Jump to content

They lied and didn't find it ?


Recommended Posts

What do u do when u know someone logged one of ur caches but u are sure they didn't find it and there name is not in the log book

 

Send the cache to me via the adoption process. I'll delete the find and send a nasty note to them. After the smoke clears, I'll send it back to you. OK ? :mmraspberry:

 

:signalviolin:

 

Feelin' snarky tonight?

 

Send them an email asking about the cache. If they don't respond, or are wrong, delete the log if you feel you need to.

Link to comment

There is nothing snarky about doing the dirty work for someone. :signalviolin:

 

The best answer would be to send a nice note (as mentioned in the previous post) and ask them if they logged the correct cache online, or to describe the container. If their name is not in the logbook, you may delete the find at your discretion. The rule is to generally delete logs like that, but there may be exceptions. Be forewarned that you may encounter an irate person if you do delete it, who may feel entitled to the smiley for some odd reason. If they have quite a few logs where they did not sign, then I would delete it. Otherwise I would let it slide.

Link to comment

Sometimes people forget to log it after searching through the cache contents. This can also happen if there are more than one, say husband and wife, and each ASSuMEd that the other had signed the log.

 

There are even people who write a log in the cache but forget to log it online! Been there, done that.

 

If the logbook was falling apart, their page could be missing.

 

Or, there might not have been a functional pen/pencil in the cache. (Not an excuse, but another reason)

 

There's lots of valid reasons the log might not be signed.

 

Unless it's an FTF or a 5/5, what difference does it really make?

 

You can look up their profile and see what caches they've logged lately. If they logged 100 over a ten state area, without a helicopter, then I'd be suspicious. But if they logged three, and one was yours, maybe it was a logging oversight or a simple mistake.

 

And as far as asking them about a past log, I can barely remember anything about the caches I found yesterday, let alone some cache placed in the past.

 

It's all a game, and why take the chance of get someone upset if they were having fun investing their time and trouble to find your geocache, but didn't log it?

Link to comment

I know why they didn't find it kuzbthe cords Are some how wrong on the web site it was part of a muti cache and guess the cords where wrong for the hiddden cords someone even longed it but I'm going out to fix it today and yes it is a FTf and. 4 /5 but that was the whole muti I need to bring it down a few now

Link to comment

No it's not part of a muti anymore and I took a pic of the logbook and I'm sure that they did go to the wrong cords by the what they wrote in there log and it's a far away from where the cache is at but I think they went there but there didn't find the cache because there is no cache there I'm going out to fix it today but wonder how meny outhers they have logged that they did t find it's home place if u would like to look at it

Link to comment

Just let it go. Life is far to short to worry about bogus logs. You put the cache out for people to enjoy themselves (hopefully) - if a few of the finders have somewhat different ways that spins their wheel or floats their boat (add your own metaphor here) then so be it. Getting involved with questioning or deleting logs is just a waste of time. Besides, it's just negative energy.

Link to comment

Just let it go. Life is far to short to worry about bogus logs. You put the cache out for people to enjoy themselves (hopefully) - if a few of the finders have somewhat different ways that spins their wheel or floats their boat (add your own metaphor here) then so be it. Getting involved with questioning or deleting logs is just a waste of time. Besides, it's just negative energy.

 

On 10/3/10 I had an individual 'find' all of the caches I have placed, one of which I moved to a slightly different location on that same day with the new location not getting published till late in the day.

That user is now banned as it appears he somehow auto logged a couple of thousand caches all on that day.

I have deleted all his entries on my caches.

Link to comment

Just let it go. Life is far to short to worry about bogus logs. You put the cache out for people to enjoy themselves (hopefully) - if a few of the finders have somewhat different ways that spins their wheel or floats their boat (add your own metaphor here) then so be it. Getting involved with questioning or deleting logs is just a waste of time. Besides, it's just negative energy.

 

On 10/3/10 I had an individual 'find' all of the caches I have placed, one of which I moved to a slightly different location on that same day with the new location not getting published till late in the day.

That user is now banned as it appears he somehow auto logged a couple of thousand caches all on that day.

I have deleted all his entries on my caches.

that was a bot. theres a bot thread going...

Link to comment

Just let it go. Life is far to short to worry about bogus logs. You put the cache out for people to enjoy themselves (hopefully) - if a few of the finders have somewhat different ways that spins their wheel or floats their boat (add your own metaphor here) then so be it. Getting involved with questioning or deleting logs is just a waste of time. Besides, it's just negative energy.

 

The guidelines say that deleting bogus logs is one of the duties of being a cache owner.

 

And deleting bogus logs is not a waste of time. A found it log tells the community that the cache is there. If it isn't the bogus log may give the cache owner and other potential searchers false information about the status of the cache. This could delay needed maintenance by the owner, and/or cause other cachers to waste their time and gas looking for a missing cache. It's happened - to me and others.

Link to comment

The other day I put a comment in the log book but forgot to put in my name. Then there's the time I lost my pen (amongst a bunch of rocks!), the times I *forgot* my pen, and a bunch of times that the log was just too soggy to sign. There can be all kinds of reasons why someone didn't sign the log (in my case it often involves being bird-brained).

 

I do usually make a comment about not signing the actual log when I log it online, though.

Link to comment

I send an email to the person asking why they didn't sign the logbook and to give me a detailed description of what they found & what the area looked like. I also mention that GC.coms requirement to log a find is to have signed the logbook. If they cannot provide enough info, their log will be deleted.

 

Responses I receive back are: delete the log. I'll go back another time.

 

One particular cacher has done this on all of our caches & his name does not appear on any of the logs. His found logs are vague!!! Our caches are UNIQUE & hand crafted. No reason he can't describe what he found to me......ummm, unless he hasn't been there of course.

 

Many people around here finding same with him & getting same responses. Dude was "logging" 10 caches every day and not visiting any of them. When got called out on it, that practice stopped. Not sure who he was trying to impress with numbers so quickly. I'm more impressed if someone gets out of the house and enjoys the location I wanted to show you.

Edited by wandering4cache
Link to comment

Just let it go. Life is far to short to worry about bogus logs. You put the cache out for people to enjoy themselves (hopefully) - if a few of the finders have somewhat different ways that spins their wheel or floats their boat (add your own metaphor here) then so be it. Getting involved with questioning or deleting logs is just a waste of time. Besides, it's just negative energy.

 

The guidelines say that deleting bogus logs is one of the duties of being a cache owner.

 

And deleting bogus logs is not a waste of time. A found it log tells the community that the cache is there. If it isn't the bogus log may give the cache owner and other potential searchers false information about the status of the cache. This could delay needed maintenance by the owner, and/or cause other cachers to waste their time and gas looking for a missing cache. It's happened - to me and others.

 

This is a really good one.

 

Bears repeating!!!

Link to comment

Just let it go. Life is far to short to worry about bogus logs. You put the cache out for people to enjoy themselves (hopefully) - if a few of the finders have somewhat different ways that spins their wheel or floats their boat (add your own metaphor here) then so be it. Getting involved with questioning or deleting logs is just a waste of time. Besides, it's just negative energy.

 

The guidelines say that deleting bogus logs is one of the duties of being a cache owner.

 

And deleting bogus logs is not a waste of time. A found it log tells the community that the cache is there. If it isn't the bogus log may give the cache owner and other potential searchers false information about the status of the cache. This could delay needed maintenance by the owner, and/or cause other cachers to waste their time and gas looking for a missing cache. It's happened - to me and others.

Caches can go missing at any time. You can log a find this morning and I get a DNF this afternoon because it is no longer there. Therefore, if the previous post didn't identify a maintenance issue, then no one was impaired. I'd further state that no one was impared anyway since one should be prepared to get a DNF on any cache regardless of the previous loggers experience or whether the cache was or was not missing.

 

People who blame their DNFs on previous posters need to get a grip on their entitlement issues, in my opinion.

Link to comment

I send an email to the person asking why they didn't sign the logbook and to give me a detailed description of what they found & what the area looked like. I also mention that GC.coms requirement to log a find is to have signed the logbook.

So basically, you lie to them, right. :)

 

It's fine if you, as a cache owner, have this requirement. However, GC.com has no such requirement.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

What do u do when u know someone logged one of ur caches but u are sure they didn't find it and there name is not in the log book

I would email them and ask about the log not being signed. If they have a good response I would let it slide. If they got mad or smart about it, then I would delete the log. I would not be mad at all if I forgot to sign a log and got an email about it. I would apologize and give the reason why, even if it was just being an oversight. I usually find when someone gets mad about being questioned, they usually guilty about something.

Geocaching rules state that to log a find, one must sign the physical logbook.

Link to comment
The guidelines say that deleting bogus logs is one of the duties of being a cache owner.

Very true. However, Groundspeak makes no mention of what they consider to be a "bogus" log. I think it's safe to say that, if I sit on my couch, randomly punching GC numbers into my computer, then logging the caches that pop up as found, that would be bogus, (think cache logging bots), but what about all the grey between the black of bot logs and the white of puritan logs? We've seen debates in here spiral out of control over no signatures on wet logs, forgotten writing instruments, frozen shut caches, caches out of reach, etc. In each of those instances, there were folks on the puritan end of the spectrum claiming such finds were not finds, because the log wasn't signed.

 

Personally, I prefer a less puritan outlook for my hides. If someone made the trip out to the cache, and they feel their actions constitute a find, by their definition, I am willing to let that stand, even though I use a much harsher standard for caches that I hunt for.

Link to comment
Caches can go missing at any time.
While true, I still find it useful when people don't post bogus find logs. It doesn't eliminate the chances that I look for something that isn't there, but I enjoy not being misled on that count as much as I can manage.

 

Personally, I prefer a less puritan outlook for my hides. If someone made the trip out to the cache, and they feel their actions constitute a find, by their definition, I am willing to let that stand, even though I use a much harsher standard for caches that I hunt for.
That comes close to my split - I tend to be more forgiving for caches that I own vs. caches that I hunt.
Link to comment

Geocaching rules state that to log a find, one must sign the physical logbook.

What rule? :lol:

 

Caches can go missing at any time.
While true, I still find it useful when people don't post bogus find logs. It doesn't eliminate the chances that I look for something that isn't there, but I enjoy not being misled on that count as much as I can manage.

I suppose that if one uses a GSAK macro to select cache to find that excludes caches based on whether the last few logs are DNF, a bogus log could have you visit a cache that would have otherwise been eliminated, Many DNFs is either an indication that the cache is likely missing or that the cache is a difficult one to find. Had you actually read the logs you probably be able to determine the 3 DNFs followed by a log that said "Posted from my mobile device" is more likely missing than one with 3 DNFs followed by a log that said "Found this after a long search. The camouflage was excellent. I must've have looked right at it 10 times before I tried picking it up" People shouldn't post bogus logs and cache owners should delete logs that appear to be bogus. But blaming bogus logs for wasting your time is only an indication that you wasted your own time by not preparing enough in advance.

Link to comment

Log book police? Besides the fact that if the cache sucks I'm not inclined to sign or log it, nano caches are a lot of trouble for me. I have a ll kinds of physical problems (going to the doc today at 2:30 in fact). Some make it difficult to roll up the paper that small. Nano caches where they're not necessary are annoying.

 

If you're really sure somebody is faking logs because they're making logs all over the state on the same day or 100 in a day or the wrong coords or they failed to describe the area correctly then delete them, but to delete for the sole reason of not signing is a little anal.

 

Just my $0.02

Edited by dreamarcher
Link to comment
I'd further state that no one was impared anyway since one should be prepared to get a DNF on any cache regardless of the previous loggers experience or whether the cache was or was not missing.

Agreed. While log maintenance is something we all agree to when we check the little box prior to submitting a new hide, I can't help but cringe when I see the age old excuse of, "That fake log made me hunt for a cache that wasn't there" as a reason to delete anything that doesn't meet somebody else's standard. It seems like a cop out to me. If I choose to hunt for a cache, I will not blame anyone but me for that choice, regardless of the outcome. I call it "Taking responsibility for myself". :lol:

Link to comment

What's odd is 34 responses and 1147 views. :P

 

So there is some 1100 views with no comment..

Lots of people:

  • Just lurk, reading threads but not commenting
  • Will not comment if someone has already made their point
  • Pop into the thread many times, catching up on recently made posts.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

The guidelines say that deleting bogus logs is one of the duties of being a cache owner.

 

And deleting bogus logs is not a waste of time. A found it log tells the community that the cache is there. If it isn't the bogus log may give the cache owner and other potential searchers false information about the status of the cache. This could delay needed maintenance by the owner, and/or cause other cachers to waste their time and gas looking for a missing cache. It's happened - to me and others.

I'll second this comment.

 

Avoiding the whole argument of what constitutes a find...If someone is posting fake 'finds' to boost their numbers, it may not bother the cache owner but it does hurt those cachers who like the 'numbers' part of this game. Legitimate 'numbers' cachers are competing for rankings and doing the hard work of finding caches but sit lower in the rankings due to armchair cachers who log the finds without leaving the couch.

 

For the sake of the legitimate 'numbers' cachers (I'm not one) I would want CO's to delete the bogus finds.

 

As a side note...Bogus finds do sometimes delay maintenance on a cache. I know of one instance where a bogus find (by accident, not design) led the CO to believe a missing cache was still there. As a result many more failed attempts were made by other cachers before the cache was eventually disabled. (Reading the logs, some of those fails were rather time intensive.)

Link to comment

 

Avoiding the whole argument of what constitutes a find...If someone is posting fake 'finds' to boost their numbers, it may not bother the cache owner but it does hurt those cachers who like the 'numbers' part of this game. Legitimate 'numbers' cachers are competing for rankings and doing the hard work of finding caches but sit lower in the rankings due to armchair cachers who log the finds without leaving the couch.

 

For the sake of the legitimate 'numbers' cachers (I'm not one) I would want CO's to delete the bogus finds.

 

So you're saying that "legitimate" numbers cachers have a right to expect that numbers are comparable. That they can assume that people are logging cache using roughly the same criteria they do, so the numbers have some meaning. Then bogus finds are not the problem. It is the people who find caches and don't log all their finds online. I'm pretty sure this happens more often then bogus logs. If the "legitimate" numbers cachers are being "cheated" by people whose numbers don't accurately reflect the finds they have, they ought to be complaining about the ones who aren't logging every cache they find. If cache owners should be deleting the bogus logs, then shouldn't they have the ability to add find logs for the names they find in the physical log that didn't log a find online? :P

Link to comment
Geocaching rules state that to log a find, one must sign the physical logbook.
What rule? :P
Not that there is a regulation, but

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

--Logging of All Physical Caches

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

That guideline doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

While it does mean that cache owners must allow a 'find' log if someone has signed the logbook, it does not give guidance regarding unsigned logbooks.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I send an email to the person asking why they didn't sign the logbook and to give me a detailed description of what they found & what the area looked like. I also mention that GC.coms requirement to log a find is to have signed the logbook.

So basically, you lie to them, right. :P

 

It's fine if you, as a cache owner, have this requirement. However, GC.com has no such requirement.

 

Nobody is lying to anybody there. The guidelines are quite clear to all but jailhouse lawyers. Sign the Logbook. Nouns and verbs. Quite simple really. To head bang over and over and over and over again that silly mantra that signing is not a requirement is, uh, well, gosh, a lie.

 

You see, we can read. and understand. Just repeating the lie over and over again doesn't change fact. :cool:

 

and, by the way, if you consider signing the log to be strictly a cache owners' requirement, that is not "fine"--Additional logging requirements have been outlawed...

Link to comment

I send an email to the person asking why they didn't sign the logbook and to give me a detailed description of what they found & what the area looked like. I also mention that GC.coms requirement to log a find is to have signed the logbook.

So basically, you lie to them, right. :P

 

It's fine if you, as a cache owner, have this requirement. However, GC.com has no such requirement.

 

Nobody is lying to anybody there. The guidelines are quite clear to all but jailhouse lawyers. Sign the Logbook. Nouns and verbs. Quite simple really. To head bang over and over and over and over again that silly mantra that signing is not a requirement is, uh, well, gosh, a lie.

 

You see, we can read. and understand. Just repeating the lie over and over again doesn't change fact. :cool:

 

and, by the way, if you consider signing the log to be strictly a cache owners' requirement, that is not "fine"--Additional logging requirements have been outlawed...

And again it must be asked: where is that written?

 

The one quoted above is not a complete quote; in context, it means that a cache owner cannot delete a log if the logbook is signed.

Logging of All Physical Caches

 

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

 

If it is appropriate for your cache location or theme, you may ask the cache seeker to accomplish an optional and simple task, either close to the cache site (normally within 0.1 miles or 161 meters) or when writing their online log. For example, wear the goofy hat inside the cache container and upload a photograph. Cache finders can choose whether or not to attempt or accomplish optional tasks. Cache owners may not delete the cache seeker's log based solely on optional tasks.

 

This guideline change applies immediately to all logs written from April 4, 2009 and going forward. Older caches with "additional logging requirements" (ALRs) are not grandfathered under the older guideline. If you own an existing cache with mandatory additional logging requirements, we request that you:

 

* Cease deleting logs based on additional logging requirements.

* Review your own cache listing to see if the ALR can be made into an optional and simple task, or whether it must be removed altogether.

* Adjust your geocache listing by editing the text then contact a reviewer to change the cache type, if appropriate.

That is the complete section. As a whole, it addresses exactly one thing: cache owners cannot enforce ALRs.

 

If that's meant to be an instruction to new finders, a seemingly irrelevant sentence in the middle of the hiding guidelines seems like an odd place to put it.

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to comment

 

Nobody is lying to anybody there. The guidelines are quite clear to all but jailhouse lawyers. Sign the Logbook. Nouns and verbs. Quite simple really. To head bang over and over and over and over again that silly mantra that signing is not a requirement is, uh, well, gosh, a lie.

 

You see, we can read. and understand. Just repeating the lie over and over again doesn't change fact. :P

 

and, by the way, if you consider signing the log to be strictly a cache owners' requirement, that is not "fine"--Additional logging requirements have been outlawed...

The problem with puritantical thought is that once you get it into your mind that there is a requirement to delete found logs just because the physical is not signed, no amount of logic will convince you otherwise. It must be true - so it is true.

 

So many people believe this is a requirement because one of the first things you learn about geocaching is that every physical cache has a log book and when you find the cache you should sign the log book.

 

The problems begin with the online logging of caches. The thought is that if you post an online found log you must have found the cache and if you found the caches then you should have signed the log. So it becomes a simple mantra - You must sign the log to log a find online.

 

Only in reality, there is little connection between the online found log and finding the cache. Yes, the intent was to use the "Found It" log to share that you found the cache and the "DNF" to share that you looked and didn't find the cache. But Groundspeak realized early on they had no power enforce how these logs were used. Instead they asked the cache owners to be fully responsible for the post to their cache pages. They gave the power to delete logs to cache owners. Some cache owners abused this power by creating additional requirements that had to be met in order to log a find. Eventually Groundspeak felt they had to eliminate the ability of cache owners to have additional requirement. The oft quoted guideline, if you read it carefully, says nothing about having to sign the log. It only states that you can log the cache online once you have signed the log. The intent, as spelled out by Groundspeak at the time this guideline was added, is that cache owners can not require you to do more than sign the log in order for your online find to stand.

 

The overwhelming majority of cache owners realize there are times when signing the physical becomes impossible through no fault of the finder. Logs get wet, pens dry out or go missing, sometimes cache containers are damaged and can't be opened. Cache owners are free to allow finds to be logged in these cased and more. What no cache owner can do is to force someone to log a find who does not want to. If you personally won't log a find online unless you have signed the log, no one can force you to do it.

Link to comment

I send an email to the person asking why they didn't sign the logbook and to give me a detailed description of what they found & what the area looked like. I also mention that GC.coms requirement to log a find is to have signed the logbook.

So basically, you lie to them, right. :P

 

It's fine if you, as a cache owner, have this requirement. However, GC.com has no such requirement.

 

Nobody is lying to anybody there. The guidelines are quite clear to all but jailhouse lawyers. Sign the Logbook. Nouns and verbs. Quite simple really. To head bang over and over and over and over again that silly mantra that signing is not a requirement is, uh, well, gosh, a lie.

 

You see, we can read. and understand. Just repeating the lie over and over again doesn't change fact. :cool:

 

and, by the way, if you consider signing the log to be strictly a cache owners' requirement, that is not "fine"--Additional logging requirements have been outlawed...

Not entirely correct. The section addresses logging. The title is not "ALR's", the title is "Logging of All Physical Caches".

 

The first sentence is very clear "Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed."

 

It simply and clearly discusses logging, then it addresses the contentious issue of ALR's in a more verbose manner.

 

And again it must be asked: where is that written?

 

The one quoted above is not a complete quote; in context, it means that a cache owner cannot delete a log if the logbook is signed.

Logging of All Physical Caches

 

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

 

If it is appropriate for your cache location or theme, you may ask the cache seeker to accomplish an optional and simple task, either close to the cache site (normally within 0.1 miles or 161 meters) or when writing their online log. For example, wear the goofy hat inside the cache container and upload a photograph. Cache finders can choose whether or not to attempt or accomplish optional tasks. Cache owners may not delete the cache seeker's log based solely on optional tasks.

 

This guideline change applies immediately to all logs written from April 4, 2009 and going forward. Older caches with "additional logging requirements" (ALRs) are not grandfathered under the older guideline. If you own an existing cache with mandatory additional logging requirements, we request that you:

 

* Cease deleting logs based on additional logging requirements.

* Review your own cache listing to see if the ALR can be made into an optional and simple task, or whether it must be removed altogether.

* Adjust your geocache listing by editing the text then contact a reviewer to change the cache type, if appropriate.

That is the complete section. As a whole, it addresses exactly one thing: cache owners cannot enforce ALRs.

 

If that's meant to be an instruction to new finders, a seemingly irrelevant sentence in the middle of the hiding guidelines seems like an odd place to put it.

Not entirely correct. The section addresses logging. The title is not "ALR's", the title is "Logging of All Physical Caches".

 

The first sentence is very clear "Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed."

 

It simply and clearly discusses logging, then it addresses the contentious issue of ALR's in a more verbose manner.

Link to comment

Not entirely correct. The section addresses logging. The title is not "ALR's", the title is "Logging of All Physical Caches".

 

The first sentence is very clear "Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed."

 

It simply and clearly discusses logging, then it addresses the contentious issue of ALR's in a more verbose manner.

I believe I am entirely correct, thanks. I believe the Groundspeak website authors have more sense than to stick a finding guideline in the middle of the hiding guidelines and nowhere else.

Link to comment

These nested comments are getting to hard to read. So...

 

To Trader Rick & Rosie...

 

I'm totally in your court when you point out that the guidelines state that the physical line should be logged before the log is posted online. I'm with you 100% on that and I just posted a comment to that effect.

 

However...

 

As tozainamboku and others are trying to say, and where I agree with them is this: IN PRACTICE, cache owners are NOT REQUIRED to delete logs that don't meet the guidelines. It is perfectly acceptable for the cache owners to leave logs online that do not have corresponding physical log signatures.

 

It may seem odd to have guidelines/rules that owners are not required to enforce, but that is the reality. On Geocaching.com, the cache owners have flexibility in how they play the game as long as they don't delete logs due to an ALR.

 

However, if a CO deletes an online log because the physical log isn't signed the guidelines support that action.

Link to comment

Not entirely correct. The section addresses logging. The title is not "ALR's", the title is "Logging of All Physical Caches".

 

The first sentence is very clear "Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed."

 

It simply and clearly discusses logging, then it addresses the contentious issue of ALR's in a more verbose manner.

I believe I am entirely correct, thanks. I believe the Groundspeak website authors have more sense than to stick a finding guideline in the middle of the hiding guidelines and nowhere else.

It's not a finding or a hiding guideline, it's a logging guideline. Hence the title to the section.

 

Seems like we're at the point where we need to agree to disagree. :P

Link to comment
Not entirely correct. The section addresses logging. The title is not "ALR's", the title is "Logging of All Physical Caches".

 

The first sentence is very clear "Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed."

 

It simply and clearly discusses logging, then it addresses the contentious issue of ALR's in a more verbose manner.

It's worth noting that the line that is often quoted here ("Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed") was not present in the guidelines before ALRs were banned. When ALRs were banned in 2009, the passage quoted by Dinoprophet showed up in its entirety. This can more or less be confirmed by using the Wayback Machine and other tools.

 

I'm not inside the heads of the folks who amended the guidelines. I'm just noting the timing; the sentence doesn't seem to exist before 2009. Take it for what it's worth.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...