my enthusiasm is greatly diminished.

I’m sorry if any of this has offended you; that was not my intent at all. Let me know what I can do to help you get over it. Seriously.

 

 

I usually enjoy the hunt and the find many times more than the actual contents of the cache or the condition of it.  It looks like many others are the same, leaving nothing and taking nothing.

In my case I actually took nothing and left something in your cache. I do this at most of the non-micro caches I visit. Surely that counts for something?

 

 

CaptRussel - I am sorry to have deleted your post.  I regret not replying to your e-mail prior to deleting the second identical post.

As I have already pointed out, the second post was NOT identical. I hate to say it, but it seems to me that if you’d noticed that in the first place you could have saved us both a lot of trouble.

 

No hard feelings, though. I’m just glad to get my smiley back.

 

And BTW, next time I pass through Asheville it would be GREAT to go caching with a knowledgeable local. Interested? I’ll buy lunch!

[+CaptRussell]

So much for the civil part?

Did somebody post something uncivil?

 

CaptRussell, if you feel your question was answered and your issue resolved, feel free to close this thread.

I plan to do so soon, but if there's no hurry I'd like to give Trailrunner time for at least one more response.

 

If this thread continues to go towards personal attacks, I will close it myself.

 

Feel free resume on a more constructive course.

I think all the posts here have been fairly reasonable, helpful, and well thought-out. Where's the problem? Did someone complain?

[+Sagefox]

I have enjoyed Geocaching and have spread my joy to many others. Based on this thread my enthusiam is greatly diminished.

And this is another reason that specific cacher vs. cacher complaints should not be brought to the forums.

[+Jamie Z]

I think this thread demostrates exactly why disputes such as this should be brought to the forums.

 

A cache finder had his legitimate find deleted. Emails and attempts to relog were ignored. This forum thread fixed it. Look, we got the cache owner in here to describe his situation, CaptRussell got his log, albeit the censored version.

 

This came out just as it should have for the most part.

 

Jamie

[+CaptRussell]

I have enjoyed Geocaching and have spread my joy to many others.  Based on this thread my enthusiam is greatly diminished.

And this is another reason that specific cacher vs. cacher complaints should not be brought to the forums.

I agree – generally speaking.

 

As you may recall from my original post, however, I did start out with the direct approach. Not only did my email to the owner go unanswered, but my second log attempt got deleted as well, indicating that the cache owner was, in fact, receiving the emails. The owner has since apologized for not answering, but can you understand the dillemma I faced at the time?

 

The purpose of my original post was merely to ask for suggestions, of which I received several good ones.

 

The unexpected bonus occurred when Trailrunner personally joined the thread, finally allowing us both to work out the issue together.

 

I think the Forum served a good purpose in this particular case. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[EDIT: spelling]

Edited November 20, 2005 by CaptRussell

[+denali7]

[+Moose Mob]

It would seem that this topic has served a useful purpose and has run it's course.

 

Since it is no longer broken, the additional fixing is starting to become counter productive.

 

If any one has issues with this, please feel free to PM me.

 

Thanks.