Owner deletes posts

[+thedeadpirate]

Advocating that people go out and vandalize or steal a cache is criminal, not something grownups do, unless they are in fact criminals.

 

It was Criminal who suggested it.

 

But seriously, I don't think upping the ante is going to solve anything. I also don't think a cache owner should delete a log just because someone said they didn't like the cache.

 

I've made changes to caches based on negative feedback.

 

Of course there are ways to say you didn't like the cache and there are ways you shouldn't say you didn't like a cache.

 

It's the snarky, rude ways that people criticize a cache that generally leads to log deletions, IMHO.

[+Castle Mischief]

 

All are equally 'grownup' or childish. Why? Because it's just a game!

 

How you play the game determines your level of maturity. Destroying somebody's cache like a spiteful infant is not the solution. Talking it out with level heads is.

[+Okiebryan]

There is someone who I have a history with who uses my caches as a way to write logs that they know will irritate me. I've thought about deleting their logs just in the hopes they'll leave my hides alone, but I have never done that. I just ignore them in hopes they'll get bored and go away. So far it hasn't worked.

 

Sure do wish there was a reverse ignore feature.

[+Criminal]

 

All are equally 'grownup' or childish. Why? Because it's just a game!

 

How you play the game determines your level of maturity. Destroying somebody's cache like a spiteful infant is not the solution. Talking it out with level heads is.

I think that's what I said.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

There is someone who I have a history with who uses my caches as a way to write logs that they know will irritate me. I've thought about deleting their logs just in the hopes they'll leave my hides alone, but I have never done that. I just ignore them in hopes they'll get bored and go away. So far it hasn't worked.

 

Sure do wish there was a reverse ignore feature.

 

You can't control their behavior. You can only control your own. You're doing good to ignore them. I wish I could just ignore people who were unnecessarily antagonistic regardless what they say. People that fake and infantile crawl under my skin. Good for you!

 

- Elle

[+Castle Mischief]

 

All are equally 'grownup' or childish. Why? Because it's just a game!

 

How you play the game determines your level of maturity. Destroying somebody's cache like a spiteful infant is not the solution. Talking it out with level heads is.

I think that's what I said.

 

You advocated destroying somebody's cache as an option on par with coming to an agreement, placing them both on the same level of maturity. You certainly did not say that either was preferable to the other or that any of your "solutions" were the better more grownup thing to do. You've developed this nuclear option as if geocaching were something much more serious that it should be.

[+sbell111]

There is someone who I have a history with who uses my caches as a way to write logs that they know will irritate me. I've thought about deleting their logs just in the hopes they'll leave my hides alone, but I have never done that. I just ignore them in hopes they'll get bored and go away. So far it hasn't worked.

 

Sure do wish there was a reverse ignore feature.

If I were you, I wouldn't open the emails with the following subject:

 

[LOG] Owner: GuyIDontLike found MySuperduperCache (Traditional Cache)

[+infiniteMPG]

Some people tend to forget that the cache was a gift to the community. Returning that gift with snarkiness doesn't seem like a very smart tactic. It comes as a bit of a surprise when people insist on 'calling it as they see it', but aren't willing to live with the result of their snark.

That's where people don't see what's going on behind the scenes. A cacher with few or no hides slamming someone maintaining dozens (or hundreds) of hides because of some technique or container size or something minor like that just doesn't understand the work it takes to upkeep it all. And it's being upkept for the cachers, not like we owners get some commision. Which also circles back to asking how hard it is to take 30 seconds and type a little blurb about the find in the log rather then "TFTH!". People who leave logs of 5 characters or less should only be allowed to find PAG LPC's....

[+Okiebryan]

There is someone who I have a history with who uses my caches as a way to write logs that they know will irritate me. I've thought about deleting their logs just in the hopes they'll leave my hides alone, but I have never done that. I just ignore them in hopes they'll get bored and go away. So far it hasn't worked.

 

Sure do wish there was a reverse ignore feature.

If I were you, I wouldn't open the emails with the following subject:

 

[LOG] Owner: GuyIDontLike found MySuperduperCache (Traditional Cache)

 

Been doing that for months. Believe me. Then they just escalated it into other areas. *sigh*

 

I can't understand the obsession.

[+Criminal]

 

All are equally 'grownup' or childish. Why? Because it's just a game!

 

How you play the game determines your level of maturity. Destroying somebody's cache like a spiteful infant is not the solution. Talking it out with level heads is.

I think that's what I said.

 

You advocated destroying somebody's cache as an option on par with coming to an agreement, placing them both on the same level of maturity. You certainly did not say that either was preferable to the other or that any of your "solutions" were the better more grownup thing to do. You've developed this nuclear option as if geocaching were something much more serious that it should be.

 

Reading is just SO much work...

 

The solution to the problem of a cache owner deleting finds is to reduce the tension, not increase it, in my opinion.

Exactly! That’s always the best option and should always be the first choice when these things happen. Right now, Groundspeak doesn’t seem to have any effective way of dealing with the issue of valid logs being deleted by cache owners. It seems to come up every few months (or more but I’ve not been around here much) that a cache owner with delusions of grandeur deletes the find of someone who legitimately found their cache because they don’t like what the finder had to say. (Personally, if someone told me my cache sucked I’d take it as a hint that maybe my hide isn’t all I’d hoped it would be.)

 

The consensus seems to be that if the cache owner is unreasonable you should just give up because there’s nothing that you can do. Well, yes there is. True, it’s a last resort; but the finder isn’t powerless, even if it’s not PC to point it out.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

 

Did Criminal say something shocking?

 

That never happens!

 

He must not understand what he's said. Somebody explain it to him!

 

 

- Elle

[+thedeadpirate]

I'll go find the girl over in OT and see if she can have a chat with him.

[+Mudfrog]

Some people tend to forget that the cache was a gift to the community. Returning that gift with snarkiness doesn't seem like a very smart tactic. It comes as a bit of a surprise when people insist on 'calling it as they see it', but aren't willing to live with the result of their snark.

That's where people don't see what's going on behind the scenes. A cacher with few or no hides slamming someone maintaining dozens (or hundreds) of hides because of some technique or container size or something minor like that just doesn't understand the work it takes to upkeep it all. And it's being upkept for the cachers, not like we owners get some commision. Which also circles back to asking how hard it is to take 30 seconds and type a little blurb about the find in the log rather then "TFTH!". People who leave logs of 5 characters or less should only be allowed to find PAG LPC's....

 

I've never left a tnsl or one worded log but my logs are definitely shorter on those caches that i didn't think were good. Cache owners may not get the connection right away but this is the way i show how much i liked their cache. For the most part, the longer the log, the more i liked it. I sure don't mind letting a cache owner know that there's a safety related issue or a problem with their cache, but i see no point in telling a cache owner that his cache sucks. What i think is a sucky cache is not necessarily a fact, but only my opinion. I can just about guarantee you that there are others out there who would enjoy finding that very same cache.

[+Criminal]

I'll go find the girl over in OT and see if she can have a chat with him.

mmmmmm ...Girl

[+KBI]

Log it one more time. If he deletes your valid find again, throw his cache in the nearest dumpster. You're not powerless you know.

There is no way I can support this destructive suggestion.

 

Unless you're pulling all our legs, of course ... in which case: How do you know the cache wasn't originally hidden inside the dumpster?

[+King Boreas]

Some people tend to forget that the cache was a gift to the community. Returning that gift with snarkiness doesn't seem like a very smart tactic. It comes as a bit of a surprise when people insist on 'calling it as they see it', but aren't willing to live with the result of their snark.

That's where people don't see what's going on behind the scenes. A cacher with few or no hides slamming someone maintaining dozens (or hundreds) of hides because of some technique or container size or something minor like that just doesn't understand the work it takes to upkeep it all. And it's being upkept for the cachers, not like we owners get some commision. Which also circles back to asking how hard it is to take 30 seconds and type a little blurb about the find in the log rather then "TFTH!". People who leave logs of 5 characters or less should only be allowed to find PAG LPC's....

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...26-b6f81591fcbe

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I reported that I found a particular 3-star cache which I thought was dissatisfying (GCZT0W). I think I'm entitled to my opinion but the owner also feels entitled to delete my opinion. Now I voice my opinion and also note that the owner keeps deleting my posts. Thoughts anyone?

Gee, am I psychic? Why is it that I just knew when I first read this opening post that there was another very big and significant side to the story, one that was left untold?

[+infiniteMPG]

I've never left a tnsl or one worded log but my logs are definitely shorter on those caches that i didn't think were good. Cache owners may not get the connection right away but this is the way i show how much i liked their cache. For the most part, the longer the log, the more i liked it. I sure don't mind letting a cache owner know that there's a safety related issue or a problem with their cache, but i see no point in telling a cache owner that his cache sucks. What i think is a sucky cache is not necessarily a fact, but only my opinion. I can just about guarantee you that there are others out there who would enjoy finding that very same cache.

True safety issues should be listed to alert dangers to others, but not just challenges. Having to climb out on a tree hanging over a deep creek bed on a 4 or 5 cache shouldn't be listed as a danger as that's the challenge. Poison ivy surrounding the cache, or hanging over a snake infested hole in the rocks, or wild boars living ten feet away, yeah, list those.

 

And opinions can be posted but dimplomatically. And I agree, when we spend the day caching and find a bunch of caches, the ones I can't recall because there was nothing memorable about them get the shorter logs. IMHO that's why I hide what I hide as I am fishing for long logs.... that's the fun of being a cache owner!!!

[+Mudfrog]

I've never left a tnsl or one worded log but my logs are definitely shorter on those caches that i didn't think were good. Cache owners may not get the connection right away but this is the way i show how much i liked their cache. For the most part, the longer the log, the more i liked it. I sure don't mind letting a cache owner know that there's a safety related issue or a problem with their cache, but i see no point in telling a cache owner that his cache sucks. What i think is a sucky cache is not necessarily a fact, but only my opinion. I can just about guarantee you that there are others out there who would enjoy finding that very same cache.

True safety issues should be listed to alert dangers to others, but not just challenges. Having to climb out on a tree hanging over a deep creek bed on a 4 or 5 cache shouldn't be listed as a danger as that's the challenge. Poison ivy surrounding the cache, or hanging over a snake infested hole in the rocks, or wild boars living ten feet away, yeah, list those.

 

And opinions can be posted but dimplomatically. And I agree, when we spend the day caching and find a bunch of caches, the ones I can't recall because there was nothing memorable about them get the shorter logs. IMHO that's why I hide what I hide as I am fishing for long logs.... that's the fun of being a cache owner!!!

 

Exactly! I didn't mean to imply that a challenging cache in a tree, on a cliff, under water, etc,,, would get any kind of note from me. I meant a danger that the cache owner may not be aware of such as wild bees that took up residence in the hollow of a tree that a cache is in or maybe a place where it was apparent that criminal activity was taking place routinely. Something of that sort...

[CoyoteRed]

I reported that I found a particular 3-star cache which I thought was dissatisfying (GCZT0W). I think I'm entitled to my opinion but the owner also feels entitled to delete my opinion. Now I voice my opinion and also note that the owner keeps deleting my posts. Thoughts anyone?

Gee, am I psychic? Why is it that I just knew when I first read this opening post that there was another very big and significant side to the story, one that was left untold?

The one we found out in post #6. The finder didn't like the cache, so what. Not delete material in my opinion.

[CoyoteRed]

Log it one more time. If he deletes your valid find again, throw his cache in the nearest dumpster. You're not powerless you know.

There is no way I can support this destructive suggestion.

I'm not sure, but I think Criminal was simply countering the oft mentioned "the cache owner holds all the cards" argument. The counter is "I know where your cache is and you can't guard it 24/7."

 

Pretty much, the cache owner shouldn't sit at his desk all smug thinking there is nothing a seeker can do about him deleting his logs. I personally won't advocate elevation to this level as I prefer solutions a bit more elegant, with less effort, and won't feel "dirty," but the "nuclear option" is always there, waiting.

[4wheelin_fool]

Log it one more time. If he deletes your valid find again, throw his cache in the nearest dumpster. You're not powerless you know.

There is no way I can support this destructive suggestion.

I'm not sure, but I think Criminal was simply countering the oft mentioned "the cache owner holds all the cards" argument. The counter is "I know where your cache is and you can't guard it 24/7."

 

Pretty much, the cache owner shouldn't sit at his desk all smug thinking there is nothing a seeker can do about him deleting his logs. I personally won't advocate elevation to this level as I prefer solutions a bit more elegant, with less effort, and won't feel "dirty," but the "nuclear option" is always there, waiting.

 

Stealing someones cache and trying to hide that you did it is the way of a coward.

 

Stealing the cache and letting them know that you did it only makes it worse.

 

The cache owner is not powerless you know.

Edited August 23, 2008 by 4wheelin_fool

[+CaptRussell]

I have an idea that I believe is far better that the barbaric and childish suggestion of stealing the cache container.

 

I reported that I found a particular 3-star cache which I thought was dissatisfying (GCZT0W). I think I'm entitled to my opinion but the owner also feels entitled to delete my opinion. Now I voice my opinion and also note that the owner keeps deleting my posts. Thoughts anyone?

Runewell;

 

That happened to me once. My story was almost identical. Like you, I started my own thread to ask for suggestions.

 

The difference is that the delete-happy owner in my case, after reading my thread, finally (if reluctantly) agreed to allow the log to stand.

 

In my thread I also received some good suggestions for how to deal with the problem had the owner refused to allow my log. One of the best ideas was to simply log the find in a place where nobody could delete it: on one of my own caches! Had it become necessary to do so in my case I was prepared to log a description of the find as a smiley on one of my caches, complete with a link to the relevant cache and a brief description of why I had done so.

 

Should the cache owner in your case refuse to cooperate, you always have the same option: Log the find on one of your own caches.

 

Advantages:

• Your total find count will remain accurate.
  
• Your written online find history (textual record) will remain intact – and will arguably become even more interesting to read.
  
• The cache owner will be powerless to delete your “Found it” log.
  
• Anyone who reads your truthful log will know exactly what the cache owner did, which might possibly encourage him to re-think his log deletion standards – or might even persuade him to invite you to re-log the find in the conventional way.
  

Disadvantage:

• No one will know from reading the owner’s cache page that you were ever there – which really only matters if you care about that sort of thing.
  
• Your 'bogus log' will likely be perceived as an evil threat to civilization by a small minority of self-appointed truth-in-logging puritans – which, again, really only matters if you care about that sort of thing.
  
• The cache will not display as a “found” cache in your online searches and maps – but of course you could always place the cache on your ignore list, which I’ve never tried, but which I understand will suppress the cache from appearing in your online searches and maps at all.
  

- CaptRussell (aka KBI)

[CoyoteRed]

The cache owner is not powerless you know.

Didn't say they were, but you've got me curious. What can an owner do to prevent someone from simply walking off with a cache? Lock it? Make it harder to find? Both changes the nature of a typical cache.

 

Face it, your cache only exists due to the good graces of those who know it is there.

[+thedeadpirate]

Face it, your cache only exists due to the good graces of those who know it is there.

 

As many a cache maggot has proven.

[+runewell]

It's not that I'm worried about adding one more smiley face to the 585 I already have. I think the public deserves to know that if I could go back in time I wouldn't spend any effort on this cache.

 

You climb a hill. Getting a precise reading isn't easy because of the elevation. It's a small object just sitting in the grass about 10 feet from the peak. But there are a lot of trees on the hill and it's going to take a while to find. The difficulty level is appropriate but I don't see why someone's truthful opinion should be deleted. If I said TFTC after every single log it certainly wouldn't always be an honest response.

[+thedeadpirate]

Log Date: 7/4/2008

Been here twice before. Happily Meralgia found it not long before we were ready to leave. Dissatifying and uninteresting cache, better to ask someone for a specific hint and save two hours of your life.

 

If this was your original log, I would not have deleted it. I'd be wondering, however, why you didn't post any dnf's as Meralgia did.

 

What is strange about it though is that if you read through all the logs, it does appears to be a rather uninteresting location. I saw a number of negative comments that KB allowed to remain.

 

"My GPS said ground zero was only 2.5 feet area search and searched only to find two books of very wet stolen check. The upper torso of some type of Barbie doll and a pile of dog poop."

 

"found the checks, quite a bit of trash, but no cache"

 

"Didn't find it, but found lots of trash. Time for a CITO project here? Maybe an event even. See if anyone can find the cache as they're picking up all the trash, heh."

 

"Classic Boreas cache, no clues or attributes. I was in the neighborhood, it was loaded in the GPS, but I had no idea what to expect. Isn't that like every Boreas cache?"

 

That actually seemed to be a shot directly at KB.

 

"we cleared the park of the bottles, cans, two-liter bottles and that @#$% computer. No altoids tin to be found (was it affixed to the old computer at one point)?"

 

Some of those comments are actually more negative than runewell's comments. I just wonder if the original log wasn't worse than the one KB posted? Otherwise it seems something besides the log itself is going on here. Is there some personal background between the two of you that we haven't heard about? I just don't understand why your log was chosen out of all the other negative logs for deletion.

[+Bad_CRC]

It's not that I'm worried about adding one more smiley face to the 585 I already have. I think the public deserves to know that if I could go back in time I wouldn't spend any effort on this cache.

 

You climb a hill. Getting a precise reading isn't easy because of the elevation. It's a small object just sitting in the grass about 10 feet from the peak. But there are a lot of trees on the hill and it's going to take a while to find. The difficulty level is appropriate but I don't see why someone's truthful opinion should be deleted. If I said TFTC after every single log it certainly wouldn't always be an honest response.

 

Why do you think your opinion is so important to everyone else? I haven't done the cache myself, but it doesn't sound so bad to me.

 

I happen to agree with you that the log shouldn't be deleted, but from the outside it seems that you are both being very childish and immature about this.

 

What do you hope to accomplish with this crusade?

 

It seems that at this point, it's really not about the cache at all, it's about which of you can be more stubborn, and outlast the other. Doesn't seem like much chance of a rational discussion between the two of you (which should have happened after the first log deletion), and it doesn't look like either will let themselves take the high road required to end this.

 

hey, since you're fond of opinions... that's mine.

[+Bad_CRC]

I wonder if separate from the found logs, there could/should be a review page where people could post reviews of caches.

 

would it improve the quality of caches, or just cause problems?

 

personally, I'd love to see a review page for caches, as I'm the type of cacher that doesn't find every cache around, I only go for interesting ones, and occasionally get a few boring ones on the way there or back if they're convenient. Reviews would be a great help.

[AZcachemeister]

Or you could just give up before it turns into.

 

You steal the cache.

Cache owner retaliates by letting and air out of your car tires when he finds you.

Which pisses you off so you run over the mailbox at his house.

To which he responds by throwing eggs all over your house.

Promptly causing you to throw a brick through his living room window.

Which makes him feel it necessary to put sugar in your gas tank.

Leaving you stranded on a geocaching trip, pissing you off so much while you walk home that you're wondering how much hit men cost or if you can get away with full blown arson.

 

Sometimes it's better to just stop.

 

I have had cachers complain about a cache, or my maintenance of it, a few times.

They're entitled to their opinions, and I don't mind what they say, but I have sent EMails to apologize for their poor experience.

On the other hand, if A BUNCH of cachers complain, maybe I am the one with the problem?

 

Sugar in the gas tank would only (at the worst) clog the filter. Sugar does not dissolve in gasoline.

[+Michael]

If your cache found it log is deleted for no valid reason then it is an abuse of the Terms of Use. Send me an email with the original contents of the log and the GC# of the cache. Please send me the whole story accurately, as it will come out during the investigation. If it is determined that your log was indeed deleted for no valid reason then it will be put back by Groundspeak.

[+thedeadpirate]

If your cache found it log is deleted for no valid reason then it is an abuse of the Terms of Use. Send me an email with the original contents of the log and the GC# of the cache. Please send me the whole story accurately, as it will come out during the investigation. If it is determined that your log was indeed deleted for no valid reason then it will be put back by Groundspeak.

Michael, could you please quote the relevant part of the Terms of Use. Whether I agree or not with the cache owner in this situation, I've always understood that it was the cache owner's prerogative to delete any logs they saw fit.

 

Reading through the terms of service, the closest thing I can find that would make this situation an abuse of the TOS is:

 

You agree not to:

 

....

 

(g) Disrupt the normal flow of dialogue or otherwise act in a manner that negatively affects other users' ability to engage in real time exchanges.

I'm just curious since I like to keep abreast of current interpretations of the TOS and guidelines.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

Reading through the terms of service, the closest thing I can find that would make this situation an abuse of the TOS is:

 

You agree not to:

 

....

 

(g) Disrupt the normal flow of dialogue or otherwise act in a manner that negatively affects other users' ability to engage in real time exchanges.

I'm just curious since I like to keep abreast of current interpretations of the TOS and guidelines.

 

Section 4 regards the forums, if I'm reading it correctly.

 

- Elle

[AZcachemeister]

If your cache found it log is deleted for no valid reason then it is an abuse of the Terms of Use. Send me an email with the original contents of the log and the GC# of the cache. Please send me the whole story accurately, as it will come out during the investigation. If it is determined that your log was indeed deleted for no valid reason then it will be put back by Groundspeak.

 

Now we're getting somewhere! There is a very big frog behind all us little tadpoles...

Of course, saving the relevant text of all our logs just in case[i/] the owner decides to delete could get cumbersome...can we paraphrase so you can find them in the archives?

In case anyone is wondering: YES, the admins can lock a log and make it non-deletable by the owner.

 

Congratulations, Criminal on the simultaneous yanking of so many chains (I'll bet it's not even close to the record, though).

[+thedeadpirate]

Reading through the terms of service, the closest thing I can find that would make this situation an abuse of the TOS is:

 

You agree not to:

 

....

 

(g) Disrupt the normal flow of dialogue or otherwise act in a manner that negatively affects other users' ability to engage in real time exchanges.

I'm just curious since I like to keep abreast of current interpretations of the TOS and guidelines.

 

Section 4 regards the forums, if I'm reading it correctly.

 

- Elle

 

My thoughts as well, but I don't see anything else that looks close.

[+thedeadpirate]

Of course, saving the relevant text of all our logs just in case[i/] the owner decides to delete could get cumbersome...can we paraphrase so you can find them in the archives?

 

 

My understanding is that logs are never really truly deleted. Admins can always go back and see the originals, I think.

 

Though I've never had anyone delete one of my logs, I do post my logs via GSAK and then immediately lock the cache in GSAK so that my original log is always preserved. This way I always know what I wrote regardless of what happens to it online.

[Keystone]

Now we're getting somewhere! There is a very big frog behind all us little tadpoles...

Of course, saving the relevant text of all our logs just in case[i/] the owner decides to delete could get cumbersome...can we paraphrase so you can find them in the archives?

In case anyone is wondering: YES, the admins can lock a log and make it non-deletable by the owner.

Michael can be an extremely helpful Lackey if one finds themself in an unjustified log deletion battle.

 

There's no need to separately copy the text of your log to save it. If justified upon investigation, the log will be restored in its original form. It's preserved on the system. Groundspeak only needs to know what cache(s) are involved.

Edited August 25, 2008 by Keystone

[+briansnat]

Reading through the terms of service, the closest thing I can find that would make this situation an abuse of the TOS is:

 

You agree not to:

 

....

 

(g) Disrupt the normal flow of dialogue or otherwise act in a manner that negatively affects other users' ability to engage in real time exchanges.

I'm just curious since I like to keep abreast of current interpretations of the TOS and guidelines.

 

Section 4 regards the forums, if I'm reading it correctly.

 

- Elle

 

My thoughts as well, but I don't see anything else that looks close.

 

I think it is the section that says "Thou shalt not be a doodie head"

[+King Boreas]

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...22-2f77edc848f6

 

He got his smiley four days ago.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...fd-3d5deea7f8f0

Edited August 25, 2008 by King Boreas

[+bettsbugs]

Being somewhat of a pessimist (okay more than I really want to admit) who has a bad habit of looking at the glass half empty rather than half full, I often find myself "critiquing" caches when I find them. "This cache would have been better over here", "They could have placed a regular rather than a nano", and "Why place a cache here?" type questions come to mind more often then they really should. I too have made 'negative' logs about some caches that I have found and now realize that those logs were made in the wrong spirit.

 

This point was made very clear recently when a couple of 'area' cachers got frustrated with the constant criticisms of their cache hides. These two sets of cachers had placed well over 500 caches within 200 miles of where they lived. Many were at roadside turnouts, but many more were at interesting stopping points that most drivers would have never stopped to look at except for geocaching. We did ones that we could when we drove by, but had plans to do many more in the future.

 

Unfortunately, because of the constant harassment, these two caching names have archived almost all the caches they placed.

 

Who won the war? Noone. Each of the caches placed, even though defined as a bad hide by someone's standards, was also a good hide by someone else's standards and thus enjoyed by someone. So those that enjoyed those types of caches have now lost out on the opportunity to find those caches. The cache placers have also lost out on reading the logs of those that truly enjoyed the caches they placed and on the good feeling that they were contributing to the caching community as a whole.

 

There are geocachers out there that think that caches should only be placed on mountain tops and remote locations. There are geocachers out there that think that urban nanos are the greatest thing on earth and that caches should only be placed there. There are cachers that think unless you can put hours and hours of time and tons of money into a cache, you shouldn't be placing a cache.

 

I like to think that caching should be for everyone in every walk of life: mountain hikers, city dwellers, road trippers, puzzle solvers, people with money, and people without money etc.

 

Bottom line is that every cacher who makes the time and effort to place a cache is doing so to allow others enjoyment in finding that cache. While you may not have enjoyed the cache because of the type of cacher you are, doesn't mean that others won't. Perhaps saying something along the lines of "If you are a cacher who doesn't enjoy tough hides, this cache isn't the cache for you" would be more appropriate than dissing the cache, how it was hidden, or the cache placer.

 

So if the cache owner wishes to delete a negative log that he/she feels will discourage others from attempting to find the cache, I believe they have the right to do so. Instead of relogging it or, as others have suggested, removing the cache (which just means other cachers will waste time and money trying to find it after it has gone missing and the cache owner having to waste time and money to replace it) perhaps emailing the owner to ask why the log was deleted would be more appropriate. Then either relog the cache in a manner more pleasing to the owner or forget the cache and go find others more enjoyable to your caching style.

 

Buggette of Bettsbugs

[+wimseyguy]

I found the last 20 posts in this thread unsatisfying. I wanted much more drama than I got.

 

Congratulations, Criminal on the simultaneous yanking of so many chains (I'll bet it's not even close to the record, though).

 

I'll bet he holds that record though-(for real forum posters not one hit wonders).

[+runewell]

This is the way i show how much i liked their cache. For the most part, the longer the log, the more i liked it... but i see no point in telling a cache owner that his cache sucks. What i think is a sucky cache is not necessarily a fact, but only my opinion. I can just about guarantee you that there are others out there who would enjoy finding that very same cache.

 

But liking a cache is just an opinion also - why bother to write that. You might love a cache that other people think sucks and drag them out there needlessly

Edited August 26, 2008 by runewell

[+runewell]

Why do you think your opinion is so important to everyone else?

I don't. I think my opinion is just as valid and equally deserving of a read as anyone else's, hence I am annoyed with the deletion.

 

We have no history. He's in MN and I'm in IA and only up there caching when I'm visiting the fam. The big deal here is why the owner can't take one small negative opinion about his cache.

[+thedeadpirate]

Why do you think your opinion is so important to everyone else?

I don't. I think my opinion is just as valid and equally deserving of a read as anyone else's, hence I am annoyed with the deletion.

 

We have no history. He's in MN and I'm in IA and only up there caching when I'm visiting the fam. The big deal here is why the owner can't take one small negative opinion about his cache.

 

But he took quite a few negative opinions about his cache. I'm just wondering what it was about your particular opinion that he didn't like. I'd love to see definitively what the original post was. I just can't see the one we've seen here being the very first one. It doesn't rise to the same level as a couple of the other ones. Are you sure there's nothing extra that we're not being told?

[+Harry Dolphin]

As I've noted elsewhere and ad nauseum, I've had two finds deleted. One because "You never have anything nice to say about our caches". The other, presumably, because I noted that all waypopints were at least fifty feet off, and the final was a hundred and seventy feet off. I relogged both with TNLNSL. Also, I had a disagreement with a cache owher who said "You did not find it in the way intended." (Okay. So I was hiking, and saw him hiding it!) I deleted that find. I'm not going to argue too much. All three cache owners are now on my ignore list!

On the other fin, I've deleted more 'finds' than that. Two by cachers who logged that they didn't bother signing the log. (Hey. If you're going to throw it in my face...) (And, I am sure that I am on their ignore list, as well.) Two by the mysterious drive-by cacher, whose signature has yet to be found in any log book. And a larger number by cachers who do not understand that a Webcam cache requires a photo taken by the webcam (as is clearly stated on the cache page.)

I'd put the cache owner on my ignore list. Life's too short.

[+Mudfrog]

This is the way i show how much i liked their cache. For the most part, the longer the log, the more i liked it... but i see no point in telling a cache owner that his cache sucks. What i think is a sucky cache is not necessarily a fact, but only my opinion. I can just about guarantee you that there are others out there who would enjoy finding that very same cache.

 

But liking a cache is just an opinion also - why bother to write that. You might love a cache that other people think sucks and drag them out there needlessly

 

You do have a point there.

 

The thing is, i feel that we as finders need to take some of the responsibility when picking caches we want to go after. Two choices come to mind. Either take the good with the bad or screen for caches that you think you will like. It's not one hundred percent accurate, but reading cache descriptions, looking at difficulty ratings, being familiar with a certain person's hiding techniques, reading past logs, seeing where it is on the map, etc,,, can all give clues as to whether it's a cache you would enjoy. You would most likely miss out on a few fun caches doing this but at least you'd better your chances for finding ones more suited to your tastes.

[+runewell]

I just can't see the one we've seen here being the very first one. It doesn't rise to the same level as a couple of the other ones. Are you sure there's nothing extra that we're not being told?

 

That's more or less it. I said the cache was dissatisfying and had I known that I wouldn't have spent the time on it. That got deleted. Ensuing posts simply said cache was dissatisfying and owner keeps deleting posts that say as much.

 

That's and the subsequent deletions (I'm guessing 4-5 of them) is all there is to the story.

 

Funny, the owner has the post disabled, turned it into a members-only cache and is "waiting for some of the damage to grow back"??

Edited August 27, 2008 by runewell

[+thedeadpirate]

Maybe he didn't like your tattoos.

[+sbell111]

I just can't see the one we've seen here being the very first one. It doesn't rise to the same level as a couple of the other ones. Are you sure there's nothing extra that we're not being told?

That's more or less it. I said the cache was dissatisfying and had I known that I wouldn't have spent the time on it. That got deleted. Ensuing posts simply said cache was dissatisfying and owner keeps deleting posts that say as much.

 

That's and the subsequent deletions (I'm guessing 4-5 of them) is all there is to the story.

 

Funny, the owner has the post disabled, turned it into a members-only cache and is "waiting for some of the damage to grow back"??

I suspect that the first deletion was half due to your snarky post and half due to his bad day. If you catch someone on a bad day, they will almost certainly delete a post that they would merely have been on the fence about on any other day.

 

I suspect that the rest of the deletions were half due to the pissing contest and half due to the perception that you have an overgrown sense of entitlement.

Edited August 27, 2008 by sbell111

[+Guinness70]

-//-

I've made changes to caches based on negative feedback.

 

Of course there are ways to say you didn't like the cache and there are ways you shouldn't say you didn't like a cache.

 

It's the snarky, rude ways that people criticize a cache that generally leads to log deletions, IMHO.

+1

 

ild say feedback, thats what it is about here.

write a simple log : TNLNSL

that says plenty

 

and then, if you have the "feel good time" of other cachers at heart, email the owner.

if he blows you off or doesnt modify the cache or cache page. so bit it, you have done all you can.

pissing him off in the logs or on the forum isnt going to change his mind.