Deleting logs.

[+Brute-Force]

Ok. I ran across this cache while on the road. Driving back home from Washington. I found only 2 caches on this trip and this is one of them. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...&Submit6=Go

 

This really does irritate me. I seldom read cache pages while I'm out on the road like that. Wouldn't you know that I'd run across one that requires more than just finding it. Here, if you don't play their silly little game of writing out some stupid dadgum story, they have the gall to just delete your log entry. I'll not even bother logging the find, because I refuse to play along. This just does not seem right to me. Maybe It's just that I'm in a not so good mood due to my mothers very very poor health and I'm over reacting. What do others feel about this?

[+The Foote]

I would boycott that one also.

 

I mean how do weknow what their idea of "interesting" is.....

 

it is their prorogitive to only accept certain logs BUT at the same time they are being a bit critical of how people log their finds.

[+Green Achers]

Hey my friend, Mr Force.

 

This is an opportunity for you. The guy wants a 'story'. I know you always tell the truth - which could only be an 'experience' but this time you get to dig down deep a tell us a whopper! He asked for it so go for it! I would.

 

Did I ever tell you about the time I met the president...

[+KoosKoos]

I usually write more than a TNLN log and try to include any interesting stories I have at the time, but I too would put this cache on my ignore list just on principal.

 

I see nothing wrong with ENCOURAGING people to leave a story (we've put out a couple where we ask people to list a knock knock joke in their log), but I'd never delete someone's legitimate log because they didn't jump through the extra hoops that I set up. In the end, their online smiley isn't worth me trying to police their writing skills.

 

If you found the cache and signed the log, I see no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to log the find on this site.

[+Chuy!]

I would copy and paste one of the other entries and just change the names and some places and redo some formatting .

[+Let's Look Over Thayer]

Ok. I ran across this cache while on the road. Driving back home from Washington. I found only 2 caches on this trip and this is one of them. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...&Submit6=Go

 

This really does irritate me. I seldom read cache pages while I'm out on the road like that. Wouldn't you know that I'd run across one that requires more than just finding it. Here, if you don't play their silly little game of writing out some stupid dadgum story, they have the gall to just delete your log entry. I'll not even bother logging the find, because I refuse to play along. This just does not seem right to me. Maybe It's just that I'm in a not so good mood due to my mothers very very poor health and I'm over reacting. What do others feel about this?

As usual, I have mixed feelings. I'm not a fan of hardliners of any stripe but on the other hand, I'm not a fan of people who can't be bothered to write anything more than "TNLNSL" either. (Full Disclosure: I, myself, have written nothing more than "TNLNSL TFTC" on occasion -- some caches are so boring that I really couldn't think of anything more to say...)

 

Reading the logs of this cache, it appears to me that the bar is set pretty low. Is it really such a hardship to come up with something?

 

On the other hand, if it really is about the principle of the thing, then you really shouldn't bother to log it.

 

Or you could write your log about about annoyed you are about about having to write a creative interesting log. It's possible that the owner might even decide that it is interesting enough to leave it. And even if the owner deletes, he or she will have read how you feel about it.

[+The Foote]

Ok. I ran across this cache while on the road. Driving back home from Washington. I found only 2 caches on this trip and this is one of them. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...&Submit6=Go

 

This really does irritate me. I seldom read cache pages while I'm out on the road like that. Wouldn't you know that I'd run across one that requires more than just finding it. Here, if you don't play their silly little game of writing out some stupid dadgum story, they have the gall to just delete your log entry. I'll not even bother logging the find, because I refuse to play along. This just does not seem right to me. Maybe It's just that I'm in a not so good mood due to my mothers very very poor health and I'm over reacting. What do others feel about this?

As usual, I have mixed feelings. I'm not a fan of hardliners of any stripe but on the other hand, I'm not a fan of people who can't be bothered to write anything more than "TNLNSL" either. (Full Disclosure: I, myself, have written nothing more than "TNLNSL TFTC" on occasion -- some caches are so boring that I really couldn't think of anything more to say...)

 

Reading the logs of this cache, it appears to me that the bar is set pretty low. Is it really such a hardship to come up with something?

 

On the other hand, if it really is about the principle of the thing, then you really shouldn't bother to log it.

 

Or you could write your log about about annoyed you are about about having to write a creative interesting log. It's possible that the owner might even decide that it is interesting enough to leave it. And even if the owner deletes, he or she will have read how you feel about it.

 

To me it is more about the principle of the matter. though this was not my case originally so I can not speak for Brute....

[+Dave_W6DPS]

Traditional Caches and Mystery/Unknown Caches

 

We added language to both these guideline sections to clarify that a cache with "Additional Logging Requirements" should be classified as a Mystery/Unknown cache. A find on a traditional cache generally can be logged by finding a cache at the posted coordinates, signing the logbook, and entering a narrative online log of the finder's choosing. If the cache owner wishes to add other requirements, it is generally their right to do so, but such caches should now be "flagged" by using the Mystery/Unknown cache type. If you own a cache like this and it is presently listed as a traditional cache, contact your volunteer cache reviewer if you would like to change it to a mystery/unknown cache.

 

Since the guideline has changed, maybe you should suggest they change the cache type. I suppose it could be grandfathered, but they that owners update older caches with additional logging requirements.

 

I think requiring more than "entering a narrative online log of the finder's choosing" would constitute an additional requirement.

 

Dave_W6DPS

[+2 for the road]

Brute,

 

I hope your Mother's health improves soon. I'll be thinking of you both.

 

Mrs2fer

 

 

PS I'd put that cache on my ignore list, life is too short to fret.

[+Renegade Knight]

Ok. I ran across this cache while on the road. Driving back home from Washington. I found only 2 caches on this trip and this is one of them. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...&Submit6=Go

 

This really does irritate me. I seldom read cache pages while I'm out on the road like that. Wouldn't you know that I'd run across one that requires more than just finding it. Here, if you don't play their silly little game of writing out some stupid dadgum story, they have the gall to just delete your log entry. I'll not even bother logging the find, because I refuse to play along. This just does not seem right to me. Maybe It's just that I'm in a not so good mood due to my mothers very very poor health and I'm over reacting. What do others feel about this?

 

Since your job is to read the cache page before you hunt the cache, you assumed the risk of finding a cache with additional logging requirments. The cache owner has the right to make them (and they assumed certain risks and problems when they did...).

 

Not logging is the right thing since you didn't meet the cache requirments.

 

There has been some discussion of having an "Additional Logging Requirements" attribute so people can filter them out. You are not alone in not reading cache descriptions.

[+Moose Mob]

From the new guidelines (see Traditional Cache types)

If the cache owner wishes to add other requirements, it is generally their right to do so, but such caches should now be "flagged" by using the Mystery/Unknown cache type. If you own a cache like this and it is presently listed as a traditional cache, contact your volunteer cache reviewer if you would like to change it to a mystery/unknown cache.

 

The other option was to label these as "caches with an agenda" and archive them.

[+Renegade Knight]

From the new guidelines (see Traditional Cache types)

If the cache owner wishes to add other requirements, it is generally their right to do so, but such caches should now be "flagged" by using the Mystery/Unknown cache type. If you own a cache like this and it is presently listed as a traditional cache, contact your volunteer cache reviewer if you would like to change it to a mystery/unknown cache.

 

The other option was to label these as "caches with an agenda" and archive them.

 

Just to clarify:

I had thought that the mystery cache type was for when you didn't know what you would find until you got there? Most ALR's are stated up front and the only reason there is a mystery is because people don't read the cache page.

 

Are both mystery caches and ALR's now meant to be under the mystery type?

[+Moose Mob]

<snip>

 

Are both mystery caches and ALR's now meant to be under the mystery type?

 

Yep.

[+Dave_W6DPS]

Since your job is to read the cache page before you hunt the cache, you assumed the risk of finding a cache with additional logging requirments. The cache owner has the right to make them (and they assumed certain risks and problems when they did...).

...

There has been some discussion of having an "Additional Logging Requirements" attribute so people can filter them out. You are not alone in not reading cache descriptions.

 

I never considered it my "job" to read cache pages, and usually don't. My normal PQs filter to include only traditional caches with regular or larger containers. If I have difficulty with a find, I look in my PDA for the description and maybe the hint. If I don't need to, I don't always read the page before finding.

 

If this cache were in line with the current (new) guideline, it wouldn't show up in my regular PQs and I wouldn't look for without reading the page.

 

As additional requirements go this is pretty innocuous, but it is still more than the norm for traditional caches.

 

I like the change in the guidelines to require these caches to be listed as "Mystery/Unknown". I hope the folks out there that have previously hidden caches with additional requirements comply with the request to change the listing. That would work better than an attribute, since I believe few people use attributes to filter their PQs on a regular basis.

 

Dave_W6DPS

[+Photom]

Hey Brute,

 

Long time no see!

 

I join Mrs2fer in hoping you mom starts doing better.

 

-Tom-

[+Brute-Force]

Hey Brute,

 

Long time no see!

 

I join Mrs2fer in hoping you mom starts doing better.

 

-Tom-

 

Well, I really want to thank both of you for the well wishes. It really means a lot to me right now. Unfortunately, mom will not be getting any better. My sister took her to Washington to get some therapy for her bad mobility. She's had hip problems for a few years and it always caused her pain. This pain is what hid the other problem that she had and was detected while she was up there. She has advanced stage ovarian cancer. Too late for surgery or chemo. I went up there to help get ready to transport her back to her home (which is where she is now). She wants to pass in her own home. Maybe this is the story I should have written on the log page.

 

Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh in my 1st post. I was not in a good mood when I went to log the find and then even more upset after I read the page. I merely downloaded a quick route GPX file to take along for the trip. I didn't take time to load it into my Palm. I normally filter out all virtuals, mystery and unknown caches when I'm away from home on a road trip since I don't have the desire or perhaps time to hunt these. This cache should maybe have been listed as an unknown or a mystery. While I have absolutely no problem with the request to tell a story, I do have a problem with the demanding "or else" tone of the page. I always try to do as asked on a cache page. I've even requested that finders do certain things or leave certain objects at some of my caches. I've never deleted someones find just because they didn't comply. If he asked that everyone please write a story, I would have complied quite easily. It's the threat of a penal action against a cacher that does not live up to his silly standards that ticked me off. Mountain out of a mole hill? Perhaps, but I'll not log it. I don't cache for find amounts or points.

 

Oh, and Bill? You say you would have written something??? You don't even log finds that I know that you have made. And, I didn't ask anything more from you. LOL!

[+Green Achers]

Oh, and Bill? You say you would have written something??? You don't even log finds that I know that you have made. And, I didn't ask anything more from you. LOL!

It's not about numbers, but it is about remembering to log the caches that you do finally get to find. I feel so... busted!

 

And for your find log, Copy-Paste. Your story informed me I need to pray for you, your mom and your family. Hang in there!

[+Renegade Knight]

...I never considered it my "job" to read cache pages, and usually don't. ....

 

That's your choice, but you do assume certain risks when you don't read the cache page. It also looks like you exercise some judgment with your PQ's tha thelp.

[+chaosmanor]

My three cents...

 

A] Foremost, I hope for the best for your mother and your family. I can empathise a little, as my own mother is going through something similar, although it doesn't appear to be as extreme as what yours is going through. All the best to you all

 

B] While I certain understand your point, and even agree with it (that cache falls in the same general category as Travel Bug prisons, where you can't take a traveler out unless you put one in; those should never be allowed), a cacher (so far) has the right to set up whatever requirements s/he wants. I've been stymied at some caches by other, seemingly-pointless hoops that I had to jump through. If you have the right to not read the description, then...

 

C] All that aside, I'd still write a short little story. Talk about your mother, as someone else suggested; maybe it'll help you feel better: sort of a catharsis. If the owner deletes the log, I'd re-submit it. And I'd keep doing it until he gives up I can outlast almost anyone, and I bet you can, too