Geocaching rules debate please respond

8k · April 8, 2011

The difference, as I see it, is that you say "Sure... no problem!!" where M5 might say "Grrrrrr..... ok."

That is pretty close. The difference is I say the guidelines allow for it and M5 says the guidelines prohibit it but he doesn't want to deal with the whiners.

IMO, the guidelines have little to do with the way things are actually done. The majority of cachers know to sign the log when they find a cache, but many will log a find online if they feel there was a good reason for not signing the log. The majority of cache owners allow such logs to stand as long as it appears that the cacher did find the cache (i.e. not a bogus log). Even M5 admits that he has allowed cachers to log finds on his caches without signing the log (though he does seem conflicted about doing this). One group is happy because the guidelines are consistent with the de facto way things are done. The other side is conflicted because they read into the guidelines something that says the de facto way things are done is wrong. I would say that TPTB should change the guidelines to make it clear that de facto standard for logging is the intent of the guideline - but I'm on the side that already believes this is the case - so there is no need to change anything.

April 8, 2011

At least I say what I have to say in 2 paragraphs or less.

April 8, 2011

IMO, the guidelines have little to do with the way things are actually done.

I think the guidelines are a reflection of the general standards exhibited by geocachers.

The majority of cachers know to sign the log when they find a cache, but many will log a find online if they feel there was a good reason for not signing the log. The majority of cache owners allow such logs to stand as long as it appears that the cacher did find the cache (i.e. not a bogus log). Even M5 admits that he has allowed cachers to log finds on his caches without signing the log (though he does seem conflicted about doing this).

I'm with you on this.

One group is happy because the guidelines are consistent with the de facto way things are done. The other side is conflicted because they read into the guidelines something that says the de facto way things are done is wrong. I would say that TPTB should change the guidelines to make it clear that de facto standard for logging is the intent of the guideline - but I'm on the side that already believes this is the case - so there is no need to change anything.

You lost me. I don't think anyone thinks the guidelines say the de facto way things are done is wrong. I think the guidelines already say the de facto way is the intent. It just doesn't say it's limited to the de facto way of logging.

20.7k · April 8, 2011

This is a guidelines issue.

One side believes that the guidelines allow a cache owner to determine whether a 'find' was made if the logbook wasn't signed.

The other believes that the guidelines require that anyone who posts an online 'find' log must have first signed the logbook. Many holders of this opinion further believe that the guidelines requires cache owners to delete any onlind 'find' log if the physical logbook was not signed.

I'm in the first camp. Statements made by representatives of GS support the first camp.

Edited April 8, 2011 by sbell111

2.5k · April 8, 2011

So, every time I've seen the title of this thread, a little red light has gone off in my head. I finally put my finger on what is setting off that light. This is a relief to me because I was wondering if perhaps it was some sort of mini-stroke. So, here it is:

Generally, if someone comes into the forums honestly asking a question, they title the thread something like "I Have a Question About [insert Hot-Button-Topic Here]." But the OP actually used the words "debate" and "respond"!

Why do I make note of this? They knew from the start that this was going to turn into a debate, AND they are imploring anyone who reads the title to get into it.

This might be an unfortunate choice in title, but it's the sort of title that, if there were such a book, would get it's own chapter in "Trolling for Dummies."

Thus, the Red Light. I hope it is a false alarm.

19k · April 8, 2011

This is a guidelines issue.

One side believes that the guidelines allow a cache owner to determine whether a 'find' was made if the logbook wasn't signed.

The other believes that the guidelines require that anyone who posts an online 'find' log must have first signed the logbook. Many holders of this opinion further believe that the guidelines requires cache owners to delete any onlind 'find' log if the physical logbook was not signed.

I'm in the first camp. Statements made by representatives of GS support the first camp.

Hogwash. The "other camp" that you refer to is nowhere near as rabid about their stance as you make it sound. I think it is much closer to the truth to say that they believe the log "should" be signed. Just when the mud was starting to settle, you come in and stir it back up. Oh well... that's what you do, and you do it so well.

April 8, 2011

This is a guidelines issue.

One side believes that the guidelines allow a cache owner to determine whether a 'find' was made if the logbook wasn't signed.

The other believes that the guidelines require that anyone who posts an online 'find' log must have first signed the logbook. Many holders of this opinion further believe that the guidelines requires cache owners to delete any onlind 'find' log if the physical logbook was not signed.

I'm in the first camp. Statements made by representatives of GS support the first camp.

Bingo!

And the bolded part is why some keep correcting misinterpretations whenever this issue comes up.

20.7k · April 8, 2011

This is a guidelines issue.

One side believes that the guidelines allow a cache owner to determine whether a 'find' was made if the logbook wasn't signed.

The other believes that the guidelines require that anyone who posts an online 'find' log must have first signed the logbook. Many holders of this opinion further believe that the guidelines requires cache owners to delete any onlind 'find' log if the physical logbook was not signed.

I'm in the first camp. Statements made by representatives of GS support the first camp.

Hogwash. The "other camp" that you refer to is nowhere near as rabid about their stance as you make it sound. I think it is much closer to the truth to say that they believe the log "should" be signed. Just when the mud was starting to settle, you come in and stir it back up. Oh well... that's what you do, and you do it so well.

As rude as your post is, I'll bite. Let's see if you are correct.

Is there anyone on this thread who believes that the guidelines require that anyone who posts an online 'find' log must have first signed the logbook or does everyone agree that the guidelines leave it to cache owners to determine whether an online 'find' is appropriate in cases where the logbook was not signed?

April 8, 2011

Is there anyone on this thread who believes that the guidelines require that anyone who posts an online 'find' log must have first signed the logbook or does everyone agree that the guidelines leave it to cache owners to determine whether an online 'find' is appropriate in cases where the logbook was not signed?

I tried this already. You need to define signed.

April 8, 2011

Is there anyone on this thread who believes that the guidelines require that anyone who posts an online 'find' log must have first signed the logbook or does everyone agree that the guidelines leave it to cache owners to determine whether an online 'find' is appropriate in cases where the logbook was not signed?

The second.

Edit to say: and my discretion as CO is that the logbook should(*) be signed.

(*) - in general, all other things being equal, etc.

Edited April 8, 2011 by I!

20.7k · April 8, 2011

Is there anyone on this thread who believes that the guidelines require that anyone who posts an online 'find' log must have first signed the logbook or does everyone agree that the guidelines leave it to cache owners to determine whether an online 'find' is appropriate in cases where the logbook was not signed?

I tried this already. You need to define signed.

Truthfully, I hope knowschad is correct as it should put to rest the claims that the ALR guideline means anything other than "If the logbook is signed, the cache owner must allow an online 'find' log."

Edited April 8, 2011 by sbell111

April 8, 2011

"If the logbook is signed, the cache owner must allow an online 'find' log."

If GC would change the guideline to that, it would clear things up a lot.

April 8, 2011

I think it is clear as a bell that the guidelines say you can log online once the logbook is signed. In practical use, since there is no way to enforce that guideline at a CO level. People will do what they want, whether it is right or not.

April 8, 2011

I think it is clear as a bell that the guidelines say you can log online once the logbook is signed.

You are 100% correct. The guidelines do say you can log online once the logbook is signed. It just doesn't say the inverse, which is what you continue to try to convince us of.

In practical use, since there is no way to enforce that guideline at a CO level. People will do what they want, whether it is right or not.

Why can't a CO enforce that guideline? It's easy to enforce. If you check the logbook and see the signature, you let that online find stand. Simple.

April 8, 2011

I think it is clear as a bell that the guidelines say you can log online once the logbook is signed.

You are 100% correct. The guidelines do say you can log online once the logbook is signed. It just doesn't say the inverse, which is what you continue to try to convince us of.

In practical use, since there is no way to enforce that guideline at a CO level. People will do what they want, whether it is right or not.

Why can't a CO enforce that guideline? It's easy to enforce. If you check the logbook and see the signature, you let that online find stand. Simple.

That is the only place logging online is mentioned, so you can only go by that one sentence. You can log it online as found once the logbook is signed. I haven't seen anything in the guidelines that gives an alternative way to log online

A CO can enforce it and will be backed up by Groundspeak, which proves that is the proper way (even a photo with no signature and Groundspeak with back the CO), Groundspeak doesn't have the manpower or software (for lack of a better term) to enforce that CO's follow the guideline.

22k · April 8, 2011

I think it is clear as a bell that the guidelines say you can log online once the logbook is signed. In practical use, since there is no way to enforce that guideline at a CO level. People will do what they want, whether it is right or not.

You mean getting all the cache owners to ensure the logbook is signed.

The main thing is that there is some leeway as to when people can claim a find without pen to paper. So you really can't qualify all those scenarios into one guideline. When the trend leans towards allowing a find, or wanting a find, for just having been there - then we end up debating the case, and we always will.

Edited April 8, 2011 by BlueDeuce

10.1k · April 8, 2011

Over many years of debate between the purists and the heretics, I had thought that what we had determined was:

If one finds the cache, and signs the log, that qualifies as a find, and it cannot be deleted by the CO (or if deleted, will most likely be reinstated and locked by GS.)

If one finds the cache, but does not sign the log, the validity of the find is up to the cache owner.

Not yet hashed out: Logs may be deleted (with invitation to relog) for spoiler photos and/or descriptions.

The definition of 'bogus' is to be determined by the CO.

The vaildity of throw downs. (Does anyone really think they are vaild?!?)

Whether pompous people should be able to get away with "I didn't find the cache, but I'm logging it anyway. Delete it if you don't agree."

April 8, 2011

From dictionary.com:

once

AC_FL_RunContent = 0;var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "15", " Show Spelled[wuhns] Show IPA</SPAN> –adverb 1. at one time in the past; formerly: I was a farmer once; a once powerful nation. 2. a single time: We ate there just once. We go to a movie once a week. 3. even a single time; at any time; ever: If the facts once become known, it will be just too bad. 4. by a single step, degree, or grade: a cousin once removed. –adjective 5. former; having at one time been: the once and future king. –conjunction 6. if or when at any time; if ever. 7. whenever; as soon as: Once you're finished,–noun 8. a single occasion; one time only: Once is enough. —Idioms 9. all at once, a. simultaneously: The children were running, screaming, and throwing things all at once. b. suddenly: All at once the rain came down. 10. at once, a. at the same time; simultaneously: Don't all speak at once. b. immediately; promptly: Tell him to come at once! 11. once and again, repeatedly: He has been told once and again not to slam the door. 12. once and for all, decisively; finally: Let's settle this problem once and for all. Also, once for all. 13. once in a while, at intervals; occasionally: She stops in to see us once in a while. 14. once or twice, a very few times; infrequently: I've seen her in the elevator once or twice. 15. once upon a time, at some unspecified past time, especially a long time ago: Once upon a time, in a faraway land, there lived a prince and princess..

From World English Dictionary:

once (wʌns) — adv 1. one time; on one occasion or in one case 2. at some past time; formerly: I could speak French once 3. by one step or degree (of relationship): a cousin once removed 4. ( in conditional clauses, negatives, etc ) ever; at all: if you once forget it 5. multiplied by one 6. once and away a. conclusively b. occasionally 7. once and for all conclusively; for the last time 8. once in a while occasionally; now and then 9. once or twice , once and again a few times 10. once upon a time used to begin fairy tales and children's stories — conj 11. ( subordinating ) as soon as; if ever or whenever: once you begin, you'll enjoy it — n 12. one occasion or case: you may do it, this once 13. all at once a. suddenly or without warning b. simultaneously 14. at once a. immediately b. simultaneously 15. for once this time, if (or but) at no other time

It isn't rocket science.

April 8, 2011

I haven't seen anything in the guidelines that gives an alternative way to log online

This is where you fail to understand the guidelines as written. The fact that they do not list alternate methods of verification does not mean alternate methods of verification are not valid or acceptable.

A few years ago there was a fantastic movie. You may have seen it. It was called "A Few Good Men".

In this movie the prosecution made very much the same argument as you do. The defense claimed that their clients were ordered to give a Code Red to the victim. The prosecution argued that the base manual of operations does not mention Code Reds, therefore, they were non-existent. It sounded good at face value.

But then the defense grabbed the manual and asked the officer to point to the section in the manual that told personnel where the Mess Hall was. The officer stated that it wasn't in there.

"Then how do you know where to go eat?"

"We just do"

I paraphrased that, but you get the idea. Just because something isn't mentioned in the guidelines does not mean it doesn't exist.

The only thing the guidelines say is that once you have signed the logbook a CO cannot deny you an online find. Groundspeak does not address any other methods of verification because I think they understand most people feel you should sign the logbook, they understand that there are exceptions, and they don't want to be taxed with ruling whether or not those exceptions are valid. They prefer that CO's deal with their own caches and let them deal with the running of the website, etc.

8k · April 9, 2011

"If the logbook is signed, the cache owner must allow an online 'find' log."

If GC would change the guideline to that, it would clear things up a lot.

Only the guidelines don't need to be changed and what sbell111 wrote isn't 100% correct.

Cache owners can still delete logs - even when the logbook is signed if the find log is bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate.

It is likely that if the log book was signed the find log is not bogus and it may be difficult to prove it is counterfeit (the signature in the log book is not that of someone who found the cache). The log may still be off-topic or inappropriate and could be deleted - but it could then always be relogged with a on topic and appropriate log.

The guideline is only meant to say that a finder can log a find after signing the log regardless of any additional requirement the cache owner claims and the cache owner cannot delete the log solely based on failure to meet some addtional requirements. It also has the effect of saying the a cache owner may delete a find log if the log book isn't signed.

The real issue is what is a bogus find log. Most people easily separate the act of finding the cache from signing the log book. The signing of the log book is just a formality that serves 1) as proof to the finder that he has actually found the cache and not some decoy or some piece of trash that looks like it may have once been part or the cache, 2) an indication to the finder that they have met the intent of the cache hider in meetings a special challenge such as climbing a tree or solving a puzzle to open the container, and 3) as proof to the cache owner and subsequent finders that their log is not bogus. Cachers and cache owners are not bound by any guideline to rely on the signed log book as the sole proof of these accomplishments.

In general, I believe that cache owners should trust that finders did indeed find the cache and worry so much about verification. My policy is that if a finder has a reasonable excuse for not signing the log I'm not going to delete their find. If they log the find without indicating whether they signed or not, I'm not running out to check logs (most of my caches are high terrain and take some effort to go to) and unless the logs appear to be bogus, I'm not going to delete them any how.

I think it is clear as a bell that the guidelines say you can log online once the logbook is signed. In practical use, since there is no way to enforce that guideline at a CO level. People will do what they want, whether it is right or not.

That's correct, even if the cache owner says "you must post a picture of yourself standing on your head a the cache site", you can log a find online once you have signed the log book. The wording was chosen to clearly indicate that ALRs were no longer permitted. None of the changes since them has change the meaning or intent of this guideline.

However, you can take some solace in the fact that the wording was also chosen to allow cache owners to delete a find if the log book is not signed. It doesn't require a cache owner to delete logs - but it specifically allows this. I believe that if a cache owner deletes a find because the log was not signed, they will be backed by Groundspeak and the log will not be reinstated. However, the cache owner may find that others will be talking about how they take the game far to seriously by deleting the logs of people who found their cache but for some reason didn't sign the log. (Cache owners who delete logs for caches that have some special mental or physical challenge involved in signing the log, may do better).

7k · April 9, 2011

AC_FL_RunContent = 0;var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "15",
...

It isn't rocket science.

Really? :lol:

April 9, 2011

The only problem I really have is when I read one of these threads and people start telling the person asking that he must delete the find because there was no signature in the log. He is within his rights to do so, but nothing in the guidelines says he must.

I don't care about defining what is or is not a signature. I think most people already understand spoilers, off-topic, counterfeit as reasons for deletion. There is no sense in muddying the discussion needlessly.

It's hard enough to convince the other side that there are reasonable exceptions to signing the log without getting a legal team involved.

April 9, 2011

"If the logbook is signed, the cache owner must allow an online 'find' log."

If GC would change the guideline to that, it would clear things up a lot.

Only the guidelines don't need to be changed and what sbell111 wrote isn't 100% correct.

Cache owners can still delete logs - even when the logbook is signed if the find log is bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate.

It is likely that if the log book was signed the find log is not bogus and it may be difficult to prove it is counterfeit (the signature in the log book is not that of someone who found the cache). The log may still be off-topic or inappropriate and could be deleted - but it could then always be relogged with a on topic and appropriate log.

The guideline is only meant to say that a finder can log a find after signing the log regardless of any additional requirement the cache owner claims and the cache owner cannot delete the log solely based on failure to meet some addtional requirements. It also has the effect of saying the a cache owner may delete a find log if the log book isn't signed.

The real issue is what is a bogus find log. Most people easily separate the act of finding the cache from signing the log book. The signing of the log book is just a formality that serves 1) as proof to the finder that he has actually found the cache and not some decoy or some piece of trash that looks like it may have once been part or the cache, 2) an indication to the finder that they have met the intent of the cache hider in meetings a special challenge such as climbing a tree or solving a puzzle to open the container, and 3) as proof to the cache owner and subsequent finders that their log is not bogus. Cachers and cache owners are not bound by any guideline to rely on the signed log book as the sole proof of these accomplishments.

In general, I believe that cache owners should trust that finders did indeed find the cache and worry so much about verification. My policy is that if a finder has a reasonable excuse for not signing the log I'm not going to delete their find. If they log the find without indicating whether they signed or not, I'm not running out to check logs (most of my caches are high terrain and take some effort to go to) and unless the logs appear to be bogus, I'm not going to delete them any how.

I think it is clear as a bell that the guidelines say you can log online once the logbook is signed. In practical use, since there is no way to enforce that guideline at a CO level. People will do what they want, whether it is right or not.

That's correct, even if the cache owner says "you must post a picture of yourself standing on your head a the cache site", you can log a find online once you have signed the log book. The wording was chosen to clearly indicate that ALRs were no longer permitted. None of the changes since them has change the meaning or intent of this guideline.

However, you can take some solace in the fact that the wording was also chosen to allow cache owners to delete a find if the log book is not signed. It doesn't require a cache owner to delete logs - but it specifically allows this. I believe that if a cache owner deletes a find because the log was not signed, they will be backed by Groundspeak and the log will not be reinstated. However, the cache owner may find that others will be talking about how they take the game far to seriously by deleting the logs of people who found their cache but for some reason didn't sign the log. (Cache owners who delete logs for caches that have some special mental or physical challenge involved in signing the log, may do better).

Got nothing to do with ALR's anymore, ALR's are discussed in detail in the paragraph FOLLOWING the online logging guideline. Once that was taken out of the guidelines for hiders and put into the Logging of physical caches section, you lost that argument. Unless you are suggesting that the Lackeys are too lazy to adjust the wording and just copied and pasted it from the ALR for hiders section when they updated the KBs

BTW I would also talk about the cachers that can't complete a find properly and use a lame excuse to still take credit and shake my head at the probability that they are teaching their kids to take shortcuts in other areas as well. What is this world coming to :lol:

April 9, 2011

Got nothing to do with ALR's anymore, ALR's are discussed in detail in the paragraph FOLLOWING the online logging guideline. Once that was taken out of the guidelines for hiders and put into the Logging of physical caches section, you lost that argument. Unless you are suggesting that the Lackeys are too lazy to adjust the wording and just copied and pasted it from the ALR for hiders section when they updated the KBs

It has everything to do with ALRs. I forget where I read about the previous change in which the line you keep repeating was introduced. But it was stated in that thread that the change was strictly to deal with ALRs.

The last change was simply a reorganization and not intended to change the substance of the guidelines.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=268590&view=findpost&p=4616062

The new guideline format is responsive to feedback that everything be contained in one place (the Knowledge Books), that there be a summary with links to further details, that the language be made clearer and simpler, etc.

It is just a reorganization of the format. Some, as in the OP, are likely to speculate otherwise, but the new format is not intended to change the substance of the guidelines nor how the reviewers will be applying the guidelines to your cache submissions.

BTW I would also talk about the cachers that can't complete a find properly and use a lame excuse to still take credit and shake my head at the probability that they are teaching their kids to take shortcuts in other areas as well. What is this world coming to

Another problem I have is when someone doesn't agree with someone's point of view they are somehow deemed to be bad parents passing along all kind of bad teachings and habits.

I may disagree with your interpretation of a line in the guidelines, but I don't think your hard line, black and white view of the guidelines necessarily makes you a strict, dispassionate parent. (If you have kids)

Edited April 9, 2011 by mresoteric

April 9, 2011

BTW, looks like Toz was right. M5 is interpreting the change precisely in the manner Toz feared it would be interpreted.

22k · April 9, 2011

In general, I believe that cache owners should trust that finders did indeed find the cache and worry so much about verification.

"I got close to area but couldn't search for the cache. I'm sure the owner simply wanted to bring me to the area."

You might let that stand, but what if I don't on my cache. Are you going to back me up?

April 9, 2011

In general, I believe that cache owners should trust that finders did indeed find the cache and worry so much about verification.

"I got close to area but couldn't search for the cache. I'm sure the owner simply wanted to bring me to the area."

You might let that stand, but what if I don't on my cache. Are you going to back me up?

I would back you up. That's a bad example though. It doesn't even state the cache was found.

2.4k · April 9, 2011

I'd allow the finds to stand to keep the peace...but I would make a note in the description stating that to claim the find, the physical log MUST be signed or online logs will be deleted as per Groundspeak guidelines.

Send the "finders" a pm stating that you have decided to allow their logs to stand, even though they were unable to sign a log. It's a shame the finders couldn't have left a piece of signed paper with the trinkets in a baggie...oh well. Just say you will meet them halfway and wish them happy caching. Life's too short to get your knickers in a knot/elevate your blood pressure over this.

We found a disabled cache (supposedly missing) and were able to sign the very damp log. Our logs still stood and the CO replaced the cache.

From here on, your cache, handle it as you will. Good luck!

22k · April 9, 2011

In general, I believe that cache owners should trust that finders did indeed find the cache and worry so much about verification.

"I got close to area but couldn't search for the cache. I'm sure the owner simply wanted to bring me to the area."

You might let that stand, but what if I don't on my cache. Are you going to back me up?

I would back you up. That's a bad example though. It doesn't even state the cache was found.

Paraphrased but it's an actual post that's been debated before. Let me ask my questions to make my point.

bd

Edited April 9, 2011 by BlueDeuce

April 9, 2011

In general, I believe that cache owners should trust that finders did indeed find the cache and worry so much about verification.

"I got close to area but couldn't search for the cache. I'm sure the owner simply wanted to bring me to the area."

You might let that stand, but what if I don't on my cache. Are you going to back me up?

I would back you up. That's a bad example though. It doesn't even state the cache was found.

Paraphrased but it's an actual post that's been debated before. Let me ask my questions to make my point.

bd

Who stopped you from asking your question?

(edited because apparently you cannot use the word for Hades)

Edited April 9, 2011 by mresoteric

8k · April 9, 2011

I haven't seen anything in the guidelines that gives an alternative way to log online

This is where you fail to understand the guidelines as written. The fact that they do not list alternate methods of verification does not mean alternate methods of verification are not valid or acceptable.

A few years ago there was a fantastic movie. You may have seen it. It was called "A Few Good Men".

In this movie the prosecution made very much the same argument as you do. The defense claimed that their clients were ordered to give a Code Red to the victim. The prosecution argued that the base manual of operations does not mention Code Reds, therefore, they were non-existent. It sounded good at face value.

But then the defense grabbed the manual and asked the officer to point to the section in the manual that told personnel where the Mess Hall was. The officer stated that it wasn't in there.

"Then how do you know where to go eat?"

"We just do"

I paraphrased that, but you get the idea. Just because something isn't mentioned in the guidelines does not mean it doesn't exist.

The only thing the guidelines say is that once you have signed the logbook a CO cannot deny you an online find. Groundspeak does not address any other methods of verification because I think they understand most people feel you should sign the logbook, they understand that there are exceptions, and they don't want to be taxed with ruling whether or not those exceptions are valid. They prefer that CO's deal with their own caches and let them deal with the running of the website, etc.

Which side are you arguing? M5 seems to be insisting that you have to sign the log because nowhere else in the guidelines is online logging mentioned with any other requirement than signing the log. So you want to argue that just because there are not other requirements mention doesn't mean there aren't other reasons you can log a find online.

In fact, there are no requirements at all for logging a find online (although the guidelines summary page would have you think so). The truth is anyone can go to a cache page and select the Found log and log any cache. Groundspeak cannot police the log and as such can not truly have requirements for logging But there is a guideline that cache owners are responsible for the quality of posts to their cache page and to delete logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate. Should someone post a find log to your cache page that falls in one of these areas you should delete it. In truth the logging guidelines are still upon the cache owner. These guideline indicate a minimum for a log to not be considered bogus.

Prior to the ALR guideline change there was no mention in the guidelines of signing the physical log book. It was generally assumed that the cache owner decided what logs were bogus. In fact, however, there were cases where disputes over deleted logs were raised to Groundspeak and Groundspeak made a determination that a cache owner was deleting a legitimate log. One of the criteria Groundspeak would use in determining if the find log was legitimate was whether or not the physical log was signed.

In crafting the wording to eliminate the ability of cache owners to delete find logs because of ALRs, Groundspeak decided that keeping the ability for a cache owner to delete an online find because the physical log was not signed was reasonable as they already used the signature to resolve disputes when there was no ALR on the cache.

In the latest reorganization, a few guidelines were classified as

"logging" guidelines because they didn't fall either under the placement guidelines or the listing guidelines. I think that it would have been better to call this section maintenance guidelines and include the maintenance section from the listing guidelines (they really don't belong there either). Whoever wrote the summary page wrote the logging guidelines cover the requirements that must be fulfilled in order to log a find. I think a better description would be guidelines for cache owners to determine when a log can be deleted. I can see how a person who believes that the signing of the physical log is part of finding a cache would ignore the historical reason for a guideline and try to make it fit the poorly worded description in the summary page.

April 9, 2011

I haven't seen anything in the guidelines that gives an alternative way to log online

This is where you fail to understand the guidelines as written. The fact that they do not list alternate methods of verification does not mean alternate methods of verification are not valid or acceptable.

A few years ago there was a fantastic movie. You may have seen it. It was called "A Few Good Men".

In this movie the prosecution made very much the same argument as you do. The defense claimed that their clients were ordered to give a Code Red to the victim. The prosecution argued that the base manual of operations does not mention Code Reds, therefore, they were non-existent. It sounded good at face value.

But then the defense grabbed the manual and asked the officer to point to the section in the manual that told personnel where the Mess Hall was. The officer stated that it wasn't in there.

"Then how do you know where to go eat?"

"We just do"

I paraphrased that, but you get the idea. Just because something isn't mentioned in the guidelines does not mean it doesn't exist.

The only thing the guidelines say is that once you have signed the logbook a CO cannot deny you an online find. Groundspeak does not address any other methods of verification because I think they understand most people feel you should sign the logbook, they understand that there are exceptions, and they don't want to be taxed with ruling whether or not those exceptions are valid. They prefer that CO's deal with their own caches and let them deal with the running of the website, etc.

Which side are you arguing? M5 seems to be insisting that you have to sign the log because nowhere else in the guidelines is online logging mentioned with any other requirement than signing the log. So you want to argue that just because there are not other requirements mention doesn't mean there aren't other reasons you can log a find online.

In fact, there are no requirements at all for logging a find online (although the guidelines summary page would have you think so). The truth is anyone can go to a cache page and select the Found log and log any cache. Groundspeak cannot police the log and as such can not truly have requirements for logging But there is a guideline that cache owners are responsible for the quality of posts to their cache page and to delete logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate. Should someone post a find log to your cache page that falls in one of these areas you should delete it. In truth the logging guidelines are still upon the cache owner. These guideline indicate a minimum for a log to not be considered bogus.

Prior to the ALR guideline change there was no mention in the guidelines of signing the physical log book. It was generally assumed that the cache owner decided what logs were bogus. In fact, however, there were cases where disputes over deleted logs were raised to Groundspeak and Groundspeak made a determination that a cache owner was deleting a legitimate log. One of the criteria Groundspeak would use in determining if the find log was legitimate was whether or not the physical log was signed.

In crafting the wording to eliminate the ability of cache owners to delete find logs because of ALRs, Groundspeak decided that keeping the ability for a cache owner to delete an online find because the physical log was not signed was reasonable as they already used the signature to resolve disputes when there was no ALR on the cache.

In the latest reorganization, a few guidelines were classified as

"logging" guidelines because they didn't fall either under the placement guidelines or the listing guidelines. I think that it would have been better to call this section maintenance guidelines and include the maintenance section from the listing guidelines (they really don't belong there either). Whoever wrote the summary page wrote the logging guidelines cover the requirements that must be fulfilled in order to log a find. I think a better description would be guidelines for cache owners to determine when a log can be deleted. I can see how a person who believes that the signing of the physical log is part of finding a cache would ignore the historical reason for a guideline and try to make it fit the poorly worded description in the summary page.

I have stated over and over that my position is that the only thing the guideline says is that if your signature is in the logbook, then you can log a find online. I haven't bothered to get into spoilers, counterfeit logs, etc. since that is nitpicking the primary issue.

I am in agreement with your position. But you seem to want argue that as well.

I am beginning to see why you have the reputation you have.

(I edited to remove a line that could be taken as a personal attack since I would like to remain in this thread)

Edited April 9, 2011 by mresoteric

22k · April 9, 2011

tsk, tsk. less emotion, more debate. :anibad:

April 9, 2011

tsk, tsk. less emotion, more debate.

How about more debate, less pot stirring.

22k · April 9, 2011

tsk, tsk. less emotion, more debate.

How about more debate, less pot stirring.

Ah, well lose the ***** words.

8k · April 9, 2011

In general, I believe that cache owners should trust that finders did indeed find the cache and worry so much about verification.

"I got close to area but couldn't search for the cache. I'm sure the owner simply wanted to bring me to the area."

You might let that stand, but what if I don't on my cache. Are you going to back me up?

I wouldn't let that stand on my cache. However some cache owners might (I assume the one's who simply wanted to bring someone to the area). I'd back up both owners here.

Now if the log were "Drove by on highway so I'm claiming a find", I would probably be as indignant as you if an owner let that stay. If the cache soon got lots of logs because "the cheaters network" got word that this cache owner was not deleting logs, I would post a Needs Archive (do to lack of maintenance) and hope the page was locked to prevent more bogus logs.

Finally if the log said "Found the cache but the log was to wet to sign", I would hope that the cache owner would allow the find. Of course this could appear to be a bogus log if, for example, the owner knew the log was not wet or if the finder was posting this same excuse on every cache they found. If the log appears to be bogus, the cache owner can and should delete it.

April 9, 2011

tsk, tsk. less emotion, more debate.

How about more debate, less pot stirring.

Ah, well lose the ***** words.

I was unaware that the word for Hades was not allowed. But if that is a problem, I have removed it.

Now, do you mind stop stirring the pot? There's enough going on already without it.

22k · April 9, 2011

In general, I believe that cache owners should trust that finders did indeed find the cache and worry so much about verification.

"I got close to area but couldn't search for the cache. I'm sure the owner simply wanted to bring me to the area."

You might let that stand, but what if I don't on my cache. Are you going to back me up?

I wouldn't let that stand on my cache. However some cache owners might (I assume the one's who simply wanted to bring someone to the area). I'd back up both owners here.

Now if the log were "Drove by on highway so I'm claiming a find", I would probably be as indignant as you if an owner let that stay. If the cache soon got lots of logs because "the cheaters network" got word that this cache owner was not deleting logs, I would post a Needs Archive (do to lack of maintenance) and hope the page was locked to prevent more bogus logs.

Finally if the log said "Found the cache but the log was to wet to sign", I would hope that the cache owner would allow the find. Of course this could appear to be a bogus log if, for example, the owner knew the log was not wet or if the finder was posting this same excuse on every cache they found. If the log appears to be bogus, the cache owner can and should delete it.

Thank you for the response. Sometimes I'm not clear if that would be a stance you would take.

bd

Edited April 9, 2011 by BlueDeuce

April 9, 2011

How was it sloppy? The guy wanted nothing to do with fixing it and gave it up to me, weather has kept me at bay since I took it over. I should've sucked it up and fixed it earlier but I know people deer hunt that area and I don't want to be shot and this winter was very cold and crazy snowy... now that spring is here and it is right by a river it floods on a semi regular basis.

csaws,

I was just being honest based upon my opinion which I think is what you were seeking. That disabled duration, once again based on my opinion which means squat, was way too long which leads to situations like this. Not to beat a dead horse, but why did you adopt a cache that you can't maintain for half of the year?

I am not mad I was curious as to what your whole opinion was. As I stated weather has kept me from getting to it, right wrong or indifferent.

These kinds of questions are simple for me....what do you want? Do you want to be right or do you want to be happy?

April 9, 2011

These kinds of questions are simple for me....what do you want? Do you want to be right or do you want to be happy?

Can't you be right and happy? Nevermind. I'm married. I already know the answer.

June 28, 2011

Well, I have a situation that i'd like some opinion on, if you please -

My kids and I have been caching for over 7 years. we found all our caches under our team name, and physically signed the logs only one time with our name. My 12yo son, who cached with us when he was 5, recently requested i set up an account for him, which I obliged.

I went and logged online all of the previous finds he was with us on, which aside from a few archived premium caches (and one that was locked), I had no trouble doing by reviewing all of the team's past logs. His total cache count, including the current/recent finds, ended up being 315 caches. Come to check his profile a few days later, and notice that he had one less cache listed, so i checked his email, and sure enough, someone had deleted his log. When I posted the logs, I made sure to clearly indicate that this was a new account, that he (my son) had found the cache(s) with the family, and even put some sort of description of the cache area to help verify he/we were actually there. Not only that, but my son's geo name is similar to our team name, and ours were the only logs for that day - it is obvious what was going on when the cache was logged, if he had bothered to check. The thing is - it was found almost 7 years ago.

I wrote the cache owner asking why. The response was that he could not 'verify' that my son was actually there, especially since it was almost 7 years ago. Granted, this is only a crappy micro in front of a mexican restaurant, so it really shouldn't be a big deal. This CO told me to have my son go by and resign the log and then he could then log the find. Problem is that we live in a city 500 miles away, and have no plans on revisiting that area any time soon.

I personally think this is childish on the CO's part, but I guess he can delete the log if he wishes. I am very close to deleting my log on that cache too, and might check my logs to see if i found any more by this guy and deleting those, as well.

This guy has hidden over 250+ caches in his area, and I highly doubt he is 'verifying' each and every cache to make sure each and every online log is valid. This CO apparently lives in a highly touristed area, so i'm sure there has to be a degree of 'late logs' that people have forgotten to post.

I am all for ethical caching (i scoured my logs to make sure i was not posting finds to my son's account that he had not visited), but this guy being a cache cop like this leaves a bad taste in my mouth...absolutely no one else has deleted any of his logs.

2.1k · June 28, 2011

I went and logged online all of the previous finds he was with us on, which aside from a few archived premium caches (and one that was locked), I had no trouble doing by reviewing all of the team's past logs. His total cache count, including the current/recent finds, ended up being 315 caches. Come to check his profile a few days later, and notice that he had one less cache listed, so i checked his email, and sure enough, someone had deleted his log. When I posted the logs, I made sure to clearly indicate that this was a new account, that he (my son) had found the cache(s) with the family, and even put some sort of description of the cache area to help verify he/we were actually there. Not only that, but my son's geo name is similar to our team name, and ours were the only logs for that day - it is obvious what was going on when the cache was logged, if he had bothered to check. The thing is - it was found almost 7 years ago.

I wrote the cache owner asking why. The response was that he could not 'verify' that my son was actually there, especially since it was almost 7 years ago. Granted, this is only a crappy micro in front of a mexican restaurant, so it really shouldn't be a big deal. This CO told me to have my son go by and resign the log and then he could then log the find. Problem is that we live in a city 500 miles away, and have no plans on revisiting that area any time soon.

Let GS know, they should reinstate the find. That sort of back logging is allowed.

You also should be able to log his finds on the PMO caches.

Personally I would have made him do the relogging- but that is me.

June 28, 2011

I went and logged online all of the previous finds he was with us on, which aside from a few archived premium caches (and one that was locked), I had no trouble doing by reviewing all of the team's past logs. His total cache count, including the current/recent finds, ended up being 315 caches. Come to check his profile a few days later, and notice that he had one less cache listed, so i checked his email, and sure enough, someone had deleted his log. When I posted the logs, I made sure to clearly indicate that this was a new account, that he (my son) had found the cache(s) with the family, and even put some sort of description of the cache area to help verify he/we were actually there. Not only that, but my son's geo name is similar to our team name, and ours were the only logs for that day - it is obvious what was going on when the cache was logged, if he had bothered to check. The thing is - it was found almost 7 years ago.

I wrote the cache owner asking why. The response was that he could not 'verify' that my son was actually there, especially since it was almost 7 years ago. Granted, this is only a crappy micro in front of a mexican restaurant, so it really shouldn't be a big deal. This CO told me to have my son go by and resign the log and then he could then log the find. Problem is that we live in a city 500 miles away, and have no plans on revisiting that area any time soon.

Let GS know, they should reinstate the find. That sort of back logging is allowed.

You also should be able to log his finds on the PMO caches.

Personally I would have made him do the relogging- but that is me.

Thanks, MJS. I think I will let GC know... but this CO's attitude about it still rubs me a little raw. It's not like I was trying to get one over on him.

And yeah, I should have made my son log his own finds, true that... but he was pretty young to remember some of those early finds, and he would still be logging the first 50... i love him to death, but he's really becoming the stereotypical slacker teen... :laughing:

5k · June 28, 2011

Well, I have a situation that i'd like some opinion on, if you please -

My kids and I have been caching for over 7 years. we found all our caches under our team name, and physically signed the logs only one time with our name. My 12yo son, who cached with us when he was 5, recently requested i set up an account for him, which I obliged.

I went and logged online all of the previous finds he was with us on, which aside from a few archived premium caches (and one that was locked), I had no trouble doing by reviewing all of the team's past logs. His total cache count, including the current/recent finds, ended up being 315 caches. Come to check his profile a few days later, and notice that he had one less cache listed, so i checked his email, and sure enough, someone had deleted his log. When I posted the logs, I made sure to clearly indicate that this was a new account, that he (my son) had found the cache(s) with the family, and even put some sort of description of the cache area to help verify he/we were actually there. Not only that, but my son's geo name is similar to our team name, and ours were the only logs for that day - it is obvious what was going on when the cache was logged, if he had bothered to check. The thing is - it was found almost 7 years ago.

I wrote the cache owner asking why. The response was that he could not 'verify' that my son was actually there, especially since it was almost 7 years ago. Granted, this is only a crappy micro in front of a mexican restaurant, so it really shouldn't be a big deal. This CO told me to have my son go by and resign the log and then he could then log the find. Problem is that we live in a city 500 miles away, and have no plans on revisiting that area any time soon.

I personally think this is childish on the CO's part, but I guess he can delete the log if he wishes. I am very close to deleting my log on that cache too, and might check my logs to see if i found any more by this guy and deleting those, as well.

This guy has hidden over 250+ caches in his area, and I highly doubt he is 'verifying' each and every cache to make sure each and every online log is valid. This CO apparently lives in a highly touristed area, so i'm sure there has to be a degree of 'late logs' that people have forgotten to post.

I am all for ethical caching (i scoured my logs to make sure i was not posting finds to my son's account that he had not visited), but this guy being a cache cop like this leaves a bad taste in my mouth...absolutely no one else has deleted any of his logs.

I guess this guy just needed to prove the fact that there is at least one butt-head in every crowd.

June 28, 2011

Well, I have a situation that i'd like some opinion on, if you please...

...This guy has hidden over 250+ caches in his area, and I highly doubt he is 'verifying' each and every cache to make sure each and every online log is valid. This CO apparently lives in a highly touristed area, so i'm sure there has to be a degree of 'late logs' that people have forgotten to post.

I am all for ethical caching (i scoured my logs to make sure i was not posting finds to my son's account that he had not visited), but this guy being a cache cop like this leaves a bad taste in my mouth...absolutely no one else has deleted any of his logs.

I guess this guy just needed to prove the fact that there is at least one butt-head in every crowd.

Yeah, there's always at least one... lol

Well, if i contact GC and have them reinstate the log, I wonder what will happen when I log my other son's finds and he deletes that one, too? Hopefully he won't make an issue out of that log, also... sheesh!

19k · June 28, 2011

Well, I have a situation that i'd like some opinion on, if you please...

...This guy has hidden over 250+ caches in his area, and I highly doubt he is 'verifying' each and every cache to make sure each and every online log is valid. This CO apparently lives in a highly touristed area, so i'm sure there has to be a degree of 'late logs' that people have forgotten to post.

I am all for ethical caching (i scoured my logs to make sure i was not posting finds to my son's account that he had not visited), but this guy being a cache cop like this leaves a bad taste in my mouth...absolutely no one else has deleted any of his logs.

I guess this guy just needed to prove the fact that there is at least one butt-head in every crowd.

Yeah, there's always at least one... lol

Well, if i contact GC and have them reinstate the log, I wonder what will happen when I log my other son's finds and he deletes that one, too? Hopefully he won't make an issue out of that log, also... sheesh!

If he doesn't learn from the first time, I somehow suspect Groundspeak has their ways of reinforcing the lesson.

8k · June 28, 2011

there is at least one butt-head in every crowd.

Don, the next time I see you I'll tell you the correct name to use. :anibad:

2.1k · June 28, 2011

Let GS know, they should reinstate the find. That sort of back logging is allowed.

You also should be able to log his finds on the PMO caches.

Personally I would have made him do the relogging- but that is me.

Thanks, MJS. I think I will let GC know... but this CO's attitude about it still rubs me a little raw. It's not like I was trying to get one over on him.

And yeah, I should have made my son log his own finds, true that... but he was pretty young to remember some of those early finds, and he would still be logging the first 50... i love him to death, but he's really becoming the stereotypical slacker teen...

Tis true. At least make him keep his account up to date. Builds character! Or something like that.

June 28, 2011

Let GS know, they should reinstate the find. That sort of back logging is allowed.

You also should be able to log his finds on the PMO caches.

Personally I would have made him do the relogging- but that is me.

Thanks, MJS. I think I will let GC know... but this CO's attitude about it still rubs me a little raw. It's not like I was trying to get one over on him.

And yeah, I should have made my son log his own finds, true that... but he was pretty young to remember some of those early finds, and he would still be logging the first 50... i love him to death, but he's really becoming the stereotypical slacker teen...

Tis true. At least make him keep his account up to date. Builds character! Or something like that.

oh yeah... he already knows that keeping his account up-to-date by himself is part of the deal. that was part of the agreement we made when he asked for his own account. i will be on top of him about that... told him that if he didn't post his own logs timely, i would post the log for him with something embarrasing so he would have to at least fix it. lol. and i added a friendship to his account to my girlfriend's daughter, who he thinks is cute, so there's more motivation to not have dad add embarrasing log posts... :laughing:

June 28, 2011

See... this is the kind of response we should see... none of that 'cache cop' junk here.

This was a virtual i took the kids to 7 years ago, and i sent the requirements to the CO at that time. In the log i asked if it was ok that i claimed the find even though the answer was sent eons ago:

"Hey,

so for taking so long to respond about your question regarding "counting" the Rookwood Readers. Of course you can! Thanks for visiting our cache!

Crappiefisher and Murex"

Geocaching rules debate please respond

Recommended Posts