delete reviewer note

[+mijn koen]

I am used to delete the reviewer note: ¨published¨ in my caches. But recently I am not able to do so. I receive a message: ¨you have no right to remove this log¨.

Has something changed or is it just something peculiar?

[+bittsen]

I am used to delete the reviewer note: ¨published¨ in my caches. But recently I am not able to do so. I receive a message: ¨you have no right to remove this log¨.

Has something changed or is it just something peculiar?

 

Personally, I think it's important to leave the reviewer note there. If there's a problem with the cache there is a person to contact (if the owners don't respond).

[GOF and Bacall]

I am used to delete the reviewer note: ¨published¨ in my caches. But recently I am not able to do so. I receive a message: ¨you have no right to remove this log¨.

Has something changed or is it just something peculiar?

 

When I first started caching I thought it was proper to delet that log. Then through several conversations with others and on a couple of threads here I came to realize that leaving that post gives someone an easy way to find a local reviewer. There really is no reason to delete that log.

[+t4e]

why would you deleted it? to me its part of the cache history

 

besides, now it sounds like its how it should be, reviewers are pretty much like forum admins/mods, have a certain level of authority and can't modify/edit their posts

[Dj Storm]

I think the "Published" log is important. Around here caches are published at least 1 day after they were placed. If the cache was placed for an event, and published after that, you'll see several found-it logs before the "published" log.

Cache owners can change the placed date; someone could place a cache, delete the "published" log, then backdate the placement by a couple of years, in order to trick the seekers.

[Clan Riffster]

"Ditto" the sentiment that the reviewer's published note should remain.

It's a part of the cache's history, and it provides a handy contact point should a problem develop.

Why would you delete them?

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Some cachers, it seems, have always wanted to delete the 'Publish' log to make the cache page "clean".

 

Doesn't make sense to me, though.

[4wheelin_fool]

"Ditto" the sentiment that the reviewer's published note should remain.

It's a part of the cache's history, and it provides a handy contact point should a problem develop.

Why would you delete them?

 

Absolutely no idea.

 

They still can be encripted, however. :(

Edited January 25, 2010 by 4wheelin_fool

[GOF and Bacall]

"Ditto" the sentiment that the reviewer's published note should remain.

It's a part of the cache's history, and it provides a handy contact point should a problem develop.

Why would you delete them?

 

I was young and impressionable and I just didn't know any better. I'm sorry.

[Alan White]

Obviously a recent change, and well done to Groundspeak for making it. Hopefully cache owners can also no longer delete NM, NA, coord change, and enable/disable logs.

[+thedeadpirate]

I can't think of a good reason to delete the published log, but apparently it was allowed in the past.

 

I'm still curious what the answer to the OP's question is, "Has something changed or is it just something peculiar?"

 

In other words, is the deletion of the log no longer allowed?

[+baloo&bd]

I think the "Published" log is important. Around here caches are published at least 1 day after they were placed. If the cache was placed for an event, and published after that, you'll see several found-it logs before the "published" log.

Cache owners can change the placed date; someone could place a cache, delete the "published" log, then backdate the placement by a couple of years, in order to trick the seekers.

 

Setting aside the OP, what would be the problem described in the above? How would a find be affect if it were placed in '10 or '05?

[knowschad]

I think the "Published" log is important. Around here caches are published at least 1 day after they were placed. If the cache was placed for an event, and published after that, you'll see several found-it logs before the "published" log.

Cache owners can change the placed date; someone could place a cache, delete the "published" log, then backdate the placement by a couple of years, in order to trick the seekers.

Setting aside the OP, what would be the problem described in the above? How would a find be affect if it were placed in '10 or '05?

Some challenge caches depend on the publication date (a very minor problem in my world, but not true for some)

[jholly]

Obviously a recent change, and well done to Groundspeak for making it. Hopefully cache owners can also no longer delete NM, NA, coord change, and enable/disable logs.

 

The NM is just a note to the cache owner. I generally put that type if info in my found log. I feel a second email saying the same thing is probably not needed. The cache owner can delete the NA log, but it does no good, the email to the reviewer team has already been sent. Deleting the NA log does not delete the email.

 

Jim

[+MartianRabbit]

The way I handle my caches is, all logs remain, good or bad, not meaning that any of the log types are bad, but it is the true history of the cache as stated earlier. In reguards to a false found it, I will contact the seeker, and have them change the log type if they didn't sign the log, but leave it up to the seeker to either delete his/her own log, or modify it. The only exceptions where I would delete a log is to follow the guidelines, where you delete false finds, off topic, rants, those kinds of logs.

 

I am a pretty flexible cache owner, and have never deleted a log, but I have had my logs deleted by others for only one reason, and that was I logged the wrong cache. But in those cases, the owners simply gives the new cache ID and relog my find. I have seen cache owners delete notes claiming it is to clean up the pages, but I suppose that is the owner peragative.

 

Hope I did't stray too far off this topic of deleting the reviewer's logs. Sorry! MR

[+briansnat]

The way I handle my caches is, all logs remain, good or bad, not meaning that any of the log types are bad, but it is the true history of the cache as stated earlier.

 

I agree with that to a point. I would delete any logs with profanity. I have deleted obviously phony logs, and in one instance where the cache page was being used as a forum I deleted the notes because it got out of hand. There were like 15 notes (all good natured ribbing) that filled up the page.

 

Other than that they stay, including the published note.

 

In answer to the OP's question whether something has changed, it certainly looks that way.

[+bittsen]

I found it interesting that after reading this thread I was able to see a cache page with no reviewer note on it. It was a new listing and, as a side note, I was FTF on it. Take a look at it GC23AZN

[+briansnat]

I found it interesting that after reading this thread I was able to see a cache page with no reviewer note on it. It was a new listing and, as a side note, I was FTF on it. Take a look at it GC23AZN

 

Then it is possible that it is not a system wide change, but a reviewer who is making his published note not deletable.

[+narcissa]

Some cachers, it seems, have always wanted to delete the 'Publish' log to make the cache page "clean".

 

Doesn't make sense to me, though.

 

There's a cacher in my area who deleted his logs on several archived caches because he didn't like the way they looked in his found list.

 

People are weird.

[+thedeadpirate]

I would assume since there is nothing in the TOU or the guidelines concerning this and since TPTB have not chimed in to confirm it that there has been no change.

[+StarBrand]

I've never understood the "need" to make one's cache listing page keep clean and tidy.

 

Other than logs that need to be dleted (fake finds, foul language and such) - It just never occurs to be to even want to remove any other entry.

[+mtn-man]

I would assume since there is nothing in the TOU or the guidelines concerning this and since TPTB have not chimed in to confirm it that there has been no change.

I am only a lowly reviewer (not TPTB), but there have been no changes. Things are as they have been. I have had some of mine deleted and don't really care either way for the most part. I get an email when it is deleted (just like anyone else if their logs are deleted). I personally think it is a record of the cache and should probably stay and I personally think the cache owner should not remove it, but making so it cannot be deleted is something I don't do (it is an extra step I just don't take). If on a particular cache I think it should be there I can always restore it and then lock the log so it cannot be deleted.

Edited January 25, 2010 by mtn-man

[+thedeadpirate]

I would assume since there is nothing in the TOU or the guidelines concerning this and since TPTB have not chimed in to confirm it that there has been no change.

I am only a lowly reviewer (not TPTB), but there have been no changes. Things are as they have been. I have had some of mine deleted and don't really care either way for the most part. I get an email when it is deleted (just like anyone else if their logs are deleted). I personally think it is a record of the cache and should probably stay and I personally think the cache owner should not remove it, but making so it cannot be deleted is something I don't do (it is an extra step I just don't take). If on a particular cache I think it should be there I can always restore it and then lock the log so it cannot be deleted.

 

Actually, I kind of consider reviewers as part of TPTB, so I will accept your answer as official.

[+sduck]

I seem to recall several years ago that reviewers, at least around here, didn't put the reviewers note on a cache when it was published. Maybe it wasn't required then. At some point they started appearing, and perhaps the first time or 2 I deleted them, as I saw some other people (apparently) doing. Now I just leave them.

[+mtn-man]

They were not always generated. It was an automagic function at one point. Reviewers push the "Publish That Bad Boy" button and the cache went live. The published log now defines the publishing time frame and was added a few years back.

[+benh57]

I was excited there for a second, but now i say, lame. All reviewer publish logs should be non-deletable.

 

Kudos to the reviewer who is locking theirs.