cache logs....

[+keehotee]

A few years ago I set a cache with a task attached.

The cache instructions were quite clear - the cache page said that you had to complete the task and email me the details in order to log it - and the instructions were in the cache itself.

 

For reasons that will be clear if you've done this cache, I've just picked up the now full first log book, and I intend to post the "task results" in the cache's gallery. However, there are far more logged finds on the cache page than there are completed tasks in the log book.

 

So my dilemma is - do I delete the "missing" logs from the page? Bearing in mind that some of these go back to mid 2005, and the cachers will probably not remember the details of the cache if I email and ask for an explanation?

[+Birdman-of-liskatraz]

A few years ago I set a cache with a task attached.

The cache instructions were quite clear - the cache page said that you had to complete the task and email me the details in order to log it - and the instructions were in the cache itself.

 

For reasons that will be clear if you've done this cache, I've just picked up the now full first log book, and I intend to post the "task results" in the cache's gallery. However, there are far more logged finds on the cache page than there are completed tasks in the log book.

 

So my dilemma is - do I delete the "missing" logs from the page? Bearing in mind that some of these go back to mid 2005, and the cachers will probably not remember the details of the cache if I email and ask for an explanation?

 

It was quite clear that a task had to be completed to claim the cache - and I have to say , bad though I was.. it was fun. If people haven't tried the task then they shouldn't be able to claim the cache..

[Lactodorum]

You are the cache owner and you are responsible for policing any logged finds. You have every right to impose "conditions" as long as they are clearly stated on the cache page. If people do not fulfil the conditions then feel free to delete the logs.

[+4 Badgers]

Consider me a bit dumb here, but if a log is deleted, does that automatically reduce your number of finds?

[+Birdman-of-liskatraz]

Consider me a bit dumb here, but if a log is deleted, does that automatically reduce your number of finds?

 

Yes it does...

[+4 Badgers]

Cheers B of L ......... ;o)

[+scottpa100]

Yep - delete them. You've imposed some conditions - you've set the cache. You've done your part of the deal, others have to do their part.

 

If you just delete them... whilst I know that people will notice that their total has gone down, how are they going to tell its your cache tally that has reduced their total? I mean, I've done afar fewer number of caches than others and whilst I enjoy going through my history so I can compare other people's adventure against my own to get a cache. If someone deleted one of them - I wouldn't be able to tell, remember which one has gone...

[+Birdman-of-liskatraz]

Yep - delete them. You've imposed some conditions - you've set the cache. You've done your part of the deal, others have to do their part.

 

If you just delete them... whilst I know that people will notice that their total has gone down, how are they going to tell its your cache tally that has reduced their total? I mean, I've done afar fewer number of caches than others and whilst I enjoy going through my history so I can compare other people's adventure against my own to get a cache. If someone deleted one of them - I wouldn't be able to tell, remember which one has gone...

 

You do get an e-mail from Geocaching.com - I only know this as someone deleted a note that I'd posted on a page recently. So you would be aware as to which cache log had gone.

 

Of course it messes up everyones Milestones and so on. But the cache made it quite clear what needed doing, it didn't need great skill to complete the task, though I seem to recall some people had gone to a great effort and others had done their very best. overall it was great fun.

[+Firth of Forth]

You get an automated email when a log is deleted, so everyone would know.

 

While, in principle, I think that it's fair enough to set a task and delete logs if a cacher hasn't stuck to the conditions, I do think it's a bit unfair to do so for logs made so long ago. I think that it would be fairer to 'police' the logs as they are made so that a cacher has a chance to recitfy the matter, if possible. If this can only be done by checking the logbook, then that makes the task of doing so more cumbersome, and you may want to reconsider whether there is another way to check on the task or whether you should change the task.

[+kayak-cowboy]

A few years ago I set a cache with a task attached.

The cache instructions were quite clear - the cache page said that you had to complete the task and email me the details in order to log it - and the instructions were in the cache itself.

 

For reasons that will be clear if you've done this cache, I've just picked up the now full first log book, and I intend to post the "task results" in the cache's gallery. However, there are far more logged finds on the cache page than there are completed tasks in the log book.

 

So my dilemma is - do I delete the "missing" logs from the page? Bearing in mind that some of these go back to mid 2005, and the cachers will probably not remember the details of the cache if I email and ask for an explanation?

 

Of course you do have the right as the owner to delete logs. Just a few things to think about though. When I first started, I would roll up on a cache with NO information at all in hand. I don't look at the trade items in the cache(just the log book). So I would have no idea that there would have been a task to do at all. In my opinion, if their name is on the log sheet. Regardless of if they did the task or not. They did in fact FIND the container. So I would leave the found logs alone.

Side note. What is the task? As I live in the USA. I know I would never be over to the UK to do this cache.

Just PM me with the details if you would like.

[+Stuey]

The task is blatantly obvious when you open the cache. I made a very lame attempt, and an excuse was that it was raining at the time. I am also inept at that particular task, but at least I had a go.

 

Delete them if you like, but maybe instead you could ask them to change their logs to "notes" rather than "finds" and invite them to revisit the cache and have a go at the task. It's not exactly a long walk, but I suppose it might be a long drive if anyone was in the area on holiday.

[+Orchards Finest]

For reasons that will be clear if you've done this cache, I've just picked up the now full first log book, and I intend to post the "task results" in the cache's gallery.

 

Oh dear. I know one graduate in a particular field who is going to be extremely embarrased about that! I think it is a great idea though.

 

As to the cache non compliance, the task didn't have to be done well and it needn't have taken more than a minute so deletion is harsh but probably fair. Also remember that deletion is bound to lead to bad feeling from someone. Perhaps you need a note on the cache page saying if you are found not to have completed the task the log will be deleted?

 

OTOH if they did sign the log book and they did find the cache...Your call.

[Nediam]

should I or shouldn't I?

If you do, then expect to get a sudden influx of e-mails! Some of which may be a bit rude, others may be worse!

 

I haven't done your cache, but if I suddenly got one of my previous cache finds deleted I'd be pretty miffed . If you start deleting found logs from nearly two years ago, you are going to mess up a lot of peoples statistics and more importantly, their milestones.

 

I've had a look at what I assume is the cache page in question and it doesn't say on there that logs will be deleted if cachers do not carry out the task, only if they post spoilers of what the task is/was (I see from your post that you are planning on showing the "results" in the gallery).

 

I'd recommend leaving the current logs alone and I would suggest posting a note in the logging area saying something like - "From this date all logs that do not complete the special task will be deleted........etc" and that you make it very clear on the page that logs will be deleted.

 

Not knowing what the task is, makes it difficult to comment on why some people haven't carried out the task. I'm assuming it involves drawing something or taking a photo. To log a find on most caches, the only thing people have to do is find it and sign the logbook, it’s possible that they didn’t read the cache page fully and didn’t realise that they HAD to complete the task.

 

Setting additional tasks in order to claim a find may be a little unfair? (except where photos or "emailed info" is the only way to prove a visit such as with Virtual caches etc). I’ve done a couple of caches that have had additional things to do at the site, but they were not compulsory, they were just meant to be fun. Perhaps it would be better to get cachers to try the task “just for a bit of fun”?

 

Whatever you choose to do is entirely up to you, but you did ask for peoples opinions Just don't be surprised if you end up upsetting a few people. Is the task really that important? After all, you do say at the bottom of your page...."Enjoy"

[+Bear and Ragged]

"A task to complete, and an email to send"

 

If they haven't completed both, they haven't completed the cache -delete!

 

Or maybe, as has been suggested above, change their log to a note.

 

 

(Maybe the log book should be checked 'a little more often' to check people have been completeing the task, thus not having to chase people after two years. )

 

G

[markandlynn]

Not looking at the cache in question i would draw peoples attention to the new guidelines for additional logging requirements for caches

 

Caches with mandatory requirements in addition to signing the logbook should be listed as mystery caches. Examples include sending the cache owner a verification codeword found inside the logbook, performing some task at the cache location and taking a photograph, or writing the online log in a format or with content that satisfies the cache requirements. The mystery cache designation assists finders in identifying that something extra is required in order to log a find.

[Nediam]

Not looking at the cache in question i would draw peoples attention to the new guidelines for additional logging requirements for caches

 

Caches with mandatory requirements in addition to signing the logbook should be listed as mystery caches. Examples include sending the cache owner a verification codeword found inside the logbook, performing some task at the cache location and taking a photograph, or writing the online log in a format or with content that satisfies the cache requirements. The mystery cache designation assists finders in identifying that something extra is required in order to log a find.

That's OK, it is listed as a Mystery Cache

[SlytherinAlex]

Isn't geocaching about finding caches? The people who logged it found the cache and signed the book. Seems fair enough to me YMMV.

[+Simply Paul]

I've a few 'Puerile Photo Caches', where visitors *should* take a photo of the offending sign or object to log their find of the physical cache. I tend to be quite generous about letting photo-free logs stand, but if I check the logbook and it's not signed (and there's no photo with the online log), then I'd certainly delete the found log. It's up to you to decide how strict you feel, but I would say wherever you draw the line, be consistent in which logs you delete/ask to be changed to notes.

[+keehotee]

Isn't geocaching about finding caches? The people who logged it found the cache and signed the book. Seems fair enough to me YMMV.

 

What I should have made clear earlier is that the task involves the logbook - the missing entries have NO logbook entry at all - the only indication I have that they have found the cache is the online log!!! There is no proof that they've even been near the cache, let alone found it, or completed the task.

To be honest, if they had just filled out the log I wouldn't have batted an eyelid this late on - but there are no entries at all in 3 cases.

Edited April 5, 2007 by keehotee

[+NinjaPete]

Edit : the above post made my point redundant

Edited April 5, 2007 by NinjaPete

[+keehotee]

Aaah - but I did get emails from 2 of them...which seems to make it twice as bad to me.

 

I've only become aware of this because of the nature of the task, and my need to look at the log and email the contributors - and not just throw it into a drawer as usual.

 

My problem now is, (and I've only just realised this) if I now go ahead and do what I'd intended to do with the log, anybody will be able to compare the gallery with the finds on the cache page..... and I don't really think I'm vindictive enough to want to expose these people.

Edited April 5, 2007 by keehotee

[+housefamily]

Well, if people haven't even signed the log book (or given an excellent excuse why not) - I'd be happy myself to delete the online log. Depends on how many there are - but I'm sure an email to each of them explaining the situation would diffuse any bad-feeling.

[+keehotee]

Perversely - there are far more entries and completed tasks in the book than there are online, because the cache is within 10 feet of a letterbox, and gets found by accident quite often! (The letterboxers always seem to leave something in the book - even if it's just a stamp)

[+t.a.folk]

Maybe some of the cachers who didn't sign the cache log book found the letterbox instead and thought they had found the cache .

Edited April 5, 2007 by t.a.folk

[+keehotee]

Maybe some of the cachers who didn't sign the cache log book found the letterbox instead and thought they had found the cache .

 

Hadn't thought of that - I'll check before I do anything. However, wouldn't explain the emails saying they'd completed the task....

[+Birdman-of-liskatraz]

I found the letterbox before the cache... It's pretty obvious it's not the cache however and as cachers on Dartmoor tend to be aware that there are letterboxes everywhere, I'd be surprised if someone had got the two confused.. although even now there's stories of a caching trip to Lundy Island where someone did just that...

[+spannerman]

My problem now is, (and I've only just realised this) if I now go ahead and do what I'd intended to do with the log, anybody will be able to compare the gallery with the finds on the cache page..... and I don't really think I'm vindictive enough to want to expose these people.

 

You could still publish the pictures and with a bit of editing remove any identifying features.

This would also save the embarrassment of some of the contributors, ie ME.

[+Wadders]

Isn't geocaching about finding caches? The people who logged it found the cache and signed the book. Seems fair enough to me YMMV.

 

What I should have made clear earlier is that the task involves the logbook - the missing entries have NO logbook entry at all - the only indication I have that they have found the cache is the online log!!! There is no proof that they've even been near the cache, let alone found it, or completed the task.

To be honest, if they had just filled out the log I wouldn't have batted an eyelid this late on - but there are no entries at all in 3 cases.

 

Sorry, but for me, if they do not sign the logbook that would be enough for me to delete the log, never mind the task!!!!

[+Pengy&Tigger]

Since there are also logs in the book that are not online, have you considered that some folks may have changed caching name since logging the cache?

[nobby.nobbs]

no dilemma at all, there are no log book entries so delete them and don't feel guilty.

 

it is great to have a variation on the normal type of cache and in this case the variation involved a task. if people can't be bothered to do that then they don't deserve anything other than very dull caches. plus they only have themselves to blame.

 

why is it down to the cache owner to feel guilty or apologise for something someone else DIDN'T do?

they should be emailled and saying sorry to you not the other way.

 

sorry if that sounds harsh but the task is easy and anyone can do it.

 

it's great that letterboxers have found the cache. maybe they'll be encouraged to do a proper hobby

[+paul.blitz]

Dare I add "remember, it's just a game"?

 

Paul

[+keehotee]

Dare I add "remember, it's just a game"?

You may, and for precisely that reason nobody should mind if their totals drop by one when I delete their logs.....

[+keehotee]

Dare I add "remember, it's just a game"?

You may, and for precisely that reason nobody should mind if their totals drop by one when I delete their logs.....