Do cache owners have the right to delete logs if they don't like the log comment

7.3k · May 23, 2011

The guidelines make no mention of it, at least that I could find, regarding the deletion of logs containing foul language, slurs, material of an adult nature, verbal abuse or any non-family friendly text. May a CO delete a log for this reason and expect it to be upheld by GS?

Knowledge Books, section 6 Cache Ownership: A Long-Term Relationship

6.7. Log Deletion:

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=204

May 23, 2011

If I get a blank log or TFTC, I usually write the person a nice email explaining that this is typically taboo. None of the people have ever fixed their logs or changed their behavior. A man can dream though!

This kind of email is invasive and unnecessary, and far more egregious than a short log. Writing to people to chide them for violating your personal preferences is not "nice," regardless of how you word the missive.

Really? So someone with 10 finds just KNOWS what the logs are? Go back in my finds history and check the first caches I ever did. I put in TFTC, the date and time etc. I wish someone had explained to me how important the logging process is. Narcissa you're taking emailing someone WAY to seriously.

Edited May 23, 2011 by LukeTrocity

7.4k · May 23, 2011

If I get a blank log or TFTC, I usually write the person a nice email explaining that this is typically taboo. None of the people have ever fixed their logs or changed their behavior. A man can dream though!

This kind of email is invasive and unnecessary, and far more egregious than a short log. Writing to people to chide them for violating your personal preferences is not "nice," regardless of how you word the missive.

Really? So someone with 10 finds just KNOWS what the logs are? Go back in my finds history and check the first caches I ever did. I put in TFTC, the date and time etc. I wish someone had explained to me how important the logging process is. Narcissa your taking emailing someone WAY to seriously.

The logging process is only as important as the finder makes it. Your personal preferences as a cache owner should have no bearing on how a cache finder chooses to log. Writing to new cachers to insinuate that there is something wrong with an action that is harmless and completely in keeping with the guidelines is deceitful and disgraceful. I don't even want to imagine how many new cachers have been misled by people who write to them privately with lies. For shame.

May 23, 2011

If I get a blank log or TFTC, I usually write the person a nice email explaining that this is typically taboo. None of the people have ever fixed their logs or changed their behavior. A man can dream though!

This kind of email is invasive and unnecessary, and far more egregious than a short log. Writing to people to chide them for violating your personal preferences is not "nice," regardless of how you word the missive.

Really? So someone with 10 finds just KNOWS what the logs are? Go back in my finds history and check the first caches I ever did. I put in TFTC, the date and time etc. I wish someone had explained to me how important the logging process is. Narcissa your taking emailing someone WAY to seriously.

The logging process is only as important as the finder makes it. Your personal preferences as a cache owner should have no bearing on how a cache finder chooses to log. Writing to new cachers to insinuate that there is something wrong with an action that is harmless and completely in keeping with the guidelines is deceitful and disgraceful. I don't even want to imagine how many new cachers have been misled by people who write to them privately with lies. For shame.

You are making mountains out of molehills. I sent a courteous messages to a new cacher, and they can either ignore me and take some advice. That's their choice.

You should tone down the intensity a bit. I understand your passion but geez calm down a bit.

3.2k · May 23, 2011

The logging process is only as important as the finder makes it. Your personal preferences as a cache owner should have no bearing on how a cache finder chooses to log. Writing to new cachers to insinuate that there is something wrong with an action that is harmless and completely in keeping with the guidelines is deceitful and disgraceful. I don't even want to imagine how many new cachers have been misled by people who write to them privately with lies. For shame.

I gotta agree with narcissa, although maybe not the strong wording.

The email is sent on the incorrect premise that TFTC or a blank log are wrong, incorrect or in some other way unacceptable. The log is a diary of sorts of the finders experience and there is no reason to leave them with the wrong impression that it is somehow "taboo".

Edited May 23, 2011 by baloo&bd

May 23, 2011

If I get a blank log or TFTC, I usually write the person a nice email explaining that this is typically taboo. None of the people have ever fixed their logs or changed their behavior. A man can dream though!

This kind of email is invasive and unnecessary, and far more egregious than a short log. Writing to people to chide them for violating your personal preferences is not "nice," regardless of how you word the missive.

Really? So someone with 10 finds just KNOWS what the logs are? Go back in my finds history and check the first caches I ever did. I put in TFTC, the date and time etc. I wish someone had explained to me how important the logging process is. Narcissa your taking emailing someone WAY to seriously.

The logging process is only as important as the finder makes it. Your personal preferences as a cache owner should have no bearing on how a cache finder chooses to log. Writing to new cachers to insinuate that there is something wrong with an action that is harmless and completely in keeping with the guidelines is deceitful and disgraceful. I don't even want to imagine how many new cachers have been misled by people who write to them privately with lies. For shame.

For someone that throws around the idea that others make things appear to be more of a travesty than they are, you sure make opposing your ideals seem like a travesty. It is very obvious that crappy logs (tftc only, short cnp and blank logs) are increasing, and not just on lamish hides. Some are expressing opposition to that. Not much you can do other than try to educate new cachers. Those that take offense to a simple email have more issues than the person reaching out in my opinion.

May 23, 2011

The logging process is only as important as the finder makes it. Your personal preferences as a cache owner should have no bearing on how a cache finder chooses to log. Writing to new cachers to insinuate that there is something wrong with an action that is harmless and completely in keeping with the guidelines is deceitful and disgraceful. I don't even want to imagine how many new cachers have been misled by people who write to them privately with lies. For shame.

I gotta agree with narcissa, although maybe not the strong wording.

The email is sent on the incorrect premise that TFTC or a blank log are wrong, incorrect or in some other way unacceptable. The log is a diary of sorts of the finders experience and there is no reason to leave them with the wrong impression that it is somehow "taboo".

I honestly see Narcissa's point, but I am fairly positive I didn't start a geocaching apocalypse by emailing the logger.

May 23, 2011

If I get a blank log or TFTC, I usually write the person a nice email explaining that this is typically taboo. None of the people have ever fixed their logs or changed their behavior. A man can dream though!

It is a nice thought but sending that email is someday going to bite you, someone is going to take it wrong if for no other reason, their parrot is in a bad mood.

I think you're lucky to just have no response.

I put a lot of effort into my caches and don't like blank logs but to tell someone their post is not worthy is not worth the agravation, after all, if they just indicated your cache was not worthy of comment, why escalate it?

Move on.

2.3k · May 23, 2011

It all depends on how the e-mail is worded whether or not it would invasive and annoying. If someone said something like, "Hey did you know you can use the logs online to document your caching experience in detail if you would like" I probably wouldn't care. If someone cruised along and said "Many of us appreciate longer logs on our caches htan the obligatory TFTC" I would likely just delete it but it probably wouldn't annoy me. But if someone came along and made it sound like longer logs were mandatory and an expected under the mores of geocaching I would find it annoying and invasive.

Best would probably be just a plain old welcome letter to new geocachers and open up a friendship or line of communication in general. A geocacher did that when I started and provided a lot of information to me. I have a lot of respect for them and other cachers I have talked to who weren't invasive. A nice, "Welcome to caching if you need any help let me know and I can't wait to read about your adventures on the local caches" will win you more fans.

10.1k · May 23, 2011

If I get a blank log or TFTC, I usually write the person a nice email explaining that this is typically taboo. None of the people have ever fixed their logs or changed their behavior. A man can dream though!

While I have not gotten any blank logs yet (how's that for cursing myself?), I have gotten a number of logs indicating that the cacher was after numbers rather than the experience I was trying to show him/her. (Great view: Log - "8 of 15. Didn't see anything because of the fog.") Okay. No skin off my snout. One can log caches for the numbers if one wishes. As long as he signed the log... I put the cache thre because I liked the spot. I am not going to demand that the cacher like it. All that I require is that the cacher sign the log.

Found a cache on an outhouse at a RV park today (Okay! It was on my Ten-Mile List!) Quite frankly, I could not think of anything nice to say, outside of "Good. I needed to use the facilities." (No. I did not log that, though I might change my log now...) What would you like me to say?

May 23, 2011

If I get a blank log or TFTC, I usually write the person a nice email explaining that this is typically taboo. None of the people have ever fixed their logs or changed their behavior. A man can dream though!

While I have not gotten any blank logs yet (how's that for cursing myself?), I have gotten a number of logs indicating that the cacher was after numbers rather than the experience I was trying to show him/her. (Great view: Log - "8 of 15. Didn't see anything because of the fog.") Okay. No skin off my snout. One can log caches for the numbers if one wishes. As long as he signed the log... I put the cache thre because I liked the spot. I am not going to demand that the cacher like it. All that I require is that the cacher sign the log.

Found a cache on an outhouse at a RV park today (Okay! It was on my Ten-Mile List!) Quite frankly, I could not think of anything nice to say, outside of "Good. I needed to use the facilities." (No. I did not log that, though I might change my log now...) What would you like me to say?

I probably would have looked at how many caches you had found and moved on. If it was your third cache I might have emailed you if the log was blank.

I would never demand anything of anyone, but I would try to encourage posting logs with some substance. If anything a log that indicates the status of the cache, if it was in good health or not.

On a side note, if I was in your position I would probably write, "This cache STUNK. Thanks for the hepatitis."

May 23, 2011

I find that really annoying as well. Someone did 4 of my caches yesterday and the log was all the same - it said "-wolfpack" yeah ok, so did you like the caches? Were they too boring for you? Did you take or leave anything? Anything? Hello? Not even TFTC. Whatever. I went to see other caches he did and he signed those logs the same way so I guess I shouldn't take it personally. There are some jackasses out there.

How exactly does that make him a ja?

It's been said before and bears repeating. In the absence of any other evidence, assume the best.

Or, you can go around calling people names that are probably against the rules and feeling disrespected and possibly even shedding a few tears instead of enjoying life.

May 23, 2011

Maybe that sounds petty, but frankly, the satisfaction of coming up with a difficult puzzle is severely undermined if the listing service mandates that I allow a parade of non-solving tag-alongs to log the "find." I'm glad it hasn't come to that.

It seems like a very popular earthcacher was banned due to enforcing similar logging requirements. I would tred lightly down that path.

1.3k · May 23, 2011

If I get a blank log or TFTC, I usually write the person a nice email explaining that this is typically taboo. None of the people have ever fixed their logs or changed their behavior. A man can dream though!

This kind of email is invasive and unnecessary, and far more egregious than a short log. Writing to people to chide them for violating your personal preferences is not "nice," regardless of how you word the missive.

I don't see where LT notes that he "chides" cachers. He notes that he nicely explains logging etiquette.

May 23, 2011

If I get a blank log or TFTC, I usually write the person a nice email explaining that this is typically taboo. None of the people have ever fixed their logs or changed their behavior. A man can dream though!

This kind of email is invasive and unnecessary, and far more egregious than a short log. Writing to people to chide them for violating your personal preferences is not "nice," regardless of how you word the missive.

I don't see where LT notes that he "chides" cachers. He notes that he nicely explains logging etiquette.

The difference I see in LT's post and another couple of posters is that LT says when he emails loggers he tells them that their logs are taboo. The other posters have stated that they email others about their preferences.

One is chiding the logger, the other is attempting to convey a preference. I think that might explain the differences in results that the posters have alluded to.

LT said he has basically not gotten any results where starbrand and knowschad both stated they had favorable results.

7.4k · May 23, 2011

You are making mountains out of molehills. I sent a courteous messages to a new cacher, and they can either ignore me and take some advice. That's their choice.

You should tone down the intensity a bit. I understand your passion but geez calm down a bit.

You've openly admitted that you write to new cachers to tell them lies about how the game works. Short and empty logs are permitted - insinuating otherwise is a nasty, deceitful thing to do to a new cacher.

7.4k · May 23, 2011

For someone that throws around the idea that others make things appear to be more of a travesty than they are, you sure make opposing your ideals seem like a travesty. It is very obvious that crappy logs (tftc only, short cnp and blank logs) are increasing, and not just on lamish hides. Some are expressing opposition to that. Not much you can do other than try to educate new cachers. Those that take offense to a simple email have more issues than the person reaching out in my opinion.

Why do new cachers need to be educated? The rules permit short/empty logs. There is absolutely no reason to write to a cacher who does this. It's not against the rules, and it's not taboo. Using the mail system to harass other geocachers is, however, absolutely frowned upon by Groundspeak. Writing to a new cacher to feed them lies about the game is far worse than getting blank logs once in a while.

1.7k · May 23, 2011

You are making mountains out of molehills. I sent a courteous messages to a new cacher, and they can either ignore me and take some advice. That's their choice.

You should tone down the intensity a bit. I understand your passion but geez calm down a bit.

You've openly admitted that you write to new cachers to tell them lies about how the game works. Short and empty logs are permitted - insinuating otherwise is a nasty, deceitful thing to do to a new cacher.

It depends really. Longer logs are generally more accepted in the game than blank logs. It depends on he phrases it. I don't think anyone should tell a new cacher that blank logs are wrong; what if said newbie doesn't like writing logs? Now you have one less cacher, just because you ticked them off and they don't want to be part of the game. On the other hand, a friendly reminder along the lines of,

"I see you've been leaving a lot of blank logs, many geocachers prefer logs with some description in them, but if you don't like to write logs that's okay, it's within your rights not to leave a long log, and nobody will fault you for it, I'm just letting you know as a new cacher."

Could be a good thing.

Edited May 23, 2011 by Coldgears

7.4k · May 23, 2011

It depends really. Longer logs are generally more accepted in the game than blank logs. It depends on he phrases it. I don't think anyone should tell a new cacher that blank logs are wrong; what if said newbie doesn't like writing logs? Now you have one less cacher, just because you ticked them off and they don't want to be part of the game. On the other hand, a friendly reminder along the lines of,

"I see you've been leaving a lot of blank logs, many geocachers prefer logs with some description in them, but if you don't like to write logs that's okay, it's within your rights not to leave a long log, and nobody will fault you for it, I'm just letting you know as a new cacher."

Could be a good thing.

Or, better yet, just leave people alone if they aren't actually breaking any rules or doing anything harmful. There's just no reason to get in someone's face about it. Vent in the forums, but leave private messages for serious matters.

Edited May 23, 2011 by narcissa

1.7k · May 23, 2011

It depends really. Longer logs are generally more accepted in the game than blank logs. It depends on he phrases it. I don't think anyone should tell a new cacher that blank logs are wrong; what if said newbie doesn't like writing logs? Now you have one less cacher, just because you ticked them off and they don't want to be part of the game. On the other hand, a friendly reminder along the lines of,

"I see you've been leaving a lot of blank logs, many geocachers prefer logs with some description in them, but if you don't like to write logs that's okay, it's within your rights not to leave a long log, and nobody will fault you for it, I'm just letting you know as a new cacher."

Could be a good thing.

Or, better yet, just leave people alone if they aren't actually breaking any rules or doing anything harmful. There's just no reason to get in someone's face about it. Vent in the forums, but leave private messages for serious matters.

I never said I would personally do it. As long as my cache is found I could care less how long the logs are.

May 23, 2011

For someone that throws around the idea that others make things appear to be more of a travesty than they are, you sure make opposing your ideals seem like a travesty. It is very obvious that crappy logs (tftc only, short cnp and blank logs) are increasing, and not just on lamish hides. Some are expressing opposition to that. Not much you can do other than try to educate new cachers. Those that take offense to a simple email have more issues than the person reaching out in my opinion.

Why do new cachers need to be educated? The rules permit short/empty logs. There is absolutely no reason to write to a cacher who does this. It's not against the rules, and it's not taboo. Using the mail system to harass other geocachers is, however, absolutely frowned upon by Groundspeak. Writing to a new cacher to feed them lies about the game is far worse than getting blank logs once in a while.

Talk about supposed travesty. Very hypocrytical. New people in anything need to be educated. I never even considered lying to them. I'm sure some can, but I bet that is less common than crappy logs.

1.3k · May 23, 2011

For someone that throws around the idea that others make things appear to be more of a travesty than they are, you sure make opposing your ideals seem like a travesty. It is very obvious that crappy logs (tftc only, short cnp and blank logs) are increasing, and not just on lamish hides. Some are expressing opposition to that. Not much you can do other than try to educate new cachers. Those that take offense to a simple email have more issues than the person reaching out in my opinion.

Why do new cachers need to be educated? The rules permit short/empty logs. There is absolutely no reason to write to a cacher who does this. It's not against the rules, and it's not taboo. Using the mail system to harass other geocachers is, however, absolutely frowned upon by Groundspeak. Writing to a new cacher to feed them lies about the game is far worse than getting blank logs once in a while.

Talk about supposed travesty. Very hypocrytical. New people in anything need to be educated. I never even considered lying to them. I'm sure some can, but I bet that is less common than crappy logs.

Personally, I would let any new cacher (or any cacher that posts blank/TFTC logs) educate themselves on better logging practices. There are plenty of cachers, new and old, who use the Found log as a means to uptick their smiley face counts and writing more than TFTC (or blank logs) doesn't interest them in the slightest. The site permits blank logs and to them, that is logging nirvana. I'm not going to let that bother me, even if it is on the uprise.

There are also cachers who fall into the monkey-see/monkey-do category and believe that TFTC logs are the norm and when they first start out, that's what they log as well. These same cachers will read longer logs and start asking themselves why they only logged a TFTC when they had more to say.

The way I look at it is that if a person considers the logging aspect as part of the geocaching experience (as opposed to just finding caches), they will soon enough start writing longer logs and won't need my education. If a person just cares about finding caches and logging the find is just a means to clear them from their screen or increase their find count, then there is nothing I can do to educate them. In either case, the only "education" I can provide is to lead by example and hope they follow.

7.4k · May 23, 2011

You seem to be using a non-standard definition of "hypocritical."

Writing to a new cacher to scold him/her for playing the game differently, but well within the scope of the guidelines, is an appalling thing to do. Pretending that you need to "educate" people about your personal preferences is ridiculous. Blank logs and short logs are allowed - no need to "educate" these cachers on this issue.

Trying to force every new cacher to adopt your personal geocaching method is bound to be an exercise in futility. And I can only speak from my perspective, but the cachers who have sent me asinine personal messages are the ones I remember and talk about to others - not the harmless blank loggers.

For someone that throws around the idea that others make things appear to be more of a travesty than they are, you sure make opposing your ideals seem like a travesty. It is very obvious that crappy logs (tftc only, short cnp and blank logs) are increasing, and not just on lamish hides. Some are expressing opposition to that. Not much you can do other than try to educate new cachers. Those that take offense to a simple email have more issues than the person reaching out in my opinion.

Why do new cachers need to be educated? The rules permit short/empty logs. There is absolutely no reason to write to a cacher who does this. It's not against the rules, and it's not taboo. Using the mail system to harass other geocachers is, however, absolutely frowned upon by Groundspeak. Writing to a new cacher to feed them lies about the game is far worse than getting blank logs once in a while.

Talk about supposed travesty. Very hypocrytical. New people in anything need to be educated. I never even considered lying to them. I'm sure some can, but I bet that is less common than crappy logs.

May 23, 2011

Again, speaking as a relatively new cacher, I wouldn't have objected at all to an email that basically said "Hi! I saw you're fairly new, welcome to geocaching! I did want to let you know about logging, many people who hide caches appreciate longer log messages. While "TFTC" is ok, whenever possible letting the cache owner know with a longer comment about how you found the cache goes a long way to making the experience better. Happy caching!"

I would take that as a friendly bit of advice from an experienced cacher. Not everyone would take it like that, but I would, as long as the tone was friendly.

May 23, 2011

Again, speaking as a relatively new cacher, I wouldn't have objected at all to an email that basically said "Hi! I saw you're fairly new, welcome to geocaching! I did want to let you know about logging, many people who hide caches appreciate longer log messages. While "TFTC" is ok, whenever possible letting the cache owner know with a longer comment about how you found the cache goes a long way to making the experience better. Happy caching!"

I would take that as a friendly bit of advice from an experienced cacher. Not everyone would take it like that, but I would, as long as the tone was friendly.

Which is exactly what I do. If they choose to ignore me they can. Again I don't think sending an email to someone is a big deal. If I did there would be several nigerian princes that need a stern reprimand.

Anyway I'm speaking from personal exp. I wish someone had helped me out a bit when I started. I see your point Narcissa, but I'm within my rights to send a courteous message to whomever I choose.

7.4k · May 23, 2011

Again, speaking as a relatively new cacher, I wouldn't have objected at all to an email that basically said "Hi! I saw you're fairly new, welcome to geocaching! I did want to let you know about logging, many people who hide caches appreciate longer log messages. While "TFTC" is ok, whenever possible letting the cache owner know with a longer comment about how you found the cache goes a long way to making the experience better. Happy caching!"

I would take that as a friendly bit of advice from an experienced cacher. Not everyone would take it like that, but I would, as long as the tone was friendly.

What if a cache owner prefers short logs? Should he/she write to everybody who gets a little enthusiastic and wordy?

7.4k · May 23, 2011

Again, speaking as a relatively new cacher, I wouldn't have objected at all to an email that basically said "Hi! I saw you're fairly new, welcome to geocaching! I did want to let you know about logging, many people who hide caches appreciate longer log messages. While "TFTC" is ok, whenever possible letting the cache owner know with a longer comment about how you found the cache goes a long way to making the experience better. Happy caching!"

I would take that as a friendly bit of advice from an experienced cacher. Not everyone would take it like that, but I would, as long as the tone was friendly.

Which is exactly what I do. If they choose to ignore me they can. Again I don't think sending an email to someone is a big deal. If I did there would be several nigerian princes that need a stern reprimand.

Anyway I'm speaking from personal exp. I wish someone had helped me out a bit when I started. I see your point Narcissa, but I'm within my rights to send a courteous message to whomever I choose.

There's nothing courteous about imposing your personal preferences on an unsuspecting new cacher under the guise of etiquette or advice. You're intentionally misleading people about the rules of the game.

19k · May 23, 2011

If I get a blank log or TFTC, I usually write the person a nice email explaining that this is typically taboo. None of the people have ever fixed their logs or changed their behavior. A man can dream though!

This kind of email is invasive and unnecessary, and far more egregious than a short log. Writing to people to chide them for violating your personal preferences is not "nice," regardless of how you word the missive.

I disagree. It totally depends on the tone of the email. You are assuming an invasive, egregious, chiding, voilating tone as opposed to a "hi, welcome to the hobby, glad to meet you, and oh, by the way..." tone.

May 23, 2011

Again, speaking as a relatively new cacher, I wouldn't have objected at all to an email that basically said "Hi! I saw you're fairly new, welcome to geocaching! I did want to let you know about logging, many people who hide caches appreciate longer log messages. While "TFTC" is ok, whenever possible letting the cache owner know with a longer comment about how you found the cache goes a long way to making the experience better. Happy caching!"

I would take that as a friendly bit of advice from an experienced cacher. Not everyone would take it like that, but I would, as long as the tone was friendly.

What if a cache owner prefers short logs? Should he/she write to everybody who gets a little enthusiastic and wordy?

I'd say no. What is being discussed here isn't a personal preference, it's a informal "norm" accepted by the community. Judging by the replies to the thread, I'd say that norm has some basis. As I mentioned the first time I posted here, I put in quite a few "TFTC!" logs because that's what I saw, and I assumed it was an accepted standard. Knowing that many cache owners, particularly those who have been around a while, prefer longer entries is valuable info for me.

Now I think there's also nothing wrong with putting directly in the cache description something like "Also, please remember it's wonderful as a cache owner to hear a little something about your experience when you find a cache. It's a bit of a reward for us, and also helps us make better caches. Thanks!". It's all part of educating an influx of new cachers. But speaking personally, I'd have no objection to a polite and friendly bit of info like that.

1.7k · May 23, 2011

Again, speaking as a relatively new cacher, I wouldn't have objected at all to an email that basically said "Hi! I saw you're fairly new, welcome to geocaching! I did want to let you know about logging, many people who hide caches appreciate longer log messages. While "TFTC" is ok, whenever possible letting the cache owner know with a longer comment about how you found the cache goes a long way to making the experience better. Happy caching!"

I would take that as a friendly bit of advice from an experienced cacher. Not everyone would take it like that, but I would, as long as the tone was friendly.

Which is exactly what I do. If they choose to ignore me they can. Again I don't think sending an email to someone is a big deal. If I did there would be several nigerian princes that need a stern reprimand.

Anyway I'm speaking from personal exp. I wish someone had helped me out a bit when I started. I see your point Narcissa, but I'm within my rights to send a courteous message to whomever I choose.

There's nothing courteous about imposing your personal preferences on an unsuspecting new cacher under the guise of etiquette or advice. You're intentionally misleading people about the rules of the game.

I am grateful for a polite, welcoming email I received after one of our first caching experiences. I had found a bug and grabbed it away before the cacher could place it into the cache on-line. She took the opportunity to educate me about travel bug etiquette - something that isn't a "rule" BTW. I was happy for the guidance and consider her a caching friend now.

May 23, 2011

If a 4 letter log wasn't appropriate, GS would place a letter requirement on found logs, wouldn't they?

Relax.

May 23, 2011

What if a cache owner prefers short logs? Should he/she write to everybody who gets a little enthusiastic and wordy?

I'd say no. What is being discussed here isn't a personal preference, it's a informal "norm" accepted by the community. Judging by the replies to the thread, I'd say that norm has some basis. As I mentioned the first time I posted here, I put in quite a few "TFTC!" logs because that's what I saw, and I assumed it was an accepted standard. Knowing that many cache owners, particularly those who have been around a while, prefer longer entries is valuable info for me.

Reading what some post here it seems as though short or blank logs has become the norm.

If emailing loggers about your preference for wordy logs is ok, then emailing asking loggers to write shorter logs should be ok too.

In either case, I hardly think blank logs are taboo. If that were so, Groundspeak would not endorse the practice.

7.4k · May 23, 2011

I'd say no. What is being discussed here isn't a personal preference, it's a informal "norm" accepted by the community. Judging by the replies to the thread, I'd say that norm has some basis. As I mentioned the first time I posted here, I put in quite a few "TFTC!" logs because that's what I saw, and I assumed it was an accepted standard. Knowing that many cache owners, particularly those who have been around a while, prefer longer entries is valuable info for me.

Now I think there's also nothing wrong with putting directly in the cache description something like "Also, please remember it's wonderful as a cache owner to hear a little something about your experience when you find a cache. It's a bit of a reward for us, and also helps us make better caches. Thanks!". It's all part of educating an influx of new cachers. But speaking personally, I'd have no objection to a polite and friendly bit of info like that.

TFTC, or blank logs, are an accepted standard. Groundspeak doesn't prohibit them, and Groundspeak will stand behind the cacher when over-zealous cache owners delete these logs.

Shrouding this issue in false terms like "norms" and "etiquette" is merely a way of coercing and controlling new cachers into playing the game a particular way.

I'm all in favour of using the cache page to outline your hopes for the cache, including logs. Inflicting misleading private messages on geocaching newcomers is a different matter. It's tricky enough for a new cacher to figure out the site functions and learn the guidelines without cache owners sending misleading and deceitful messages through the private message system.

19k · May 23, 2011

I do not believe anybody has suggested that blank logs have become the norm. Far from it. They are exceedingly rare, but they are also a new phenomenon, and one that has indeed been officially blessed. But being blessed by the site owners and being endorsed by the cache owners are two totally different animals.

May 23, 2011

But being blessed by the site owners and being endorsed by the cache owners are two totally different animals.

And being taboo and being frowned upon by a few cache owners are two totally different animals as well.

7.4k · May 23, 2011

I do not believe anybody has suggested that blank logs have become the norm. Far from it. They are exceedingly rare, but they are also a new phenomenon, and one that has indeed been officially blessed. But being blessed by the site owners and being endorsed by the cache owners are two totally different animals.

It doesn't matter if blank logs are "endorsed" by cache owners or not. Currently, they are permitted by the site.

Cache owners who take exception to this can and should continue to complain to Groundspeak about the issue. Bringing it up for discussion here or in local forums is a good way to let people know if you, personally, don't care for these logging practices. The cache description is also a good place to share your personal philosophy on issues like this, as long as the wording doesn't make it an ALR.

Using deceitful private messages to strong-arm new cachers into abiding by your personal preferences is just beyond the pale. An empty log is harmless (getting your knickers in a bunch doesn't constitute harm). Bully tactics, not so much.

1.7k · May 23, 2011

Using deceitful private messages to strong-arm new cachers into abiding by your personal preferences is just beyond the pale. An empty log is harmless (getting your knickers in a bunch doesn't constitute harm). Bully tactics, not so much.

I still fail to see how a polite email is "bully tactics".

While I do agree with the notion that policing the behavior of others isn't a good idea, I don't think it is as black and white as it is being made out here. Some people like to try and help others. Some people like the assist and some people (such as yourself) see it as some unforgivable sin. (Talk about panties in a bunch!)

That is the risk of lending a helping hand. Sometimes that helping hand is bitten. It is up to the 2 sides involved in each situation to determine their actions or inactions (to send a polite email or not/to get in a huff about an email or not)- not for us on the outside of it to judge either way.

May 23, 2011

It doesn't matter if blank logs are "endorsed" by cache owners or not. Currently, they are permitted by the site.

Cache owners who take exception to this can and should continue to complain to Groundspeak about the issue. Bringing it up for discussion here or in local forums is a good way to let people know if you, personally, don't care for these logging practices. The cache description is also a good place to share your personal philosophy on issues like this, as long as the wording doesn't make it an ALR.

Using deceitful private messages to strong-arm new cachers into abiding by your personal preferences is just beyond the pale. An empty log is harmless (getting your knickers in a bunch doesn't constitute harm). Bully tactics, not so much.

I'm sorry, I just don't see how the type of email I reference above is deceitful or strong-arming. I would have welcomed an email like that.

8k · May 23, 2011

Or, better yet, just leave people alone if they aren't actually breaking any rules or doing anything harmful. There's just no reason to get in someone's face about it. Vent in the forums, but leave private messages for serious matters.

So how do you decide if something is harmful?

It appears that some people feel the trend toward blank logs is harmful to geocaching. For many years, cache owners and others have enjoyed reading logs and looking at photos posted by finders. Often there is information that helps cache owners know when to do maintenance and that may help other finders find the cache or may point out something interesting to look for while searching.

Sure there were always a few cachers that posted TFTC or less in their logs. Some used this as shorthand that there was nothing interesting to say about the cache; others simply may find it difficult to write more for whatever reason. But generally people use the online logs to share their experiences geocaching.

I believe the complaints we see now are due a decision by Grounspeak to allow logging directly from the smartphone apps and to not require any text in these logs.

Remember that originally the iPhone app only created field notes. Cachers were expected to log on to the web site later and convert the field notes into logs. Many would take this opportunity to write something and/or post a photo. But the users of the iPhone app put pressure on Groundspeak to allow direct logging. These people felt that with the iPhone they were freed of the need to sit in front of a terminal and enter text in a browser. Everything should be done from their device, and it shouldn't even require that they launch the browser on the phone. To them, a good app is one that lets you do everything from the app.

Groundspeak gave in and allowed finds to be logged from the app. They also decided to not require any text be entered. To the iPhone (and other smartphone users), if you leave something optional, it will not be used except for extraordinary situations. Once you find the cache it is much easier to click "Found" and move on to the next cache. Don't waste time entering text that is unnecessary. I don't really understand, since these same users no doubt read the logs others have left when they are searching for a cache. Don't they understand that if everyone were to leave blank logs, this information would not be available?

The iPhone and other smart phones have created a new cultural norm. It is as if people have been assimilated by the network. They even have Borg implants attached to their ears (bluetooth headsets). They leave home and immediately start using various apps to stay connected to the collective. These people even believe they can safely drive a car while texting. They will share with other in the collective via Twitter, IM, Facebook, etc. Perhaps, in order to get them to share with geocachers we need to make it more like this social networking sites. Of course, part of the problem is that these "new improve" methods of communicating with your "friends" puts a emphasis on brevity (140 characters, click the 'like' button). No doubt that they will dissmis this post with a four letter acronym: TLDR. What a shame. We have two groups of people who cannot seem to talk with each other.

May 23, 2011

That is the risk of lending a helping hand. Sometimes that helping hand is bitten. It is up to the 2 sides involved in each situation to determine their actions or inactions (to send a polite email or not/to get in a huff about an email or not)- not for us on the outside of it to judge either way.

This isn't really about lending a helping hand. In LT's case, this is about emailing someone and telling them the way they logged a cache is wrong, which is what I believe set Narcissa off.

Blank or short logs are not wrong. To say otherwise is to perpetuate an untruth. They are simply frowned upon by some while entirely within the accepted practices endorsed by the listing service.

1.7k · May 23, 2011

This isn't really about lending a helping hand. In LT's case, this is about emailing someone and telling them the way they logged a cache is wrong, which is what I believe set Narcissa off.

Blank or short logs are not wrong. To say otherwise is to perpetuate an untruth. They are simply frowned upon by some while entirely within the accepted practices endorsed by the listing service.

Um, I can read, thanks.

I sent a courteous messages to a new cacher, and they can either ignore me and take some advice. That's their choice.

I am taking LT at his word. If you wish to read more into it, that is your prerogative.

1.3k · May 23, 2011

As a new cacher, I would not have been offended if a veteran cacher informed me that CO's enjoy descriptive logs. I would have welcomed that information. In fact, you can see an evolution in my log entries. They go from the basic TFTC, TNLN, SL variety to longer logs describing my experience.

Actually, I still consider myself to be relatively new compared to most or you all who frequent these forums. If you can provide any infomation that allows more options to enhance the game for myself and others, please forward it.

7.4k · May 23, 2011

Using deceitful private messages to strong-arm new cachers into abiding by your personal preferences is just beyond the pale. An empty log is harmless (getting your knickers in a bunch doesn't constitute harm). Bully tactics, not so much.

I still fail to see how a polite email is "bully tactics".

You don't think lying to a brand new geocacher is bullying?

7.4k · May 23, 2011

As a new cacher, I would not have been offended if a veteran cacher informed me that CO's enjoy descriptive logs.

Except that not all CO's enjoy descriptive logs. Some CO's don't care. Some CO's actually want short logs. Pretending that a personal preference is a community norm is misleading.

1.7k · May 23, 2011

Using deceitful private messages to strong-arm new cachers into abiding by your personal preferences is just beyond the pale. An empty log is harmless (getting your knickers in a bunch doesn't constitute harm). Bully tactics, not so much.

I still fail to see how a polite email is "bully tactics".

You don't think lying to a brand new geocacher is bullying?

I don't think sending a friendly email is bullying, no.

As I stated previously, I was contacted by a cacher when I was starting out and they gave me some advice that isn't a "rule" per se but is more about general etiquette. I'm sure some people here would see that as wrong somehow because there is no expressed rule about grabbing a TB before it is logged. Everyone can have an opinion.

I appreciated the email and thanked the person who clued me in on the etiquette. Her email to me and my response to that email is MY business. What you or anyone else thinks about it here is irrelevant.

Edited May 23, 2011 by ThePetersTrio

1.3k · May 23, 2011

As a new cacher, I would not have been offended if a veteran cacher informed me that CO's enjoy descriptive logs.

Except that not all CO's enjoy descriptive logs. Some CO's don't care. Some CO's actually want short logs. Pretending that a personal preference is a community norm is misleading.

I disagree. I believe that longer descriptive logs are preferred. Therefore, they are the norm. I enjoy them, but I also do not have an issue with blanks or acronyms.

7.4k · May 23, 2011

Using deceitful private messages to strong-arm new cachers into abiding by your personal preferences is just beyond the pale. An empty log is harmless (getting your knickers in a bunch doesn't constitute harm). Bully tactics, not so much.

I still fail to see how a polite email is "bully tactics".

You don't think lying to a brand new geocacher is bullying?

I don't think sending a friendly email is bullying, no.

If the email is intentionally misleading, can it really be considered friendly?

May 23, 2011

We have two groups of people who cannot seem to talk with each other.

While some have stated that they understand and sympathise with the opinion of the other side, the other side strongly refuses to acknowledge that any opposing view may be in the least bit valid. The constant name calling doesn't help either.

1.7k · May 23, 2011

Narcissa, if you wish to argue with someone, find someone else. I've made my opinion on the matter clear as have you.

Frankly, what another cacher does via email with yet ANOTHER cacher is none of either of our business.

7.4k · May 23, 2011

As a new cacher, I would not have been offended if a veteran cacher informed me that CO's enjoy descriptive logs.

Except that not all CO's enjoy descriptive logs. Some CO's don't care. Some CO's actually want short logs. Pretending that a personal preference is a community norm is misleading.

I disagree. I believe that longer descriptive logs are preferred. Therefore, they are the norm. I enjoy them, but I also do not have an issue with blanks or acronyms.

You are only one data point. Concluding that your personal preference is the norm because you "believe" that people have the same preferences as you is simply illogical.

I don't really care how people log my caches. Again, I'm just one data point.

In the absence of established norms, the logical thing to do is look to what the site allows. The site allows short/blank logs. Additionally, the site's staff will stand behind the cacher when one of these logs gets deleted. How can you rationally conclude that longer logs are the accepted norm?

Do cache owners have the right to delete logs if they don't like the log comment

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment