Log This Cache My Way Or Else...

2.7k · December 13, 2006

apparently now I do it to piss off cache owners.

There are some, perhaps many, who seem to be waiting to be "pissed off". There is nothing you can do to NOT "piss them off" except to ignore their existence. And that you must do without their knowledge of the act.

Myself, I just wish there was some way to know who those people are so I could ignore them before I "piss them off", but it seems like the only way to identify them is after the fact.

I have mostly solved that problem in online logging by simply not doing it unless there is an unusually good reason to log. It is the only effective means I know. I still have some regrets with that decision (especially with having deleted my entire online history), but over all I still think it is the better of two choices.

I think CR put it very well. Keep your own records and don't put too much emphasis on online logging.

24.7k · December 14, 2006

....I have mostly solved that problem in online logging by simply not doing it unless there is an unusually good reason to log. It is the only effective means I know. I still have some regrets with that decision (especially with having deleted my entire online history), but over all I still think it is the better of two choices.

I think CR put it very well. Keep your own records and don't put too much emphasis on online logging.

Online logging is a big part of what makes geocaching work. Without it owners get no feedback and logs which are a big rason they put caches out to find. Online logging is very important. The one cache owner in 500 who makes it not worth the effort is the exception and the reason for the workaround.

As for those types of cache owners, I seldom have trouble since I just log the way they wan't if they take time to say "get rid of the spoiler, log about the cache not your 2nd grade teacher etc." ...If conflict is not avoidable or I think they just deserve it, I treat them like spiders and poke their web just to make them jump all about thinking they have ripped me to shreds. It's funny, it's entertaining and I'm only out a stick. It's a weakness.

2.7k · December 14, 2006

Online logging is a big part of what makes geocaching work. Without it owners get no feedback and logs which are a big rason they put caches out to find. Online logging is very important. The one cache owner in 500 who makes it not worth the effort is the exception and the reason for the workaround.

I really don't think these kinds of problems are quite as rare as 1/500.

I do agree that online logging is what made GC take off and it is a somewhat important part of the game.

I will give feedback (in an online log) when I feel it is needed, the only difference is that now I feel it is needed much less often. Ferinstance, I would never post for bad coordinates unless I was going for FTF and found myself apparently in the next county. Nor will I post that I've aborted a hunt (and why) or that there are NTP signs or perceived hazards (unless EXTREME). (Just aborted one a couple days ago for NTP signs- 65 miles one way- no log. I figure the cache owner is quite aware of the signs)

I certainly see no good reason to log each and every cache except to track finds and keep numbers. Doing it online is convenient but subject to the limitations that prompted the thread and not the only way to skin the cat.

If I have nothing important to report, I can't see how it hurts the cache owner that i don't report it.

Edited December 14, 2006 by Confucius' Cat

2.2k · December 14, 2006

What's the point of putting a cache out if people don't log their experience? I wouldn't place any caches if I didn't get the gratification of hearing about the experiences people had while finding the cache. I think it's selfish and rude to the cache owner to not log your finds online. Relying solely on the log in the cache does not work out very well. Caches often get soaked, stolen or otherwise rendered useless and a lot of times the online log is the only record of who has visited the cache.

If a cache owner is just killing log entries willy nilly (which I highly doubt happens very often), then just don't visit that person's caches.

Just my 2 cents

Edited December 14, 2006 by ReadyOrNot

2.7k · December 14, 2006

What's the point of putting a cache out if people don't log their experience? I wouldn't place any caches if I didn't get the gratification of hearing about the experiences people had while finding the cache. I think it's selfish and rude to the cache owner to not log your finds online. Relying solely on the log in the cache does not work out very well. Caches often get soaked, stolen or otherwise rendered useless and a lot of times the online log is the only record of who has visited the cache.

If a cache owner is just killing log entries willy nilly (which I highly doubt happens very often), then just don't visit that person's caches.

Just my 2 cents

The point would be to showcase a neat place that you have found and introduce others to a nice experience and for the sheer joy of giving to the community. None of this should require an online log.

I would submit that if the only reason you place a cache is for the "gratification of hearing about tthe experiences people had while finding the cache", your reason for placing the cache is in itself selfish. The word "gratification" directly indicates you are getting something for yourself, i.e. it is a "sellfish" motive. So the pot doth call the kettle black.

Furthermore i hardly see how keeping one's mouth shut can be called "rude". How is saying nothing "rude"? I don't understand.

If you are only interested in collecting a lot of "attaboys" and feel-goodisms through the glowing logs people will inevitibly post on your cache, you are bound to be disappointed at some level.

I don't think not logging online is nearly as selfish and rude as those who send hate mail or delete logs because the logger is trying to be helpful to others (as in the OP and in my experience also).

Yes, logs that tell of great experiences whilst hunting your cache are very gratifying but, I for one don't need the gratification of a bunch of TNLNSL logs, and that's what most online logs are, aren't they? I submit that such logs are useless except to indicate that the cache is still there. (assuming the log is true and the logger actually DID find the cache which is VERY much open to question of late)

(DEAD HORSE ALERT)

An interesting note: The online log can be CHEATED, the paper cannot. Which then is the more valuable?

If the paper log is so fragile, unimportant and hard to utilise, why have one? Why not just online logs only?

Not logging online is nothing new. If you go check the logs of any of your caches you will find entries that are not online.

If you think one is being rude by not logging your cache online, I guess one can just not log it on paper either. That too is the perogative of the seeker. Then the cacher will have the joy of finding the cache and whatever cool experience you wanted them to have and you will be blissfully ignorant of hisher (rude) existence.

2.2k · December 14, 2006

I would submit that if the only reason you place a cache is for the "gratification of hearing about tthe experiences people had while finding the cache", your reason for placing the cache is in itself selfish. The word "gratification" directly indicates you are getting something for yourself, i.e. it is a "sellfish" motive. So the pot doth call the kettle black.

One could argue that all things have some sort of selfish motive behind them. The fact remains that without the gratification that cache placers receive, people wouldn't place caches. There's a reason that as an owner of the cache you automatically get an email when someone logs it. I suppose without online logging, I'd probably visit the cache more often to see who has been visiting (which I suppose is a positive). When I visit a cache, I log it and also read others experiences. This creates a sense of community which is the #1 reason that geocaching has become so popular.

Not to mention that without online logging, the sport would degrade to the level of letterboxing - examples: Usually a letterbox will go for months missing without the owner even knowing because of the lack of communication. I started out letterboxing and moved to geocaching because half the letterboxes I tried to find were missing and quite a few of the owners were outside of a reasonable distance to maintain the letterbox. AND older caches don't get visited as often.. If you don't log your experience, you may be responsible for others wasting their time or a delay in the owner fixing a problem with the cache.

So many good reasons to log your experience and be a part of the community, instead of doing the loner, log em' yourself method.

7.2k · December 14, 2006

You know, if it wasn't for folks that prompted this thread, I'd say you have a point. However, folks like that exist and do what is being complained about. I don't think it appropriate to expect folks to have to have a level of anxiety when logging a cache.

1.7k · December 14, 2006

No, the paper logs can't be cheated. But the online logs can't be stolen. When a cache is muggled, the paper record is lost, and for those of us who enjoy reading how much others enjoyed our caches, and what experiences they had, if they are not logged online, we lose the record completely. Maybe it's selfish, but I don't think so - I place caches so that others can enjoy them, but also so that *I* can enjoy hearing others' experiences with the kind of hide, or the little surprise I left with the cache, or whatever.

The first cache I placed may be missing, and you can bet that now I regret the loss of the logbook the most. If everyoe logged their finds online, it wouldn't be so much of a problem.

<snip>

(DEAD HORSE ALERT)

An interesting note: The online log can be CHEATED, the paper cannot. Which then is the more valuable?

If the paper log is so fragile, unimportant and hard to utilise, why have one? Why not just online logs only?

Not logging online is nothing new. If you go check the logs of any of your caches you will find entries that are not online.

If you think one is being rude by not logging your cache online, I guess one can just not log it on paper either. That too is the perogative of the seeker. Then the cacher will have the joy of finding the cache and whatever cool experience you wanted them to have and you will be blissfully ignorant of hisher (rude) existence.

20.7k · December 14, 2006

You know, if it wasn't for folks that prompted this thread, I'd say you have a point. However, folks like that exist and do what is being complained about. I don't think it appropriate to expect folks to have to have a level of anxiety when logging a cache.

(I'm not intending to single your post out. It's just that made the same point as others, but did it nice and concisely.)

I think we should remember that we still haven't heard both sides of this issue. Until we do, it is only appropriate to allow for the deletion to have been caused by unnecessary rudeness (either in the initial log or in previous encounters).

I also think it is important to remember that snarkiness in our contacts with others has results. If I'm in a bad mood and show it in my log, that is going to affect the cache owner's mood. He might respond to my rudeness by deleting my log.

That's life.

4.5k · December 14, 2006

There's no doubt to me that online logs are part of the whole geocaching experience, both giving and receiving. I would also bet money that there would be alot fewer caches hidden if the online logs weren't there.

To be honest, i might could buy that a person was too lazy to want to log caches online. It's hard for me however, to see any other reason not to log online. Believe me, i've found some lame caches with coordinates that were .5 miles off. I have told of my bad experiences but have never done it in a rude or condescending way. I've posted coordinates to help future cachers get closer to the cache. State the facts,,, if theres a problem with the cache then tell the story. If you just didn't like the cache, then say you didn't care for this type of hide but why go off in the log with your "opinion" on why it was so horrible.

I'm going on 5 years and i've never had a log deleted. All it takes is a little respect. I know there are some thin skinned cache owners out there for sure but i would bet money that most of the time it's the log itself that's the culprit in causing a deletion.

December 14, 2006

I think that the cache hider and cache finder are part of a greater relationship. When I hide a cache, I look at my logs as feedback, objective feedback. I use this feedback to improve future hides or to improve the current cache. It is a little something I like to call learning. If my coordinates are off, then I want to know. If I am searching for a cache and someone has better coordinates, then it would be nice to know that as well. There are many factors that are involved in taking a waypoint for a hide. Maybe the geometry of the constellation was a little out of wack (it changes as the day goes on). Maybe someone else has a better GPSr. Maybe the leaves are out. Asking people to withhold this information is like asking people to not perform cache maintenance. I don't look at bad coordinates as an indication of my manhood.

"."

9.3k · December 14, 2006

if the only reason you place a cache is for the "gratification of hearing about tthe experiences people had while finding the cache", your reason for placing the cache is in itself selfish.

I reckon I must be selfish. Many different types of folks get many different things out of this game. For me, the most pleasurable aspect is reading the logs of others who have found my caches. I get more gratification out of this simple task than I do in actually hunting for other caches. As such, I try and reciprocate in kind, writing long winded logs for others to enjoy. I personally believe that this is a game of interaction on a physical level as well as on a communication level.

One person hides - Another person finds.

One person writes a cache page - Another person writes a log.

It would feel rude to me if I refused to participate in what I see as a key element in the game.

So the pot doth call the kettle black.

Hi Kettle. My name is Pot. You're looking awfully black today.

(sorry. had to do it)

2.7k · December 16, 2006

I'm going on 5 years and i've never had a log deleted. All it takes is a little respect. I know there are some thin skinned cache owners out there for sure but i would bet money that most of the time it's the log itself that's the culprit in causing a deletion.

Everybody keeps coming back with that, but I can assure you it is not always the case (yes i noticed the little disclaimer before it). I find it amazing all the "psychoanalysis" and second guessing of motives that goes on in the forums- and in cache logs.

To some extent it is a limitation of the medium. There simply aren't enough smileys to adequately transmit subtle cues as to what is REALLY meant in a post. Therefore people colour the verbiage with their own personal biases in order to determine what the poster REALLY meant.

Obviously I don't log because I'm an **********. Couldn't be any other explanation.

I'm just selfish i guess.

(but I feel a lot less hassled)

Actually, I see no need to point out that the cache coordinates ground zero on a "no trespassing" sign, or that the cache is located in the middle of a busy highway, or on airport property, or that the log book is wet, or that the cache is full of water .... generally the owners KNOW these things- they placed the cache that way, didn't they?

No matter HOW you express it, if you log honestly about anything but "hugs and kisses", you are "the cache police" and likely will incur the wrath of the owner. I got another job.

December 16, 2006

A local cacher has deleted a number of my logs due to my "negativity." (Said "negativity" consisting of waypoints showing my coordinates at the cache site and a distance from the listed coordinates.) (There may be more to the story, likely not much more, but I won't go into that here.) I eventually decided to log his caches with "." -- no more, no less.

His latest cache contains this language, obviously directed at me:

Logs that are only symbols, icons, or punctuation marks are not acceptable logs and will be deleted. The Cache Owner reserves the right to delete Any log for Any reason due to the way some cachers have chosen to play this game.

I will find the cache and log it with something, but am interested in your collective wisdom on the practice of a cache owner requiring specific language or prohibiting certain words/symbols/icons in a Find log. Is a dot more offensive than TNLNSL? (I actually plan on logging the cache with the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights. )

I see your point, bur one thing that always bugs me is this I have freedom of speech sdo I can say anything I want to my boss, or whoever."

Freedom of speech the the right to publicly say what you want without fear of repraisal from THE GOVERNMENT. You do have the right to say what you want to your boss, or post what you want in the cache. But, they have the right to fire you or delete your log as well. Freedom of speech is a precious right that can't be found in a lot of countries. You can say that you think George Bush is doing a horrible job, and others can say that they think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread, but you can't be put in jail for it. That's where the Constitution stops.

Please PLEASE stop using "Freedom of speech" as an excuse to say or do things to people who have control over your situation - your boss, the cache owner, etc. You won't wind up in jail, but you probably won't get promoted either....

--MGb

2.2k · December 16, 2006

I'm just selfish i guess.

(but I feel a lot less hassled)

Actually, I see no need to point out that the cache coordinates ground zero on a "no trespassing" sign, or that the cache is located in the middle of a busy highway, or on airport property, or that the log book is wet, or that the cache is full of water .... generally the owners KNOW these things- they placed the cache that way, didn't they?

No matter HOW you express it, if you log honestly about anything but "hugs and kisses", you are "the cache police" and likely will incur the wrath of the owner. I got another job.

Why not just log "Found it. TNLN/SL" -- Why is it that I've logged almost 250 finds and I've never had a log deleted? If you don't care about giving the cache owner warm fuzzies, at least log it so the owner and subsequent finders know when the last time the cache was visited. Even if just "FOUND IT", the owner and other caches know it's at least not missing.

If the cache is so dangerous and troublesome, write a reviewer... If it's not a big enough problem to write a reviewer, then be nice. If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything (excluding the forums of course)

Anyone else having issues with their logs being deleted??? (I honestly don't think it's a big problem and I don't think most cache owners delete logs unless there is a good reason)

Edited December 16, 2006 by ReadyOrNot

2.7k · December 16, 2006

Why not just log "Found it. TNLN/SL" -- Why is it that I've logged almost 250 finds and I've never had a log deleted? If you don't care about giving the cache owner warm fuzzies, at least log it so the owner and subsequent finders know when the last time the cache was visited. Even if just "FOUND IT", the owner and other caches know it's at least not missing.

If the cache is so dangerous and troublesome, write a reviewer... If it's not a big enough problem to write a reviewer, then be nice. If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything (excluding the forums of course)

Anyone else having issues with their logs being deleted??? (I honestly don't think it's a big problem and I don't think most cache owners delete logs unless there is a good reason)

Well, many find TNLNSL to be offensive as in this post and many other threads on the forums.

Apparently people get offended by the "writing between the lines" in these logs that says "your cache sucked". I personally don't see that in these logs at all, but apparently a lot of people do.

Perhaps some people find the "TNLNSL" logs fulfilling. I don't. I don't consider them offensive in any way, but I do consider them pretty much useless.

I can't see much enjoyment in such logs, so taking it as "proof" that the cache still exists seems to be the only logical reason for the log. I would submit that the "TNLNSL" log proves nothing. As many have shown in various threads, people oftentimes post bogus finds. Also, the fact that the cache existed at the time the logger allegedly found it does not in any way prove that it still exists ten seconds later. In fact, if it DOES disappear 10 seconds (or 10 days) later, who do you think gets the "blame" for it? That's right..."LTF". Did the LTF do something wrong- give it away to muggles, not put it back right...? Not necessarily. Will the LTF be blamed for the disappearance? Maybe.... possibly.... I have seen this in many logs- FERINSTANCE.

These are among the reasons I contend that the less one says the better. (even though I find it hard to practice that- especially on the forums)

So It is commendable to say nothing "if I don't have something nice to say", but it is wrong for me to say nothing just because I choose to say nothing? I can't get behind that.

6.7k · December 16, 2006

If you don't have anything good to say... it's entirely possible to disagree without being disagreeable!

I cut and paste quite frequently after cache runs, sometimes leaving something like "Found on a great cache run with TeamWhoever, thank you for bringing me here" on fifty or more caches.

Do I really think every one was worth going to? Maybe not, but the cache owner put out the effort to place a hide and I do thank him. It is NOT up to me to judge his hide!

I will also sometimes use "TNLN, Thanks for the hide" when I don't have anything else to say about a cache.

I've logged a few caches, around 2k in 24 states over 3 years, and may have as many as 1k more that I have signed and never logged online, plus I have cached with hundreds of cachers, with not one of my logs deleted nor any of theirs that I am aware of.

As far as Additional Logging Requirements, do them or don't log the cache. Pretty simple, really.

Ed

2.7k · December 16, 2006

Not to mention that without online logging, the sport would degrade to the level of letterboxing - examples: Usually a letterbox will go for months missing without the owner even knowing because of the lack of communication. I started out letterboxing and moved to geocaching because half the letterboxes I tried to find were missing and quite a few of the owners were outside of a reasonable distance to maintain the letterbox. AND older caches don't get visited as often.. If you don't log your experience, you may be responsible for others wasting their time or a delay in the owner fixing a problem with the cache.

So many good reasons to log your experience and be a part of the community, instead of doing the loner, log em' yourself method.

I let this pass yesterday, but I think it does deserve comment.

I just got back from a beautiful day of letterboxing and I think it is really unfair to characterize letterboxing as somehow "inferior" to caching.

Yes GC communication CAN be better than letterboxing, but not necessarily. Today I'm 3 for 3 on letterboxes (1 was a hybrid which I did log online because I dropped a TB). I have not done a lot of letterboxing and only recently got my custom stamps made up so I could do it "right". But so far I am 100% finds on probably 20 or so hunts including those I logged b4 going "official".

I have come up empty a LOT more often on caches, but then I have been doing it a lot longer and have quite a lot more finds.

Anyhow, what I'm getting at is that logging online has no relationship to caches being missing. I have found a lot of caches that were listed as missing (in fact, I have a sock puppet account whose mission is (was) exactly that). I have also DNF a lot cf caches that were recently "found" and logged so online.

Caches can and do disappear minutes after the last log. Then it might be MONTHS before another cacher searches and MIGHT log DNF on it. Same with letterboxes.

Presently, I am using LBNA as my sole source of LB clues, and they have an email system similar to ours. One simply emails the owner and the owner posts it missing if appropriate.

I'm sorry for your dissilusionment with letterboxing, but your argument holds less water than a magnetic keyholder in a sewer grate.

As to your last line, I am not responsible for ANYTHING another cacher does (so I reckon I AM irresponsible ).

Just my viewpoint, but I don't ever feel I have "wasted my time" just because I DNF. Now I might say I "wasted my time" if I drive to the cache site and am greeted with prominently displayed "no trespassing" signs, or the cache page looks interesting and GZ turns out to be a lamppost, but never just because I DNF.

2.2k · December 17, 2006

I let this pass yesterday, but I think it does deserve comment.

I just got back from a beautiful day of letterboxing and I think it is really unfair to characterize letterboxing as somehow "inferior" to caching.

Hi!

I actually enjoy going letterboxing with my sister when she comes to town. My point was not that letterboxing sucks, just that its disorganized in the communications arena. Honestly, I wish more caches involved riddles and used more imagination in locating... I always try to put a little bit of that in my caches, because driving up to a lamppost isn't much of an adventure.

I'm sorry if you took my comment as bagging on letterboxing, because there are MANY great things about letterboxing... But communication is not one of them.. That's all

December 18, 2006

I say you have some fun with it... post your logs in pig-latin, a foreign language, bad spelling, or complete nonsense (but never do the same thing twice).

2.7k · December 19, 2006

I say you have some fun with it... post your logs in pig-latin, a foreign language, bad spelling, or complete nonsense (but never do the same thing twice).

I've posted in pig latin before. It was quite fun actually, because the entire day was spent in a state park caching with Murasaki (kewl teenage daughter) and we spoke nothing but pig-latin (very fluently) all day. I'm sure everybody thought we were utznay. 'Saki is a real language geek, but I suck at foreign languages. Athay ayday illway alwaysway ebay ememberedray asway oneway ofway ethay oolestcay imestay ofway ourway elationshipray.

The logs seemed to be accepted well.

December 19, 2006

I log on line, but I keep it short and sweet. Log if I found it so others know it is still out there, log if I didn't so people know that too. If I find something wrong with the coords, container, etc - I send an email to the owner. . .

14.3k · December 19, 2006

7ry 1066in6 u5in6 1337! Th47 wi11 r3411y driv3 him nu75!

2.7k · December 19, 2006

7ry 1066in6 u5in6 1337! Th47 wi11 r3411y driv3 him nu75!

Amazingly, i found that totally readable. Does that make me a 933k?

14.3k · December 19, 2006

7ry 1066in6 u5in6 1337! Th47 wi11 r3411y driv3 him nu75!

Amazingly, i found that totally readable. Does that make me a 933k?

I'm not sure if it makes you a 933k but it definitely makes you a 633k!

Du könntest das Buch mit Deutschem auch unterzeichnen!

Ou vous pourriez signer le livre en utilisant le français!

¡O podrías también firmar el libro usando español!

またはまた日本語を使用して本に署名できる!

December 20, 2006

Or... get your teenager to translate your log into IM-speak:

emrtw... o gr8 pos gtg

6.5k · December 21, 2006

I suspect there's more to it than we are being told as well. If the OP did indeed post the facts about his experience with no obscenities added, then the log should have stayed. The owner is just too thin skinned and needs to get over it.

The other side of the coin, the cache owner's request that the logs be something besides puntuation marks seems ok to me. There's not too many of us who would want to see this kind of log come up routinely on our caches. I don't think this qualifies as an ALR cache. Posting "." is just a way of getting back at the cache owner because he/she made you upset.

Commentary and opinion follow: I very rarely describe my distaste for a cache unless it's one that i feel is dangerous or against GC.com guidelines. I'll post my concerns and coordinates if they seem to be off but otherwise, a short "found the cache, signed the log" works sufficient. I've never had a log deleted by the owner of those caches that i thought were lame. If i enjoyed the cache then it gets a longer log.

Bottom line is that we all need to be respectful of each other. Unfortunately, i just can't figure out why this is so hard to accomplish sometimes!

Of course there is more to this and I'm surprised and shocked that no one has bothered to mention this yet.

<cue banjo music> The OP and the protagonist of the the OP both live up in the mountains. Feuds can last for generations up there. </banjo>

December 21, 2006

I've never had a log/smilie deleted. Is there a note online that says it was deleted? If so I would certainly avoid a cache with a record of these notes that logs were being deleted.

Edited December 21, 2006 by Luckless

22k · December 21, 2006

I've never had a log/smilie deleted. Is there a note that says it was deleted? If so I would certainly avoid a cache with a record of these notes that the log was deleted.

No, just the poster gets an email notification.

10.1k · December 21, 2006

7ry 1066in6 u5in6 1337! Th47 wi11 r3411y driv3 him nu75!

Stop that now! It gives me a headache!

One of the early cache hiders in the NYC area was [4[h3_n!nJ4. He posted such things on his pages as:

m|[r0 c4[chE-t|nY tupp3rw4re.. br|nG p3n t0 s!gN l0g. g4rbage ab0unD, bUt n![e
v!Ews ar0und. b3[aw4re] 0f huMans n0t 0per4t|ng 0n 100%. sm4[[ steEp c|_imb oR b|g r0ck hoPping posSib|_y reQu!red. bE suRe no0nE s33s y0u w/C^[he.[re]h|de iT we[[ +

w/st34|_th.

for He[[ G^te.

Always interesting caches, but reading his cache pages always give me headaches!

I can think of one log that I had deleted. I posted that the final coordinates were 170' off. (Most other finder concurred that the final coordinates were bad.) So, I relogged 'SLTNLN', and stopped looking for his caches.

December 25, 2006

Slightly off topic, but my find log to this cache was deleted and I did NOT get a Log Deleted email. I only found out because another cacher noticed that it had gone. (The find and log were from 12/12/06.) So I logged it again earlier today and it has vanished again. And no Log Deleted email.

Is there a way for a cache owner to delete a log without kicking out a Log Deleted email? I tested deleting a log from one of my own caches (using one of my kids' accounts) and received the expected Log Deleted email.

2.7k · December 25, 2006

Probably the email got snatched by a spam filter somewhere. Could it be a word in the log that triggered a spam filter? The "log deleted" email contains the entire text of the log. (That makes it a lot easier to repost )

December 25, 2006

Probably the email got snatched by a spam filter somewhere. Could it be a word in the log that triggered a spam filter? The "log deleted" email contains the entire text of the log. (That makes it a lot easier to repost )

But if you don't receive the Log Deletion email...

As I said before, one got through via my son's account so I am baffled how it occurred.

2.3k · December 26, 2006

I have more than my fair share of local geocachers who hate my guts with an abiding passion that cannot be quenched, some with good reason. That doesn't keep them from falling all over themselves logging my caches with "found it" or other short messages. I usually log THEIR caches the way they log mine.

The bottom line is, the owner can delete whatever logs he wants to, and the loggers can log anyway they want to, and we wouldn't have it any other way. The only time we have deleted found logs are when the cachers didn't sign the logsheet, didn't fulfill additional logging requirements, or revealed the additional hint (after emailing them for an edit). These conditions are noted on most of our cache pages.

Some owners consider a suggestion that their coordinates may be off, to be a life threatening attack against their family and property, and respond accordingly with the full force of their irrational abilities.. Takes all kinds.

:laughing:

2.7k · December 26, 2006

Some owners consider a suggestion that their coordinates may be off, to be a life threatening attack against their family and property, and respond accordingly with the full force of their irrational abilities.. Takes all kinds.

Hear hear.

Or, I might add, just about ANY statement of fact about the cache or the area that does not say "this is the greatest cache since the creation of the universe (or the BIG BANG) and it is located in the most beautiful Garden of Eden like setting one could ever imagine and I HAD THE TIME OF MY LIFE and I wuold gladly pay a million yen to repeat this experiwence".

Never mind it is on a road sign in the middle of a busy intersection surrounded by gang members and graffiti, the GPS had you crossing the street 20 times, you almost got run over by a reindeer, sprained you ankle in the stick-covered pit the cacher himself dug 6 feet away from the cache as a "decoy", and then you find it and it has a wet log, pencil is missing, and the container is broken and can't be resealed.

Been there, bro.

But if you don't receive the Log Deletion email...

If I were investigating, I would try to remember the exact words in the log and run the same test you referred to in your earlier post.

My profile on MSN wouldn't accept a Bible verse which I cut-and-pasted from my Bible software because it allegedly had the word "aryan" in it and that word is banned by MSN. The quote was: "He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom."

So it can be seen from this that sometimes software filters are a bit "flaky". It will be really hard to prove if this is what happened unless you happen to have a cut-and-paste copy of your original log, but you might hit the jackpot going from memory.

December 27, 2006

Very interesting thread, but I don't think the entire story is being told here. Although I am not the cache owner who deleted any logs, here is my opinion on the subject.

According to the published Groundspeak guidelines for cache maintenance:

"Cache Maintenance

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements."

According to the above stated guidelines, the cache owner is responsible for the logs. He, therefore, owns them and has every right to do whatever he deems appropriate. It is the cache owner who also determines what the stated requirements for his cache will be.

Many cache hiders spend a great deal of time, effort, and sometimes money to hide and maintain interesting caches for everyone to enjoy finding. All he asks in return is to read about your experiences in finding the cache. I think that nothing more than "TFTC" is rude, along with the same, "cookie-cutter" response that is cut and pasted in all "75 caches found on a whirlwind, mad-caching run through ..." It's like saying, "Thanks for hiding a cache for me to find, but now I can't be bothered to write something individual about your cache." I consider a "dot" even more offensive. It indicates arragance, lack of respect, and bad manners on behalf of the person writing (?) the log. It's akin to visiting my home for dinner (seeking the cache), enjoying the repast (you enjoyed finding the cache) and rudely leaving without even speaking to me.

I remember attending one of OzGuff's event caches and finding over two dozen of his caches in the local area. Later that night, as I was logging the cache finds, an email dropped in from Graeme saying, "It's late. Go to bed!" (It was after midnight.) I replied, saying something to the effect of, "You're going to get TONS of email from this event cache!" His reply was, "I love reading every one of them."

As for accuracy of coordinates, any complaints to Graeme about HIS coords being off, his reply was always, "Hey, 40 feet error in my GPS, 40 feet errror in your GPS, that's the way it goes." I have been known to report inacurate coords in cache logs as saying that they were a little "OzGuff-ish." It was a local standing joke, and everyone took it as such.

Things have changed. Everything is WAY too serious these days. Since then, I, too, have had a run-in with Graeme. I was the one who started it by verbally (via private email) reacting to his actions. I sent a much softer follow-up, and not much more was said. I guess we unspokenly agreed to have a difference of opinion. A few weeks later, my wife, Dear Dora, had another difference of opinion with him, and through their emails, he decided to terminate the friendship with both of us.

The next cache we put out, Graeme found, and signed the log with just a dot. I guess this was supposed to aggrivate me, however, I decided to have a little FUN with it. I edited the cache page to reflect that this cache was now a "Proud member in good standing of 'The DOT Club." I did NOT, however, delete his log, and had no intention of doing so. HE deleated himself, and logged the find to one of his own archived caches with a link back to my cache. In fact, he went back to every cache of ours that he ever found, deleted every one of his logs and moved them to his archived cache, as well. I never had any intention of deleting his logs, and in fact have two caches which HONOR him and his acomplishments. I am not so small as to archive or in any way change either of these caches or his logs. I found his behavior so amusing, and liked the name, "The DOT Club," that I did hide a cache by that name (GCZFZA). There is no mention of any behavior concerning the signing of logs with a dot. I made up a silly "club" that has no meaning or substance whatsoever. But apparantly Graeme assumed it WAS about him. Only the NAME of the cache was inspired by him. Nothing more. It was right after he found that cache that he decided HE was going to delete all of his logs and move them to his own archived cache. I think the whole thing is way too funny, and I must thank him some day for providing so much entertainment.

Another local geocacher felt things had esculated to a point where they were out of control, and contacted him by email. She graciously offered to meet him for lunch, (her treat) to see if a peacefull solution could be worked out between all of us. She immediately received a reply that his time was not worth spending with idiots.

In closing, I just want to say that geocaching is supposed to be FUN. It's a GAME, but it seems to be WAY too serious these days. Where did it get derailed?

Atrus

2.7k · December 27, 2006

I think it is falling victim to the inherent limitations of the online written medium. Misunderstandings are WAY too common. For at least three years I have been participating in the forums, making people mad or at least causing them to question my integrity, intelligence, morals, motives, thought processes, etc and I am still not quite sure why.

Over the past several years, I have seen a seemingly society wide "over sensitivity." It seems that every little thing is considered offensive or even actionable. We have "PC" to tell us we must use all genders in each sentence, we must make up new words like "heshe" and "sheit" to keep from assuming anything about the persons places or things we are writing about.

Is it perhaps that PC has caused our writing to become so sterile that anything that expresses an opinion or an emotion is considered an attack against the reader?

It is kind of funny. In the past these forums have been (accused of being) very harsh and uninviting. Lately I have seen the same thing in the cache logging experience. But now the forums are civil. ????

I think society wide we need to "take a chill pill." (idiomatic expression is in no way intended to encourage use of illegal drugs...yadayadayada...)

December 28, 2006

Leave clues in cache logs when you log one of my caches and I will delete your log autOmatically. []

1.2k · December 28, 2006

Leave clues in cache logs when you log one of my caches and I will delete your log autOmatically. []

I don't know...I actually like seeing subtle hints added to online logs, unintentionally. It kind of adds to the fun of the game. It generally makes for a more natural set of clues, as opposed to the artificial ones written by the owner. It's the same sort of problem with mystery fiction: sure, I may or may not solve the mystery, but the writer may or may not know how to write realistic clues. The realistic clues are the ones that weren't made to be clues at all but, instead, arise from actual events.

December 28, 2006

His entire thread deleted to save space.

Atrus

Not sure what Atrus feels he is accomplishing by making our differences of opinion way public. People can agree to disagree. Two things -- most of his post is WAY off-topic and there are usually two sides to every story.

Getting sort of back on-topic -- and there may be a discussion on this elsewhere -- who DOES "own" the online logs? They are resident on Groundspeak-owned servers, so are they Groundspeak's? The found/DNF/note logs are written by individual cachers, so are they individual cachers'? Or, are as some claim, are they owned by the owner of the cache to which they are posted?

Many people have interpreted the cache maintenance section of the "Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines" as meaning that the cache owner owns the online logs. But since Groundspeak employees/volunteers are able to delete logs without cache owner knowledge/approval the ownership claim is tenuous at best. The delete option is available to cache owners, but how far should that ability extend?

I have found caches with additional logging requirements (ALR) -- like continuing a story from previous finders -- and have had no problems complying. But what if the ALR was something more odious and/or offensive? Why does the cache owner get to stipulate that "." is verboten but "TFTC" is fine?

20.7k · December 28, 2006

His entire thread deleted to save space.
Atrus

Not sure what Atrus feels he is accomplishing by making our differences of opinion way public. People can agree to disagree. Two things -- most of his post is WAY off-topic and there are usually two sides to every story. ...

I think his post was helpful because there are two sides to every story. Since we have not been given 'both sides of the story' regarding your initial post, we are able to benefit from other people's experiences with you. This allows us to flesh out what might have happened to cause the deletion of your logs.

Edited December 28, 2006 by sbell111

December 28, 2006

His entire thread deleted to save space.
Atrus

Not sure what Atrus feels he is accomplishing by making our differences of opinion way public. People can agree to disagree. Two things -- most of his post is WAY off-topic and there are usually two sides to every story. ...

I think his post was helpful because there are two sides to every story. Since we have not been given 'both sides of the story' regarding your initial post, we are able to benefit from other people's experiences with you. This allows us to flesh out what might have happened to cause the deletion of your logs.

My original post -- see the top of page one -- wasn't about my logs being deleted. It was about additional logging requirements. I mentioned that there might be more to the story but that it wasn't relevant to the discussion on ALRs. I admit that there is more to the story -- post 27 of this thread gives the text of my deleted log (which is from over a year ago) -- but didn't want this to turn into a he said/she said thread. I haven't presented "my side" of the story because I'm not trying to defend my actions. If I were, I would provide much more information and it would be much more enjoyable to be an uninvolved observer reading the thread. (And Atrus' response is "his side" of the story; without "my side" of the story it is hard to flesh out anything. Both "sides" are likely biased and subjective.) And one person's experiences with me, especially one who has apparently had problems with me, is hardly a valid barometer for judging who I am and what sort of person/cacher I might be.

Can we try to remain on topic?

Edited December 28, 2006 by OzGuff

20.7k · December 28, 2006

My original post -- see the top of page one -- wasn't about my logs being deleted. It was about additional logging requirements.

Really? I guess it's my mistake. I read your post as a showcase of your willingness to escalate the confrontation. As such, delving deeper into that confrontation and similar ones that you have had is totally on topic. Edited December 28, 2006 by sbell111

9.3k · December 28, 2006

Deleting logs is boorish. Deleting your own logs just cuz you are in a pissing contest is even more so. Just my $0.02

December 28, 2006

Everything except the last paragraph of this post is off topic. If you want to stay on topic, please skip this crap and move to the bottom of this post.

My original post -- see the top of page one -- wasn't about my logs being deleted. It was about additional logging requirements.
Really? I guess it's my mistake. I read your post as a showcase of your willingness to escalate the confrontation. As such, delving deeper into that confrontation and similar ones that you have had is totally on topic.

Here is the question part of my original post in this thread:

I will find the cache and log it with something, but am interested in your collective wisdom on the practice of a cache owner requiring specific language or prohibiting certain words/symbols/icons in a Find log. Is a dot more offensive than TNLNSL?

Am I willing to escalate the confrontation? Yes. But this thread was about ALRs and, ostensibly, freedom of speech. It has evolved/devolved into a mishmash of topics, some of which are only peripherally related to the original post. (As do many threads on these forums.)

I'm not trying to defend my actions. I seem to have a penchant for pissing folks off. Some folks like me and some don't. I will continue to be me.

If anyone wants my side, with regard to the cacher who wants no punctuation/icons/symbols, I mentioned his coordinates in my online logs if they were way off. He complained about mine. (But with 600+ hides it is a statistical likelihood that some of them have iffy coordinates.) All complaints from both parties seemed to be collegial. Then one day he deletes a find log -- see post 27 -- claiming I am being negative and that my log is bad for geocaching. I tried to explain my log -- a representation of my caching experience which included finding the cache in spite of the listed coordinates -- but was deleted again. I started logging his caches with a dot.

Atrus -- see post 86 -- is a different matter. (1) I found a cache of his that he claimed wasn't there; it was published and then immediately disabled. I called him to see if the cache was there, and he said it wasn't. I was in the area and found it. His email to me was over the top. It was uncalled for and vindictive. (2) After a new cache -- not his -- was archived based on my complaints of it being a commercial cache I received a number of emails from him and his wife questioning my geocaching ethics and calling me the Cache Police Posse. Based on these two situations I elected to stop communicating with them. And I no longer log their caches on the correct cache page.

I'm sure I must be leaving something out, and my side has to be slanted in my favor. But these forums are not the place to air dirty laundry. However, Atrus brought it up and sbell111 questioned the veracity of my statements. This IS a game, and I am still having fun. I'm just not interacting with as many folks as I used to. And I am fine with that!

Back on topic -- Can someone answer the question of who owns the online cache logs? Cache owner? Cache logger? Groundspeak?

December 28, 2006

Back on topic -- Can someone answer the question of who owns the online cache logs? Cache owner? Cache logger? Groundspeak?

It's like the parkstrip in front of your house--that strip of grass inbetween the sidewalk and the curb--It's a right of way and an easment and the city owns it, but you are required to maintain it.

Groundspeak owns everything but the cache owner is tasked with maintenance of cache page and its contents. It's really quite simple, a no-brainer.

December 29, 2006

" ."

2.3k · December 29, 2006

Who "owns" Online Cache Logs? - December 2005

Who owns the logs? Does the finder, or the hider, or BOTH own the logs? I'm thinking both, but others may think differently than I do. OK, Let's face it, most do think differently than me, or there wouldn't be any order to the universe.

Ultimately, I guess GC.com owns them.

Well??? What do you think?

It's spelled out quite clearly in the TOU:

6. License to Use Submissions

All comments, articles, tutorials, screenshots, pictures, graphics, tools, downloads, and all other materials submitted to Groundspeak in connection with the Site or available through the Site (collectively, “Submissions”) remain the property and copyright of the original author. (...)

December 29, 2006

Well Ozguff it seems like it was you who came to this forum asking fellow cachers what their opinions were. And I would assume that you were looking for support for what you are doing. So please don’t complain when one of the other cachers involved in your little hissy fits try’s to give his side of the story. Atrus asked a legitimate question when he said where has the fun gone. And I agree with him it left when you moved to Asheville. You came in like a sandlot bully trying to impose your caching styles on other people. You started out on me early on. In a cache called Haunted Hovel I logged online that I went there one evening after 6PM and that quite a number of older men were hanging around and I felt very uncomfortable when one started following me around. Without my request the cache owner disabled the cache. Then you immediately e-maild the owner to relist it since you hadn’t found it yet. Then when you went to find the cache you berated me saying if I feel uncomfortable I should get in my car and run. The current fuss comes from a cache called stop and go. I heard from a friend that he was going to relist an archived cache well it didn’t take much to find out which cache it was going to be, so on the way to dinner my wife and I stopped and sure enough it was there and I signed the log as FTF and when the cache came up I explained this and logged it. Just as you did on one of JR’s caches. You went out early hoping to be FTF but when you found out I beat you, you threw a temper tantrum and just put co-ordinates on the logs. The cache owner asked you to write something even it its just “ TFTC quick find” and you replied with (.). Then every cache you found of this cachers you put just the dot. So the cache owner started putting a logging requirement on his caches. And what did you do, you typed the bill of rights about free speech on your log, but nothing about the cache. So he deleted it.

OzGuff this is so sad because you are a very good person and you have done a lot for the Geocaching Community and I so admire you for it. You have hidden at least 70percent of the caches within 20miles. You have some unique cache series such as the Alchemist and the DeLorme challenge. So I’m asking you to please try to reconcile width the other cachers and lets make caching Fun again here in the mountains.

December 29, 2006

I suppose I lost control of this thread the minute I opened it, but could folks stay on topic! If you want to start a thread about why OzGuff is a jerk, be my guest!

Where are the moderators when you need/want them?

BTW -- my skin is thick and I can take it. Maybe I should try to get some other folks from the area involved who disgree with Atrus and gojoey. I moved to Asheville and sucked all the joy out of the world. And all because I missed out on an FTF. Sheesh...

Anyone else want to have a free swing?

Edited December 29, 2006 by OzGuff

Log This Cache My Way Or Else...

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment