Jump to content

New Cachers Not Writing In Online Log Portion


dcmcveigh

Recommended Posts

narcissa-"The phrase "appear to be bogus" is key. A blank log appears to be bogus."

Wrong. A blank log appears to be blank. There is nothing (literally) to indicate that it is bogus.

I would let the log stand and check it when I could bother to get out there.

...BUT to be fair, a blank log appearing to be nothing other than blank seems as good of a reason to suspect a log is bogus as any. Its probably open to more interpretation than any other way of logging :huh:

Its probably not bogus, but if someone takes it that way, it's not really a mark against them IMO

Link to comment
...BUT to be fair, a blank log appearing to be nothing other than blank seems as good of a reason to suspect a log is bogus as any.

Except that I think that logging through a smartphone app is the only way the system will let you leave a blank log. I'm no expert on writing bots, but I think it's a lot more difficult to write scripts for auto-logging via the iPhone app than it would be to write a script that will work through standard Internet protocols (like virtually every other auto-script).

 

I think a blank log probably means it's less likely to be a bot, than the other way around.

Link to comment

Without cache hiders this game would not exist so why do allow smartphone users to insult them in this way. It wouldn' take too many empty logs before I decided "why bother" and archived everything.

if your hiding caches soley to get paragraph logs your not doing it for the right reasons.

 

 

I'm hiding caches for the enjoyment of others. It's the logs that tell me people are enjoying the caches. Without that feedback I probably would have stopped hiding after the first cache. I'm not going to spend all this time, effort and money hiding caches if I'm not certain people are enjoying them.

 

It's those paragraph logs that made me realize I could bring a little fun into someone's life through the simple act of hiding an ammo box or Tupperware, and they are what kept me at it all of these years. A blank log or "found it" tells me nothing beyond that the cache was found.

Link to comment

Without cache hiders this game would not exist so why do allow smartphone users to insult them in this way. It wouldn' take too many empty logs before I decided "why bother" and archived everything.

if your hiding caches soley to get paragraph logs your not doing it for the right reasons.

 

 

I'm hiding caches for the enjoyment of others. It's the logs that tell me people are enjoying the caches. Without that feedback I probably would have stopped hiding after the first cache. I'm not going to spend all this time, effort and money hiding caches if I'm not certain people are enjoying them.

 

It's those paragraph logs that made me realize I could bring a little fun into someone's life through the simple act of hiding an ammo box or Tupperware, and they are what kept me at it all of these years. A blank log or "found it" tells me nothing beyond that the cache was found.

 

I agree, I've never understood the statement that always pops up that "you're not doing it for the right reasons". Maybe one of the enlightend posters that always post that can explain the right reasons.

Link to comment

Without cache hiders this game would not exist so why do allow smartphone users to insult them in this way. It wouldn' take too many empty logs before I decided "why bother" and archived everything.

if your hiding caches soley to get paragraph logs your not doing it for the right reasons.

 

 

I'm hiding caches for the enjoyment of others. It's the logs that tell me people are enjoying the caches. Without that feedback I probably would have stopped hiding after the first cache. I'm not going to spend all this time, effort and money hiding caches if I'm not certain people are enjoying them.

 

It's those paragraph logs that made me realize I could bring a little fun into someone's life through the simple act of hiding an ammo box or Tupperware, and they are what kept me at it all of these years. A blank log or "found it" tells me nothing beyond that the cache was found.

If one of the logs on one of your caches is not to your liking, do you take any action whatsoever?
Link to comment

Without cache hiders this game would not exist so why do allow smartphone users to insult them in this way. It wouldn' take too many empty logs before I decided "why bother" and archived everything.

if your hiding caches soley to get paragraph logs your not doing it for the right reasons.

 

 

I'm hiding caches for the enjoyment of others. It's the logs that tell me people are enjoying the caches. Without that feedback I probably would have stopped hiding after the first cache. I'm not going to spend all this time, effort and money hiding caches if I'm not certain people are enjoying them.

 

It's those paragraph logs that made me realize I could bring a little fun into someone's life through the simple act of hiding an ammo box or Tupperware, and they are what kept me at it all of these years. A blank log or "found it" tells me nothing beyond that the cache was found.

 

I wouldn't like it so much either. Would I delete it? Not without a physical log audit.

Link to comment
Team Four Paw-"It's no different than our reviewer posting a note to the cache asking if maintenance is forth coming. If the reviewer gets no response the cache is archived."
The difference is that a reviewer is asking the cache owner to go to the cache and verify that there is no problem. If you are paranoid that a blank log might be bogus, do the same, go to the cache and verify.
Link to comment
Team Four Paw-"It's no different than our reviewer posting a note to the cache asking if maintenance is forth coming. If the reviewer gets no response the cache is archived."
The difference is that a reviewer is asking the cache owner to go to the cache and verify that there is no problem. If you are paranoid that a blank log might be bogus, do the same, go to the cache and verify.

 

Actually I really don't care either way. My point and my opinion which will not change is that without proper communication the cache owner has reasonable cause to delete the cacher's logs. The cacher at that point can do the leg-work necessary to prove their find to Groundspeak and get it reinstated.

Link to comment
Team Four Paw-"It's no different than our reviewer posting a note to the cache asking if maintenance is forth coming. If the reviewer gets no response the cache is archived."
The difference is that a reviewer is asking the cache owner to go to the cache and verify that there is no problem. If you are paranoid that a blank log might be bogus, do the same, go to the cache and verify.

 

Actually I really don't care either way. My point and my opinion which will not change is that without proper communication the cache owner has reasonable cause to delete the cacher's logs. The cacher at that point can do the leg-work necessary to prove their find to Groundspeak and get it reinstated.

The problem with your argument is that proper communication for a 'find' log is the log itself. Requiring additional activity, such as an email response, is no longer allowed per the guidelines.

 

If, as a cache owner, you believe that a log is bogus, the onus is on you to prove it by going out and checking the physical logbook.

Link to comment
Smartphone’s have nothing to do with blank logs... that’s just a silly statement...

I totally disagree.

 

When you log on the web site, the UI makes it very clear that a log comment is a critical part of the process. There's a huge box that takes up a large chunk of the screen, and in fact you aren't even *allowed* to leave the space empty. Try to leave a blank "Found It" log and you'll get kicked back with a "* Required" message by the comment field.

 

By way of contrast, in the iPhone app the "Message" field is virtually indistinguishable from a bunch of other choices which are indisputably optional - Attach a Photo, Drop a Trackable... And furthermore, if you try to submit a blank "Found It" log from the iPhone app, you'll find that the system happily accepts it.

 

If I put myself in the shoes of a new cacher whose only interface with the game is through the iPhone app I can *absolutely* see how it ramps up the frequency of blank logs. From a UI perspective it's a very different experience than logging on the website. I believe the likelihood that these are bots is pretty low.

If what you say is accurate, then it is a problem with the "trusted" developers. The non trusted developers are still stuck with automatically using the web UI, and therefor must enter something into the log. The only way to get nothing into the log would be by going directly into the API. Sounds like a bug in the API that GS should fix.

 

PS Smart Phones are not the problem. People are the problem. (kind of like guns don't kill people...) 95%ish of my find logs are from my smart phone, and I think if you did an analysis of them, you would find them to be in the top 20% in terms of log quality. I never do the cut and past thing, because I always log from GZ.

Edited by Andronicus
Link to comment

Before deleting check the cache logs. I had 2 of my caches logged on line a little over a week ago, blank log and the cachers names was in caps it just didn't look right so I checked and they hadn't signed the cache logs, I emailed the cacher and said if they could tell where the caches were I let the smiley stand, if not I'd delete them. They E mailed me back and said they just drove by the caches,

Maybe they thought geocaching was one of those other GPS games where you just check in or whatever. Seems kind of strange.

Link to comment
PS Smart Phones are not the problem. People are the problem. (kind of like guns don't kill people...) 95%ish of my find logs are from my smart phone, and I think if you did an analysis of them, you would find them to be in the top 20% in terms of log quality. I never do the cut and past thing, because I always log from GZ.

While I understand your point, I still think that there is an effect. I'm a long logger, but my logs are definitely shorter when I log from my phone. Typing on the iPhone is neither a fun nor efficient experience for me.

Link to comment
Team Four Paw-"It's no different than our reviewer posting a note to the cache asking if maintenance is forth coming. If the reviewer gets no response the cache is archived."
The difference is that a reviewer is asking the cache owner to go to the cache and verify that there is no problem. If you are paranoid that a blank log might be bogus, do the same, go to the cache and verify.

 

Actually I really don't care either way. My point and my opinion which will not change is that without proper communication the cache owner has reasonable cause to delete the cacher's logs. The cacher at that point can do the leg-work necessary to prove their find to Groundspeak and get it reinstated.

The problem with your argument is that proper communication for a 'find' log is the log itself. Requiring additional activity, such as an email response, is no longer allowed per the guidelines.

 

If, as a cache owner, you believe that a log is bogus, the onus is on you to prove it by going out and checking the physical logbook.

 

I agree completely. Until you have bothered to check the actual physical log you have no proof that the cache finder has done anything but find the cache.

Link to comment
Team Four Paw-"It's no different than our reviewer posting a note to the cache asking if maintenance is forth coming. If the reviewer gets no response the cache is archived."
The difference is that a reviewer is asking the cache owner to go to the cache and verify that there is no problem. If you are paranoid that a blank log might be bogus, do the same, go to the cache and verify.

 

Actually I really don't care either way. My point and my opinion which will not change is that without proper communication the cache owner has reasonable cause to delete the cacher's logs. The cacher at that point can do the leg-work necessary to prove their find to Groundspeak and get it reinstated.

The problem with your argument is that proper communication for a 'find' log is the log itself. Requiring additional activity, such as an email response, is no longer allowed per the guidelines.

 

If, as a cache owner, you believe that a log is bogus, the onus is on you to prove it by going out and checking the physical logbook.

 

Nowhere in the guidelines does it say you have to check the log. It says "if it appears bogus". I'm just being the devils advocate in here because I would check the log, if I got no response from the cacher, because I believe that you should verify. Tons of people on here (including some posting to check the logs) think there are many legitimate reasons for NOT signing the log, so checking the log wouldn't be enough in their eyes.

Link to comment
PS Smart Phones are not the problem. People are the problem. (kind of like guns don't kill people...) 95%ish of my find logs are from my smart phone, and I think if you did an analysis of them, you would find them to be in the top 20% in terms of log quality. I never do the cut and past thing, because I always log from GZ.

While I understand your point, I still think that there is an effect. I'm a long logger, but my logs are definitely shorter when I log from my phone. Typing on the iPhone is neither a fun nor efficient experience for me.

I guess the gun is a factor as well, but in the end, it is the cacher who chose to enter the lame log, not the phone. Just like none of my guns have ever heart anyone (except for my shoulder), similarly, my smart phone has never logged a lame found it log.

Link to comment
Team Four Paw-"It's no different than our reviewer posting a note to the cache asking if maintenance is forth coming. If the reviewer gets no response the cache is archived."
The difference is that a reviewer is asking the cache owner to go to the cache and verify that there is no problem. If you are paranoid that a blank log might be bogus, do the same, go to the cache and verify.

 

Actually I really don't care either way. My point and my opinion which will not change is that without proper communication the cache owner has reasonable cause to delete the cacher's logs. The cacher at that point can do the leg-work necessary to prove their find to Groundspeak and get it reinstated.

The problem with your argument is that proper communication for a 'find' log is the log itself. Requiring additional activity, such as an email response, is no longer allowed per the guidelines.

 

If, as a cache owner, you believe that a log is bogus, the onus is on you to prove it by going out and checking the physical logbook.

 

You're confusing the topic with the Guidelines pertaining to Logging Requirements. Regardless of context if a cacher doesn't respond to an email/message then a cache owner is well within their right to assume it's an automated bot/script and therefore delete the log.

Link to comment
I guess the gun is a factor as well, but in the end, it is the cacher who chose to enter the lame log, not the phone. Just like none of my guns have ever heart anyone (except for my shoulder), similarly, my smart phone has never logged a lame found it log.

Nor has mine, but I have noticed that my logs are better when entered into the web site with a real keyboard. I'm about as well-intentioned a logger as you'll find, but when I'm at my computer it's easier to type longer and more colorfully. I'm not looking to assign legal blame; I'm just making an observation that I don't think is unique to me.

Link to comment
Smartphone’s have nothing to do with blank logs... that’s just a silly statement...

I totally disagree.

 

When you log on the web site, the UI makes it very clear that a log comment is a critical part of the process. There's a huge box that takes up a large chunk of the screen, and in fact you aren't even *allowed* to leave the space empty. Try to leave a blank "Found It" log and you'll get kicked back with a "* Required" message by the comment field.

 

By way of contrast, in the iPhone app the "Message" field is virtually indistinguishable from a bunch of other choices which are indisputably optional - Attach a Photo, Drop a Trackable... And furthermore, if you try to submit a blank "Found It" log from the iPhone app, you'll find that the system happily accepts it.

 

If I put myself in the shoes of a new cacher whose only interface with the game is through the iPhone app I can *absolutely* see how it ramps up the frequency of blank logs. From a UI perspective it's a very different experience than logging on the website. I believe the likelihood that these are bots is pretty low.

If what you say is accurate, then it is a problem with the "trusted" developers. The non trusted developers are still stuck with automatically using the web UI, and therefor must enter something into the log. The only way to get nothing into the log would be by going directly into the API. Sounds like a bug in the API that GS should fix.

 

PS Smart Phones are not the problem. People are the problem. (kind of like guns don't kill people...) 95%ish of my find logs are from my smart phone, and I think if you did an analysis of them, you would find them to be in the top 20% in terms of log quality. I never do the cut and past thing, because I always log from GZ.

I think that the problem with your position is that it is built on the assumption that blank logs truly are a problem and that TPTB see them as such.
Link to comment
Team Four Paw-"It's no different than our reviewer posting a note to the cache asking if maintenance is forth coming. If the reviewer gets no response the cache is archived."
The difference is that a reviewer is asking the cache owner to go to the cache and verify that there is no problem. If you are paranoid that a blank log might be bogus, do the same, go to the cache and verify.

 

Actually I really don't care either way. My point and my opinion which will not change is that without proper communication the cache owner has reasonable cause to delete the cacher's logs. The cacher at that point can do the leg-work necessary to prove their find to Groundspeak and get it reinstated.

The problem with your argument is that proper communication for a 'find' log is the log itself. Requiring additional activity, such as an email response, is no longer allowed per the guidelines.

 

If, as a cache owner, you believe that a log is bogus, the onus is on you to prove it by going out and checking the physical logbook.

 

Nowhere in the guidelines does it say you have to check the log. It says "if it appears bogus". I'm just being the devils advocate in here because I would check the log, if I got no response from the cacher, because I believe that you should verify. Tons of people on here (including some posting to check the logs) think there are many legitimate reasons for NOT signing the log, so checking the log wouldn't be enough in their eyes.

By failing to check the log, you are risking running afoul of the guidelines. Per the guidelines, if the log was signed, you cannot delete it. Requiring someone to email you back after signing the log is an ALR and not allowed.

 

If the logbook were not signed, you would be free to delete the log if they chose not to have further communication with you, but not if the log were signed.

Link to comment
Team Four Paw-"It's no different than our reviewer posting a note to the cache asking if maintenance is forth coming. If the reviewer gets no response the cache is archived."
The difference is that a reviewer is asking the cache owner to go to the cache and verify that there is no problem. If you are paranoid that a blank log might be bogus, do the same, go to the cache and verify.

 

Actually I really don't care either way. My point and my opinion which will not change is that without proper communication the cache owner has reasonable cause to delete the cacher's logs. The cacher at that point can do the leg-work necessary to prove their find to Groundspeak and get it reinstated.

The problem with your argument is that proper communication for a 'find' log is the log itself. Requiring additional activity, such as an email response, is no longer allowed per the guidelines.

 

If, as a cache owner, you believe that a log is bogus, the onus is on you to prove it by going out and checking the physical logbook.

 

You're confusing the topic with the Guidelines pertaining to Logging Requirements. Regardless of context if a cacher doesn't respond to an email/message then a cache owner is well within their right to assume it's an automated bot/script and therefore delete the log.

There is no confusion. If the logbook was signed and you are requiring some other action or else you will delete the log, then you have created an ALR in violation of the guidelines.
Link to comment
Smartphone’s have nothing to do with blank logs... that’s just a silly statement...

I totally disagree.

 

When you log on the web site, the UI makes it very clear that a log comment is a critical part of the process. There's a huge box that takes up a large chunk of the screen, and in fact you aren't even *allowed* to leave the space empty. Try to leave a blank "Found It" log and you'll get kicked back with a "* Required" message by the comment field.

 

By way of contrast, in the iPhone app the "Message" field is virtually indistinguishable from a bunch of other choices which are indisputably optional - Attach a Photo, Drop a Trackable... And furthermore, if you try to submit a blank "Found It" log from the iPhone app, you'll find that the system happily accepts it.

 

If I put myself in the shoes of a new cacher whose only interface with the game is through the iPhone app I can *absolutely* see how it ramps up the frequency of blank logs. From a UI perspective it's a very different experience than logging on the website. I believe the likelihood that these are bots is pretty low.

If what you say is accurate, then it is a problem with the "trusted" developers. The non trusted developers are still stuck with automatically using the web UI, and therefor must enter something into the log. The only way to get nothing into the log would be by going directly into the API. Sounds like a bug in the API that GS should fix.

 

PS Smart Phones are not the problem. People are the problem. (kind of like guns don't kill people...) 95%ish of my find logs are from my smart phone, and I think if you did an analysis of them, you would find them to be in the top 20% in terms of log quality. I never do the cut and past thing, because I always log from GZ.

I think that the problem with your position is that it is built on the assumption that blank logs truly are a problem and that TPTB see them as such.

I would suggest that the fact that the web UI requres text to be entered in the log indicates that Groundspeak does see blank logs as a problem.

Link to comment
Smartphones have nothing to do with blank logs... thats just a silly statement...

I totally disagree.

 

When you log on the web site, the UI makes it very clear that a log comment is a critical part of the process. There's a huge box that takes up a large chunk of the screen, and in fact you aren't even *allowed* to leave the space empty. Try to leave a blank "Found It" log and you'll get kicked back with a "* Required" message by the comment field.

 

By way of contrast, in the iPhone app the "Message" field is virtually indistinguishable from a bunch of other choices which are indisputably optional - Attach a Photo, Drop a Trackable... And furthermore, if you try to submit a blank "Found It" log from the iPhone app, you'll find that the system happily accepts it.

 

If I put myself in the shoes of a new cacher whose only interface with the game is through the iPhone app I can *absolutely* see how it ramps up the frequency of blank logs. From a UI perspective it's a very different experience than logging on the website. I believe the likelihood that these are bots is pretty low.

If what you say is accurate, then it is a problem with the "trusted" developers. The non trusted developers are still stuck with automatically using the web UI, and therefor must enter something into the log. The only way to get nothing into the log would be by going directly into the API. Sounds like a bug in the API that GS should fix.

 

PS Smart Phones are not the problem. People are the problem. (kind of like guns don't kill people...) 95%ish of my find logs are from my smart phone, and I think if you did an analysis of them, you would find them to be in the top 20% in terms of log quality. I never do the cut and past thing, because I always log from GZ.

I think that the problem with your position is that it is built on the assumption that blank logs truly are a problem and that TPTB see them as such.

I would suggest that the fact that the web UI requres text to be entered in the log indicates that Groundspeak does see blank logs as a problem.

Or it was an oversight not to 'fix' the web form or it is a change in policy that hasn't yet been built into the website or they don't care about the issue enough to worry about whether the two formats match. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

PS Smart Phones are not the problem. People are the problem. (kind of like guns don't kill people...) 95%ish of my find logs are from my smart phone, and I think if you did an analysis of them, you would find them to be in the top 20% in terms of log quality. I never do the cut and past thing, because I always log from GZ.

 

I've logged from the GZ with my iPhone, and found it very difficult to wax poetic about the experience while typing with one finger in the cold. The result is a blank or a generic pasted 'found' log which I then edit at my leisure.

 

You may not like 'blank' logs or "TFTC" logs but you cannot compel finders to write epic poems in order to claim a find on your cache!

What next, will you delete their logs for spelling errors or grammatical mistakes?

 

Blue -

Link to comment

Like I said, I personally would check it before I deleted it, unless I had an email conversation with the cacher. That being said. Using the same logic that you and many others on here use all the time. Nowhere does it say you have to check the log. If it turns out your suspicions are wrong, you would have to reinstate it, but you can delete it in the 1st place "if it appears bogus". Same with a virtual, which you don't ever sign in the 1st place. You use other means. If I had a cacher log 3 of my finds, I check 1 and there is no signature, then I email him/her and get no response. I think there is reasonable doubt on the other 2 as well. As I stated. I'm more in tune with the spirit of the rules and wouldn't do that myself. I'm just pointing out the train of logic on these forums used by you and many others.

 

edit. I was responding to post #69 and somehow didn't quote it

Edited by M 5
Link to comment

Like I said, I personally would check it before I deleted it, unless I had an email conversation with the cacher. That being said. Using the same logic that you and many others on here use all the time. Nowhere does it say you have to check the log. If it turns out your suspicions are wrong, you would have to reinstate it, but you can delete it in the 1st place "if it appears bogus". Same with a virtual, which you don't ever sign in the 1st place. You use other means. If I had a cacher log 3 of my finds, I check 1 and there is no signature, then I email him/her and get no response. I think there is reasonable doubt on the other 2 as well. As I stated. I'm more in tune with the spirit of the rules and wouldn't do that myself. I'm just pointing out the train of logic on these forums used by you and many others.

 

edit. I was responding to post #69 and somehow didn't quote it

What you are suggesting is that someone could create a cache with a codeowrd or other email requirement and it would be listed. This, of course, is in error because teh cache would be in clear violation of teh guidelines. So is the suggestion that someone must respond back to an email or risk having his log deleted even though the physical log was signed. Not only would this be an improper ALR, but it is lazy cache management. If you doubt that someone actually found the cache, you need to visit your cache and verify the signature in the logbook. Requiring the cache finder to take some additional action is unacceptable.

Link to comment

PS Smart Phones are not the problem. People are the problem. (kind of like guns don't kill people...) 95%ish of my find logs are from my smart phone, and I think if you did an analysis of them, you would find them to be in the top 20% in terms of log quality. I never do the cut and past thing, because I always log from GZ.

 

I've logged from the GZ with my iPhone, and found it very difficult to wax poetic about the experience while typing with one finger in the cold. The result is a blank or a generic pasted 'found' log which I then edit at my leisure.

 

You may not like 'blank' logs or "TFTC" logs but you cannot compel finders to write epic poems in order to claim a find on your cache!

What next, will you delete their logs for spelling errors or grammatical mistakes?

 

Blue -

 

An opposing viewpoint could easily say "what next, will you post a find it log on caches you saw the hiding spot from your car"

 

I'm more in tune with the intent of the guidelines, and think the blank logs or TFTC logs show a lack of character, but are not grounds for deletion. There MAY be situations where you are pretty sure a blank online log signaling a bogus find, but if you think they found it and are just inconsiderate people, then grin and bear it, until Groundspeak changes things.

Link to comment

Like I said, I personally would check it before I deleted it, unless I had an email conversation with the cacher. That being said. Using the same logic that you and many others on here use all the time. Nowhere does it say you have to check the log. If it turns out your suspicions are wrong, you would have to reinstate it, but you can delete it in the 1st place "if it appears bogus". Same with a virtual, which you don't ever sign in the 1st place. You use other means. If I had a cacher log 3 of my finds, I check 1 and there is no signature, then I email him/her and get no response. I think there is reasonable doubt on the other 2 as well. As I stated. I'm more in tune with the spirit of the rules and wouldn't do that myself. I'm just pointing out the train of logic on these forums used by you and many others.

 

edit. I was responding to post #69 and somehow didn't quote it

What you are suggesting is that someone could create a cache with a codeowrd or other email requirement and it would be listed. This, of course, is in error because teh cache would be in clear violation of teh guidelines. So is the suggestion that someone must respond back to an email or risk having his log deleted even though the physical log was signed. Not only would this be an improper ALR, but it is lazy cache management. If you doubt that someone actually found the cache, you need to visit your cache and verify the signature in the logbook. Requiring the cache finder to take some additional action is unacceptable.

 

Incorrect on many levels. No requirement. Just doing research on a lazy cacher who's finds appear bogus. If the cacher is too lazy to write a log or respond to an email, and I have reason to believe his finds are bogus, he/she may get their log deleted.

Link to comment

What I have had happen from time to time on the iPhone app:

 

Due to the logging date bug on the iPhone app/website I almost never post the log directly. The field notes feature keeps the timestamp correct, so I use that. Now, if I am on a memorable cache hunt - or something completely not memorable - I will very often send a blank field note to the site and then use field note feature later and fill in a proper log before submitting it.

 

Here's the thing - there's a glitch on the iPhone app that will allow those field notes to escape as logs. I've done it, and I can usually catch myself but I know I've sent a couple blank logs in because of that (always corrected later though)

 

There is a toggle to "Send as Field Note" or "Post as log". If you type log text in and hit "Save and Submit" you're ok.

BUT, if you drop a trackable or add a photo that "Send as Field Note" toggle, which is off the bottom of the screen and not noticable, changes to "Post as log (required)". If you remove the photo/trackable before sending it stays on "Post as log (required)", and it stays on "Post as log" for the next cache.

 

I've gone out and sent 10 blank logs in a row before noticing that change in the past. Now I am very watchful of that toggle.

Link to comment

PS Smart Phones are not the problem. People are the problem. (kind of like guns don't kill people...) 95%ish of my find logs are from my smart phone, and I think if you did an analysis of them, you would find them to be in the top 20% in terms of log quality. I never do the cut and past thing, because I always log from GZ.

 

I've logged from the GZ with my iPhone, and found it very difficult to wax poetic about the experience while typing with one finger in the cold. The result is a blank or a generic pasted 'found' log which I then edit at my leisure.

 

You may not like 'blank' logs or "TFTC" logs but you cannot compel finders to write epic poems in order to claim a find on your cache!

What next, will you delete their logs for spelling errors or grammatical mistakes?

 

Blue -

 

An opposing viewpoint could easily say "what next, will you post a find it log on caches you saw the hiding spot from your car"

 

I'm more in tune with the intent of the guidelines, and think the blank logs or TFTC logs show a lack of character, but are not grounds for deletion. There MAY be situations where you are pretty sure a blank online log signaling a bogus find, but if you think they found it and are just inconsiderate people, then grin and bear it, until Groundspeak changes things.

Please explain your 'lack of character' comment.
Link to comment

Like I said, I personally would check it before I deleted it, unless I had an email conversation with the cacher. That being said. Using the same logic that you and many others on here use all the time. Nowhere does it say you have to check the log. If it turns out your suspicions are wrong, you would have to reinstate it, but you can delete it in the 1st place "if it appears bogus". Same with a virtual, which you don't ever sign in the 1st place. You use other means. If I had a cacher log 3 of my finds, I check 1 and there is no signature, then I email him/her and get no response. I think there is reasonable doubt on the other 2 as well. As I stated. I'm more in tune with the spirit of the rules and wouldn't do that myself. I'm just pointing out the train of logic on these forums used by you and many others.

 

edit. I was responding to post #69 and somehow didn't quote it

What you are suggesting is that someone could create a cache with a codeowrd or other email requirement and it would be listed. This, of course, is in error because teh cache would be in clear violation of teh guidelines. So is the suggestion that someone must respond back to an email or risk having his log deleted even though the physical log was signed. Not only would this be an improper ALR, but it is lazy cache management. If you doubt that someone actually found the cache, you need to visit your cache and verify the signature in the logbook. Requiring the cache finder to take some additional action is unacceptable.

 

Incorrect on many levels. No requirement. Just doing research on a lazy cacher who's finds appear bogus. If the cacher is too lazy to write a log or respond to an email, and I have reason to believe his finds are bogus, he/she may get their log deleted.

Requiring someone else to take some action or his log will get deleted is not 'research'. It's an ALR. Research would be if you went out to your cache and checked the logbook.

 

If someone isn't willing to visit his/her cache to follow up on issues, then he should not own any caches.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Like I said, I personally would check it before I deleted it, unless I had an email conversation with the cacher. That being said. Using the same logic that you and many others on here use all the time. Nowhere does it say you have to check the log. If it turns out your suspicions are wrong, you would have to reinstate it, but you can delete it in the 1st place "if it appears bogus". Same with a virtual, which you don't ever sign in the 1st place. You use other means. If I had a cacher log 3 of my finds, I check 1 and there is no signature, then I email him/her and get no response. I think there is reasonable doubt on the other 2 as well. As I stated. I'm more in tune with the spirit of the rules and wouldn't do that myself. I'm just pointing out the train of logic on these forums used by you and many others.

 

edit. I was responding to post #69 and somehow didn't quote it

What you are suggesting is that someone could create a cache with a codeowrd or other email requirement and it would be listed. This, of course, is in error because teh cache would be in clear violation of teh guidelines. So is the suggestion that someone must respond back to an email or risk having his log deleted even though the physical log was signed. Not only would this be an improper ALR, but it is lazy cache management. If you doubt that someone actually found the cache, you need to visit your cache and verify the signature in the logbook. Requiring the cache finder to take some additional action is unacceptable.

 

Incorrect on many levels. No requirement. Just doing research on a lazy cacher who's finds appear bogus. If the cacher is too lazy to write a log or respond to an email, and I have reason to believe his finds are bogus, he/she may get their log deleted.

Requiring someone else to take some action or his log will get deleted is not 'research'. It's an ALR. Research would be if you went out to your cache and checked the logbook.

 

If someone isn't willing to visit his/her cache to follow up on issues, then he should not own any caches.

 

It definitely is research and I think the "lack of character" comment is pretty self explanitory.

Link to comment

Like I said, I personally would check it before I deleted it, unless I had an email conversation with the cacher. That being said. Using the same logic that you and many others on here use all the time. Nowhere does it say you have to check the log. If it turns out your suspicions are wrong, you would have to reinstate it, but you can delete it in the 1st place "if it appears bogus". Same with a virtual, which you don't ever sign in the 1st place. You use other means. If I had a cacher log 3 of my finds, I check 1 and there is no signature, then I email him/her and get no response. I think there is reasonable doubt on the other 2 as well. As I stated. I'm more in tune with the spirit of the rules and wouldn't do that myself. I'm just pointing out the train of logic on these forums used by you and many others.

 

edit. I was responding to post #69 and somehow didn't quote it

What you are suggesting is that someone could create a cache with a codeowrd or other email requirement and it would be listed. This, of course, is in error because teh cache would be in clear violation of teh guidelines. So is the suggestion that someone must respond back to an email or risk having his log deleted even though the physical log was signed. Not only would this be an improper ALR, but it is lazy cache management. If you doubt that someone actually found the cache, you need to visit your cache and verify the signature in the logbook. Requiring the cache finder to take some additional action is unacceptable.

 

Incorrect on many levels. No requirement. Just doing research on a lazy cacher who's finds appear bogus. If the cacher is too lazy to write a log or respond to an email, and I have reason to believe his finds are bogus, he/she may get their log deleted.

Requiring someone else to take some action or his log will get deleted is not 'research'. It's an ALR. Research would be if you went out to your cache and checked the logbook.

 

If someone isn't willing to visit his/her cache to follow up on issues, then he should not own any caches.

 

It definitely is research and I think the "lack of character" comment is pretty self explanitory.

Research or not, it's in violation of the guidelines.

 

I was hoping that you were going to come up with some logical argument that resulted in your thinking that short loggers showed a lack of character, however tenuous. However, it is now apparent that you are merely attempting to demonize everyone who disagrees with you.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Actually, although you skip over portions of responses that don't jive with what you want to argue about, I have stated that I don't delete said logs without checking first. My views on that subject probably mesh closer to yours in reality. I gave you a scenario in which I feel you COULD justifiably delete a log without checking it. My responses here are mostly based on the fact that it seems that the same people that are always bringing up that the guidelines never say you have to sign the log to log the find, are the same people that get up in arms about this issue. I'm just pointing out that the same guidline logic applies and you shouldn't use it the first argument and then dismiss it in this subject. As far as the "lack of character" comment. I most certainly believe it does. I think it is lazy and rude. Both character flaws in my opinion. On the flip side, I do feel that extremely lazy cache hides probably deserve extremely lazy responses, even if I wouldn't do it. I don't have the magic log length word number, but there are a lot of well done, well thought out caches that get C&P, tftc or blank logs.

Edited by M 5
Link to comment
Actually, although you skip over portions of responses that don't jive with what you want to argue about, I have stated that I don't delete said logs without checking first. My views on that subject probably mesh closer to yours in reality. I gave you a scenario in which I feel you COULD justifiably delete a log without checking it.
Regardless of whether you would actually do it or are just advocating that others could require an email or face log deletion rather than the owner checking the cache logs, the practice would still be in violation of the guidelines.
My responses here are mostly based on the fact that it seems that the same people that are always bringing up that the guidelines never say you have to sign the log to log the find, are the same people that get up in arms about this issue. I'm just pointing out that the same guidling logic applies and you shouldn't use it the first argument and then dismiss it in this subject.
There is no disconnect in those positions. The guidelines state that logs cannot be deleted if the physical logbook has been signed and that additional requirements cannot be imposed. Therefore, it is against the guidelines to require an email from the finder. The guidelines don't speak to what a cache owner must do if the physical logboom was not signed. Therefore, a cache owner would be free to delete those logs regardless of whether there was email communication.
As far as the "lack of character" comment. I most certainly believe it does. I think it is lazy and rude. Both character flaws in my opinion. On the flip side, I do feel that extremely lazy cache hides probably deserve extremely lazy responses, even if I wouldn't do it. I don't have the magic log length word number, but there are a lot of well done, well thought out caches that get C&P, tftc or blank logs.
If a person does not feel like writing a wordy log (or anything at all), he is not required to. The fact that these people do not write three sentences on the day's weather does not make them lazy or rude.

 

You will note that no portion of your post was skipped over.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Not that my opinion really matters, being a n00b AND an iPhone cacher, but in all honesty, I think it is poor form for the cacher to NOT log the find on the site with at least a note stating they've found it. Having said that, I don't agree that the cacher should meet some unrealistic posting criteria that is NOT enforced by Groundspeak. I understand that the CO wants to hear feedback from the field. They want to know if their hard work and cleverness that went into that cache has paid off. I get that. But at the same time, if I felt that the type of cache I found isn't worthy of a paragraph of gratitude, I'm not going to write it. A simple "TNLNSL" or "TFTC" should be sufficient to cover my log for finding an ammo can inside a hollowed-out tree trunk or a LPC. Little thought/care went into the creation of the cache, so why would it be worthy of a missive about the struggles of getting out of my car, lifting the light pole skirt, and opening the container to sign the log, all while performing the best techniques of stealth for the location (looking around to make sure no one sees)? Now, if it's a handmade, wooden Codex and requires solving an intricate puzzle to retrieve the "combination" to open, you better believe the log will have more than "+1" or "Neat". But, as far as what I perceive the requirements of the game to be as set forth in the rules by Groundspeak, my physical log needs to consist of nothing other than my team name and date found, and logging online doesn't have any set requirements other than to stay on topic and refrain from profanity. And while I feel it is wrong for someone to log a find with no comment or +1, I feel it is absolutely wrong to just delete out of spite. Deleting the log because of this WITHOUT checking the physical log to verify if they did indeed find it proves nothing more than you got butt-hurt because someone didn't stroke your ego on the amazing placement of your camo'ed Lock-n-Lock under the rubble of too-obvious-to-be-natural tree bark. Seriously, now, why not pick a better battle than this...like perhaps those who think a bottle cap or trash makes for a proper swag swap.

Edited by Howard_Family
Link to comment

Actually I really don't care either way. My point and my opinion which will not change is that without proper communication the cache owner has reasonable cause to delete the cacher's logs. The cacher at that point can do the leg-work necessary to prove their find to Groundspeak and get it reinstated.

 

You're confusing the topic with the Guidelines pertaining to Logging Requirements. Regardless of context if a cacher doesn't respond to an email/message then a cache owner is well within their right to assume it's an automated bot/script and therefore delete the log.

 

There is no confusion. If the logbook was signed and you are requiring some other action or else you will delete the log, then you have created an ALR in violation of the guidelines.

 

At 19k posts you obviously have gotten very good at stating your point while completely missing others.

I understand your logic and I would agree with you if this was a discussion about Logging Requirements.

Link to comment
Team Four Paw-“Actually I really don't care either way. My point and my opinion which will not change is that without proper communication the cache owner has reasonable cause to delete the cacher's logs. The cacher at that point can do the leg-work necessary to prove their find to Groundspeak and get it reinstated.”

For someone who doesn’t care either way you certainly are pushing your point of view. :blink:

 

As to “proper communication”, the cacher has presumably signed the cache log and logged on line which meets, or exceeds the requirements in the guidelines. I fail to see the point of your suggesting the CO can delete a terse log and then requiring the cacher prove their find to Groundspeak, to get it reinstated. I’ll wager if you try this that Groundspeak will, at the very least, issue you a warning for this violation. It is the CO responsibility to check and maintain their caches and that would include physically checking the logbooks if they have concerns.

 

Unless you can get the guidelines changed to require a cacher to stroke your ego by logging a minimum length (and positive, effusive) log, there is nothing a CO can do except stop placing caches until they better understand how the game is played.

Link to comment

What I have had happen from time to time on the iPhone app:

 

Due to the logging date bug on the iPhone app/website I almost never post the log directly. The field notes feature keeps the timestamp correct, so I use that. Now, if I am on a memorable cache hunt - or something completely not memorable - I will very often send a blank field note to the site and then use field note feature later and fill in a proper log before submitting it.

 

Here's the thing - there's a glitch on the iPhone app that will allow those field notes to escape as logs. I've done it, and I can usually catch myself but I know I've sent a couple blank logs in because of that (always corrected later though)

 

There is a toggle to "Send as Field Note" or "Post as log". If you type log text in and hit "Save and Submit" you're ok.

BUT, if you drop a trackable or add a photo that "Send as Field Note" toggle, which is off the bottom of the screen and not noticable, changes to "Post as log (required)". If you remove the photo/trackable before sending it stays on "Post as log (required)", and it stays on "Post as log" for the next cache.

 

I've gone out and sent 10 blank logs in a row before noticing that change in the past. Now I am very watchful of that toggle.

 

Thank you for this logical and technical explanation of the problems that can arise from using a mobile phone caching app.

Personally, I suspect this is what is causing the blank logs the OP speaks of. I have no proof of it, just a feeling.

 

Thank you also for keeping on topic too.

Link to comment

I don't know about any of the rest of you, but I was always taught, and taught my children, that you say "Thank you" when someone gives you something, or does something for you.

 

A blank online log (and I've gotten some), to me is nothing more than someone taking what they want (the smiley) without so much as a thank you. Even TFTC is better than that, and as much as I like longer logs, if TFTC is all you want to post, then OK. At least you have posted something!

 

I'm on the verge of starting to delete any blank online logs. If you can't even say "Thank You", then you don't deserve the smiley.

 

If it is a glitch in the dumbphone apps, it needs to get fixed soon.

Link to comment

perhaps they did say thank-you, in the physical log, the only place they are required to sign.

 

lazy cache finders who don't meet your ALR of saying thanks online doesn't exempt lazy cache owners from checking the physical log before deleting an online log that doesn't meet their standards.

Link to comment

If your cache doesn't warrent a good long positive log entry, you get a TFTC, if you want to place a cache behind a shopping center 10 feet into the brush, where the place is littered with trash, and you somehow as a CO thinks this is a great spot for a cache, all you are getting from me is a found it or TFTC. Or even better yet any LPC, they will never get anything other than a TFTC from me.

Link to comment

If someone filed a totally blank log I would:

 

1) Wait a few days to see if they edit it.

2) If it remained blank, check the physical log.

3) Message the cacher, inquiring about the situation and politely educating them.

 

Maybe it's a lazy jerk, but maybe it's just someone who's new and clueless. Everyone has to start somewhere and many do not start savy nor know an experienced cacher to enlightment them. While most geocachers are probably introduced to it by another geocacher, I'm sure their are plenty to start it after hearing about it in a news article or finding a cache accidently or similiar.

 

I cache with a Droid; my friend caches with an iPhone. We both write more than "TFTC" - me usually more than him as he admits "I usually can't think of much to say." We started caching together and at the time we knew exactly zero geocachers.

Link to comment

Deleting a log because you didn't like what someone said (or didn't say) is not a reason to delete a log. If there's a question about whether someone found it, the best option is to check the logbook.

 

That said, if someone is logging a find from the iPhone app and posting the log directly to the site and doesn't enter anything in the log field, this is what happens. From talking with friends, who have them, I think the Android/Windows versions work the same way.

 

In the past, if no one entered anything, a generic "Logged from my smartphone" or similar message would get posted. On the iPhone app, that changed to being blank in the most recent version. Some people may not know they're supposed to do anything else other than mark it found.

Link to comment

Actually I really don't care either way. My point and my opinion which will not change is that without proper communication the cache owner has reasonable cause to delete the cacher's logs. The cacher at that point can do the leg-work necessary to prove their find to Groundspeak and get it reinstated.

 

You're confusing the topic with the Guidelines pertaining to Logging Requirements. Regardless of context if a cacher doesn't respond to an email/message then a cache owner is well within their right to assume it's an automated bot/script and therefore delete the log.

 

There is no confusion. If the logbook was signed and you are requiring some other action or else you will delete the log, then you have created an ALR in violation of the guidelines.

 

At 19k posts you obviously have gotten very good at stating your point while completely missing others.

I understand your logic and I would agree with you if this was a discussion about Logging Requirements.

The moment that you took the position that if the finder didn't return an email than the log should be deleted, you made the conversation about logging requirements. Your suggestion was an example of a cache owner establishing additional logging requirements that are in violation of the guidelines.

 

While it is certainly true that a cache owner has every right to send an email to a finder if he has questions, if he deletes the find log simply because no response was received, he is out of line. The cache owner should first check the physical log to see if it was signed. The ONLY time that this wouldn't be necessary is if the cache finder states in the online log that he did not sign the physical logbook.

Edited by sbell111
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...