Jump to content

Was my email to this new cacher too harsh?


Recommended Posts

New cacher since October 31st with 36 finds so far (and 2 hides.) He logged one of mine and half an hour later logged it again. I removed the second log and less than fifteen minutes later he logged it again.

 

I sent this message through GC.com:

"Please look at the online logs for "*************" and note that you have already have logged that geocache. This is why I have removed your previous double log. I am sending this message before I remove the third that you just logged.

 

This is not out of spite. You found the cache, you signed the log, you deserve the smilie. But, more than one electronic log will not increase your find numbers if that is why you are double logging. I don't think that is the case here. I think you may not realize that you have already logged that geocache among the other finds that you are logging tonight.

 

So, please do not take offense at my removing your additional online logs. I am only deleting the redundant ones and your original is still there.

 

Thanks for understanding and happy caching,

Charlie"

 

Was I too harsh? Should I expect hard feelings? :)

Link to comment

New cacher since October 31st with 36 finds so far (and 2 hides.) He logged one of mine and half an hour later logged it again. I removed the second log and less than fifteen minutes later he logged it again.

 

I sent this message through GC.com:

"Please look at the online logs for "*************" and note that you have already have logged that geocache. This is why I have removed your previous double log. I am sending this message before I remove the third that you just logged.

 

This is not out of spite. You found the cache, you signed the log, you deserve the smilie. But, more than one electronic log will not increase your find numbers if that is why you are double logging. I don't think that is the case here. I think you may not realize that you have already logged that geocache among the other finds that you are logging tonight.

 

So, please do not take offense at my removing your additional online logs. I am only deleting the redundant ones and your original is still there.

 

Thanks for understanding and happy caching,

Charlie"

 

Was I too harsh? Should I expect hard feelings? :)

 

The first paragraph is fine, but the others are unnecessary except for the last line IMO.

Link to comment

have had a similar situation recently. I think your email is very good, and hopefully it will get through to this person. I personally hate log deletion notices so any type of personal email explaining it goes a long way, I believe.

 

My recent situation was that someone felt they could log a cache each time they went to see it, I think I finally got through to this person but it took so much effort.

 

I can see why some COs do not bother to delete extra finds. I try to make cache finds accurate where I can, so I do my part nonetheless and it seems you do so as well.

Link to comment

But, more than one electronic log will not increase your find numbers if that is why you are double logging.

I think your note was fine, albeit a bit long. But the above sentence is not true - if you log a cache (or event) five times, you increase your Find count by five.

 

I know. I was trying a little fib to decrease the possibility of him trying it more.

Link to comment

Did he indicate why he logged the cache a second time? Perhaps it was to drop off a travel bug. You could explain that he should use Write Note instead of found for this. Perhaps he doesn't realize he can use the write note to drop a travel bug or if he is returning to a cache that he already found.

 

I agree lying about the find count was wrong as is assuming that he double logged in order to increase his find count.

Link to comment

But, more than one electronic log will not increase your find numbers if that is why you are double logging.

I think your note was fine, albeit a bit long. But the above sentence is not true - if you log a cache (or event) five times, you increase your Find count by five.

 

I know. I was trying a little fib to decrease the possibility of him trying it more.

 

This will lead to confusion for this cacher. I imagine they are aware of their find count and every time you delete one of their finds their count will be reduced by one. Plus it doesn't clearly explain to them the problem with logging multiple finds.

Link to comment

I agree with others. First part was OK. The veiled accusation was unnecessary.

I think this might be happening more since people started logging from their cell phones. I recently had someone log like seven finds on a cache of mine within a few minutes. I think they just couldn't see that the found it had gone through.

Link to comment

But, more than one electronic log will not increase your find numbers if that is why you are double logging.

I think your note was fine, albeit a bit long. But the above sentence is not true - if you log a cache (or event) five times, you increase your Find count by five.

 

I wonder if there's an upward limit? Could someone log the same cache, say, a thousand times? I know it would be seen quickly (hopefully), but would they, at least temporarily, have an additional one-thousand finds showing?

Link to comment
I wonder if there's an upward limit? Could someone log the same cache, say, a thousand times? I know it would be seen quickly (hopefully), but would they, at least temporarily, have an additional one-thousand finds showing?

 

Yes

 

Is that "yes" to there IS an upward limit or to your stats showing one-thousand finds?

Link to comment

i see nothing wrong in your email

 

however, my question is why bother deleting the double logs anyway?

 

When you place the cache you check a box that says you have read the guidelines which state it is your responsibility as the owner;

 

"The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements."

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to comment

i see nothing wrong in your email

 

however, my question is why bother deleting the double logs anyway?

 

When you place the cache you check a box that says you have read the guidelines which state it is your responsibility as the owner;

 

"The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements."

 

Beyond that, it's a matter of new geocacher education. Even if the OP didn't mind someone logging their cache twice, as a general rule I think it's safe to say that most cache owners follow a "one find, one found it log" policy. A friendly email provides a educating opportunity that might help a new geocacher have a more favorable introduction to the local geocaching community.

Link to comment

But, more than one electronic log will not increase your find numbers if that is why you are double logging.

I think your note was fine, albeit a bit long. But the above sentence is not true - if you log a cache (or event) five times, you increase your Find count by five.

 

I know. I was trying a little fib to decrease the possibility of him trying it more.

 

In this case, I think everything was fine except for your "little fib." A fib is nothing more than a lie, and this is a lie that the cacher could very easily discover either way. There's no point to it. Otherwise, it's fine.

Link to comment

But, more than one electronic log will not increase your find numbers if that is why you are double logging.

I think your note was fine, albeit a bit long. But the above sentence is not true - if you log a cache (or event) five times, you increase your Find count by five.

 

I know. I was trying a little fib to decrease the possibility of him trying it more.

 

This will lead to confusion for this cacher. I imagine they are aware of their find count and every time you delete one of their finds their count will be reduced by one. Plus it doesn't clearly explain to them the problem with logging multiple finds.

 

Exactly what is the problem with logging multiple finds?

 

While I don't agree with the practice, except under unusual circumstances, I don't see it being a problem.

 

I have a cache that has five "Found It" logs from the same cacher. His find count is five as my cache is the only one he has ever found. He hikes the mountain once a year, finds my cache, enjoys the view, goes home and logs it. I don't see the harm, so I let the logs stand.

Link to comment

I have a cache that has five "Found It" logs from the same cacher. His find count is five as my cache is the only one he has ever found. He hikes the mountain once a year, finds my cache, enjoys the view, goes home and logs it. I don't see the harm, so I let the logs stand.

There is some kind of proverb or moral here that is worthy of a half hour TV special.

Other than that it is a unique situation that has little connection to the topic being discussed.

(But I'm glad you told the story! :laughing: )

Link to comment

As someone is isn't too far removed from 'new', I'd vote for a bit too harsh. There are a number of reasons why a cache can get logged multiple time by accident.

 

My vote would be a kindly note letting know that multiple logs showed up.

 

Side note...

 

A couple of months ago there was a hiccup in the system that led to some of my finds being listed as many as 13 times. One CO sent me a very nice note, one deleted the extra's without comment and others did nothing.

 

Coincidentally, Today I had two DNF logs post twice. (I deleted the spares.)

Link to comment

I had a new cacher log one of my caches 45 times in matter of hours, while logging from his phone it was telling him an error occurred and his log was not sent when indeed it was. Honest mistakes happen, I didn't even bother with an email, I just deleted the first few, then got an apology email from him for the error, and he deleted the rest. In the electronic age, it happens, no biggie, moving on....

Link to comment

New cacher since October 31st with 36 finds so far (and 2 hides.) He logged one of mine and half an hour later logged it again. I removed the second log and less than fifteen minutes later he logged it again.

 

I sent this message through GC.com:

"Please look at the online logs for "*************" and note that you have already have logged that geocache. This is why I have removed your previous double log. I am sending this message before I remove the third that you just logged.

 

This is not out of spite. You found the cache, you signed the log, you deserve the smilie. But, more than one electronic log will not increase your find numbers if that is why you are double logging. I don't think that is the case here. I think you may not realize that you have already logged that geocache among the other finds that you are logging tonight.

 

So, please do not take offense at my removing your additional online logs. I am only deleting the redundant ones and your original is still there.

 

Thanks for understanding and happy caching,

Charlie"

 

Was I too harsh? Should I expect hard feelings? :laughing:

Next to me you are a nice guy.

Link to comment

I agree with others. First part was OK. The veiled accusation was unnecessary.

I think this might be happening more since people started logging from their cell phones. I recently had someone log like seven finds on a cache of mine within a few minutes. I think they just couldn't see that the found it had gone through.

 

I got back from a weekend vacation in October and found I had logged finds about 15 times on each cache that I had found. What a pain it was to fix! Glitches happen.

 

I think the email is fine, I'd just wait a day or so to send it, just to give the new cacher a chance to do it himself...

Link to comment

Newbie here. I have a question about how to log. I've searched the forum and this is the closest to the topic. Forgive me if this is not the area I should be in.

 

Question:

Talking about double logs. I went yesterday to look for my first cache and I did not find it. I logged it as not finding so I have the sad smile. I went back this morning and I did find it so I logged it again but this time as a find so I have the smile.

 

Should I delete the first log? Should I just updated the first log and changed it to a find? What do most people do?

 

Thanks in advance for your comments.

Link to comment

Newbie here. I have a question about how to log. I've searched the forum and this is the closest to the topic. Forgive me if this is not the area I should be in.

 

Question:

Talking about double logs. I went yesterday to look for my first cache and I did not find it. I logged it as not finding so I have the sad smile. I went back this morning and I did find it so I logged it again but this time as a find so I have the smile.

 

Should I delete the first log? Should I just updated the first log and changed it to a find? What do most people do?

 

Thanks in advance for your comments.

 

Leave it. DNF logs are not a sign of shame. The cache may be tough enough that it is hard to find on the first try.

Link to comment

Newbie here. I have a question about how to log. I've searched the forum and this is the closest to the topic. Forgive me if this is not the area I should be in.

 

Question:

Talking about double logs. I went yesterday to look for my first cache and I did not find it. I logged it as not finding so I have the sad smile. I went back this morning and I did find it so I logged it again but this time as a find so I have the smile.

 

Should I delete the first log? Should I just updated the first log and changed it to a find? What do most people do?

 

Thanks in advance for your comments.

 

Although there don't seem to be any hard and fast rules to this I am under the impression that most people here would think that what you did was just exactly right. It's certainly what I do.

Link to comment

I've never explained why and have never been asked why I delete double or triple logs. If they care, I assume they go look and see their original remains untouched and realize they posted too many logs.

Your e-mail is far more courteous than my silence I guess.

Link to comment

Newbie here. I have a question about how to log. I've searched the forum and this is the closest to the topic. Forgive me if this is not the area I should be in.

 

Question:

Talking about double logs. I went yesterday to look for my first cache and I did not find it. I logged it as not finding so I have the sad smile. I went back this morning and I did find it so I logged it again but this time as a find so I have the smile.

 

Should I delete the first log? Should I just updated the first log and changed it to a find? What do most people do?

 

Thanks in advance for your comments.

 

Leave it. DNF logs are not a sign of shame. The cache may be tough enough that it is hard to find on the first try.

+1. Both logs are part of your history with the cache, and the cache's history.

Link to comment
I have a cache that has five "Found It" logs from the same cacher. His find count is five as my cache is the only one he has ever found. He hikes the mountain once a year, finds my cache, enjoys the view, goes home and logs it. I don't see the harm, so I let the logs stand.

I have a similar situation - a cache that one particular finder gets to about once a year, and logs it as found when he does. It seems to lack any nefarious intent and he always uploads really nice photos.

Link to comment
I went yesterday to look for my first cache and I did not find it. I logged it as not finding so I have the sad smile. I went back this morning and I did find it so I logged it again but this time as a find so I have the smile.

That's exactly how I do it.

 

Thanks for all the replies. I'll keep doing it this way. I want to track how many times I have gone out. So I'm glad to know that is how others also keep their records.

 

FYI - I went out with a wind chill of 20 degrees F. and found 2 more caches. I think I'm hooked... It was so much fun.

Link to comment

No further attempts to make additional logs have happened and no response to the email. For those that wanted a little more about the cacher's logs: All three logs were different. The first referred to the subject of the cache, second had nothing, and the third was " tfth; "

 

I agree with the persons saying the lie was unnecessary and that the second paragraph was accusatory. THanks for all of your assistance and Merry Christmas.

Link to comment

But, more than one electronic log will not increase your find numbers if that is why you are double logging.

I think your note was fine, albeit a bit long. But the above sentence is not true - if you log a cache (or event) five times, you increase your Find count by five.

 

I know. I was trying a little fib to decrease the possibility of him trying it more.

 

This will lead to confusion for this cacher. I imagine they are aware of their find count and every time you delete one of their finds their count will be reduced by one. Plus it doesn't clearly explain to them the problem with logging multiple finds.

 

Exactly what is the problem with logging multiple finds?

 

While I don't agree with the practice, except under unusual circumstances, I don't see it being a problem.

 

I have a cache that has five "Found It" logs from the same cacher. His find count is five as my cache is the only one he has ever found. He hikes the mountain once a year, finds my cache, enjoys the view, goes home and logs it. I don't see the harm, so I let the logs stand.

 

1 Cache=1 Find With exception. There are a few caches that are 'Moving caches'. Those can be logged once per time found*at different coords*. The other exception is a certain Challenge cache that has separate requirements for the second find.

 

For the situation listed above, the person SHOULD be writing NOTES! That's what they're there for. I.E. "Found this one back in 04, visited it again today to enjoy the great views. Someone needs to place more caches up here for me to find. I'm in the process of getting the container I brought up reviewed, so expect it to be published this next week..."

 

The Steaks

Link to comment

I'll go against the grain and say that you were -- well, not too harsh, but too quick on the trigger and a bit edgy. I'd have waited a couple of days to see if the finder figured it out him/herself. Then I'd have emailed suggesting there may have been a technical problem, or that they may have assumed the additional logs would replace the originals. If the logs are total duplicates, I'd definitely think technical problem. If the logs are partial duplicates, I'd point out that the repetition takes space in the cache page.

 

Then if they don't act fast, I'd smite their logs with an unholy terror.

 

Edward

Link to comment
I wonder if there's an upward limit? Could someone log the same cache, say, a thousand times? I know it would be seen quickly (hopefully), but would they, at least temporarily, have an additional one-thousand finds showing?

 

Yes

 

whoa!

I learned something new today.

Link to comment

But, more than one electronic log will not increase your find numbers if that is why you are double logging.

I think your note was fine, albeit a bit long. But the above sentence is not true - if you log a cache (or event) five times, you increase your Find count by five.

 

I know. I was trying a little fib to decrease the possibility of him trying it more.

 

This will lead to confusion for this cacher. I imagine they are aware of their find count and every time you delete one of their finds their count will be reduced by one. Plus it doesn't clearly explain to them the problem with logging multiple finds.

 

Exactly what is the problem with logging multiple finds?

 

While I don't agree with the practice, except under unusual circumstances, I don't see it being a problem.

 

I have a cache that has five "Found It" logs from the same cacher. His find count is five as my cache is the only one he has ever found. He hikes the mountain once a year, finds my cache, enjoys the view, goes home and logs it. I don't see the harm, so I let the logs stand.

 

1 Cache=1 Find With exception. There are a few caches that are 'Moving caches'. Those can be logged once per time found*at different coords*. The other exception is a certain Challenge cache that has separate requirements for the second find.

 

For the situation listed above, the person SHOULD be writing NOTES! That's what they're there for. I.E. "Found this one back in 04, visited it again today to enjoy the great views. Someone needs to place more caches up here for me to find. I'm in the process of getting the container I brought up reviewed, so expect it to be published this next week..."

 

The Steaks

 

Someone logging multiple finds on the same cache was an automatic annoyance to me until I really thought about it. In the end it doesnt matter to anyone but them. If someone has an issue with it, then they are really being a bit nosey. Yes they should be writing notes, but so what if they dont. It really is NOT about the numbers. Really. :P

Link to comment

Was I too harsh? Should I expect hard feelings? :)

 

 

As a relatively new cacher, I would have appreciated the above letter. I am sure I make gaffes, and sincerely appreciate when someone more experienced takes the time to show me the parameters.

 

I do read the knowledge books and the forums, and have applied what I have found......and remembered, lol

 

So no, I do not see this as harsh at all. I would think that if the new cacher took offense, it is more his/her problem than yours--you sent good karma out. [=)]

 

Paisley Cat of Shifter Clan

Link to comment

I had a new cacher log one of my caches 45 times in matter of hours, while logging from his phone it was telling him an error occurred and his log was not sent when indeed it was. Honest mistakes happen, I didn't even bother with an email, I just deleted the first few, then got an apology email from him for the error, and he deleted the rest. In the electronic age, it happens, no biggie, moving on....

 

I see how that can happen but to re-log the extra ones after they have been deleted shows an intent to create the extra logs.

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...