Jump to content

Deleting Logs of Premium Members -- is this allowed?


Recommended Posts

My brother and I recently completed a 5 day caching road trip around Europe. We got a note from one cache owner indicating that he was going to delete our finds because we were premium members and the cache could only be logged by non premium members.

 

When I go back to the log description and translate the German, I see it says this (but I don't normally run around with a German translator in my GPS).

 

However, this doesn't seem fundamentally right. I found the cache, I should be able to log the cache!

 

Does anyone else have thoughts or guidance on this?

Link to comment

A cache owner can delete any log he/she wants.

It might not be a very nice thing to do, and I wouldn't do it myself - but, especially as it states that PM's can't log it on the page - it's entirely their prerogative .....

 

An additional logging requirement (non premiums only), makes it a Puzzle Cache. Is the cache listed as a Puzzle Cache?

Link to comment

Looking at your list of finds in Germany I see all apart from some Virtuals are Traditionals so additional logging requirements are (should!) not allowed. However, the cache owner can do what they like to logs so you're stuffed I'm afraid.

 

Perhaps the caches ought to be reported to the local reviewer who can get them all changed to the correct type.

Link to comment

Perhaps the caches ought to be reported to the local reviewer who can get them all changed to the correct type.

 

I just looked at the profile for the cache owner, and he has a "…German Reviewer Team" Geocoin. I'm assuming that he is most likely a reviewer.

 

I agree that the puzzle cache seems like the right type. I'll make the recommendation and see what happens. My gut says no change...

Link to comment
he has a "…German Reviewer Team" Geocoin. I'm assuming that he is most likely a reviewer.

 

I haven't looked at the OP's profile for the caches in question, but the assumption that a person with this coin is a reviewer strikes me as likely false. The coin was for sale at one time, and I've seen them on auction.

Link to comment

This person is probably doing this odd logging requirement as a "protest".

 

As you probably know, in late 2005, new virtuals, webcams and locationless caches were banned from gc.com. The locationless were also locked, though the existing virts and webcams were "grandfathered".

 

Well Germany is famous for hosting "armchair virtuals", virts that with some research on Google you can find the answer and log (though sometimes the research is a lot tougher as it sounds as I've even done a few (like maybe 4 or 5) of them and the research was quite a challenge on at least a couple of them). But anyway, German cachers are also notorious on gc.com for looking at virtuals from around the world and finding ways to Google an answer/smiley, even if that's not what the US, Canadian, etc. cache owner intended and sometimes in recent years the cache owner has deleted such logs.

 

So I just have a feeling the owner of this cache is something like I described above and is doing this in protest. I'm kind of surprised that the admin wouldn't ban this kind of logging requirement since Premium Membership is one way Groundspeak gets revenue (without requiring you to be one to enjoy the game!).

Link to comment

My brother and I recently completed a 5 day caching road trip around Europe. We got a note from one cache owner indicating that he was going to delete our finds because we were premium members and the cache could only be logged by non premium members.

 

When I go back to the log description and translate the German, I see it says this (but I don't normally run around with a German translator in my GPS).

 

However, this doesn't seem fundamentally right. I found the cache, I should be able to log the cache!

 

Does anyone else have thoughts or guidance on this?

 

1. No, it's not fair.

2. It is, however, the owners option to delete logs according to whatever silly criteria (s)he chooses.

3. This is a chance you take when hunting caches with the page written in a language you don't read. It WAS your responsibility to take whatever steps were necessary to READ THE CACHE PAGE before the hunt.

4. If it were me, I'd change my found to a note...perhaps that will satisfy the owner yet give some indication that you were there.

Link to comment

My brother and I recently completed a 5 day caching road trip around Europe. We got a note from one cache owner indicating that he was going to delete our finds because we were premium members and the cache could only be logged by non premium members.

 

When I go back to the log description and translate the German, I see it says this (but I don't normally run around with a German translator in my GPS).

 

However, this doesn't seem fundamentally right. I found the cache, I should be able to log the cache!

 

Does anyone else have thoughts or guidance on this?

Well, since you asked...

 

First, the title of your thread, namely Deleting Logs of Premium Members -- is this allowed? is misleading. The fact of the matter is that you stumbled upon, and logged a find for, an Additional Logging Requirement (ALR) cache, and the ALR could just as easily have been the requirement that the finder provide a photograph of themselves standing upside down at the cache site, or a photo showing the cacher in an image from a nearby webcam, or that you write a poem in the logbook. And further, the fact of the matter is that even though this was an ARL cache -- and you should, of course, have been well aware of that fact before you ever visited the cache, as I am sure that you did read the cache description page prior to seeking the cache -- you chose to log a find anyway, despite the fact that your find was not in conformance with the ALR requirements. Why is this matter such a mystery to you?

 

The ONLY thing that struck my mind as perhaps a bit inappropriate about the cache when I first read your report was the fact that you have told us that the cache is not listed as a ? (mystery) cache, which is now the appropriate category for ALRs, and rather, that it is listed as a traditional cache, but that may simply be due to the fact that the guideline requiring that ALRs be listed under the mystery category was only formally published within the past twelve months or so (although the guideline was known for somewhat longer to regulars of this forum.) Since you have not given us the waypoint ID for the cache in question, I am unable to visit the cache listing page to ascertain whether the cache was published before or after the official publication of the guideline asking that ALR caches be classified as mystery caches.

 

So, yes, since this is an ALR cache, the owner has every right, and even an obligation, to delete the finds of claimants who do not meet the additional logging requirements. The only possible mistake on the part of the cache owner might be the fact that the cache is listed as a Traditional cache rather than a Mystery cache, but, as I have noted above, whether that is really a mistake would depend upon when the cache was published. If it turns out that the cache was published prior to the ALR = Mystery type guideline, then you are, of course, always free to ask Groundspeak to ask the cache owner and/or the local reviewer to re-classify the cache type as Mystery, due to the ALR.

Link to comment

A German cacher started this agenda back in 2005. I remember the thread vividly The First "no Members" Cache. May I suggest thoroughly researching the caches you plan on hunting, especially in a country like Germany.

 

I always figured the Germans were mad at us for deleting all their "greetings from Germany" fake virtual cache logs. :angry:

 

I found the cache in question No Members Please. Ironically, it was the same cache from the original thread.

Edited by Kit Fox
Link to comment

Thank you everyone for your responses.

 

Yes, I agree, I do have the responsibility to understand the requirements for a cache. When I'm looking for a virtual or a mystery cache I make sure I know all the requirements in advance. When heading out for a traditional cache, I don't always pay that close of attention.

 

The original thread was very interesting, thank you.

 

I have sent a request to have this changed to a mystery cache, we'll see what happens.

 

Thank you again.

Link to comment

To say premium members cannot log a cache is incredibly silly.

 

Once one becomes a premium member and has paid the thirty bucks, it is simply not logical for them to demand a refund in order to downgrade their membership so they can log a certain cache. Then they pony up again afterwards? Totally ridiculous!

 

The best solution for this kind of Barbara Streisand, IMO, would be to make the entire site a PAID MEMBERSHIP ONLY site and perhaps, out of the goodness of GC's heart, offer a one month free trial.

 

The GALL of some people who use the site for free amazes me.

Link to comment
To say premium members cannot log a cache is incredibly silly.

 

Once one becomes a premium member and has paid the thirty bucks, it is simply not logical for them to demand a refund in order to downgrade their membership so they can log a certain cache. Then they pony up again afterwards? Totally ridiculous!

 

The best solution for this kind of Barbara Streisand, IMO, would be to make the entire site a PAID MEMBERSHIP ONLY site and perhaps, out of the goodness of GC's heart, offer a one month free trial.

 

The GALL of some people who use the site for free amazes me.

I'm with you. This is messed up and needlessly discriminatory. :laughing: Maybe they should make it so only Premium members can delete the logs of other Premium members... :P Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

Thank you everyone for your responses.

 

Yes, I agree, I do have the responsibility to understand the requirements for a cache. When I'm looking for a virtual or a mystery cache I make sure I know all the requirements in advance. When heading out for a traditional cache, I don't always pay that close of attention.

 

The original thread was very interesting, thank you.

 

I have sent a request to have this changed to a mystery cache, we'll see what happens.

 

Thank you again.

I wouldn't be surprised if the cache is not changed to a mystery--It was published before that guideline was in place it is probably considered to be "grandfathered". Caches are only very rarely altered after publication--people do not like to have their stats changing. If they hunted a traditional, they want it to show up as a traditional, etc.

Edited by Neos2
Link to comment

I am sure HaLiJuSaPa hit the nail on the head. This chache was placed as a 'clever counterstrike' to MOC by someONE very frustrated in Germany. KitFox delivered another proof with the link.

I have read some discussions around MOC in the german speaking forum here, as well as in german forum and found that there is a very small (but very vocal and impolite) minority with that opinion.

 

The point I take exception to (again) in the oversimplification by some. I consider myself 'the average german geocacher' and I (as about 100k others here) play the game the same way you all do. Fair.

I won't go into the 'armchair logs' as that has been discussed at great length elsewhere and found to be a Austrian, German, Californian phenomenon.

So, please do NOT judge the german geocachers as a group based on an isolated few that are shunned even within their peers here.

 

As for deleting the posts: Stupid beyond belief. These (individual) cachers totally disqualify themselves and directly go to my personal 'ignore list'. (-Deleted a few misplaced comments here-) I also don't believe the cache status will be changed.

 

An offer to everyone travelling to Germany (or german speaking regions): If you need help translating or just general help/tips: Send me an email and I will gladly do what I can. Should you even be in my area: The first round is on me.

 

Thore

Link to comment

To say premium members cannot log a cache is incredibly silly.

 

Once one becomes a premium member and has paid the thirty bucks, it is simply not logical for them to demand a refund in order to downgrade their membership so they can log a certain cache. Then they pony up again afterwards? Totally ridiculous!

 

The best solution for this kind of Barbara Streisand, IMO, would be to make the entire site a PAID MEMBERSHIP ONLY site and perhaps, out of the goodness of GC's heart, offer a one month free trial.

 

The GALL of some people who use the site for free amazes me.

 

Premium members constitute less than 10% of the community, so realize that you are very much in the minority. No one is prevented from finding a cache in this instance only from logging a smiley. What's more important the cache or the smiley? He could post a note instead. The fact of the matter is that it is the cache owner's cache NOT geocaching.com's cache. Without the regular members there would be even less caches to find. Being a premium member allows you site enhancements not entitlements.

Link to comment

From where did you get your statistic? Are you talking active cachers or cachers who signed up and tried it once and have never logged back in?

 

Around here, about 90% of active cachers are premium memers.

 

Edited to say that I totally made that number up, but my point is that if you look at the profiles of the active cachers in our area, only a small percentage are standard members. Many of them are additional family members, such as a spouse or the child of a premium memer.

Edited by Skippermark
Link to comment
Premium members constitute less than 10% of the community, so realize that you are very much in the minority. No one is prevented from finding a cache in this instance only from logging a smiley. What's more important the cache or the smiley? He could post a note instead

 

Maybe it's not about the smiley, maybe it's about accuracy in logging. It used to be simple, you found a cache and you logged a "found it". When did found it logs become commodities to be traded, awarded and denied at a cache owner's whim? It's absolutely absurd.

Link to comment

From where did you get your statistic? Are you talking active cachers or cachers who signed up and tried it once and have never logged back in?

 

Around here, about 90% of active cachers are premium memers.

 

Edited to say that I totally made that number up, but my point is that if you look at the profiles of the active cachers in our area, only a small percentage are standard members. Many of them are additional family members, such as a spouse or the child of a premium memer.

 

It includes a sample of all accounts over all years of existence.

Link to comment
Premium members constitute less than 10% of the community, so realize that you are very much in the minority. No one is prevented from finding a cache in this instance only from logging a smiley. What's more important the cache or the smiley? He could post a note instead

 

Maybe it's not about the smiley, maybe it's about accuracy in logging. It used to be simple, you found a cache and you logged a "found it". When did found it logs become commodities to be traded, awarded and denied at a cache owner's whim? It's absolutely absurd.

 

If it's about accuracy in logging, then he was inaccurate according to the cache page. I will agree with you that it used to be simple, you found a cache and logged a "found it", but I think it started around the same time cachers "attended" the same event 13 times.

Edited by D@nim@l
Link to comment
I am sure HaLiJuSaPa hit the nail on the head. This chache was placed as a 'clever counterstrike' to MOC by someONE very frustrated in Germany. KitFox delivered another proof with the link.

I have read some discussions around MOC in the german speaking forum here, as well as in german forum and found that there is a very small (but very vocal and impolite) minority with that opinion.

 

The point I take exception to (again) in the oversimplification by some. I consider myself 'the average german geocacher' and I (as about 100k others here) play the game the same way you all do. Fair.

I won't go into the 'armchair logs' as that has been discussed at great length elsewhere and found to be a Austrian, German, Californian phenomenon.

So, please do NOT judge the german geocachers as a group based on an isolated few that are shunned even within their peers here.

 

As for deleting the posts: Stupid beyond belief. These (individual) cachers totally disqualify themselves and directly go to my personal 'ignore list'. (-Deleted a few misplaced comments here-) I also don't believe the cache status will be changed.

 

An offer to everyone travelling to Germany (or german speaking regions): If you need help translating or just general help/tips: Send me an email and I will gladly do what I can. Should you even be in my area: The first round is on me.

 

Thore

Thanks for sharing that Thore! I figured it was some disgruntled cacher over there. It sounded like an isolated case. I'm sure if it wasn't TPTB may have done something about it.

 

Anyhow, I hope to get over to Germany someday. My oldest son speaks German fairly well but I may take you up on your offer! I'm looking for ward to that first round! :P

Link to comment

From where did you get your statistic? Are you talking active cachers or cachers who signed up and tried it once and have never logged back in?

 

Around here, about 90% of active cachers are premium memers.

 

Edited to say that I totally made that number up, but my point is that if you look at the profiles of the active cachers in our area, only a small percentage are standard members. Many of them are additional family members, such as a spouse or the child of a premium memer.

 

It includes a sample of all accounts over all years of existence.

 

They just went over 1.7 million accounts this past weekend. The key point here is active cachers. There's really not all that many of us. The front page of the website says "In the last 7 days, there have been 410617 new logs written by 57536 account holders." That's 57,536 out of 1.7 million. I have no doubt 10% or less of all accounts are premium members.

 

Staying somewhat on topic, I do remember when the German cacher started the angsty thread about the referenced no members cache. :P

Link to comment

Thanks for sharing that Thore! I figured it was some disgruntled cacher over there. It sounded like an isolated case. I'm sure if it wasn't TPTB may have done something about it.

 

Anyhow, I hope to get over to Germany someday. My oldest son speaks German fairly well but I may take you up on your offer! I'm looking for ward to that first round! :P

 

Trailgators: You are on!

Thore

Link to comment

...Does anyone else have thoughts or guidance on this?

 

It's dorky but it's the owners call.

 

I'd ask them all kinds of questions.

 

What about PM who then become RM?

What about a log as a RM who then becomes a PM?

If you were ever a PM but are an RM can you log?

If my PM lapses can I log and would it be good when I renew?

Do Charter members count as PM?

What if I'm Platinum instead of Premium?

Can I create a RM account and log? Or would that account be tainted by this account?

Can the non PM members of my party log?

I'm sorry but my wife logged this one. She's not a member at all, she's borrowing my account, are you going to deleter her log?

Link to comment

...Does anyone else have thoughts or guidance on this?

 

It's dorky but it's the owners call.

 

I'd ask them all kinds of questions.

 

What about PM who then become RM?

What about a log as a RM who then becomes a PM?

If you were ever a PM but are an RM can you log?

If my PM lapses can I log and would it be good when I renew?

Do Charter members count as PM?

What if I'm Platinum instead of Premium?

Can I create a RM account and log? Or would that account be tainted by this account?

Can the non PM members of my party log?

I'm sorry but my wife logged this one. She's not a member at all, she's borrowing my account, are you going to deleter her log?

 

Which makes PM only caches equally dorky.

Link to comment

Yes, there can be. The difference here is that PM's are being targeted for being PMs.

 

RM's can log PM-only caches. I routinely log my dog's RM account in PM-only caches, and not one cache owner has ever deleted any of her webpage log entries - yet. Why? Because PM-only caches are not set up to exclude RM's - they're set up to award PM's for their support and/or minimize vandalism, theft, etc...

 

EDIT: one possible way around the deletion is to log a note, or even a DNF. Chances are the owner will not delete those. Wait a few months, then go in and change the log entry to a find. The owner will not get an email about the change. He/she will only discover it if he/she reviews each log entry on the webpage, and how many of us do that?

Edited by Chuy!
Link to comment

Yes, there can be. The difference here is that PM's are being targeted for being PMs.

 

RM's can log PM-only caches. I routinely log my dog's RM account in PM-only caches, and not one cache owner has ever deleted any of her webpage log entries - yet. Why? Because PM-only caches are not set up to exclude RM's - they're set up to award PM's for their support and/or minimize vandalism, theft, etc...

 

EDIT: one possible way around the deletion is to log a note, or even a DNF. Chances are the owner will not delete those. Wait a few months, then go in and change the log entry to a find. The owner will not get an email about the change. He/she will only discover it if he/she reviews each log entry on the webpage, and how many of us do that?

Well maybe because I currently only have 2 active caches.... I do on a monthly basis. Frankly, I don't appreciate dishonest actions. If you can't be upfront about your notes/finds/DNFs, then what does that say about your integrity level?

 

This particular cache had an additional logging requirement. PMs as well as RMs are NOT entitled to having every find count. Why is this a problem?

Link to comment

An additional logging requirement (non premiums only), makes it a Puzzle Cache. Is the cache listed as a Puzzle Cache?

 

No, this was a traditional cache.

 

Well then - You have a case! Bring this to the attention of a reviewer. Additional logging requirements mean its a mystery cache. A "needs archived" log might get the owner to change his mind..

Link to comment

An additional logging requirement (non premiums only), makes it a Puzzle Cache. Is the cache listed as a Puzzle Cache?

 

No, this was a traditional cache.

 

Well then - You have a case! Bring this to the attention of a reviewer. Additional logging requirements mean its a mystery cache. A "needs archived" log might get the owner to change his mind..

 

Perhaps they have a case to request that the cache type be changed but they don't have a case to log it. The rules were clear.

Link to comment

I would argue that traditional caches cannot have additional logging requirements. Therefore, any ALRs on traditional caches should not be enforced. If the cache is changed to a mystery cache, then the owner would be free to enforce any additional logging requirements for future finds (but not for finds made while it was listed as a traditional).

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

That ignores grandfathering. There are lots of traditionals with ALR. When the mystery requirement was installed, all previous ones were grandfathered.

 

That is correct. To change them now would change the history of all that logged the cache in the past.

Link to comment

Yes, there can be. The difference here is that PM's are being targeted for being PMs.

 

RM's can log PM-only caches. I routinely log my dog's RM account in PM-only caches, and not one cache owner has ever deleted any of her webpage log entries - yet. Why? Because PM-only caches are not set up to exclude RM's - they're set up to award PM's for their support and/or minimize vandalism, theft, etc...

 

EDIT: one possible way around the deletion is to log a note, or even a DNF. Chances are the owner will not delete those. Wait a few months, then go in and change the log entry to a find. The owner will not get an email about the change. He/she will only discover it if he/she reviews each log entry on the webpage, and how many of us do that?

Well maybe because I currently only have 2 active caches.... I do on a monthly basis. Frankly, I don't appreciate dishonest actions. If you can't be upfront about your notes/finds/DNFs, then what does that say about your integrity level?

 

This particular cache had an additional logging requirement. PMs as well as RMs are NOT entitled to having every find count. Why is this a problem?

This is a matter of opinion. My opinion is this particular logging requirement is petty and, I could argue, discriminatory in nature. Your dishonesty claim is also a matter of opinion.

Link to comment

Yes, there can be. The difference here is that PM's are being targeted for being PMs.

 

RM's can log PM-only caches. I routinely log my dog's RM account in PM-only caches, and not one cache owner has ever deleted any of her webpage log entries - yet. Why? Because PM-only caches are not set up to exclude RM's - they're set up to award PM's for their support and/or minimize vandalism, theft, etc...

 

EDIT: one possible way around the deletion is to log a note, or even a DNF. Chances are the owner will not delete those. Wait a few months, then go in and change the log entry to a find. The owner will not get an email about the change. He/she will only discover it if he/she reviews each log entry on the webpage, and how many of us do that?

Well maybe because I currently only have 2 active caches.... I do on a monthly basis. Frankly, I don't appreciate dishonest actions. If you can't be upfront about your notes/finds/DNFs, then what does that say about your integrity level?

 

This particular cache had an additional logging requirement. PMs as well as RMs are NOT entitled to having every find count. Why is this a problem?

This is a matter of opinion. My opinion is this particular logging requirement is petty and, I could argue, discriminatory in nature. Your dishonesty claim is also a matter of opinion.

I'll start with the last first. If you're going to post a note or DNF with the intent to change it to a Found It later on to get by the ALR, that's being dishonest. Fact, not opinion.

 

An ALR can be as petty as the owner wants it to be. I have no arguement there. It can even be discriminatory. It's still an ALR, it is still owned by the cache owner, and they can still make the rules on how you log it... as long as it is within the TOS of this listing service. All you end up with is an puissant match to see who blinks first.

Link to comment
Only platinum members are not allowed to have their logs deleted. It's in the contract.

You're telling me that as a Diamond Member, I can't delete your stinkin' groveling Platinum log? AFAIK only God Members can delete my Diamond logs, but I fully expect them to do so.

 

Diamond Jim

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...