Premium caches

[Andronicus]

Well I, a basic member, have triangulated, found, signed the log sheet, and loged on line exactly 1 premium member cache without having a PM with me. The cool thing was, that the cache hide was realy cool, and if I had been able to read the cache page, I probably would not have been supprised. So in the end, it was better for me to not have had access to the cache page. Plus, the triangulation was an extra (and fun) challange.

[+stanolli]

I made sure the PM with me was mentioned in the log and insisted that they took the FTF prize. I was polite in the logs and thanked the CO for the new caches, both of which had obviously taken some time to plan and construct. Both logs have now been deleted without any explanation and while I can possibly see there is a valid reason for my solo one to be removed should I take the team one any further? (I assume the CO cannot delete the PM's log for teaming up with me).

Hmmm... Curious as to what TPTB have to say about this. You could write to contact@Groundspeak.com (I think) and get a clarification. As has been mentioned, the back door it there for a reason. It could have been closed, but they didn't do that. The guidelines do specifically say that a legitimate log can not be deleted for artificial reasons like failure to met additional requirements. I mean, you weren't rude, abusive, used foul language, posted a spoiler or deleted illegal activity on your part, right? I can't think of any other reason at the moment that be proper to delete your logs.

 

It would be interesting to push this just a little bit more to see where it goes.

 

Thank you all for the advice. I do not know the CO, but we live close enough that we will surely meet some time. I dont want any bad feeling, but I cant read his motive for this or what his reaction will be if I make a fuss.

I was in 3 minds:

1/ do nothing and forget it, although I will feel just a little peeved.

2/ send him a note asking why.

3/ contact the local reviewer for guidence.

Do we still feel Groundspeak is better than option 3 ?

[Mr.Yuck]

I made sure the PM with me was mentioned in the log and insisted that they took the FTF prize. I was polite in the logs and thanked the CO for the new caches, both of which had obviously taken some time to plan and construct. Both logs have now been deleted without any explanation and while I can possibly see there is a valid reason for my solo one to be removed should I take the team one any further? (I assume the CO cannot delete the PM's log for teaming up with me).

Hmmm... Curious as to what TPTB have to say about this. You could write to contact@Groundspeak.com (I think) and get a clarification. As has been mentioned, the back door it there for a reason. It could have been closed, but they didn't do that. The guidelines do specifically say that a legitimate log can not be deleted for artificial reasons like failure to met additional requirements. I mean, you weren't rude, abusive, used foul language, posted a spoiler or deleted illegal activity on your part, right? I can't think of any other reason at the moment that be proper to delete your logs.

 

It would be interesting to push this just a little bit more to see where it goes.

 

Thank you all for the advice. I do not know the CO, but we live close enough that we will surely meet some time. I dont want any bad feeling, but I cant read his motive for this or what his reaction will be if I make a fuss.

I was in 3 minds:

1/ do nothing and forget it, although I will feel just a little peeved.

2/ send him a note asking why.

3/ contact the local reviewer for guidence.

Do we still feel Groundspeak is better than option 3 ?

 

Sorry no one else is answering this, and it's almost slipping off the page. Me, I had to log all my power trail finds from the weekend.

 

Forget number 3. I wouldn't bother a reviewer for that. My local reviewer has involved themselves in diffusing drama once, but it's really not part of the job desription. You could do number 2, and ask them why, trying to be as polite as possible. They might not like a newb telling them they are wrong though. I suppose you could tell them you sought advice in the forums. If you reply, I could probably dig up the forum post wher the CEO of Groundspeak has stated the "back door" is open, and the reasoning for leaving it open; you could put a link in your email.

 

But contact@geocaching.com is definitely where you write to get a deleted log restored, and I'm quite certain they would side with you.

[+stanolli]

Sorry no one else is answering this, and it's almost slipping off the page. Me, I had to log all my power trail finds from the weekend.

 

Forget number 3. I wouldn't bother a reviewer for that. My local reviewer has involved themselves in diffusing drama once, but it's really not part of the job desription. You could do number 2, and ask them why, trying to be as polite as possible. They might not like a newb telling them they are wrong though. I suppose you could tell them you sought advice in the forums. If you reply, I could probably dig up the forum post wher the CEO of Groundspeak has stated the "back door" is open, and the reasoning for leaving it open; you could put a link in your email.

 

But contact@geocaching.com is definitely where you write to get a deleted log restored, and I'm quite certain they would side with you.

 

Thanks again for your help. It is good to have an Olympian on board and when you mentioned power trails I thought I had a world record holder too

 

I have asked Groundspeak for their judgement. If I was right to log and the CO has a problem with it then that is too bad, but if it was wrong I will send him an apology and either way I will know that justice has been done.

It would not stop me looking for more in the future because that's the bit I enjoy, but I would go back to plan A and not sign or log. I do wonder if I hadn't been so honest with my log and just put TNLNSLTFTC if he would have even noticed I was only a BM lol.

[+gururyan]

Where do you find these "Premium" caches listed/mapped? I am a PM, do I see them as normal caches? I have searched and search on the subject and have found nothing.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Where do you find these "Premium" caches listed/mapped? I am a PM, do I see them as normal caches? I have searched and search on the subject and have found nothing.

yes you see them mixed in. you wouldn't even know except they have a apecial icon that looks like a MugShot

[+stanolli]

Where do you find these "Premium" caches listed/mapped? I am a PM, do I see them as normal caches? I have searched and search on the subject and have found nothing.

Your Worst Nightmare #2 by BasicPoke (GC1FBNY). I have no idea why this one and none of his many others.

[+Vater_Araignee]

Well I, a basic member, have triangulated, found, signed the log sheet, and loged on line exactly 1 premium member cache without having a PM with me. The cool thing was, that the cache hide was realy cool, and if I had been able to read the cache page, I probably would not have been supprised. So in the end, it was better for me to not have had access to the cache page. Plus, the triangulation was an extra (and fun) challange.

KUDOS!

[+gururyan]

Where do you find these "Premium" caches listed/mapped? I am a PM, do I see them as normal caches? I have searched and search on the subject and have found nothing.

Your Worst Nightmare #2 by BasicPoke (GC1FBNY). I have no idea why this one and none of his many others.

 

Yep, found that as soon as the icon was explained to me (also noticed it at the bottom of the listings page after the fact). Yeah, I like BasicPoke's caches, but that one looks insane. Just read the log. However if I do end up caving and going for it, I'd better do it quickly before the bugs and weeds spring back to life any day now.

[+stanolli]

contact@geocaching.com is definitely where you write to get a deleted log restored, and I'm quite certain they would side with you.

I have asked Groundspeak for their judgement. If I was right to log and the CO has a problem with it then that is too bad, but if it was wrong I will send him an apology and either way I will know that justice has been done.

 

Well Groundspeak seem to want to sit on the fence and the response from a 'Community Relations Specialist' was that this is an etiquette issue. It is OK to hunt PMO caches, but the cache owner is able to delete the log if they wish.

In my opinion this just opens the door to conflict and will often lead to one of the parties feeling disgruntled. While I am not that bothered it does leave me, and others that have written to me, with the feeling that the CO is being very petty. Wouldn't it be better for Groundspeak to either fully support the logging or remove the backdoor method completely. Then everyone would know where they stand and no one should feel hard done by.

I have suggested this to them and that they should consider the introduction of family membership if this is meant to be the only valid use of the backdoor.

[Mr.Yuck]

contact@geocaching.com is definitely where you write to get a deleted log restored, and I'm quite certain they would side with you.

I have asked Groundspeak for their judgement. If I was right to log and the CO has a problem with it then that is too bad, but if it was wrong I will send him an apology and either way I will know that justice has been done.

 

Well Groundspeak seem to want to sit on the fence and the response from a 'Community Relations Specialist' was that this is an etiquette issue. It is OK to hunt PMO caches, but the cache owner is able to delete the log if they wish.

In my opinion this just opens the door to conflict and will often lead to one of the parties feeling disgruntled. While I am not that bothered it does leave me, and others that have written to me, with the feeling that the CO is being very petty. Wouldn't it be better for Groundspeak to either fully support the logging or remove the backdoor method completely. Then everyone would know where they stand and no one should feel hard done by.

I have suggested this to them and that they should consider the introduction of family membership if this is meant to be the only valid use of the backdoor.

 

I for one, am totally shocked by this development. My opinion of an obviously profitable company with 50+ paid employees, who have come up with a unique system (not necessarily by design) where "volunteers" do a bunch of their work for free, has just taken a turn for the worse. And that's all I have to say about that.

[CoyoteRed]

I for one, am totally shocked by this development.

Me, not so much. The 'Community Relations Specialist' could be the receptionist or any one of the flunkies who would run interference for TPTB. The answer, "It is OK to hunt PMO caches, but the cache owner is able to delete the log if they wish" goes against the grain of "sign the log and have the right to log online." It could be another employee who isn't up on nuances of caching much like what we've seen recently with the programmers.

 

While I wouldn't want some flunky who isn't that keen on the nuances of caching to make policy, at least they should pass it up the chain if they can't answer a question.

[CoyoteRed]

Well Groundspeak seem to want to sit on the fence and the response from a 'Community Relations Specialist' was that this is an etiquette issue. It is OK to hunt PMO caches, but the cache owner is able to delete the log if they wish.

Yes, I agree that it's an etiquette issue, but the conclusion was off.

 

Really, there are a lot of cache owners out there that don't realize that them deleting someone's log could get their caches deleted in return. It's better to play nice.

[+firennice]

Well Groundspeak seem to want to sit on the fence and the response from a 'Community Relations Specialist' was that this is an etiquette issue. It is OK to hunt PMO caches, but the cache owner is able to delete the log if they wish.

Yes, I agree that it's an etiquette issue, but the conclusion was off.

 

Really, there are a lot of cache owners out there that don't realize that them deleting someone's log could get their caches deleted in return. It's better to play nice.

 

besides... he does not realize that your premium membership may have ended yesterday, or a week ago.

[+baloo&bd]

Well Groundspeak seem to want to sit on the fence and the response from a 'Community Relations Specialist' was that this is an etiquette issue. It is OK to hunt PMO caches, but the cache owner is able to delete the log if they wish.

In my opinion this just opens the door to conflict and will often lead to one of the parties feeling disgruntled. While I am not that bothered it does leave me, and others that have written to me, with the feeling that the CO is being very petty. Wouldn't it be better for Groundspeak to either fully support the logging or remove the backdoor method completely. Then everyone would know where they stand and no one should feel hard done by.

I have suggested this to them and that they should consider the introduction of family membership if this is meant to be the only valid use of the backdoor.

 

I am curious, did you ask for a legitimate log to be restored (the BM and yours), did you ask for the team to be restored, a combination of the two or simply ask if it was OK to log as a BM? The last one I can see the "sitting on the fence answer". I can also see similar response to the team but both the PM and BM logs were legitimate finds. There are examples we have seen of BM logs being re-instated in the past under similar circumstances.

 

I am sure if you or I were so inclined we can find Jeremy's post where he promised GC would always be free, which I am sure was a consideration when leaving the backdoor in place. Not re-instating the logs seems to go against the guidelines as well as these positions Caches are meant to be found.

 

I don't think it is the backdoor that needs to be eliminated, it is the MOC themselves. Other than satisfying an individuals voyeuristic curiosity with the audit log and a misplaced feeling that the cache is more "secure, they serve no purpose

[Mr.Yuck]

Well Groundspeak seem to want to sit on the fence and the response from a 'Community Relations Specialist' was that this is an etiquette issue. It is OK to hunt PMO caches, but the cache owner is able to delete the log if they wish.

In my opinion this just opens the door to conflict and will often lead to one of the parties feeling disgruntled. While I am not that bothered it does leave me, and others that have written to me, with the feeling that the CO is being very petty. Wouldn't it be better for Groundspeak to either fully support the logging or remove the backdoor method completely. Then everyone would know where they stand and no one should feel hard done by.

I have suggested this to them and that they should consider the introduction of family membership if this is meant to be the only valid use of the backdoor.

 

I am curious, did you ask for a legitimate log to be restored (the BM and yours), did you ask for the team to be restored, a combination of the two or simply ask if it was OK to log as a BM? The last one I can see the "sitting on the fence answer". I can also see similar response to the team but both the PM and BM logs were legitimate finds. There are examples we have seen of BM logs being re-instated in the past under similar circumstances.

 

I am sure if you or I were so inclined we can find Jeremy's post where he promised GC would always be free, which I am sure was a consideration when leaving the backdoor in place. Not re-instating the logs seems to go against the guidelines as well as these positions Caches are meant to be found.

 

I don't think it is the backdoor that needs to be eliminated, it is the MOC themselves. Other than satisfying an individuals voyeuristic curiosity with the audit log and a misplaced feeling that the cache is more "secure, they serve no purpose

 

The "voyeuristic curiosity of the audit log". Thanks, I'll have to use that one. Especially as someone who was once emailed by someone asking why I looked at their cache page.

 

The real reason for MOC's has long since been forgotten, and most importantly, not known by most people using them. It's the old "rewarding people for supporting the website" line, usually. This didn't work out for the newb from about 20 miles away from me who started a forum thread in 2006 wondering why 40% of the first 200 caches in his zip code were members only, and why he shouldn't be allowed to try Geocaching for a while to see if he wanted to pony up $30. By the way, I'll never forget that username. I just checked, and he still hasn't logged in since 2006.

 

I'll see if I can dig up Jeremy's famous post. It should probably be sent to the "community relation specialist" who never heard of Geocaching until the day she walked in for the job interview. Just speculation, of course.

[+stanolli]

Really, there are a lot of cache owners out there that don't realize that them deleting someone's log could get their caches deleted in return. It's better to play nice.

lol Coyote I assume you mean physically deleated and this would be an example of the problem that could be caused by not having clear rules. I did wonder if the CO has even considered that I know where his caches are and might be annoyed, but maybe he is just a good judge of my character.

 

I think his motive is to reward those that pay and in the past he had removed the PMO status after a few weeks. I asked if this happens can I just relog of do I need to revisit.

 

I do apreciate your interest & support guys and I suggested that our relations specialist read this thread. If Jeremy's post could be found she might see it. I didnt ask if the log could be undeleted. Would this request be handled by someone else ?

[+stanolli]

Really, there are a lot of cache owners out there that don't realize that them deleting someone's log could get their caches deleted in return. It's better to play nice.

lol Coyote I assume you mean physically deleated and this would be an example of the problem that could be caused by not having clear rules. I did wonder if the CO has even considered that I know where his caches are and might be annoyed, but maybe he is just a good judge of my character.

 

I think his motive is to reward those that pay and in the past he had removed the PMO status after a few weeks. I asked if this happens can I just relog of do I need to revisit.

 

I do apreciate your interest & support guys and I suggested that our relations specialist read this thread. If Jeremy's post could be found she might see it. I didnt ask if the log could be undeleted. Would this request be handled by someone else ?

[Mr.Yuck]

Really, there are a lot of cache owners out there that don't realize that them deleting someone's log could get their caches deleted in return. It's better to play nice.

lol Coyote I assume you mean physically deleated and this would be an example of the problem that could be caused by not having clear rules. I did wonder if the CO has even considered that I know where his caches are and might be annoyed, but maybe he is just a good judge of my character.

 

I think his motive is to reward those that pay and in the past he had removed the PMO status after a few weeks. I asked if this happens can I just relog of do I need to revisit.

 

I do apreciate your interest & support guys and I suggested that our relations specialist read this thread. If Jeremy's post could be found she might see it. I didnt ask if the log could be undeleted. Would this request be handled by someone else ?

 

Relations specialist read the thread? Ruh-roh, if I am ever going to be banned, this could be it.

 

But I do stand by my opinion that if your ticket was forwarded up the chain of command, they would side with you. I could be totally wrong, and it was though. I'm also of the opinion it's not in the spirit of the whole "geocaches can be logged online when the logbook is signed" thing.

 

Jeremy's post stating the back door will always be open is a bugger to find. I'll keep looking. Maybe it wasn't even him, but a high ranking person from the programming side like Opinionate. But I do have a slightly related "pledge" that Geocaching will always be free here. That was in response to the firestorm when MOC's were first created way back in 2001.

Edited April 5, 2010 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+AlohaBra and MaksMom]

Pony up the cash for a membership.

 

Second that. If you are going to cache you need PQs and paperless capabilities anyway or why bother. The cost is not that much really compared to say, your cell phone bill.

[+stanolli]

Well it has taken a few weeks but the Groundspeak crew do read the forums and the same relations specialist has sent the following :

 

Basic Members may have access to PMO caches through various means, including when they geocache with Premium Members, as was the case for you.

 

Groundspeak encourages Cache Owners to allow these logs. If we find that a log was deleted inappropriately, Groundspeak may reinstate the log.

 

I have asked they do this, but is it possible for the CO to undelete logs because I could try a friendly message to him now I know I am on firm ground so to speak.

[+NeecesandNephews]

I am curious as to why this one smiley on this one cache is so important to you. I mean, what is it exactly you hope to accomplish by forcing this issue?? Just asking.

[+sbell111]

Well it has taken a few weeks but the Groundspeak crew do read the forums and the same relations specialist has sent the following :

 

Basic Members may have access to PMO caches through various means, including when they geocache with Premium Members, as was the case for you.

 

Groundspeak encourages Cache Owners to allow these logs. If we find that a log was deleted inappropriately, Groundspeak may reinstate the log.

 

I have asked they do this, but is it possible for the CO to undelete logs because I could try a friendly message to him now I know I am on firm ground so to speak.

Cache owners cannot undelete a log. If TPTB did not reinstate the log, you will have to resubmit it.

[+sbell111]

I am curious as to why this one smiley on this one cache is so important to you. I mean, what is it exactly you hope to accomplish by forcing this issue?? Just asking.

They found the cache and signed the logbook. It need not be more complicated than that.

[+NeecesandNephews]

I am curious as to why this one smiley on this one cache is so important to you. I mean, what is it exactly you hope to accomplish by forcing this issue?? Just asking.

They found the cache and signed the logbook. It need not be more complicated than that.

 

Thank you for answering the question for someone else.

[+thedeadpirate]

I am curious as to why this one smiley on this one cache is so important to you. I mean, what is it exactly you hope to accomplish by forcing this issue?? Just asking.

They found the cache and signed the logbook. It need not be more complicated than that.

 

Thank you for answering the question for someone else.

You're welcome.

 

*** Lame attempt at humor. It builds on the fact that N&N is thanking someone for answering the question for someone else so I am thanking N&N for sbell. If you do not find this humorous, please accept my apologies for wasting 10 seconds of your life.

[Andronicus]

Really, there are a lot of cache owners out there that don't realize that them deleting someone's log could get their caches deleted in return. It's better to play nice.

lol Coyote I assume you mean physically deleated and this would be an example of the problem that could be caused by not having clear rules. I did wonder if the CO has even considered that I know where his caches are and might be annoyed, but maybe he is just a good judge of my character.

 

I think his motive is to reward those that pay and in the past he had removed the PMO status after a few weeks. I asked if this happens can I just relog of do I need to revisit.

 

I do apreciate your interest & support guys and I suggested that our relations specialist read this thread. If Jeremy's post could be found she might see it. I didnt ask if the log could be undeleted. Would this request be handled by someone else ?

Well, I had that happen. It wasn't a PM issue, just a boggus logging issue. I deleted that log, emailed the logger to ask him to re-log if he could give me some details, two days later he gave me details, and the cache was stolen. The problem with pissing off finders is that they know where your cache is.

 

PS, I have now triangulated, found, signed the log sheet, and loged on line 3 Primium Member Only Caches. And one sweet puzzle cache I did has been turned into a PM cache (now I can't read other peoples logs )

Edited May 3, 2010 by Andronicus

[Andronicus]

Recently, while logging a PM cache, I ran into a realy bad bug that will actualy tell a BM the coordinates of a PM cache. I haven't used it, and will not use it as I think it is cheeting, and I won't tell what it is so that others can not use it, but if GS is interested, I will tell them.

 

GS, if you care, PM me and I can tell you about it.

[+NeecesandNephews]

I am curious as to why this one smiley on this one cache is so important to you. I mean, what is it exactly you hope to accomplish by forcing this issue?? Just asking.

They found the cache and signed the logbook. It need not be more complicated than that.

 

Thank you for answering the question for someone else.

You're welcome.

 

*** Lame attempt at humor. It builds on the fact that N&N is thanking someone for answering the question for someone else so I am thanking N&N for sbell. If you do not find this humorous, please accept my apologies for wasting 10 seconds of your life.

 

Why thank you Geobain for thanking me for thanking sbell!!

 

(now you owe me 20 seconds)

 

no legal disclaimer needed as I was expressing sincere thanks!

Edited May 3, 2010 by NeecesandNephews

[Mr.Yuck]

Recently, while logging a PM cache, I ran into a realy bad bug that will actualy tell a BM the coordinates of a PM cache. I haven't used it, and will not use it as I think it is cheeting, and I won't tell what it is so that others can not use it, but if GS is interested, I will tell them.

 

GS, if you care, PM me and I can tell you about it.

 

I have documented one here in the forums a few times, although I suppose I never wrote to a Groundspeak Lackey about it. And I'm pretty sure we're not talking about the same one, as I don't think my bug is available to Canadian users.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

The PMO back door is well-documented, well-known by Groundspeak, and intentionally left open by Groundspeak.

[Mr.Yuck]

The PMO back door is well-documented, well-known by Groundspeak, and intentionally left open by Groundspeak.

 

Both myself and Andronicus are talking about bugs that allow non-premium members to get the coordinates for PMO caches. Nothing to do with the back door method of logging of them.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Ok.

[+stanolli]

I am curious as to why this one smiley on this one cache is so important to you. I mean, what is it exactly you hope to accomplish by forcing this issue?? Just asking.

They found the cache and signed the logbook. It need not be more complicated than that.

 

Thank you for answering the question for someone else.

 

I found the cache and signed the log and it is no more important than any other I have found. Why do you bother to log any of yours if you think it is not important ?

[+NeecesandNephews]

I am curious as to why this one smiley on this one cache is so important to you. I mean, what is it exactly you hope to accomplish by forcing this issue?? Just asking.

They found the cache and signed the logbook. It need not be more complicated than that.

 

Thank you for answering the question for someone else.

 

I found the cache and signed the log and it is no more important than any other I have found. Why do you bother to log any of yours if you think it is not important ?

 

I dont have to fight the CO to allow my log to stand, thats why. Pretty simple.

 

I find it mildly humorous that posters call the CO's "control freaks" and "jerks" when they post their opinion. Frequently it is posted that the CO "needs to lighten up... its just a game", "stop being so anal" ect... but all of a sudden, when your found it log gets deleted, that advice goes right out the window, and it becomes a serious matter. And needs to be taken to Groundspeak. Quite a lot of trouble for one smiley. At least for something that is " just a game"... remember?

Interesting that none of the CO's come on here and call the cachers who are trying to force them to let their found it log stand "control freaks" or "jerks" for doing so. But thats different right??

Edited May 4, 2010 by NeecesandNephews

[Andronicus]

The PMO back door is well-documented, well-known by Groundspeak, and intentionally left open by Groundspeak.

The Bug I am reffering to will actualy show me the coordinates. No need to triangulate or anything. Again, if GS is interested, please PM me.

[+swfirefly]

Anyone that spends this much time over any issue relating to Groundspeak, really ought to be a premium member. $30 is not that much, really. Just pay your friggin' dues already!

[Andronicus]

Anyone that spends this much time over any issue relating to Groundspeak, really ought to be a premium member. $30 is not that much, really. Just pay your friggin' dues already!

Part of the fun for me is doing all this for free. For me, that is part of the game. I use my smartphone, so no cost that I would not have incured without geocaching, free membership, free apps for my phone, free maps for my phone, triangulating to find PM caches for free, everything free.

[+stanolli]

I am curious as to why this one smiley on this one cache is so important to you. I mean, what is it exactly you hope to accomplish by forcing this issue?? Just asking.

They found the cache and signed the logbook. It need not be more complicated than that.

 

Thank you for answering the question for someone else.

 

I found the cache and signed the log and it is no more important than any other I have found. Why do you bother to log any of yours if you think it is not important ?

 

I dont have to fight the CO to allow my log to stand, thats why. Pretty simple.

 

I find it mildly humorous that posters call the CO's "control freaks" and "jerks" when they post their opinion. Frequently it is posted that the CO "needs to lighten up... its just a game", "stop being so anal" ect... but all of a sudden, when your found it log gets deleted, that advice goes right out the window, and it becomes a serious matter. And needs to be taken to Groundspeak. Quite a lot of trouble for one smiley. At least for something that is " just a game"... remember?

Interesting that none of the CO's come on here and call the cachers who are trying to force them to let their found it log stand "control freaks" or "jerks" for doing so. But thats different right??

If you read the thread from the start you will not find a fight or any comment disrespectful of the CO from me. Far from it because he has made some very good caches and I said this in my log. I do understand why PMO caches are made, but still don't understand what is achieved by deleting logs.

When I found it I had no intention of logging it since I didnt even know I could at the time. Other members gave me advice and I have sent one message to groudspeak asking only for clarification to which they have replied twice with long delays in between. I simply wanted to know if I was in the wrong because this will arise again.

 

Since the cache was 2 minutes walk from my door the overall time involved in finding it, logging it and a few posts here probably makes it the least effort of any of my caches to date so I don't get the 'quite a lot of trouble' reference. Do you only do caches that are 'no trouble' then ?

[+thedeadpirate]

I am curious as to why this one smiley on this one cache is so important to you. I mean, what is it exactly you hope to accomplish by forcing this issue?? Just asking.

They found the cache and signed the logbook. It need not be more complicated than that.

Thank you for answering the question for someone else.

I found the cache and signed the log and it is no more important than any other I have found. Why do you bother to log any of yours if you think it is not important ?

Excellent question.

 

*** This post is intended to be humorous. But you would have to be one of those posters who looks at someone's profile when replying to them in order to get it. But I am currently giggling inside like a little school girl.

[+thedeadpirate]

Anyone that spends this much time over any issue relating to Groundspeak, really ought to be a premium member. $30 is not that much, really. Just pay your friggin' dues already!

Am I the only one that just saw the irony in a basic member tying up a paid staff member's time over an issue that stems from a feature intended to encourage paid membership in order to be able to pay for more salaried staff members?

 

*** This post is in no way intended to cast basic membership is a negative light. I am simply pointing out an observation I made while reading swfirefly's post.

[+NeecesandNephews]

I am curious as to why this one smiley on this one cache is so important to you. I mean, what is it exactly you hope to accomplish by forcing this issue?? Just asking.

They found the cache and signed the logbook. It need not be more complicated than that.

 

Thank you for answering the question for someone else.

 

I found the cache and signed the log and it is no more important than any other I have found. Why do you bother to log any of yours if you think it is not important ?

 

I dont have to fight the CO to allow my log to stand, thats why. Pretty simple.

 

I find it mildly humorous that posters call the CO's "control freaks" and "jerks" when they post their opinion. Frequently it is posted that the CO "needs to lighten up... its just a game", "stop being so anal" ect... but all of a sudden, when your found it log gets deleted, that advice goes right out the window, and it becomes a serious matter. And needs to be taken to Groundspeak. Quite a lot of trouble for one smiley. At least for something that is " just a game"... remember?

Interesting that none of the CO's come on here and call the cachers who are trying to force them to let their found it log stand "control freaks" or "jerks" for doing so. But thats different right??

If you read the thread from the start you will not find a fight or any comment disrespectful of the CO from me. Far from it because he has made some very good caches and I said this in my log. I do understand why PMO caches are made, but still don't understand what is achieved by deleting logs.

When I found it I had no intention of logging it since I didnt even know I could at the time. Other members gave me advice and I have sent one message to groudspeak asking only for clarification to which they have replied twice with long delays in between. I simply wanted to know if I was in the wrong because this will arise again.

 

Since the cache was 2 minutes walk from my door the overall time involved in finding it, logging it and a few posts here probably makes it the least effort of any of my caches to date so I don't get the 'quite a lot of trouble' reference. Do you only do caches that are 'no trouble' then ?

 

Ok... since I did not intend for this to become a debate,(I was simply curious about your motivations for the action you took) and you obviously do ( you cant seem to answer a simple question without turning it around) I will simply state, if you "do understand why PMO caches are made" then you should understand why the CO does not want the log of a BM on it. I do not believe that is what this is all about... but hey... its your game, play it like you want.

[+NeecesandNephews]

Anyone that spends this much time over any issue relating to Groundspeak, really ought to be a premium member. $30 is not that much, really. Just pay your friggin' dues already!

Am I the only one that just saw the irony in a basic member tying up a paid staff member's time over an issue that stems from a feature intended to encourage paid membership in order to be able to pay for more salaried staff members?

 

*** This post is in no way intended to cast basic membership is a negative light. I am simply pointing out an observation I made while reading swfirefly's post.

 

Thank you Geobain, I believe you understood the underlying point I was trying to make. I will now return to my regularly scheduled programming.

[+stanolli]

Ok... since I did not intend for this to become a debate,(I was simply curious about your motivations for the action you took) and you obviously do ( you cant seem to answer a simple question without turning it around) I will simply state, if you "do understand why PMO caches are made" then you should understand why the CO does not want the log of a BM on it. I do not believe that is what this is all about... but hey... its your game, play it like you want.

If you are just curious then I suggest you simply ask a question without pre judging my actions with comments about trouble and fights.

My thought was PMO caches were for more security and I dont see how deleting a log makes it more secure.

[+NeecesandNephews]

Ok... since I did not intend for this to become a debate,(I was simply curious about your motivations for the action you took) and you obviously do ( you cant seem to answer a simple question without turning it around) I will simply state, if you "do understand why PMO caches are made" then you should understand why the CO does not want the log of a BM on it. I do not believe that is what this is all about... but hey... its your game, play it like you want.

If you are just curious then I suggest you simply ask a question without pre judging my actions with comments about trouble and fights.

My thought was PMO caches were for more security and I dont see how deleting a log makes it more secure.

 

 

I thought I did that.

 

QUOTE(NeecesandNephews @ May 2 2010, 10:33 PM)

I am curious as to why this one smiley on this one cache is so important to you. I mean, what is it exactly you hope to accomplish by forcing this issue?? Just asking.

 

Never mind...

Edited May 4, 2010 by NeecesandNephews

[Mr.Yuck]

Ok... since I did not intend for this to become a debate,(I was simply curious about your motivations for the action you took) and you obviously do ( you cant seem to answer a simple question without turning it around) I will simply state, if you "do understand why PMO caches are made" then you should understand why the CO does not want the log of a BM on it. I do not believe that is what this is all about... but hey... its your game, play it like you want.

If you are just curious then I suggest you simply ask a question without pre judging my actions with comments about trouble and fights.

My thought was PMO caches were for more security and I dont see how deleting a log makes it more secure.

 

Well, as you can see Stanolli, you have just as many detractors as supporters.

 

Myself and several others have expressed disbelief that those logs were deleted, as it makes no sense when there is a well-known and intentionally left open back door method for non-premium members to log Premium member only caches, AND it certainly doesn't appear to be in the spirit of this quote from the Geocaching.com guidelines:

 

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed.

[+stanolli]

 

I thought I did that.

 

QUOTE(NeecesandNephews @ May 2 2010, 10:33 PM)

I am curious as to why this one smiley on this one cache is so important to you. I mean, what is it exactly you hope to accomplish by forcing this issue?? Just asking.

 

Never mind...

 

I am glad we agree then because that question pre-judged the fact that I was forcing anything.

All I asked Groundspeak for was the rule on this to avoid possible future conflicts.

[+NeecesandNephews]

 

I thought I did that.

 

QUOTE(NeecesandNephews @ May 2 2010, 10:33 PM)

I am curious as to why this one smiley on this one cache is so important to you. I mean, what is it exactly you hope to accomplish by forcing this issue?? Just asking.

 

Never mind...

 

I am glad we agree then because that question pre-judged the fact that I was forcing anything.

All I asked Groundspeak for was the rule on this to avoid possible future conflicts.

 

Stanolli I don't know you personally nor you me. I was not trying to stir dissent. I was just asking. Perhaps too much "tone" is being read into our posts. The reason I chose the wording "force the issue" as well as "seems like a lot of trouble" is, regardless of the original intent of the CO as to why he made his cache PMO, I suggest (by his deletion of your found it) that his intent was obviously to exclude BM's from seeking, finding, and logging it. I'm sorry if you do not agree, but trying to involve Groundspeak in reinstating your found it log, against the wishes of the CO, is "forcing it". You dont seem to see it that way, and you are entitled to your opinion!

 

I have no particular stance on whether he is "right or wrong" with regards to the Guidelines, in doing this. It seems nevertheless "his intent". I believe his deletion makes this apparent.

 

The "trouble" comment was directed at your effort to have this one smiley reinstated, by taking it to Groundspeak. It is plain to see that you feel it was no "trouble" for you, but I doubt the Lackeys dealing with it in the offices of Groundspeak feel the same way. No such "trouble" accompanies any cache I log. I am a PM so I have no problem logging any caches I find.

 

Notwithstanding the Guideline issue, I believe this comes down to simply respecting the wishes of a CO who has paid for his membership, placed a cache with the PM only designation, and obviously monitors his logs. I don't think he did it with the intention to slight your free membership status in any way. I think many cachers are quick to take offense to this when no ill purpose was intended. There are also some cachers who seem to have an "unfair" (IMHO) sense of entitlement. The totally free status on which your enjoyment of the game is based, is provided in part by this CO, who not only paid his membership, but placed a cache. I think it is a small thing to respect and appreciate his reasoning and his wishes. That is all I was trying to say. It is no reflection on your "membership status" and I do not say this with any preconcieved notion that PMs are "better" or "higher up" on the food chain. It is not, by any means, meant to imply that the PM CO should have special recognition or treatment. Its simply a matter of common courtesy. I wonder if, in deference to BM's, this is the reason the CO has placed both PMO and normal caches. I can't know that as I am not him, but its something to think about.

 

As far as "future conflicts" you mention, observing that "simple courtesy" would serve the same purpose as a ruling from Groundspeak.

 

If some CO, for reasons unknown to me, chose to delete one of my found it logs, I would certainly email or PM him to ask why, but even if he did not respond, would take it no further. Its just a smiley, and I can replace it with another easily enough. I would also refrain from searching that CO's caches in the future. But thats just me. I just think its much-ado over nothing.

[+thedeadpirate]

I am glad Stanolli followed up on this. I was a bit surprised with his first response from the Community Relations Specialist.

 

While I do understand why some cache owners would delete logs by basic members on their PMO caches (ie, they placed the cache to encourage premium membership), it has been a long standing policy by Groundspeak to leave the door open to allow these logs.

 

Particularly in light of the removal of ALRs from the guidelines, it is nice to see TPTB clarify and correct this.

 

*** This disclaimer is just to for the enjoyment of those who like to read disclaimers.

[Andronicus]

I am glad Stanolli followed up on this. I was a bit surprised with his first response from the Community Relations Specialist.

 

While I do understand why some cache owners would delete logs by basic members on their PMO caches (ie, they placed the cache to encourage premium membership), it has been a long standing policy by Groundspeak to leave the door open to allow these logs.

 

Particularly in light of the removal of ALRs from the guidelines, it is nice to see TPTB clarify and correct this.

 

*** This disclaimer is just to for the enjoyment of those who like to read disclaimers.

I aggree with you on this. Essentialy, the alowance to delete the log would be an ALR. If a CO wants to promote PMship, he has sucseeded. Realy, what % of BM who would like to find that cache will actualy find it? likely 0.01%. (I guess that implies that 10,000 basic members want to find it, so this is just a bogus example, more reflecting the overall numbers, no the numbers for that one cache).

 

PS, I love your disclaimers. Since you started those, I have noticed much less people mistaking your comments.