Jump to content

Log removal by cache owners


Recommended Posts

I visited a cache this morning, Metal Mile http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=31aa1157-a01b-4411-b197-0b7bc22c3efc and logged it when I arrived home.

This was possibly one of the most awful caches it has been my displeasure to visit, and my log reflected this.

The cache owner mentions a snack bar near here, which I remember only for its proximity to an abattoir and rendering plant, and the smell which made any thought of consuming food disappear.

 

A previous cacher had said this:

August 8, 2010 by kinghenry (411 found)

 

Hardly worth stopping for. In a totally uninteresting spot!

 

This evening I found that my log has been removed. Having never had a log removed before (or indeed had to remove one) can someone explain if there is a procedure or etiquette which should apply, or can cache owners just remove any non-positive log entries?

Link to comment

The cache owner can delete the log if he suspects that it was bogus (e.g. you didn't actually find the cache), or if it contains unsuitable (bad) language. I suggest you e-mail the CO and ask what evidence he/she has that you didn't find the cache. If there is no such evidence presented, re-log the cache and if the log is again deleted without explanation then complain to Groundspeak.

In my view, the comments you add are mostly for your own "geocaching diary" use and the CO has no business dictating the wording (outside the parameters given above).

Link to comment

From the CO:

Metal Mile - Thank you for your wonderful support for my 1st cache placed!! I was very new to the game at that point and was doing my best - No wonder so many people don't even bother to hide there own if people can be so nasty, I wish you all the best for your future caches and hope they live up to your perfect standard :-) Sam - Someone who appreciate everyones effort :-)

 

And that's it. I shall re-log the cahe as found with minimal comment.

Link to comment

From the CO:

Metal Mile - Thank you for your wonderful support for my 1st cache placed!! I was very new to the game at that point and was doing my best - No wonder so many people don't even bother to hide there own if people can be so nasty, I wish you all the best for your future caches and hope they live up to your perfect standard :-) Sam - Someone who appreciate everyones effort :-)

 

And that's it. I shall re-log the cahe as found with minimal comment.

 

if it was me i would also post in my log the guidelines on log deletion :anibad:

 

so he realizes the cache is in a crappy spot, being new is not an excuse, that's why the suggestion is to find more caches before placing your first and if that was case and he is more experienced now why doesn't he archive it? :lol:

Edited by t4e
Link to comment

It is often suggested here in the forum that you should be honest when writing a log and to improve the cache stock that you should be honest. That is exactly what you have done.

 

The cache owner obviously deosn't like criticism for what sounds like a wholly inappropriate cache location. If I were into writing online logs I would repeat my original comments, perhaps with an explanation why you are writing them. If they are removed again I would repeat them in a Needs Archive log. I may be wrong but the CO cannot delete those. It will also let the reviewer know there is something seriously wrong with the cache.

Link to comment

We are always honest in our logs and truly believe that this is one of the only ways to improve future hides. This policy has often got us into trouble but on a few occasions, has also resulted in the CO moving the cache to a more appropriate place. Just a thought but perhaps using terms like, I was disappointed in this cache because....' or, 'This cache has room for improvement because.....'.

The CO may be disgruntled because they considered your wording to be a little harsh? As far as a solution goes, you can either just forget about it and put it down to experience or take the advice above.

I’m not sure about CO's not being able to delete NA logs? We had one deleted a few months ago :huh: .

Link to comment

A NA log wouldn't be appropriate anyway. The cache may be perfectly fine as far as the guidelines are concerned, and other people may enjoy finding it (despite it being in a poor spot, it may suit some finders). But words like "disappointing" and "unpleasant" will show your feelings that it was a poor hide, without being offensive.

 

I've found a few that are in locations that are far from attractive, but weren't bad caches as they suited my requirements at the time. For instance sometimes you might just have half an hour to wait for a bus or train and finding a cache provides a bit of amusement. Even though the area isn't attractive you get to study it when normally you take no notice.

Link to comment

We've also found this cache and agree that the location is pretty awful. I'm not sure exactly what number it was for us but it was pretty early on in our caching career. We logged it as 'not a spot we'd have chosen for a cache' but we also expected it to be a cache and dash in a fairly crummy location, so it lived up to expectations.

I'd definitely relog it if I were you. You're fully entitled to say what you like about the cache (as long as it's not offensive.) Is there a way that you can get your point across without causing offense, while not watering it down too much.

Whatever you do, don't allow yourself to be bullied into writing a 'TFTC' kind of log by the CO. (I reckon having your log deleted and being sent snotty emails is a kind of bullying.) Its only fair for the next cachers who look at this cache to know what people really think about it.

Link to comment

Being honest about a cache is good, but most folk could work on their 'feedback' skills and creative writing!

If you say "it's a rubbish cache" it comes over as very harsh and for the CO a personal criticism without suggesting anyway of improving.

If you say "I thought this was a rubbish cache because ......." it gives some useful info about why you didn't like it. The CO can then compare your opinion with theirs and others, and decide if you're a rabid loony or a master cacher with a worthwhile opinion! :)

 

If you want to be a little more gentle, try and avoid descriptive words like "rubbish".

"I didn't enjoy finding this cache because of the ....." Leaves the reader to conclude that it's perhaps a rubbish cache from your pov or that on that day something horrible was there. Other readers might even conclude 'That sounds like a cache for me!'

 

As anyone who's been on a course at work will know, when it comes to feedback:

 

Own it: state it as your opinion (others may vary), use lots of 'I' statements.

Be specific: what specifically was good or bad, and why? What did you enjoy, hate, etc. Make it specific and the receiver will know how to improve or keep on doing what works.

Avoid generalizations: "Everyone knows ..." "I'm sure everyone would agree ..." "A good cache is always ..."

Feedback 101 HTH!

Edited by martlakes
Link to comment

There is a way to be honest, offer constructive criticism without being nasty. I would delete any mean spirted log. Heck, I think guardrail hides are plain dumb, boring, unsafe, lame. I don't hunt those anymore. When I did while I wad exploring number runs early on, I wasn't nasty in my logs.

 

I said somethings like, " this guardrail wasn't as dusty...almost got run over hunting this one." Told the truth but I would never log a mean one. Life is too short to waste time insulting strangers. It's crude and pointless imo.

 

I know a lot of people are so proud that they "tell it like it is." It takes more wisdom, insight and compassion to remain kind and respectful. Why upset someone over a cache you didn't like? Give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they're slow, maybe they're cat died there and it's a memorial. Who knows.

Link to comment

As others have stated, there are ways of putting these things which highlight a poor placement to the CO without denigrating their effort.

 

When I find a location is particularly poor (due to littering, neglect or vandalism) I usually leave a note on the log like this:

 

It seems that GZ has become a bit of a dump/been used for flytipping/outdoor toilet/xxx den, I'm sure it was much cleaner when you placed the cache, but the cache may benefit from a relocation. [Actually there is a spot very close....etc....]

 

I highlight the word "become" and the phrase "when you placed the cache" because I like to assume that the CO didn't just look at a tip and think that would be an ideal place to hide. Even if they did not realise or notice the trashy location, hopefully I haven't dented their ego but given them an easy way out, it's much easier for them to then say "Of course I'll move it now it's got to that state..." rather than dig their heels in at a rude response and pretend they don't see a problem.

A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

 

Link to comment

I'm quite surprised some of my logs haven't been deleted as I tend to be quite honest about what I think. It's usually places where there is a load of fly tipping that get me really moaning. There was an area that was absolutely covered in it with the cache hidden in a tyre (The CO obviously knew about the dumping) I found what looked like a dead dog in a bag on the road next to GZ :shocked: I was so sad. The CO hasn't moved the cache though.

Link to comment

And you wonder why the more experienced cachers say....Find at least 500 plus caches before you place your own! i think you should be honest in logs, like its being said before..........why keep all the positive logs and delete the neg ones....that will just make more people think its a good place to go!!! ridiculous!!! If you dont like someones cach........TELL EM!!!!

Link to comment

I would delete any mean spirted log.

That's a bad thing to do. Probably more mean-spirited than the original log. I would e-mail the finder and ask them (diplomatically) to reword the log because it came over as offensive; but as log deletion is covered by the guidelines you've no right to delete it just because you don't like the tone.

Link to comment

And you wonder why the more experienced cachers say....Find at least 500 plus caches before you place your own! i think you should be honest in logs, like its being said before..........why keep all the positive logs and delete the neg ones....that will just make more people think its a good place to go!!! ridiculous!!! If you dont like someones cach........TELL EM!!!!

 

I disagree with that. I put my first cache out after only doing about twenty, and have had fairly positive feedback on every cache since. That was before the march of the nanos.

If you were to start caching and do 500 caches and 75% were nanos what would you probably come up with? Another nano.

Link to comment
I disagree with that. I put my first cache out after only doing about twenty, and have had fairly positive feedback on every cache since. That was before the march of the nanos.

If you were to start caching and do 500 caches and 75% were nanos what would you probably come up with? Another nano.

 

Very true, if a cacher from a rural area spent a weekend in London they could easily increase their cache count by three figures, then go back to their rural home and start hiding film pots under benches and behind road signs instead of hiding larger boxes in the woods.

Link to comment
I disagree with that. I put my first cache out after only doing about twenty, and have had fairly positive feedback on every cache since. That was before the march of the nanos.

If you were to start caching and do 500 caches and 75% were nanos what would you probably come up with? Another nano.

 

Very true, if a cacher from a rural area spent a weekend in London they could easily increase their cache count by three figures, then go back to their rural home and start hiding film pots under benches and behind road signs instead of hiding larger boxes in the woods.

I'm not sure that London is a good example as a lot of caches have been archived there, and the remainder are often quite tricky. If you want to increase your cache count you'd be better off heading for the countryside and find a good long cache trail.

 

But if a cacher found urban cache hides a hoot and enjoyed them immensely and doesn't like large boxes in woods then why shouldn't they use benches and road signs for hides? I bet there'll be plenty of people out enjoying them; and isn't that what it's all about?

 

As for nanos, I've found a few but do they dominate any area? Not in my experience. I'm not that keen on them as a container (a bit fiddly) but I'd have to do some work to seek them out if I had to find 375 as jester suggests.

Link to comment
I disagree with that. I put my first cache out after only doing about twenty, and have had fairly positive feedback on every cache since. That was before the march of the nanos.

If you were to start caching and do 500 caches and 75% were nanos what would you probably come up with? Another nano.

 

Very true, if a cacher from a rural area spent a weekend in London they could easily increase their cache count by three figures, then go back to their rural home and start hiding film pots under benches and behind road signs instead of hiding larger boxes in the woods.

I'm not sure that London is a good example as a lot of caches have been archived there, and the remainder are often quite tricky. If you want to increase your cache count you'd be better off heading for the countryside and find a good long cache trail.

 

But if a cacher found urban cache hides a hoot and enjoyed them immensely and doesn't like large boxes in woods then why shouldn't they use benches and road signs for hides? I bet there'll be plenty of people out enjoying them; and isn't that what it's all about?

 

As for nanos, I've found a few but do they dominate any area? Not in my experience. I'm not that keen on them as a container (a bit fiddly) but I'd have to do some work to seek them out if I had to find 375 as jester suggests.

 

There are still an awful lot in London and the surrounding areas, in greater London we've got a few trails that are mostly micros and one series (10 caches, IIRC) that's mostly nanos.

 

I still like the generic advice to find a variety of caches and then start hiding. If people don't like larger boxes in the woods there's nothing inherently wrong with leaving film pots under benches but it seems such a shame if people find half a dozen film pots under benches and assume that's what geocaching is about, then start leaving film pots under benches and only later finding a few larger caches. I know they could archive their film pots to make room for larger boxes close by but it just seems like a better solution all round for hiders to have found a range of caches.

 

Just to be clear I don't have any specific issue with film pots - I've been known to make a 20 mile round trip on the bike to find a single film pot - it's just about trying to maintain a sense of balance where caches can consist of anything from a film pot to a huge ammo can.

Link to comment

I agree that it's good advice to find a range of caches before attempting hides. To my mind, about 100 is a fair rule of thumb and that should include all the common types. Perhaps a better rule of thumb would be to find 100 caches with at least one favourite point and including all the common types (Mystery, Traditional, Multi, Micro, Small, Regular). And at least up to 3* difficulty and terrain. And a mix of urban and countryside caches.

 

If a cacher had that behind him I'd be fairly sure that he'd know what he was doing as far as hiding a cache is concerned.

Link to comment

I agree that it's good advice to find a range of caches before attempting hides. To my mind, about 100 is a fair rule of thumb and that should include all the common types. Perhaps a better rule of thumb would be to find 100 caches with at least one favourite point and including all the common types (Mystery, Traditional, Multi, Micro, Small, Regular). And at least up to 3* difficulty and terrain. And a mix of urban and countryside caches.

 

If a cacher had that behind him I'd be fairly sure that he'd know what he was doing as far as hiding a cache is concerned.

 

That mix might put new geocachers off hiding for a time but in a way that would probably improve the overall quality of cache hides. If someone has found that kind of mix of caches it's probably safe to say that they'll have seen the difference between a cache that takes someone to a nice spot, and a cache behind a post for no reason other than there's a post with no caches within 528 feet.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...