What to do with a spiteful geocacher?

[+mck681s]

What can a person do if a fellow cacher deletes your log out of spite? I recently found a cache with a wet log, didn't have any paper on me b/c I use my iphone to log everything, and notified the owner of the log and that I couldn't sign it. Owner checked the log and it was dry so he deleted my log and deleted another legit find just "for his trouble". After checking previous logs, I found out that the wet cache I had found was an old cache that he had replaced and never bothered to get rid of. I email the guy twice trying to reason with him and telling him exactly what I found and he never responded. The worst part is he posted a nasty log on both caches accusing me of lying about finding the cache. When I notified the local reviewer and asked for his advice, he responded quickly by telling me he would check with his superior on what to do if I would identify the cache and owner. When I did this, he responded with a one line vague answer. What I suspect is that the owner of this cache is the reviewer or a friend of his and has decided not to help me. Any suggestions anyone?

[+wimseyguy]

The volunteer reviewers cannot help restore wrongfully deleted logs.

Send an email to 'contact@geocaching.com' with the details of the incident.

[+cachensfun]

I would just not try to get that one. The way I see it is that's only one cache you wont get a smiley for. But you still got to have fun hunting for it.

[+beejay&esskay]

When I did this, he responded with a one line vague answer. Any suggestions anyone?

Boy, I'd love to know what that one line was.

 

I'd give it one more time logging TFTC (only) and when it gets deleted, follow the above advice.

[GermanSailor]

Any suggestions anyone?

Geocaching is a fun hobby.

 

What you experienced doesn't sound like fun. My advise: Forget about it. It's just not worth the worries. There is so much more to explore.

 

GermanSailor

[+Harry Dolphin]

You didn't find the cache. You didn't sign the log. You don't deserve the smiley! I would probably delete your log as well!

As to the other one 'deleted out of spite'. Groundspeak can re-instate that one.

[+larryc43230]

If I'm reading your description of the incident correctly, you didn't actually sign the log. A fair percentage of cache owners insist that the finder sign the log before they can claim the find, regardless of your claim that you found it but weren't able to sign it because it was wet. It's a bit strict for my taste, but as far as I'm aware it complies with the guidelines to insist that you sign a log to claim a smiley.

 

--Larry

[+Chrysalides]

If I'm reading your description of the incident correctly, you didn't actually sign the log. A fair percentage of cache owners insist that the finder sign the log before they can claim the find, regardless of your claim that you found it but weren't able to sign it because it was wet. It's a bit strict for my taste, but as far as I'm aware it complies with the guidelines to insist that you sign a log to claim a smiley.

I don't know if the OP has a problem with that one - it is well within the CO's right to delete that log. But :

 

and deleted another legit find just "for his trouble"

 

Huh??

[+larryc43230]

and deleted another legit find just "for his trouble"

 

Huh??

I didn't respond to that part of the post simply because the OP gave no other details. Which makes me think there's more to the story than we're getting. As usual.

 

--Larry

[+NeecesandNephews]

Just my humble opinion.

 

If I read it correctly you had a find deleted on a cache you actually did not find. You found an old abandoned cache. But I completely understand you believing this to be the cache in the listing. How could you know that it wasn't the one listed? After the Owner identified that this was an old cache, not the one in the listing, I feel it is within his rights to delete the find on the new one.

 

I probably would not have, but then thats just me, and I dont have any caches hidden.

 

 

The second find delete sounds like a knee-jerk reaction, (emphasis on the jerk part) which again, In my opinion, should not have been deleted. I am curious to know if you did actually sign the second one you mention. If you did Groundspeak can restore that find for you.

 

I would attempt to find the new cache in the first listing, sign the log, and claim it online. I would also ask the Owner if he would like me to CITO the abandoned one. Or you could just put the Owners caches on your ignore list, and keep on cachin!!!

Edited February 28, 2010 by NeecesandNephews

[+Chrysalides]

I didn't respond to that part of the post simply because the OP gave no other details. Which makes me think there's more to the story than we're getting. As usual.

True. Which is why I refrained from saying more than "huh?". If something cannot be worked out between the OP and the CO, then follow wimseyguy's advice in #2.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Chrysalides

[+redjada]

Any suggestions anyone?

Geocaching is a fun hobby.

 

What you experienced doesn't sound like fun. My advise: Forget about it. It's just not worth the worries. There is so much more to explore.

 

GermanSailor

 

Sometimes people forget that geocaching is only a game. Its not a competition. But to some it is all about the numbers. Why? I dont know. If I were the OP I would just let it go and move on. There are more to explore.

[knowschad]

You didn't find the cache. You didn't sign the log. You don't deserve the smiley! I would probably delete your log as well!

As to the other one 'deleted out of spite'. Groundspeak can re-instate that one.

Well, yeah... I do agree with what you say, but on the other hand, the cache owner apparently put a replacement out without picking up the previous container. Perhaps he couldn't find it, perhaps he didn't try. But if it was indeed his container, then I'd think the log should stand because of the ambiguous situation caused by two containers at the same approximate coordinates.

 

As for the log that was deleted in spite... if you can prove that (Groundspeak can see deleted logs) then the cache owner is clearly in the wrong.

 

On the other hand... don't forget that you may meet this guy in the field or at an event sooner or later. Whatever you do, try your best to do it with respect. The numbers that mean the most in this activity are the number of friends you make while doing it.

[+Gamaliel]

Thanks to the tonelessness of text, what is a polite log to one person may be testy and rude to another. Not much we can do about that. I tend to assume I've misinterpreted things and just assume the best and shrug it off.

 

By the letter of the law, you didn't find the second cache. I would hope that all charitable owners would give you credit for finding it anyway, because if you find a container with a log at the cache location, there is absolutely no reason to assume you haven't found the cache. Should we double check all our finds? I was just dealing with this yesterday - I had to trash out a throwdown cache at one of my hides that several people had signed thinking it was my cache. I wouldn't dream of deleting their smileys.

 

As for deleting your other, unrelated log, there is absolutely no excuse for that, regardless of how good or bad your behavior may or may not have been regarding the first cache. I suspect your log will be reinstated soon by Groundspeak, and if they fail to act, I would repost it every single day until he stops deleting it.

[+bittsen]

If you found a cache, signed the log, logged the find and the CO deletes it, it must not have been the cache. In a situation like that it would be fair to say the cache you found must have been trash. Trash should be removed.

 

Well, that's the "logic" anyhow. I wouldn't suggest taking someone elses cache though.

[knowschad]

Thanks to the tonelessness of text, what is a polite log to one person may be testy and rude to another. Not much we can do about that. I tend to assume I've misinterpreted things and just assume the best and shrug it off.

Oh, text is pretty toneful, actually, which is why there are so many frequent misunderstandings as a result of it. Conveying the correct tone is a skill that we first learn in school, and serious writers spend their lives cultivating. The best ones go down in history.

(Smileys are the training wheels of wanna-be Hemmingways)(OK... maybe not)

[Mr.Yuck]

The volunteer reviewers cannot help restore wrongfully deleted logs.

Send an email to 'contact@geocaching.com' with the details of the incident.

 

I think they need to enable the email address drama@geocaching.com for such matters.

 

Seriously. I believe ALR's are no longer allowed because they were sick of dealing with such nonsense.

 

Edit to clarify, no fault whatsoever with the OP here. The cache owner is the drama queen.

Edited March 1, 2010 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+RobDJr]

You could always try going back, finding that cache with the dry log, signing it, and then logging a find.

[+kunarion]

You could always try going back, finding that cache with the dry log, signing it, and then logging a find.

For grid's sake, carry a piece of paper for when you find a soaked log. Sign it, place it into the cache, and do a Needs Maintenance log, every time this happens.

 

For this cache, also mention in your note that there may be an "extra" obsolete container which should be removed.

 

I don't even know if one of my finds was deleted by a CO. I've never done an inventory of the list. But it appears that your case is unusual.

Edited March 1, 2010 by kunarion

[+mck681s]

You didn't find the cache. You didn't sign the log. You don't deserve the smiley! I would probably delete your log as well!

As to the other one 'deleted out of spite'. Groundspeak can re-instate that one.

 

I do not disagree with that. I would have had no problem going back out to find the actual cache had the owner just made your point.

[+mck681s]

and deleted another legit find just "for his trouble"

 

Huh??

I didn't respond to that part of the post simply because the OP gave no other details. Which makes me think there's more to the story than we're getting. As usual.

 

--Larry

 

Here is the log the owner posted after deleting mine.:

 

"I am deleting two logs. These cachers logged a find stating

the log was too wet to sign. Drove 40 miles to replace

log and found it to be as dry as the day the cache was

hidden. I not only deleted that log but deleting this

find for the unnecessary trouble they gave me. I

will also go back in a week and two and check my

hides that they have logged as finds."

 

The cache with the wet log I would agree with deleting. The issue is with the other one.

[+mck681s]

Just my humble opinion.

 

If I read it correctly you had a find deleted on a cache you actually did not find. You found an old abandoned cache. But I completely understand you believing this to be the cache in the listing. How could you know that it wasn't the one listed? After the Owner identified that this was an old cache, not the one in the listing, I feel it is within his rights to delete the find on the new one.

 

I probably would not have, but then thats just me, and I dont have any caches hidden.

 

 

The second find delete sounds like a knee-jerk reaction, (emphasis on the jerk part) which again, In my opinion, should not have been deleted. I am curious to know if you did actually sign the second one you mention. If you did Groundspeak can restore that find for you.

 

I would attempt to find the new cache in the first listing, sign the log, and claim it online. I would also ask the Owner if he would like me to CITO the abandoned one. Or you could just put the Owners caches on your ignore list, and keep on cachin!!!

 

I did sign the other log and 15 others that day. I agree, I should find the real cache and log it to see if he lets me keep it. Had the owner responded to my emails identifying what I had found I think this could have been cleared up easily.

[+larryc43230]

Here is the log the owner posted after deleting mine.:

 

"... I not only deleted that log but deleting this find for the unnecessary trouble they gave me ....

 

The cache with the wet log I would agree with deleting. The issue is with the other one.

If this is the case, IMHO you do have a legitimate issue with the second log deletion. As others have suggested, I would recommend contacting Groundspeak and they'll hopefully reinstate that second log.

 

--Larry

[+Too Tall John]

Here is the log the owner posted after deleting mine.:

 

"I am deleting two logs. These cachers logged a find stating

the log was too wet to sign. Drove 40 miles to replace

log and found it to be as dry as the day the cache was

hidden. I not only deleted that log but deleting this

find for the unnecessary trouble they gave me. I

will also go back in a week and two and check my

hides that they have logged as finds."

 

The cache with the wet log I would agree with deleting. The issue is with the other one.

Here's the thing: If the cache owner placed the container you didn't find but didn't remove the original one (that you did find!) they made the trouble for themselves. In fact, they inconvenienced you, as well! To paraphrase bittsen:

If you found a cache, signed the log, logged the find and the CO deletes it, it must not have been the cache. In a situation like that it would be fair to say the cache you found must have been trash. Trash should be have been removed by the cache owner when they replaced the container.

If the replacement is a "throw-down," they ought to be deleting the throw-down-er's log, easily identifiable by the first signature in the dry logbook.

[+Snoogans]

Just my humble opinion.

 

If I read it correctly you had a find deleted on a cache you actually did not find. You found an old abandoned cache. But I completely understand you believing this to be the cache in the listing. How could you know that it wasn't the one listed? After the Owner identified that this was an old cache, not the one in the listing, I feel it is within his rights to delete the find on the new one.

 

 

Don't be so certain.

 

I have personally seen a spiteful cacher archive their hard to find and seldom logged cache when they got wind that a large group of cachers (that they didn't like) were on a mission to find it one weekend. They waited until the morning in question and then archived it and proceded to delete every find on the cache that day. It was in poor taste but not surprising to see this person do this. The fact that I'm writing about almost ensures that a cache or two of mine will come up missing, pirated, or filled with beans soon. Eh, who cares... At least I get to be right and have my smug superior feeling while they expend the gas and effort to be evil.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Snoogans

[+wimseyguy]

heh heh you said beans and gas....

[+oldsarge]

Yes...technically, if you don't sign the log, you don't get a smiley. But technically there's only supposed to be one container at the cache location. It's the cache owners responsibility to police up their Geo-trash, and if they can't, they shouldn't be so quick to slam others for a mistake which they " the cache owners" are responsible for.

[+Happy Bubbles]

If it were me I'd be tempted to go there again, find and sign the dry log, and then log my find online. The only text of my log would be "TFTC," and I'd add two photos - one of my log on the current cache, and one of me holding the wet log. If that got deleted, I'd use the contact@Groundspeak address.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Happy Bubbles

[+FreeBird65]

I carry a fine-point Sharpie marker for wet logs. I can normally get a date and my initials on the log. But, I am a rules based person and would not count it as a find if I did not sign the log. But, I probably would not delete your log either....

[+Rustynails]

I know of a few cachers that sign a dry piece of paper and add that to the wet log.

[knowschad]

I carry a fine-point Sharpie marker for wet logs. I can normally get a date and my initials on the log. But, I am a rules based person and would not count it as a find if I did not sign the log. But, I probably would not delete your log either....

Yeah, and then the cache owner goes out and checks the log in the newer cache (the only one he knows about), doesn't see your name in it, and deletes your online log again.

[+briansnat]

If I read it correctly you had a find deleted on a cache you actually did not find. You found an old abandoned cache. But I completely understand you believing this to be the cache in the listing. How could you know that it wasn't the one listed? After the Owner identified that this was an old cache, not the one in the listing, I feel it is within his rights to delete the find on the new one.

 

There were two caches there due to probable cache owner negligence. I think it's unconscionable and petty for the CO to delete logs that resulted from his own irresponsibility.

 

Deleting the second log just proves the pettiness of the CO. All of his caches would be candidates for my ignore list.

Edited March 2, 2010 by briansnat

[knowschad]

I know of a few cachers that sign a dry piece of paper and add that to the wet log.

That wasn't me... it was bflentje!!

[+larryc43230]

I know of a few cachers that sign a dry piece of paper and add that to the wet log.

I've done this lots of times myself, as long as there's space in the container for the new piece of paper. If the container is already crammed to capacity, the situation is more difficult. Regardless of how wet the existing log is, I won't remove it to make room for new paper. As a cache owner myself, I would want to try to salvage the wet log rather than just throw it away.

 

Then again, I'm weird: I like looking at the log sheets/logbooks from my caches and keeping them around.

 

--Larry

[+dd29]

What can a person do if a fellow cacher deletes your log out of spite? I recently found a cache with a wet log, didn't have any paper on me b/c I use my iphone to log everything, and notified the owner of the log and that I couldn't sign it. Owner checked the log and it was dry so he deleted my log and deleted another legit find just "for his trouble". After checking previous logs, I found out that the wet cache I had found was an old cache that he had replaced and never bothered to get rid of. I email the guy twice trying to reason with him and telling him exactly what I found and he never responded. The worst part is he posted a nasty log on both caches accusing me of lying about finding the cache. When I notified the local reviewer and asked for his advice, he responded quickly by telling me he would check with his superior on what to do if I would identify the cache and owner. When I did this, he responded with a one line vague answer. What I suspect is that the owner of this cache is the reviewer or a friend of his and has decided not to help me. Any suggestions anyone?

 

I was the other cacher with MCK681S that day so maybe some would be interested in reading the email I sent to the owner. I received no reply and the nasty note is still on both listings. I could care less about the two smileys it's just not right so I let them know my feelings. Email copy follows:

 

It seems I have stumbled into the your court of guilty with no opportunity for defense. Just let me say you are WRONG!!!

 

I started searching the past logs on this cache and found this:

 

February 4, 2009

New cache container with log in a baggie. Moved it closer to the parking area. Almost a P&G. Magnetic but not a keyholder, in plain site.

 

Your words not mine. This is what we found, a black magnetic key holder with a soaked log located in a pipe close to GZ. The evidence points to the owner not having removed the old cache. Go check it out and maybe you will believe me. Having found this why would I keep looking? I thought that was the cache. If you would have emailed me and asked I would have gladly deleted the log since I found left over garbage instead of the real cache. We are paperless cachers so we had no paper to fix it for you, the only thing we had was a couple paper napkins.

 

I would like to know how you can justify deleting another genuine find, after we fished it out of a ditch full of water and secured it back in the bush.

 

Your log posting on both caches insinuating two cachers are liars and armchair cachers is beyond my wildest imagination. I know for a fact this is not what geocaching is all about. Try taking a better path to this, maybe the high road, by deleting the two nasty notes you posted and reinstate the real find you deleted, after you check for signatures as you stated of course.

 

Have a good day, you certainly ruined ours.

[+rob3k]

Yes...technically, if you don't sign the log, you don't get a smiley. But technically there's only supposed to be one container at the cache location. It's the cache owners responsibility to police up their Geo-trash, and if they can't, they shouldn't be so quick to slam others for a mistake which they " the cache owners" are responsible for.

 

Well put.

[+Knight2000]

I had a similar problem with one of our caches with the exception that the cache others found was not a replacement cache but yet another [new, unpublished] micro that was placed by an unknown cacher who never stepped forward. (Our cache was not a film can!)

 

I did delete logs for those who didn't find my cache. It caused some to get really mad.

 

If the cache you found was just the old cache which had been replaced and still had the same GC# then it sounds ridiculous that the find wouldn't "count".

 

Ignore and move along. Log a micro twice if you need the smiley.

 

**Funny story about the key cache. The FTF didn't really find it while the first DNF really did!

[knowschad]

I had a similar problem with one of our caches with the exception that the cache others found was not a replacement cache but yet another [new, unpublished] micro that was placed by an unknown cacher who never stepped forward. (Our cache was not a film can!)

 

I did delete logs for those who didn't find my cache. It caused some to get really mad.

 

If the cache you found was just the old cache which had been replaced and still had the same GC# then it sounds ridiculous that the find wouldn't "count".

 

Ignore and move along. Log a micro twice if you need the smiley.

 

**Funny story about the key cache. The FTF didn't really find it while the first DNF really did!

Geeze... what a mess!! Did either of the other caches have any information on the log, such as a GC#? I wonder if the newer one, the film cannister, was actually a cache from one of the other listing sites. Without knowing for sure, you really couldn't remove it as some were insisting you do. You may have been removing someone else's legitimate cache.

[+NeecesandNephews]

You have to love people who post in reference to a certain log, or a certain cache, or a certain owner, but don't mention any numbers.

 

Makes it a "he said/she said" take my word for it kinda deal! Total buzzkill!

[+Knight2000]

Geeze... what a mess!! Did either of the other caches have any information on the log, such as a GC#? I wonder if the newer one, the film cannister, was actually a cache from one of the other listing sites. Without knowing for sure, you really couldn't remove it as some were insisting you do. You may have been removing someone else's legitimate cache.

The film canister did not. It did have a geocaching.com log with no other info. Our cache did have the GC#. A few found it but it appears the majority did not. With good reason. Too many film cans have trained people for a quick grab.

 

I'm kind of sick of the politics involved with caching. I'm comfortable with the fact that we are responsible cachers with well thought out, cared for dry caches and we try to give cachers a good name.

[+WanderingRedneck]

I have run into a similar situation. My 6 year old wanted her own account, so I created one for her. Then I went through and logged all of the find she was with me on with this "Found with my dad WanderingRedneck, but just got my own account". Pretty straight forward. I have already recieved two notices from CO's threatining to delete her logs one was on a virtual and the other one that since we found it had been archived, the archived one was handeld and I have not heard from the owner of the virtual, after sending him an email. Apparently some CO's don't read the logs when they are posted and have knee jerk reactions to threaten to delete them.

[+Keith Watson]

I ran into a situation where a group of us visited an earth cache. Two days after we visited the cache and logged our finds the owner of the cache changed the logging requirements and demanded I comply with the new requirements or my log would be deleted. After contacting the others in the group, I found I was the only one being made to follow the new requirements. A local reviewer was not much help so I contacted Groundspeak in an attempt to make this problem go away. The owner dropped the issue and ended up with a week suspension. I am not sure if it was over changing the requirements and demanding I re-do the cache, the fact I was singled out, or some other stuff that was going on with the cache owner at the time involving some other caches.

 

99.9% the answer will be that the cache owner has the last say. There are instances where the cache owner is not playing fair and Groundspeak will sort it out.

[+bittsen]

Yup, this is why I don't like decoy caches...

 

[+Harry Dolphin]

Or Letterboxes!

Still sounds like the original migrated, and the CO couldn't find it, when he put out the replacement.

However, I have changed my mind, and will support your right to log it. Since the original is still in place, as long as you signed thelog, or put in a piece of paper with your signature, you have found one of two caches with the same GC number.

[+Walts Hunting]

I had a cache owner delete my log when I commented how far off his coordinates. I didn't think it was worth the hassle to protest so just relogged without the comments. If he deleted it again it would have gone to the ignore list. Got to much to do to worry about this.

[+Hillbilly & GritZ]

This has happened to me on an out of state cache (North Carolina OBX) where I found the cache and it had no log in it so I put a signed piece of paper, placed it in the cache to prove we found it. On the log I indicated to the cache owner that no log was available and what I had left. The cache owner responded and said there was a log and I had not completed the cache, he deleted my find. After a few not so nice emails back and forth I dropped the issue. Caching is too much fun to allow someone a**hole to spoil the experience. Move on and forget the small stuff. In the end the a**holes will drown in their own sorrow and self pitty.

[+bittsen]

This has happened to me on an out of state cache (North Carolina OBX) where I found the cache and it had no log in it so I put a signed piece of paper, placed it in the cache to prove we found it. On the log I indicated to the cache owner that no log was available and what I had left. The cache owner responded and said there was a log and I had not completed the cache, he deleted my find. After a few not so nice emails back and forth I dropped the issue. Caching is too much fun to allow someone a**hole to spoil the experience. Move on and forget the small stuff. In the end the a**holes will drown in their own sorrow and self pitty.

Well, if the CO was sure that you hadn't found the cache (since there was no log and he was sure that his cache had one) the only responsible thing to do would be to CITO the thing you thought was the cache.

 

Problem solved

 

[+briansnat]

Is it me or is this log deletion nonsense increasing? I rarely saw complaints like this until the past year or so. Now they pop up almost weekly.

 

Control freaks really should reconsider the idea of cache ownership.

[+NeecesandNephews]

Control freaks really should reconsider the idea of cache ownership.

 

 

While I agree with this, I will add; Armchair geocachers really should reconsider the idea of cache logging.

 

There are other virtual games online that I am sure they would find more entertaining.

[+Snoogans]

Yup, this is why I don't like decoy caches...

 

 

My "Before you can torment, you must learn to annoy" has a decoy cache. It's very obvious and inside is a note that clearly states, "This is NOT the cache."