"DELETING LOGS"

[+GIDEON-X]

Do I, as the owner of a cache have the right to delete any logs that I'm not pleased with.............(THLNSL TFTC).....etc, etc,........?.......... Edited March 10, 2007 by GIDEON-X

[+Mopar]

Do I, as the owner of a cache have the right to delete any logs that I'm not pleased with.............(THLNSL TFTC).............?

Sure, you have the option, but should you delete a legitimate found log just because you don't like it?

 

NO WAY!

 

And if you do decide to travel that road, what goes around comes around. You can probably expect people to start deleting your logs because they decided they "didn't like them" as well.

Edited March 10, 2007 by Mopar

[+Sue Gremlin]

Do I, as the owner of a cache have the right to delete any logs that I'm not pleased with.............(THLNSL TFTC).............?

You want to delete logs that say TNLNSL, TFTC?

You realize that would negate the find. Not a good way to get people to look for your caches. Not very friendly either, and a great way to make people angry. You do have the option of deleting logs, but that power should be reserved for inappropriate/naughty/illegal logs.

 

What's the problem with these logs?

[+briansnat]

You have the option, but it would be very bad form. Legit find logs should never be deleted unless there is profanity in them or blantant , unwanted spoilers.

 

If you start deleting legit found it logs because they don't live up to some arbitrary standard imposed by you, don't expect to win the Most Popular award at the next geocaching event.

 

Doing that can only stir up bad blood between you and your fellow local geocachers and you might find yourself in the middle of a log deletion war, with your logs getting deleted by everyone that you pissed off.

Edited March 10, 2007 by briansnat

[+StarBrand]

Yes you can ---- technically. Should you??

 

What has offended you in a log?

 

Does the entry give away the cache secrets?

 

Is thier a spoiler picture?

 

Bad Language?

 

Best to write the log holder and ask them to alter thier entry - if they don't comply - consider a delete but make sure the writer knows why. the writer will be notified of any deletions.

 

(Ok maybe it is too early - should have read closer) - I would not delete any legit found log unless some of the above were in play)

 

edit to clarify....

Edited March 10, 2007 by StarBrand

[+Mopar]

delete any logs that I'm not pleased with.............(THLNSL TFTC).....etc, etc

 

Yes you can ---- technically. Should you??

 

What has offended you in a log?

 

Does the entry give away the cache secrets?

 

Is thier a spoiler picture?

 

Bad Language?

 

Best to write the log holder and ask them to alter thier entry - if they don't comply - consider a delete but make sure the writer knows why. the writer will be notified of any deletions.

 

Doesn't sound like there is a problem with offensive logs, or bad language or spoilers. Any of those might be cause to ask the finder to reword the log or risk deletion. No, the OP wants to delete logs that "displease him" because the finder wasn't verbose enough for his liking.

[+Kit Fox]

delete any logs that I'm not pleased with.............(THLNSL TFTC).....etc, etc

 

Yes you can ---- technically. Should you??

 

What has offended you in a log?

 

Does the entry give away the cache secrets?

 

Is thier a spoiler picture?

 

Bad Language?

 

Best to write the log holder and ask them to alter thier entry - if they don't comply - consider a delete but make sure the writer knows why. the writer will be notified of any deletions.

 

Doesn't sound like there is a problem with offensive logs, or bad language or spoilers. Any of those might be cause to ask the finder to reword the log or risk deletion. No, the OP wants to delete logs that "displease him" because the finder wasn't verbose enough for his liking.

 

I'm not trying to be an instigator, and know nothing of your cache hides. I wonder if the problem is that your cache is of poor quality, and the finder had nothing nice to say.

 

On a side note, the biggest insult to a cache hider, who prides themselves in quality caches in quality locations, is a found it log like "TFTC" or "#3 of 150 today." This tells me that the finder is too busy to take the time to write a nice log.

Edited March 10, 2007 by Kit Fox

[+Mudfrog]

If a person finds the cache, then that person deserves to log the cache. Doesn't matter how long or short the log is or whether you like it or not, they did find the cache. A TNLNSL may not be what you are looking to see but it is legitimate!

 

You do have the right to delete that log but this should only be done if there is profanity, a spoiler, or possibly something else unacceptable in the log. But first, be sure to email the cache finder and allow them to make any changes on their own. If they don't want to comply, then delete if you think you must.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Let me the 6th or 7th person to say you have the option, but it wouldn't be right.

 

If you want longer logs with whole actual words and sentences spelled out in English, you should probably archive your current caches and resubmit them as Additional Logging Requirement caches (which would make them Unknown/mystery type). Then the "write a nice log" requirement would be part of the cache description, and properly enforceable.

[Trinity's Crew]

Never mind.

Edited March 10, 2007 by Trinity's Crew

[+KBI]

This is easy -- simply apply the Golden Rule: How would you prefer YOUR find logs to be treated if the roles were reversed?

[+Gator Man]

Ummmmm, is that the one that goes "Do unto others, then run like Heck"?

[+archi77]

After reading this thread, I started a new one...for those interested in giving your two cents, I'd like to hear what you have to say...

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...=158061&st=

[+unicyclist]

delete any logs that I'm not pleased with.............(THLNSL TFTC).....etc, etc

 

Yes you can ---- technically. Should you??

 

What has offended you in a log?

 

Does the entry give away the cache secrets?

 

Is thier a spoiler picture?

 

Bad Language?

 

Best to write the log holder and ask them to alter thier entry - if they don't comply - consider a delete but make sure the writer knows why. the writer will be notified of any deletions.

 

Doesn't sound like there is a problem with offensive logs, or bad language or spoilers. Any of those might be cause to ask the finder to reword the log or risk deletion. No, the OP wants to delete logs that "displease him" because the finder wasn't verbose enough for his liking.

 

I'm not trying to be an instigator, and know nothing of your cache hides. I wonder if the problem is that your cache is of poor quality, and the finder had nothing nice to say.

 

On a side note, the biggest insult to a cache hider, who prides themselves in quality caches in quality locations, is a found it log like "TFTC" or "#3 of 150 today." This tells me that the finder is too busy to take the time to write a nice log.

 

There is a local cacher who usually puts out GREAT caches. He placed a lamp post micro. The cache deserved the words "found it" and nothing else. Somtimes two words is all you should get.

[+Totem Clan]

Ummmmm, is that the one that goes "Do unto others, then run like Heck"?

No no no.. that's not it. It's do unto others, before they can do unto you.

[+Totem Clan]

I'll admit I've log a cache or two with just TNLNSL because there was nothing else to say. I don't like to do that, but it was a very poor cache and just couldn't think of anything to say. Maybe I just shouldn't have even logged it.

There is a local cacher up here that never says anything more than "SL TFTC", but that's just his way. That's what I expect from him. If anyone else were to log my cache that way, I wouldn't delete the log, I would wonder what I need to do to make my cache better.

[+Renegade Knight]

Do I, as the owner of a cache have the right to delete any logs that I'm not pleased with.............(THLNSL TFTC).....etc, etc,........?..........

 

If you are going to delete logs like "TNLN" then you need to specify in your cache that you will delete all TNLN logs. Then you will get TNLN THX logs and you will need to specify that you will delete those logs. Then you will get Took Nothing Left Nothing logs and you will need to specify that you will delete those logs.

 

In the end you will end up having less fun than if you just accept that some people who did find your cache log that way.

[+baloo&bd]

RTPNTFTT.

(Read thread, posted nothing, thanks for the thread.)

[crtrue]

Great caches will write their own stories. Also, some people just aren't very verbose -- and that's their right. This game is about the hunt, not the logging. A good story is nice, but never should it be a requirement, or I would never do another LPC again

[+Packanack]

I deleted a log, the other day, a guy I know, I asked him to log it differently after I deleted it. Why did I delete it, because he gave coordinates to the place where he accessed the trail, which the town does not want used as a trailhead and does not want people parking there. It is a busy road,and there is an issue with neighbors. I had put the location of the only legit trailhead on the page. So to avoid problems with the town, I deleted it, he re logged the find. The recommended trailhead gives a great 4 mile hike, the way he approached it, gives about .25 miles and will likely result in some tickets and perhaps geocaches being removed from the reserve.

[Clan Riffster]

I wish I could find the link to the Lame Cache Log Generator. That was some funny stuff.

[crtrue]

I deleted a log, the other day, a guy I know, I asked him to log it differently after I deleted it. Why did I delete it, because he gave coordinates to the place where he accessed the trail, which the town does not want used as a trailhead and does not want people parking there. It is a busy road,and there is an issue with neighbors. I had put the location of the only legit trailhead on the page. So to avoid problems with the town, I deleted it, he re logged the find. The recommended trailhead gives a great 4 mile hike, the way he approached it, gives about .25 miles and will likely result in some tickets and perhaps geocaches being removed from the reserve.

 

It's fine to delete a log that presents a real threat to either the cache or the area. Puzzle caches in particular are sensitive to "unintended clues", which are fine by Geocaching.com (Spoiler warning and all) but are simply horrifying to the owner -- why bother having a puzzle if the solution is three logs down? Delete it and explain to them that if they want the credit, they should repost without the clue...if they don't, they obviously don't want it...if they are offended, too bad...it's your cache and they weren't being respectful.

[+Totem Clan]

I deleted a log, the other day, a guy I know, I asked him to log it differently after I deleted it. Why did I delete it, because he gave coordinates to the place where he accessed the trail, which the town does not want used as a trailhead and does not want people parking there. It is a busy road,and there is an issue with neighbors. I had put the location of the only legit trailhead on the page. So to avoid problems with the town, I deleted it, he re logged the find. The recommended trailhead gives a great 4 mile hike, the way he approached it, gives about .25 miles and will likely result in some tickets and perhaps geocaches being removed from the reserve.

Now see there is a case where deleting the log is called for. In a case like that it would have been irresponsible not to do so. Also, as was done in this case, when you delete a log, make sure you explain to the logger why you did so.

[+Confucius' Cat]

i don't think a short log should ever be taken as dissing the cache.

 

Sometimes people just don't have time or don't have much to say. In professional circles it is sometimes referred to as "writer's block."

 

Where is it written that a found it log has to have intricate details?

 

You found the cache, signed the log, and express appreciation (optional) for the hider's efforts- SL TFTC. Those are the basic facts and that is sufficient for a legitimate find and SHOULD NOT be deleted.

 

Because the FIND COUNT is important to a lot of cachers, and deleting logs that are not pleasing to you subtracts from their legitimate find count, deleting a log for aesthetic reasons is very poor practice. Such deletions are IMO MUCH MORE insulting than the terse logs themselves.

[+Confucius' Cat]

RTPNTFTT.

(Read thread, posted nothing, thanks for the thread.)

liar

[Double Agents]

RT, PW, TFTBT.

(Read thread, Posted words, Thanks for the thread.)

 

On the way back to the car I saw a rock. It was funny.

 

------

*sits here wondering if that's delete worthy, afterall it says more than just the acronyms*

[surferacf1]

This thread is especially pertinent to me. I recently got a cache log that read the following:

 

"I'm not marking this a DNF as I'm sure I was in the right spot. Area is frozen solid and impossible to get to right now. Maybe we'll come back in a few weeks (or months) and try again."

 

Should I delete?

 

On the one hand, they did come out to find the cache and were probably there. One the other hand, They didn't open the box and write their name in the logbook.

 

Advise?

[+billandlore]

Looks like they may have might to log it as a note instead of a find. Maybe a quick email would fix the problem.

[+briansnat]

I deleted a log, the other day, a guy I know, I asked him to log it differently after I deleted it. Why did I delete it, because he gave coordinates to the place where he accessed the trail, which the town does not want used as a trailhead and does not want people parking there. It is a busy road,and there is an issue with neighbors. I had put the location of the only legit trailhead on the page. So to avoid problems with the town, I deleted it, he re logged the find. The recommended trailhead gives a great 4 mile hike, the way he approached it, gives about .25 miles and will likely result in some tickets and perhaps geocaches being removed from the reserve.

Now see there is a case where deleting the log is called for. In a case like that it would have been irresponsible not to do so. Also, as was done in this case, when you delete a log, make sure you explain to the logger why you did so.

 

Even in most of these cases I would send a polite e-mail to the person asking him to change it, rather than delete it myself without warning. If he doesn't change it in a reasonable amount of time (say 24 hrs), then I would delete.

 

There may be circumstances where you don't want the log to stand even for a few minutes, but I suspect those cases will be very, very rare.

 

I have asked a few people to change their logs, either because of unwanted spoilers or because they broke a park rule while looking for the cache (e.g. Mentioning bringing their dog in a park that doesn't allow pets). In every instance they deleted the log and were very apologetic.

[+Kit Fox]

I wish I could find the link to the Lame Cache Log Generator. That was some funny stuff.

http://loungingatwalden.googlepages.com/RandomLog.html

[+GRANPA ALEX]

There genuinely are circumstances where a finder may try to spoil the caching experience for other seekers & the owner by making unkind (not cursing or vulgar) smearing comments in the logs. The owner can & should remove such selfish comments, but honor any re-logging that is friendly, even a TNLNSL is fine.

 

I had a micro where a seeker, who disliked micros, used the entire tiny micro log for their personal negative entry and then went online and smeared the hide. I had to replace the log, of course, which should have held 30+ entries. I then went online and deleted the online smear log . . . the only time I have ever felt it was genuinely appropriate to do so in just over four years of reading several 1000's of logs.

 

Literally scores of others have & still rate the same cache as fun and with many-many other favorable comments. And yes, some TNLNSL logs are there, as well, this is fine - I think a micro cache can have a micro log comment but a smear tactic on the part of one cacher deserved a deletion.

 

Negative, rude or contrary personal opinion is fine, in it's place . . . such as the forums or in personal emails . . . but not destructively placed on a cache page or site log. There, a deletion may be appropriate.

Edited March 11, 2007 by GRANPA ALEX

[+Isonzo Karst]

This is somewhat off topic, but in regards to:

 

The recommended trailhead gives a great 4 mile hike, the way he approached it, gives about .25 miles and will likely result in some tickets and perhaps geocaches being removed from the reserve.

 

If you really don't want people using what's likely a pretty obvious shortcut - archive your hide and do it over as a MULTI-CACHE. First stage near the recommended trailhead. This will eliminate all the issues. Especially if there's a possibility of geocaches being removed from the reserve. You might as well just expect that given a short cut option, folks will take it.

[CoyoteRed]

Do I, as the owner of a cache have the right to delete any logs that I'm not pleased with...

 

If this a question of deleting just any log you are not pleased with, then no. You may have the ability to do it. The "right" is something else.

 

If it's a question of "right vs ability" then you should consider the "right vs ability" of someone whose log you've deleted of going back out and "deleting" your cache. This hobby only exists because of the good will of others.

[CoyoteRed]

There, a deletion may be appropriate.

 

"...and SBA's" Right?

[CoyoteRed]

This is somewhat off topic, but in regards to:

The recommended trailhead gives a great 4 mile hike, the way he approached it, gives about .25 miles and will likely result in some tickets and perhaps geocaches being removed from the reserve.

If you really don't want people using what's likely a pretty obvious shortcut - archive your hide and do it over as a MULTI-CACHE. First stage near the recommended trailhead. This will eliminate all the issues. Especially if there's a possibility of geocaches being removed from the reserve. You might as well just expect that given a short cut option, folks will take it.

Yes, you really do have to guide (read: force) some folks to go the right way. Even admonishments on the cache page are too often ignored leading to the untimely demise of the cache.

[Mushtang]

This is somewhat off topic, but in regards to:

The recommended trailhead gives a great 4 mile hike, the way he approached it, gives about .25 miles and will likely result in some tickets and perhaps geocaches being removed from the reserve.

If you really don't want people using what's likely a pretty obvious shortcut - archive your hide and do it over as a MULTI-CACHE. First stage near the recommended trailhead. This will eliminate all the issues. Especially if there's a possibility of geocaches being removed from the reserve. You might as well just expect that given a short cut option, folks will take it.

Yes, you really do have to guide (read: force) some folks to go the right way. Even admonishments on the cache page are too often ignored leading to the untimely demise of the cache.

I don't know how often you make it to the Atlanta area, but if they're not already, can you put all my caches on your ignore list?

 

I'd rather you not decide something about mine were "wrong" and you deciding you need to "force" me to go the "right" way by an untimely demise of one of my caches (at your hands).

 

Thanks.

[+KBI]

If it's a question of "right vs ability" then you should consider the "right vs ability" of someone whose log you've deleted of going back out and "deleting" your cache. This hobby only exists because of the good will of others.

Are you saying that you believe it's not "right" to take it upon yourself to remove another person's cache just because you have the "ability" to do it?

 

If so, then I agree with you.

[CoyoteRed]

This is somewhat off topic, but in regards to:

The recommended trailhead gives a great 4 mile hike, the way he approached it, gives about .25 miles and will likely result in some tickets and perhaps geocaches being removed from the reserve.

If you really don't want people using what's likely a pretty obvious shortcut - archive your hide and do it over as a MULTI-CACHE. First stage near the recommended trailhead. This will eliminate all the issues. Especially if there's a possibility of geocaches being removed from the reserve. You might as well just expect that given a short cut option, folks will take it.

Yes, you really do have to guide (read: force) some folks to go the right way. Even admonishments on the cache page are too often ignored leading to the untimely demise of the cache.

I don't know how often you make it to the Atlanta area, but if they're not already, can you put all my caches on your ignore list?

 

I'd rather you not decide something about mine were "wrong" and you deciding you need to "force" me to go the "right" way by an untimely demise of one of my caches (at your hands).

 

Thanks.

I have no idea what your agenda is this time, but it certainly sounds like you're not following the conversation.

[CoyoteRed]

If it's a question of "right vs ability" then you should consider the "right vs ability" of someone whose log you've deleted of going back out and "deleting" your cache. This hobby only exists because of the good will of others.

Are you saying that you believe it's not "right" to take it upon yourself to remove another person's cache just because you have the "ability" to do it?

 

If so, then I agree with you.

Ah, CR speaks out and the "brothers" show up.

 

Nothing like taking something out of context. Here's where it was deemed an illegal cache. Well, you're not advocating damaging public utility property are you? Hmmm?

[Mushtang]

This is somewhat off topic, but in regards to:

The recommended trailhead gives a great 4 mile hike, the way he approached it, gives about .25 miles and will likely result in some tickets and perhaps geocaches being removed from the reserve.

If you really don't want people using what's likely a pretty obvious shortcut - archive your hide and do it over as a MULTI-CACHE. First stage near the recommended trailhead. This will eliminate all the issues. Especially if there's a possibility of geocaches being removed from the reserve. You might as well just expect that given a short cut option, folks will take it.

Yes, you really do have to guide (read: force) some folks to go the right way. Even admonishments on the cache page are too often ignored leading to the untimely demise of the cache.

I don't know how often you make it to the Atlanta area, but if they're not already, can you put all my caches on your ignore list?

 

I'd rather you not decide something about mine were "wrong" and you deciding you need to "force" me to go the "right" way by an untimely demise of one of my caches (at your hands).

 

Thanks.

I have no idea what your agenda is this time, but it certainly sounds like you're not following the conversation.

No, I followed the conversation pretty well. Grandpa Alex told a story about you trashing one of his micros because you didn't like it. It's not the fact that you saw a problem hide and wanted to make sure it was removed before damage to the game was done, it was the method you used. Trashing his log, and then stealing the cache outright. It's just too "cache police" for me.

 

So, like I said, I'd feel better if you could ignore all of my caches, just in case. Thanks.

[CoyoteRed]

No, I followed the conversation pretty well. Grandpa Alex told a story about you trashing one of his micros because you didn't like it.

Really? Show me. If I'm the one to which he refers then I'd like for Grandpa to back up his story.

 

EDITED TO ADD: BTW, nice backpedal.

Edited March 11, 2007 by CoyoteRed

[Mushtang]

EDITED TO ADD: BTW, nice backpedal.

What you call backpedal, I call clarifying the post for you since you couldn't see that I was, in fact, following the conversation and was perfectly on topic.

[+sbell111]

If it's a question of "right vs ability" then you should consider the "right vs ability" of someone whose log you've deleted of going back out and "deleting" your cache. This hobby only exists because of the good will of others.

Are you saying that you believe it's not "right" to take it upon yourself to remove another person's cache just because you have the "ability" to do it?

 

If so, then I agree with you.

Ah, CR speaks out and the "brothers" show up.

 

Nothing like taking something out of context. Here's where it was deemed an illegal cache. Well, you're not advocating damaging public utility property are you? Hmmm?

Stop playing the victim. You started with the drama-fest with this off-topic post:

There, a deletion may be appropriate.

"...and SBA's" Right?

Edited March 11, 2007 by sbell111

[Clan Riffster]

I wish I could find the link to the Lame Cache Log Generator. That was some funny stuff.

http://loungingatwalden.googlepages.com/RandomLog.html

You Da Man, Kit!

Whoo Hoo!!!

(yeah, I'm way to easy to please)

[CoyoteRed]

EDITED TO ADD: BTW, nice backpedal.

What you call backpedal, I call clarifying the post for you since you couldn't see that I was, in fact, following the conversation and was perfectly on topic.

Um, GA's posts weren't anywhere in the sub-thread in this topic, yet that was what you were referring to? You expect anyone to buy that?

[Mushtang]

EDITED TO ADD: BTW, nice backpedal.

What you call backpedal, I call clarifying the post for you since you couldn't see that I was, in fact, following the conversation and was perfectly on topic.

Um, GA's posts weren't anywhere in the sub-thread in this topic, yet that was what you were referring to? You expect anyone to buy that?

Yes. I didn't realize Grandpa Alex was even talking about that particular cache until your snarky reply about his deleting your SBA log. As Sbell already mentioned, it was YOU that brought it up, I was just following along with on-topic comments.

[CoyoteRed]

Stop playing the victim. You started with the drama-fest with this off-topic post:

There, a deletion may be appropriate.

"...and SBA's" Right?

Drama-fest? I'm the one play the victim? I stood up and got an illegal cache archived and I'm the bully or miscreant.

 

Yeah, right, whatever.

[+Trucker Lee]

You, as the owner of the cache, and thus the cache page, not only have the right to delete inappropriate logs, you have the responsibility. Geocaching is a public access site, and it is up to us to police ourselves to keep the privileges.

 

That said, deleting should be done only for the following (IMHO):

1. Inappropriate content for ALL who may view (language, images, threats, etc.).

2. Fairness, as in certain requirements need be met to log, and cheaters haven't earned the right. (Allowing armchair logs or "saw the hiding place from across the parking lot, so I am claiming a find" logs detract from the accomplishment of those who follow guidelines.

[+sbell111]

Stop playing the victim. You started with the drama-fest with this off-topic post:

There, a deletion may be appropriate.

"...and SBA's" Right?

Drama-fest? I'm the one play the victim? I stood up and got an illegal cache archived and I'm the bully or miscreant.

 

Yeah, right, whatever.

Ummm, you're still playing the victim.

[CoyoteRed]

EDITED TO ADD: BTW, nice backpedal.

What you call backpedal, I call clarifying the post for you since you couldn't see that I was, in fact, following the conversation and was perfectly on topic.

Um, GA's posts weren't anywhere in the sub-thread in this topic, yet that was what you were referring to? You expect anyone to buy that?

Yes. I didn't realize Grandpa Alex was even talking about that particular cache until your snarky reply about his deleting your SBA log. As Sbell already mentioned, it was YOU that brought it up, I was just following along with on-topic comments.

Yeah, right. If that's what you meant then all I have to assume is you pressed the wrong reply button.

 

It is curious that you were talking about trashing caches. While GA was talking about writing comments in the paper and online logs. Neither of which is what I was talking about in the portions you quoted.