Logs in understandable language

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

...to my idea of the international activity geocaching.

 

So what is your idea of an international activity?

 

The fact that geocaching is played all over the world is not sufficient to make it "international"? The fact that I can visit any country (where there is a cache) and find a cache there is not sufficient to make it international? The fact that I get logs on the caches I own from people around the world (in many different languages) does not make it international? The game even fits the dictionary definiton of "international".

 

international

Definition

in·ter·na·tion·al[ ìntər náshən'l ]ADJECTIVE

1. involving several countries: involving two or more countries or their citizens

2. crossing national boundaries: extending beyond or across national boundaries

 

I guess I am missing something.

[cezanne]

...to my idea of the international activity geocaching.

 

So what is your idea of an international activity?

 

The fact that geocaching is played all over the world is not sufficient to make it "international"?

 

No. In all civilized countries we have schools and teachers run through an education process, but it can be very hard to change from one country to another one. The various school and education systems are not international at all.

 

What you mention rather is a requirement to refer to something as worldwide (in the case of geocaching - in general it depends on the number of countries involved) - international in the strict sense for me requires communications talking place in all directions and strong links being present and not having many small separate subcommunities that are hardly connected to each other.

 

The fact that I can visit any country (where there is a cache) and find a cache there is not sufficient to make it international?

 

Actually, there the language restrictions start. For me the language it is an essential part of the type of caches I'm interested into.

For me it is not about finding a container at an arbitrary place and log it online to increase my find count. I want to select the caches fitting my preferences

carefully, do want to visit caches that are a kind of guided tour of an area and do want to read about the experiences of other caches before and after my visit to a cache (and often even independently of a visit at all - for example, I love to read logs for alpine hiking caches I will never be able to do due to health restrictions).

 

I tried, but realized that geocaching for me in countries the language of which I am not understanding is nearly impossible. I have cached in Denmark in 2003 - that was very fine back then, but now it would be frustrating to select the few suitable multi caches among tons of inappropriate caches.

 

The fact that I get logs on the caches I own from people around the world (in many different languages) does not make it international? The game even fits the dictionary definiton of "international".

 

For me what's missing is in this setting is the mutual understanding.

 

Take e.g. an event with participants from many different countries. I am not happy with small subgroups and each talking in their native language, but prefer a conversation involving all participants in a common language. The same applies to the discussions in forums. Now not only almost all nation has its own geocaching forum, in many countries there are even regional forums. There are hardly any contacts between e.g. cachers from Finland, The Netherlands, Hungary, the US, Germany etc That has been different in the early years.

 

This is even true on a very local view. For example, there are no connections between the Slovenian cachers living close to the Styrian border and the Styrian ones living in the Graz area and further South. The events in the Graz area might well be of interest to some Slovenian cachers, but they would not feel comfortable among a hord of cachers many of them speak Styrian dialect and are not willing to put a little bit more effort in talking English. The situation was very different in the the first two years of geocaching in my country.

 

I am not saying that there should not exist local geocaching forums, events where not all the participants speak the same language, geocaching sites that make use of many languages etc. I am just saying that a site uniquely bsed on English allowing all people who chose to use this site to understand each other (at least from the language point of view) is something that I would like to have and that fits my idea of an international activity. English is just the language that seems to be the only possible language for this type of site. There are other languages which are nearer to my heart, but none that is fitting better.

 

Those who prefer to communicate only in their native tongue or have no other chance as they know no other language. are free to do whatever they prefer. I am not looking down on them. It is just not conforming to my idea of an international community.

 

I hope that I managed to explain what I have in mind with international more closely.

 

Cezanne

Edited September 21, 2011 by cezanne

[+speakers-corner]

Cezanne

What you seem to be talking about is "Utopia", and this will never happen.After professing that you log your caches in English, I have seen that you have infact logged caches in German. Which is a contradiction of what you said. As said before, play the game as you wish. Let other log in a language that they know and understand. If there are queries about the log the owner can translate it for checking.

[cezanne]

Cezanne

What you seem to be talking about is "Utopia", and this will never happen.

 

Actually, this was how geocaching in Austria has been in 2002 and 2003 and also to some extent in 2004. (It took until May 2007 until the first local reviewer started his work - until that point of time Erik, who is still a kind of reviewer hero for most Austrian geocachers of the early years, has done all the reviewing work in Austria which has been quite a big burden of work.) I started geocaching in 2002 under these premises and did not have the slightest idea of how dramatic changes would happen afterwards.

It has become utopia later on by the inflow of other groups of cachers and the development towards small separated subcommunities.

Not in my worst nightmares would I have guessed that it might later on happen that I get insulted just for logging in English.

 

For some years I have had some hope that Groundspeak would be willing to support the target group to which I belong in some ways e.g. by adding support for multilingual descriptions, attributes that make it possible to search for the provided language versions, not changing the EC guidelines by removing the requirement for an English version and forcing the cache owners to use a local language (I am still very, very bitter about that change - I need to admit) etc. All these hopes have faded away over time. I learn that Groundspeak has no interest at all in supporting what you I refer to as international aspect for the sake of brevity. (I have explained in detail what I mean with this so I think no further explanation is necessary).

 

It appears to me that the only hope would be that someone else comes up with an alternative geocaching site which is uniquely based on English. I am not any longer putting any hopes in Groundspeak.

 

After professing that you log your caches in English, I have seen that you have infact logged caches in German.

 

I have provided German versions of some logs, e.g. of all maintenance logs (I have mentioned that before), but that does not contradict the statement that I log in English. I have logged a few events only in German, but have changed over to logging them exclusively in English as well. I thought I could leave out this tiny detail not playing any role in this discussion.

As my cache pages are regarded, up to 2005 I provided German and English versions - my last two caches only have an English version and I am not going to change this. I am vers strict about this up to the point that in comes close to the borderline of stubborn because I am so angry about the development into so many small subcommunities with no interest into each other.

 

As said before, play the game as you wish. Let other log in a language that they know and understand. If there are queries about the log the owner can translate it for checking.

 

I just wrote what type of logging behaviour I would prefer from my personal view. I did not vote for the suggestion of MAntunes and I have never asked someone to provide a log in another language.

I need to admit however that I objected against translating some of my logs if the inquiry was not polite and was attacking me for using English. I should also mention that in the early times of geocaching I sometimes invested 20 minutes and more in providing a German version of a log of mine (because the owner is a friend of a close friend of mine) just to receive a reply from the owner providing me with critique that he is not interested in my log at all and why I could not just log "Cache is ok". (In case you want to look at the cache and my logs, here is the link

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=d8fd6258-cd00-4b68-a8d9-402ad3e49eba )

Clearly translating a log of 1-2 sentences does hardly need any time - it would take me less time to provide your average log in Italian (a language that I hardly know) than to provide my typical logs in German.

 

I am not complaining about the way others log. I simply said that the language issue makes it mostly impossible for me to enjoy caching abroad in countries where I do not understand the language. That's a fact. I fully respect that for fans of traditionals and for people who mainly care about the container, things are all different than for me. I'd just like to point out that this is not true for everyone and the suggestion to play the game as one wants to play it requires the necessary framework around.

 

Cezanne

Edited September 21, 2011 by cezanne

[+ekhoc]

If they cache around the world, they may understand the minimum of english to be able to deal with the site. And if this is truth, they have an opportunity to improve their english. I'm not saying that they should or must learn english but that they have the opportunity.

 

The geocaching.com site is nowadays available in multiple languages: Catalan, Czech, Dutch, English, Estonian, French, German, Hungarian, Korean, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish. Expecting more to come.

 

One does no longer necessarily need any English skills to use the site, which can add some complexity to the issue. It is very possible that a cacher understands neither the language of the cache owner, nor English. Travelling with only hand signs as a communication method may be a bit difficult. but it is possible.

 

Perhaps we should ask for a possibility to log with a video instead of written text?

[+MAntunes]

Yes, it's truth. I forgott to mention that, prior to create this topic, I checked with the forum leaders and I was informed, by one of them, that the process of translation is in progress. I don't know how complete it is for that language, but we are discussing a particular situation and I think that no law, guideline, or rule can address all particular situations and that's why I suggested for a more equal treatment between cache owners and authors of the logs, when a dispute arises.

[cezanne]

and I think that no law, guideline, or rule can address all particular situations and that's why I suggested for a more equal treatment between cache owners and authors of the logs, when a dispute arises.

 

But you still did not explain how this could/should work in practice. So suppose that cacher 1 owns a cache and speaks only the language A and cacher 2 visits a cache of cachers 1 and speaks only the language B and A is different from B. Cacher 2 will have at least the same troubles to translate his log into language A than cacher 1 will have to translate the long into language B (I wrote at least as using a language actively is typically more difficult than using it passively.)

 

There exists no general solution to this dilemma if you do not accept automatic translations and if really the understanding of the logs is what plays a role for you.

If you are just concerned about the wording of the guidelines, then your suggestion should have been a different one, namely to rephrase the guidelines and remove the part where the cachers are to perform a sort of quality control for the logs. Except for the grandfathered virtuals, this quality control is not any longer really making sense in times where empty logs are acceptable.

 

Cezanne

[+MAntunes]

"But you still did not explain how this could/should work in practice."

 

You are right. Maybe it's better to give a preview what could be a response from Groundspeak to the suggestion posted in the Feedback area.

 

I'll get back to the topic tomorrow, since i'm occupied with the studies. My classes started this week.

 

Thank you for the sugestion implied.

[cezanne]

 

The geocaching.com site is nowadays available in multiple languages: Catalan, Czech, Dutch, English, Estonian, French, German, Hungarian, Korean, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish. Expecting more to come.

 

One does no longer necessarily need any English skills to use the site, which can add some complexity to the issue.

 

The start of this development has taken place much earlier, namely when local reviewers speaking the local language have been introduced in most countries after some time. The translation of the interface has just been another step into this direction, but not a major one from this point of view. In any case, both measures resulted into unpleasant results from my personal point if view, but certainly have contributed to increase the income of Groundspeak considerably.

 

Cezanne

[+wildchld97]

Do you trust in an automatic translator to say to a geocache owner that a log, written in a language he/she doesn't understand, "appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate. " ?

This is not merely a matter of cache maintenance because it is not needed that a log be "bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate". It is only needed that a log appear to be "bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate. " And, how do you check if a dnf is "bogus" or "counterfeit"? Any kind of log (found, dnf, note) specially if generated by an automatic translator, can be interpreted as being "off-topic or otherwise inappropriate"! Do you trust in an automatic translator for this task?

 

Do you think it's fair that a geocache owner, that has all the responsabilities he/she accepted when submitting a listing to be published, still has to do the effort to translate a log written in a language he/she doesn't understand and, in some situations, he/she may not even recognize the language in order to pick the correct settings in the automatic translator for, at the minimum, to try to understand it? Do you think this is a fair situation? If the geocache owner decides to ask for the translation, directly to the author of the log, isn't fair that Groundspeak should support the geocacher that is being complying with the point 2.1 of the guidelines (Geocache maintenance/page upkeep) if the author of the log refuses to change it or, at least, to supply an english version to the cache owner?

 

Have your say and, if you agree, give your votes here in this suggestion in the Feedback area: http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/2255734-logs-in-understandable-language (don't miss the clarification/aditional points I added yesterday as a result of the first comments and doubts that appeared).

 

This is not a request for an alr. This is a request for a guideline change, promoting readability of all logs by geocache owners and, in case of a conflict, that Groundspeak supports the geocache owner and not the person who made the log and refuses to supply a translation or to change the log to a language that can be undoubtedly understood by the geocache owner.

 

Even if you have English as mother language, you may, some day in the future, receive a log in one of your geocaches, written by a foreing geocacher, in a language you don't even know what it could be, and you may want to know what he exactly wrote, no matter if it is a found, dnf or note.

 

Thank you.

 

ps: I was authorized by two of the forum leaders/moderators, to make a post promoting a suggestion in the Feedback area.

 

My opinion...? Get over it. Jimmney Crickets...do you even HAVE a life?

[cezanne]

 

My opinion...? Get over it. Jimmney Crickets...do you even HAVE a life?

 

While I do not agree with the proposal of MAntunes, I feel that some of the replies he got are quite unfair and result from not

understanding the background of his feedback suggestion. The situation in a country like the US and the situation in a country like Portugal cannot be compared. MAntunes suggestion was an attenmpt to react to some incidents in the Portuegese community (he did not give details) where some cache owners wanted to react with archiving their caches and/or writing Portuegese logs all over the world because they felt badly treated by Groundspeak and cache loggers logging in languages they could not understand.

 

MAntunes, as a cacher of the early years in Portugal where using English as a courtesy to foreigners was common, made an attempt to avoid these reactions of some his colleagues. One need not agree with his suggestion, but still I'm unhappy with the fact that some insulting comments come from people who apparently did not understand the background.

 

A similar situation happened back when many cachers from the Netherlands complained about issues they have with spoiler sites. This also ended up in numerous comments from cachers from countries where this problem hardly exists and where the vast majority of caches are traditionals. The comments received were often of the type of your comment above. What might create some hope for MAntunes is that in case of the Dutch case, it finally led to a changed formulation of the guidelines. Maybe something similar is possible in this case as well if MAntunes adapts his suggestion and asks for a changed formulation of the part of the guideline where the cache owners are asked to do something which in the strict sense they cannot do if they do not understand the log and which has become outdated anyway as even empty logs are ok by now.

 

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

A lot of Cachers are senior citizens who only speak the language of where they come from. A lot of them have the time and the money to travel the world, caching as they go. Are you saying that they can only log caches if the speak the local language or English. I think this is expecting too much.

 

I forgot to mention some important aspect about this which is not related to logging. The real issue is not the logging process. If people have found the cache and signed the log book, they are entitled to log online.

 

The real issue is that so many cachers propose to visit traditionals without having read the cache description (either because of lazyness or because of not understanding the language in which the text is written etc). I know many traditionals where it is possible to find and log the container without reading the description, but in many cases the cache description contains important information that need to be taken into account and if this does not happen often problems arise (e.g. with residents living nearby etc). I'd welcome if there existed two types of traditionals, distinguished from each other by an attribute of the form

"cache description required". Given the current situation, it is recommendable to turn traditionals into multi caches and ?-caches to scare off those who are not willing or able to read the cache description.

 

Cezanne

[+MAntunes]

Here it is:

 

First, the assumptions:

 

- The guidelines:

 

I was educated, since the beggining of my geocaching existence, some years ago, that guidelines are the rule, the law that guides our acts in this activity. Each on and all the guidelines are meant to be respected and followed. And, if in at any moment i broke any, I assume all responsibilities for that if someone point me a fact. They changed over times, during all this years since i started, so it might happen.

 

But, still nowadays, I'm used to think that the guidelines are to be respected and followed and we, the older cachers in our local community, are consistently teaching and referring to the new ones several aspects of the guidelines. Even, our local reviewers have, in their profile pages, links to the guidelines and other documents that help geocachers do the things well.

So, it was a complete surprise for me, and I really mean it, i'm not being sarcastic, that some guidelines are not being forced to be followed. What guidelines should I follow and which ones shouldn't, when I submit my next cache - yes, i was planning to place a new cache, i already commented that with some fellow cachers, but now i'm going to wait for this to get clearer for me.

 

- The right for a owner to understand what others write in his caches:

 

As a geocacher I valorize more the role of the cache onwer than the role of the cache visitor because, without placing caches, there are not visits to them. For me, a cache owner deserves the prize for his efforts to create and maintain the cache, I think that foreign cachers should (not must, but should) try to write a log that cache owners can read without forcing them to seek for translation. It's a matter of personal opinion, i know, and i respect other's opinion. And, please, note that in the cache owner's efforts to create and maintain a cache, i include the translation to a language that most foreign geocachers can understand; english.

 

- The language:

 

I assume that most cachers that travels around the world and visits caches in other countries understands english. The language in which Groundspeak's sites are based and the language that existed as the only option for many years. And not only in the GS sites but also in other sites, services and facilities. What languages are available in the planes when flight assistants talk to the passengers or in the magazines that one find in the seats: local language and english, mainly. What languages are available in the ATMs, coffee machines, leaflets, etc.... when a geocacher visits a foreign country? Local language and english, mainly. Sometimes other languages are also present but english is present most of the situations.

 

But Cezzane already did a great job explaining why english is the language that gives meaning to the word, Internationalization. I am sorry if some citizens of other countries don't like to read this, but it is my assumption and i guide my acts and, in this situation, my suggestion, by my assumptions.

 

Are my assumptions completely wrong? All of them? Or only part of some? Are everyone's assumptions allways correct?

 

 

Then, the motivations:

 

Having known of the situation, that I must not identify (it is closed and my concerns regards the future), and knowing that it was not the first time, and knowing that in this last situation, the cache owner sent an email asking politely to the author of the log to supply a translation, I felt unfair that Groundspeak supported the author of the log, recovering his log, and abandoned the cache owner that created the cache, supplied an english translation in the cache listing and that, accordingly to the guidelines, has the responsibility to monitor logs for quality control and that, accordingly to the same guidelines, must (please note, must) delete logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate.

 

Then i thought, and discussed that in one of our local foruns, if a owner has that responsibilities, how is possible that GS supports the author of the log when he refused the request to supply a translation to a log he made in a cache that has english translation? If the cache owner has that responsibilities, how is possible to interpret correctly the log written by the author in a way that is completely feasable and with no excuses, that what the cache owner read was not what the author wrote? How can a cache owner monitor quality control of the posts or decide if a post appears to be offtopic or otherwise inappropriate using an online/automatic translator?

 

That's why I, with some input and support from some geocachers in one of our local foruns, decided to made the suggestion in the Feedback area and that's why i asked permission to post this topic in this forum asking for your opinions.

The suggestion had the assumptions and the motivations referred above and nothing more. And this decision occurred after we tried to avoid someone to archive his caches and saying to another person that writing logs in our language, in foreign caches, as a retaliation, is not the correct way do deal with the issue.

 

 

Finally, the detailed suggestion:

 

1) Write somewhere a recommendation (it was written rule or guideline but i don't see a way to edit the original text of the suggestion) for the foreign cachers that they should try to write their logs in the language in which caches listings was written or english. In practical terms it will be mostly english but when i said "language in which the cache listing was written" i'm aware of similar languages that exists and that a user of one language understands correctly the other - it his decision to use either. And now, after all this discussion that, i think raised the problem and clarified some aspects, i add, "if the visited geocache has translation in english". That would increase reciprocity between local cachers and foreign cachers.

 

2) Free cache owners from the responsibility to monitor logs for quality control, off-topic and otherwhise inappropriate content.

 

These is a very dangerous part of the guidelines. Even if the author supplies his logs in an extremely correct and legal language, written by himself, in English or in the language the page was written, or in the local language, in whatever country someone whiches to point as an example, this is a very trouble making guideline because it gives to the cache owner the freedom to interpret a log in his own way. I don't know how it is in each of your countries but in mine, country laws are over company guidelines. And, excuse me, but while these guidelines are visible online in the GS's pages they are meant to be followed. And one person can argue that, in his own interpretation, a log is "off-topic or otherwise counterfeit", that he was given the powers to delete the log and that he is using his powers carefully and that, yes, for him it worth the time for the dispute.

 

If the cache owners, or geocachers in their role as cache owner, are completely freed from the responsibility to monitor logs for ambiguous content then, yes, an automatic / online translator can do perfectly the job!

 

I kept myself firm with the original assumptions about the guidelines because no one denied the affirmations written in this topic that not all of them are being forced to be applied or followed or whatever term you prefer. I still have the same assumptions. But let's continue with the details.

 

So, i'd suggest;

- remove the terms "must delete" and replace it by "may delete".

- remove the term "appear to be" and replace it by "are"

- completely remove the terms "off-topic and otherwise inappropriate".

The point referred in the suggestion "Cache maintenance/page upkeep" could be something like "cache owners may delete logs that are bogus or counterfeit". This would move this guideline from the field of ambiguousness to the field of pure cache maintenace. If a log, and now i mean a find log, that was posted online and the cache owner, in his maintenance duties, discovers that the log has no correspondence in the physical logbook, then he can delete the log. Please, note that I don't suggest 'must' but 'can'. That will leave room for arbitration from Groundspeak if the author of the log reports the situation.

 

3) Equalize the treament that Groundspeak gives to cache owners and authors of the logs.

 

From the situations that came to my knowledge and from what i read in this topic, there should be a change in attitude from Groundspeak here.

 

Cache owners are the ones that creates and maintains raw material for the GS's business: geocaches. If not the most important in GS income at these days, geocaches are the original motivation for all this joy, adventure and hobby that we share around all the world. I think that geocachers when in the role of cache owners deserve more respect and a better treatment.

 

 

And this is it. This new version of the suggestion has a different tone - at least i tried. The original text in the Feedback area was wrote with the assumptions i referred and the sense that we are facing an unfair situation. Both versions have the same motivation and the same goal. If I could edit the text of the suggestion, I'd add some words about the assumptions, replace the term "rule/guideline" by the term "recommendation" and add the sentence "if the visited geocache has translation in english".

[+speakers-corner]

The problem of a person visiting a foriegn cache and writing a log in his own language wil still be there. If this person has signed the log book he can log his find online. If he then has to log this find in the language of the listing or English, and cannot speak either language and uses a translation programm you might end up getting something of no comprehension and the log will then be deleted. Is it not better to accept the log entry, and if there is doubt do the translasion your self as CO. The only other answer for this problem is "TFTC" as a log entry. It is in English and the logger says thank you and nothing else. Is that what you want?

[+redsox_mark]

The most recent post by the OP is well written and clear. I think the intentions are honourable. I still don't think such a guideline change is needed.

 

Putting the language aside for a moment - I think cache owners should monitor the logs and delete ones which are inappropriate - though those cases are very rare. For example, say someone who is anti-geocaching writes some logs on my cache page threatening cache owners or geocachers.. or using offensive language etc.

 

Now, I understand... that it makes it harder to do the above if I can't understand the language the log is written in. Though most of the time an automatic translation is enough. Now, it could be (this is totally made up, but you get the point), that I can't tell if an expression is offensive. Let's say I get a log in Albanian and in the translation is the phrase "your mother is friendly with bulls". Now that might be highly offensive in Albanian.. or it may be that bulls are in high regard and this is a compliment. I would give the log writer the benefit of the doubt; Groundspeak is not going to punish me as a cache owner for not recognising an Albanian insult.

 

(Actually, this can happen even within English. I've seen for example an American repeating an English expression, which is offensive in England, but not in America).

 

The main issue I have with the language part is treating English as special. I recently found a cache in Spain; page written in Spanish. I don't speak Spanish; I put a few Spanish words in my log, but I logged in my native language. As it happens, that is English. But if my native language was something else, I should be free to use that language.

 

I guess I lack the motivation for a change here, as I've not personally seen a problem. The OP it seems has. I suppose if I'd seen this problem myself I may feel differently.

[+MAntunes]

The problem of a person visiting a foriegn cache and writing a log in his own language wil still be there.

 

No. I think it wont be there. Because, if the cache owner is released from the responsibilities to monitor logs for quality control or other ambiguous content, he won't need to delete a log as the actual guidelines require (please, note the term 'must').

 

About offensive logs, if a cache owner receives a log (any type of log) he thinks it has explicit content, is offensive, threatening, etc..., from any geocacher, not only foreign visitors, I think the best thing to do is to report that log to Groundspeak. GS will judge if the cache owner is right and will act or close the issue. It already happens this way with logs and emails (sent from Groundspeak's email system) and Groundspeak already proved that can read a log, or an email, in several languages.

[+Markwell]

...if the cache owner is released from the responsibilities to monitor logs for quality control or other ambiguous content, he won't need to delete a log as the actual guidelines require (please, note the term 'must').

So this whole problem goes away if you look at the guidelines as somewhat flexible, able to be interpreted on a case-by-case basis instead of looking at them as rigid laws?

[+MAntunes]

Then we came back to the problem that not all of the guidelines are being forced to be applied (is this truth?). What guidelines?

 

When sould I look at the guidelines as somewhat flexible, able to be interpreted on a case-by-case basis? And what guidelines should I look that way? If a guideline is clearly written in the guidelines pages, how can I know the way, and when, Groundspeak is going to interpret them with flexibility, or as rigid laws?

[cezanne]

The problem of a person visiting a foriegn cache and writing a log in his own language wil still be there.

 

That's true, but if the cache owners are not asked to perform quality control for their logs, it does matter much less and the source of the problem behind this thread will be gone. The issue seems to be discussions between cache owners who take the quality control request very serious and cache visitors who log in a language not understandable for the cache owner.

 

The only other answer for this problem is "TFTC" as a log entry. It is in English and the logger says thank you and nothing else. Is that what you want?

 

I guess from the point of view of someone feeling that he is urged to delete offtopic, counterfeit, bogus, inappropriate logs etc, the answer is yes.

The other solution will be to change that unfortunate part of the guidelines that many of us simply ignore, but this does not imply that everyone wants to proceed in that manner.

 

Cezanne

Edited September 22, 2011 by cezanne

[cezanne]

...if the cache owner is released from the responsibilities to monitor logs for quality control or other ambiguous content, he won't need to delete a log as the actual guidelines require (please, note the term 'must').

So this whole problem goes away if you look at the guidelines as somewhat flexible, able to be interpreted on a case-by-case basis instead of looking at them as rigid laws?

 

This case by case interpretation works usually reasonably well if one of the sides involved is a reviewer, but it does not work that way if two cachers with conflicting views collide.

 

In my opinion, the part about quality control of the logs does not make any longer sense and should be deleted or rephrased to account for the many changes in logging habits which have taken place since this part of the guideline has been written. Quality control appears to be a ridiculous term in times when empty logs are intentionally allowed.

 

Suppose I am going to hide a buried cache and defend it with the argument that the guidelines are to be interpreted flexible. That does not make sense. It makes sense, however, if a reviewer grants a certain exception in cases where flexibility is helpful.

 

Cezanne

Edited September 22, 2011 by cezanne

[+A & J Tooling]

When visiting another country, you always are treated better if you 'attempt' to speak their language. Even if you screw it up, you get treated a lot better if you try. It is the polite thing to do. Just sayin'

[+CanadianRockies]

This case by case interpretation works usually reasonably well if one of the sides involved is a reviewer, but it does not work that way if two cachers with conflicting views collide.

If a geocacher and a cache owner are having a serious conflict regarding inappropriate logs, then either one can request assistance from Groundspeak. From the guidelines:

 

10. If you are a geocacher and you believe that your log was deleted in error, you will have politely emailed the cache owner requesting that the log be reinstated. If you require further assistance, please email contact@geocaching.com.

 

Suppose I am going to hide a buried cache and defend it with the argument that the guidelines are to be interpreted flexible. That does not make sense. It makes sense, however, if a reviewer grants a certain exception in cases where flexibility is helpful.

It doesn't make sense to argue that you can bury any cache because the guidelines are flexible. It does make sense to argue that you should be able to bury specific caches when special situations convince reviewers to make exceptions. Reviewers, for example, generally allow caches to be buried in pre-existing holes. They also might allow caches to be buried on private property with permission, although some might urge the hider to reconsider.

 

Despite what the OP believes, the guidelines are not ironclad rules. Groundspeak generally gives its reviewers some leniency to apply the rules differently when unusual situations warrant. They don't spell out all the exceptions because that would result in very, very, very long guidelines.

 

Groundspeak also gives cache owners some leniency as well. If an owner doesn't delete an inappropriate log that is written in a language they don't understand and which an online translator doesn't interpret well, then it is extremely unlikely that Groundspeak will hold the cache owner responsible.

Edited September 22, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[cezanne]

This case by case interpretation works usually reasonably well if one of the sides involved is a reviewer, but it does not work that way if two cachers with conflicting views collide.

If a geocacher and a cache owner are having a serious conflict regarding inappropriate logs, then either one can request assistance from Groundspeak. From the guidelines:

 

10. If you are a geocacher and you believe that your log was deleted in error, you will have politely emailed the cache owner requesting that the log be reinstated. If you require further assistance, please email contact@geocaching.com.

 

I am aware of this, but based on what you have heard from other cachers and have read in various forums, Groundspeak in recent years tends to act in favor of the person logging a cache in case the log is a legitimate one.

If the debate is whether someone is allowed to write a 10 lines long log exclusively in Albanian and if neither Groundspeak nor the cache owner understand Albanian will typically decided against the cache owner who will have to let the log stand if there exists a log entry in the log book.

 

I guess that something along this lines happened in Portugal that the cache owners were asked to let the logs stand and felt annoyed by that decision as they feel that in order to comply with the guidelines about log deletion they need to understand the logs.

 

Groundspeak also gives cache owners some leniency as well. If an owner doesn't delete an inappropriate log that is written in a language they don't understand and which an online translator doesn't interpret well, then it is extremely unlikely that Groundspeak will hold the cache owner responsible.

 

I agree, but not everyone wants to rely on leniency. There are people who want to do everything they do in the best way possible for them. I can understand that for some of them the current situation is frustrating. Leniency also somehow reminds me a bit of a hierarchical system - like a teacher can give leniency to pupils. Groundspeak isn't an authority to me.

 

Cezanne

Edited September 22, 2011 by cezanne

[+CanadianRockies]

If the debate is whether someone is allowed to write a 10 lines long log exclusively in Albanian and if neither Groundspeak nor the cache owner understand Albanian will typically decided against the cache owner who will have to let the log stand if there exists a log entry in the log book.

This seems like a reasonable approach. I would assume that the log is appropriate unless there was some indication otherwise. If someone who understands Albanian informs Groundspeak that there is a problem, then I'd hope they'd take some action at that point.

 

I guess that something along this lines happened in Portugal that the cache owners were asked to let the logs stand and felt annoyed by that decision as they feel that in order to comply with the guidelines about log deletion they need to understand the logs.

If the guidelines are interpreted leniently, then they are in compliance if they don't understand the logs and if the online translators don't appear to indicate a problem.

 

...not everyone wants to rely on leniency. There are people who want to do everything they do in the best way possible for them. I can understand that for some of them the current situation is frustrating. Leniency also somehow reminds me a bit of a hierarchical system - like a teacher can give leniency to pupils.

The alternative to not relying on reasonable flexibility is to have a very, very, very long set of guidelines rules that are constantly being revised to take into account new situations when they arise. I don't believe many people would be happy with that.

 

Groundspeak isn't an authority to me.

But Groundspeak does have authority over how you use their services. From their Terms of Use Agreement:

 

Groundspeak reserves the right to suspend or revoke, in its sole discretion, the license hereunder and to prevent You from accessing all or any portion of the Site with or without notice or reason and without liability on the part of Groundspeak.

Edited September 22, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+hzoi]

Do you think it's fair that a geocache owner, that has all the responsabilities he/she accepted when submitting a listing to be published, still has to do the effort to translate a log written in a language he/she doesn't understand and, in some situations, he/she may not even recognize the language in order to pick the correct settings in the automatic translator for, at the minimum, to try to understand it? Do you think this is a fair situation?

 

Yes, I do think it's fair, because I have been on both sides of the coin.

 

My wife and I are American, our first language is English. I am able to understand some spoken German, I am better at reading it and translating it to English, but it's mostly a one-way skill: because I have never formally studied German, my ability to communicate in it, either spoken or written, is poor at best. I took French in high school and one semester in college, but due to disuse, my French skills are pretty similar to my German: mostly one-way

 

We started caching in Germany in 2007, when we were stationed there with the Army. We've cached in 34 countries outside of the US, Until a couple of months ago, we had more finds outside the United States than in it. Over 90% of those caches were in a foreign language. I used an online translator often to get a gist of those cache descriptions and carried a dictionary in the field to translate stages. Some caches we weren't able to complete because of our limited language ability; most we were able to get enough information to find them. All of our logs are in English. To date, I have received no complaints from those cache owners asking for a log in their language, and I didn't complain to the cache owners asking for an English translation of the cache. A few times I asked some cache owners to verify my translation when I needed it for a puzzle cache or something along those lines.

 

We also hid caches in Germany, some of which are still active. The listings are in English. 99% of the hundreds of logs we've gotten on our caches over there are in German. I can understand a little of the logs without using a translation, I use a translator to help me understand the logs we get.

 

So, yes, I do think it is fair for cache owners to have to translate the occasional log. Welcome to the international community of Geocaching. If you want this to be a US-only sport, I'm sorry to inform you it's far too late for that.

[cezanne]

If the debate is whether someone is allowed to write a 10 lines long log exclusively in Albanian and if neither Groundspeak nor the cache owner understand Albanian will typically decided against the cache owner who will have to let the log stand if there exists a log entry in the log book.

This seems like a reasonable approach. I would assume that the log is appropriate unless there was some indication otherwise. If someone who understands Albanian informs Groundspeak that there is a problem, then I'd hope they'd take some action at that point.

 

Personally, I do not have a problem with this approach. But some Portuguese cachers do have a problem with it and some wanted to archive their caches are write Portuguese logs abroad as a revenge. Cachers like MAntunes are not happy with this outcome and the outcome was his suggestion.

 

In my personal opinion, the approach above is reasonable under the additional condition that the part of the guidelines implying that the owner is responsible for the quality of the logs is changed or removed. If am responsible for the quality, I would need to delete also empty logs as they are certainly what I regard as bogus. I can accept if Groundspeak is welcoming them, but then the formulation of this part of the guideline needs to be changed independently of any language issues.

 

I guess that something along this lines happened in Portugal that the cache owners were asked to let the logs stand and felt annoyed by that decision as they feel that in order to comply with the guidelines about log deletion they need to understand the logs.

If the guidelines are interpreted leniently, then they are in compliance if they don't understand the logs and if the online translators don't appear to indicate a problem.

 

I am wondering whether if empty logs are ok and not considered as bogus, the owners should be required to use online translators at all. As I mentioned if the accents are missing, the automatic detection often does not work and there are also languages for which translators are very hard to find online.

 

...not everyone wants to rely on leniency. There are people who want to do everything they do in the best way possible for them. I can understand that for some of them the current situation is frustrating. Leniency also somehow reminds me a bit of a hierarchical system - like a teacher can give leniency to pupils.

The alternative to not relying on reasonable flexibility is to have a very, very, very long set of guidelines rules that are constantly being revised to take into account new situations when they arise. I don't believe many people would be happy with that.

 

In this special case, I rather feel that the aspect about quality control has no place any longer in the guidelines.

Why do we need this at all and how is quality defined? It must be a rather strange definition if empty logs pass the quality test.

Avoiding foul languages is not something which falls under quality.

 

Maybe quality (control) means something different for Groundspeak than for people coming from IT, engineering, economy etc.

In any case, I think that it is unfortunate to use such terms and equally undefined like bogus logs in the guidelines.

I someone would have asked me some years ago for an example for a bogus log

logs with a single period and empty ones would have been among my examples.

 

Groundspeak isn't an authority to me.

But Groundspeak does have authority over how you use their services. From their Terms of Use Agreement:

 

Acknowledged, but I meant something different. There are people who prefer to do their best to comply with how they understand Groundspeak's rule and do not want to rely on the fact that Groundspeak is typically acting with lenience.

Consider the following example: A teacher is not explaining appropriately which aspects are important for him with respect to the assignment he is handing out to his students and when some students ask for more information, he does not provide the missing information, but when grading decides to handle the students with lenience because his instructions were incomplete or misleading. That's the feeling I have when I read your lenience statement.

I'd prefer a teacher who provides sufficient instructions and then grades without applying lenience and I do not have to have the feeling of having got a present that I do not deserve and for which I need to be thankful.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited September 22, 2011 by cezanne

[+Trracer]

 

 

Sorry I don't understand your proposal, several teams work on the homepage to translate these in different languages. You can choose your language on the front page and is this not contrary to your proposal?

[cezanne]

 

So, yes, I do think it is fair for cache owners to have to translate the occasional log.

 

MAntunes' question was however a more complex one coupled to the current guideline asking for quality control of the logs.

You reply ignores the quality control part. Automatic translation is definitely not sufficient for doing real quality control.

In my opinion, the real issue underlying this thread is the quality control part of the guidelines.

 

Welcome to the international community of Geocaching. If you want this to be a US-only sport, I'm sorry to inform you it's far too late for that.

 

It's quite amusing to note that this statement is directed to a Portuguese who certainly has to invest quite some effort to make him understood in this thread in English while most participants in this thread are native speakers of English. MAntunes like myself started geocaching back in 2002 and we both learnt to know geocaching as an international activity right from the beginning and have never considered it to be an US-activity. The idea behind using English is to enable communication with people with different native languages. Even the review process has been based on English for quite some years or do you really believe that the US reviewers communicated e.g. in Portuguese back in 2002?

 

Most of the cachers in continental Europe who offer English versions of their cache pages have not lived in English-speaking countries and have learnt English only at school, but tried to use it and made efforts not to forget it in order to communicate with people with other native languages than their own. The role of foreign languages is a different one in Europe than in the US. Of course also many Europeans forget a lot of what they learnt in the language lessons at school, but a much higher percentage of the population is required to have passive and active knowledge of English than US-citizens are required to speak any other language than English.

 

Geocaching in Germany developped differently than geocaching e.g. in Portugal and Austria. Germany got local reviewers relatively soon in the development and for some reasons in Germany it has been less common to use English at least as additional language right from the beginning than e.g. in Austria where almost all early time cachers used English (some of them like myself continue to do so until now). I am quite familiar with the German geocaching scene too and had many hot debates about this issue with a dear friend from Germany who felt ashamed when I logged in English when visiting her.

I know that this gets somehow offtopic, but your exposition about your time in Europe made me comment on this aspect.

 

I respect opinions that differ from mine and I can even understand that most people here cannot understand MAntunes' motivation (and even less my persistence to use English for my geocaching activities), but please avoid these absurd US-only accusations when they are not appropriate.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited September 22, 2011 by cezanne

[cezanne]

 

 

Sorry I don't understand your proposal, several teams work on the homepage to translate these in different languages. You can choose your language on the front page and is this not contrary to your proposal?

 

What you write is not related in any way to the proposal (provided that with homepage you mean the gc.com site).

 

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

All of our logs are in English. To date, I have received no complaints from those cache owners asking for a log in their language,

 

and I didn't complain to the cache owners asking for an English translation of the cache.

 

As Germany is regarded this probably happened because they realized that you are American and this gave you a special bonus and made them think that you could not provide a reasonable German log anyway and that their own English is better or not worse than your German. I, on the contrary, have received complaints several times due to writing English logs for caches in Germany and of course I did not ask them for an English translation.

 

We also hid caches in Germany, some of which are still active. The listings are in English. 99% of the hundreds of logs we've gotten on our caches over there are in German.

 

That fits well to my experience on how the communities in German and Austria have developped and I feel ashamed about it.

I have the utmost understanding for those cachers who log your caches in German because they know no English or because their English is very poor. It makes me angry however that the many cachers who have a good command of English log your caches in German. At least 40% of the loggers of your caches (very conservative estimate - the caches are not in the area of the former GDR) are sufficiently comfortable with writing a few reasonable sentences in English. Very often the philosophy in the background is "We are in Germany/Austria and in Germany/Austria the language is German" and I get very angry at this sort of statement.

 

Cezanne

Edited September 22, 2011 by cezanne

[+Fianccetto]

... "We are in Germany/Austria and in Germany/Austria the language is German"

 

Seems reasonable enough to me.

 

Would you feel just as angry if it were French people in France writing only in French, despite their knowledge of English? Or Catalan only used in caches in Catalonia?

 

Surely the other German geocachers visiting these cachers who don't understand English would want to read the previous logs?

[cezanne]

... "We are in Germany/Austria and in Germany/Austria the language is German"

 

Seems reasonable enough to me.

 

Would you feel just as angry if it were French people in France writing only in French, despite their knowledge of English? Or Catalan only used in caches in Catalonia?

 

Unfortunately, you removed the context of my statement. I guess I should have mentioned before that I my aversion against this statement is not tied to geocaching. The statement is often brought forward as complaint about me logging caches in Austria and Germany in English and as argument why people happily continue to chat in German on a party even when they realize that a guest is present who does not know German, but English and all people present know English. I should have made that point clearer and it was my fault that you misunderstood my statement.

 

Most of the cachers complaining about my English logs have started geocaching years after me and have no idea that it has been common to use English when I started. As I have mentioned several times before, if geocaching has been an activity based on using the German language, I most probably would have never started it.

 

As your question is regarded, from my personal perspective I would prefer that those cachers who are comfortable with English log in English wherever they come from. Nationality does not play any role for me. I used the examples of Austria and Germany as these are the only two countries where I have found several hundreds of caches and know the communities well.

 

 

Surely the other German geocachers visiting these cachers who don't understand English would want to read the previous logs?

 

For those who do not understand English there are still enough logs of they have those at their disposition which are written by cachers with no or only a poor command of English.

 

When I started geocaching I tried to please both audiences - the international one and the those in the beginning very small group of local cachers that did not feel very comfortable with English by offering English and German versions of my caches and those of my logs that are of importance for others. In later years I became less motivated to do so as the number of cachers who are fluent in English, but are not willing to provide Engliosh versions of their caches (not even in tourist areas or near borders to non-German speaking countries and when supplied with the translation) has increased with an annoying rate.

 

I do not receive a lot of understanding for my deficiencies on the motoric side even though they are not based on having been lazy or having forgotten what I have been taught at school or have not put enough effort into the matter. My understanding for those who have attended English lessons for six and more years at school and then claim that they cannot understand simple sentences and feel superior to people like me with my motoric deficiencies that are uncommon is somehow limited.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited September 22, 2011 by cezanne

[+Fianccetto]

... "We are in Germany/Austria and in Germany/Austria the language is German"

 

Seems reasonable enough to me.

 

Would you feel just as angry if it were French people in France writing only in French, despite their knowledge of English? Or Catalan only used in caches in Catalonia?

 

Unfortunately, you removed the context of my statement. The cited part was not about me being angry about others logging caches like hzoi's caches in German, but about the argument some of them use to complain about me logging caches in Austria and Germany in English. Most of them have started geocaching years after me and have no idea that it has been common to use English when I started. As I have mentioned several times before, if geocaching has been an activity based on using the German language, I most probably would have never started it.

 

As your question is regarded, from my personal perspective I would prefer that those cachers who are comfortable with English log in English wherever they come from. Nationality does not play any role for me. I used the examples of Austria and Germany as these are the only two countries where I have found several hundreds of caches and know the communities well.

 

 

Surely the other German geocachers visiting these cachers who don't understand English would want to read the previous logs?

 

For those who do not understand English there are still enough logs of they have those at their disposition which are written by cachers with no or only a poor command of English.

 

When I started geocaching I tried to please both audiences - the international one and the those in the beginning very small group of local cachers that did not feel very comfortable with English by offering English and German versions of my caches and those of my logs that are of importance for others. In later years I became less motivated to do so as the number of cachers who are fluent in English, but are not willing to provide Engliosh versions of their caches (not even in tourist areas or near borders to non-German speaking countries and when supplied with the translation) has increased with an annoying rate.

 

I do not receive a lot of understanding for my deficiencies on the motoric side even though they are not based on having been lazy or having forgotten what I have been taught at school. My understanding for those who have attended English lessons for six and more years at school and then claim that they cannot understand simple sentences and feel superior to people like me with my motoric deficiencies that are uncommon is somehow limited.

 

 

Cezanne

 

Thank you for the clarification that it was the complaints of your use of English, not a desire for every geocacher to use English you were talking about (and sorry for quoting you out of context and thereby misquoting you.)

[cezanne]

 

Thank you for the clarification that it was the complaints of your use of English, not a desire for every geocacher to use English you were talking about (and sorry for quoting you out of context and thereby misquoting you.)

 

It has not been your fault. I have not been clear enough. Probably it is better not posting when being tired and have the mind at the same time also focused on a few other things. The topic also easily gets me emotional and that's a not profitable either.

 

Cezanne

[+hzoi]

Welcome to the international community of Geocaching. If you want this to be a US-only sport, I'm sorry to inform you it's far too late for that.

 

It's quite amusing to note that this statement is directed to a Portuguese who certainly has to invest quite some effort to make him understood in this thread in English while most participants in this thread are native speakers of English. ...

I respect opinions that differ from mine and I can even understand that most people here cannot understand MAntunes' motivation (and even less my persistence to use English for my geocaching activities), but please avoid these absurd US-only accusations when they are not appropriate.

 

Frankly, I was under the impression that MAntunes was American, because I've seen this argument from Americans before. So, go ahead and read my response as "English-only" sport instead of US-only -- because it's no longer an English-only sport, either.

 

All of our logs are in English. To date, I have received no complaints from those cache owners asking for a log in their language, and I didn't complain to the cache owners asking for an English translation of the cache.

 

As Germany is regarded this probably happened because they realized that you are American and this gave you a special bonus and made them think that you could not provide a reasonable German log anyway and that their own English is better or not worse than your German. I, on the contrary, have received complaints several times due to writing English logs for caches in Germany and of course I did not ask them for an English translation.

 

OK, so let's take Germany out of the equation. We came across caches around Barcelona and Andorra with the description in Catalan alone -- we logged in English. We came across caches in France with the description in French alone -- we logged in English. We came across caches in Finland with the description in Finnish only -- we logged in English. We came across caches in Italy in Italian only -- we logged in English. In many of those locations, I've seen logs from other international cachers in their languages only -- German, Portugese, French, English. All allowed to stand.

 

And yes, we came across cache descriptions in Austria in German only, and I bet you'll never guess which language we logged in. Given your posts, however, not surprising there were no objections.

 

Had I known more German, or Finnish, or French, certainly I would have tried to log in the language of cache owners, but that just wasn't the case.

Edited September 22, 2011 by hzoi

[Sivartius]

Then we came back to the problem that not all of the guidelines are being forced to be applied (is this truth?). What guidelines?

 

When sould I look at the guidelines as somewhat flexible, able to be interpreted on a case-by-case basis? And what guidelines should I look that way? If a guideline is clearly written in the guidelines pages, how can I know the way, and when, Groundspeak is going to interpret them with flexibility, or as rigid laws?

 

I think the problem here is one of personal interpretation. You and I both read "Monitor the logs and delete those which are inappropriate." You interpret this to mean, "Read and understand every log and delete any that could be inappropriate." Therefore, if there is any inappropriate material it is the CO's fault for failing to delete it. I interpret it to mean, "Read the logs and make a 'good faith' effort to understand them. If you find anything that is obviously inappropriate, delete it." Therefore, if there is any inappropriate material it should be brought to the CO's attention so that appropriate action may be taken. Both interpretations are fully justified by the text, but given modern American culture, most Americans will automatically assume the second interpretation without considering any other. I am unaware of what role different "Mother Tongues" may play in these interpretations. Perhaps the guidelines could be ammended to clarify this point to show which interpretation they intended, and then we could go from there.

[cezanne]

I think the problem here is one of personal interpretation. You and I both read "Monitor the logs and delete those which are inappropriate." You interpret this to mean, "Read and understand every log and delete any that could be inappropriate." Therefore, if there is any inappropriate material it is the CO's fault for failing to delete it. I interpret it to mean, "Read the logs and make a 'good faith' effort to understand them. If you find anything that is obviously inappropriate, delete it." Therefore, if there is any inappropriate material it should be brought to the CO's attention so that appropriate action may be taken. Both interpretations are fully justified by the text, but given modern American culture, most Americans will automatically assume the second interpretation without considering any other. I am unaware of what role different "Mother Tongues" may play in these interpretations. Perhaps the guidelines could be ammended to clarify this point to show which interpretation they intended, and then we could go from there.

 

Thanks for your post. It was one of the most interesting for me in this thread. I think that the culture and maybe also one's profession plays the essential role here and not the mother tongue. From what is written in the guidelines, I tend to share MAntunes' interpretation (we do not have the same mother tongue and moreover, when I misinterpret statements in English it is usually a sulture issue and not a pure language issue) while my experience with Groundspeak tells me that they probably do not mean it in the way it is written and that your interpretation is the one they have in mind.

 

Cezanne

[+MAntunes]

I think your post is a good contribution for this topic.

 

This iniciative is a suggestion for Groundspeak to remove cache owner's responsibilities to monitor quality control of the logs, along with the other two points.

 

If Groundspeak defines which interpretation they intend, and therefore should be assumed by cache owners, and defines what should be interpreted as quality control of the logs, yes, it could be a response for this part of the suggestion.

I accept that the part of the responsibility issue would be solved. But, i must confess that i cannot define what is quality control of the logs and, allow me to assume, that no one can do it. I still think it would be better to remove that ambiguous part of the text along with the clarification you suggested.

[cezanne]

But, i must confess that i cannot define what is quality control of the logs and, allow me to assume, that no one can do it.

 

Certainly not what people you and myself regard as quality control. It appears to me that here again the American way of looking at it seems to be quite different to the European way. In the US e.g. you can open nearly every type of business without having to provide various certificates, business licences etc. Their approach is that if you are not qualified and not good in your job, you will fail. The approach in most European countries is a completely different one. Clearly my example has no connection to geocaching whatsoever and I use it only to demonstrate that there are many cultural differences some of them come into play in this matter.

 

Since Jeremy defends empty logs he certainly has a different idea about quality control for the logs than what you have in mind. A lot of what they are doing seems to conform to the idea "Let's wait if a problem arises and when it is there, face it" and not based on the attempt to try to advoid many (not all) problems beforehand.

 

Cezanne

Edited September 23, 2011 by cezanne

[+MAntunes]

Since this is an international hobby/game played by people with many cultural differences, as i see it from the very begin of my activity, and it was already underlined in this topic, wouldn't be better to remove the ambigous part of quality control of the logs from the guidelines?

 

I would keep the suggestion to remove it, along with the adition of the clarification suggested by Sivartius and the other two points.

[+redsox_mark]

Since this is an international hobby/game played by people with many cultural differences, as i see it from the very begin of my activity, and it was already underlined in this topic, wouldn't be better to remove the ambigous part of quality control of the logs from the guidelines?

 

I would keep the suggestion to remove it, along with the adition of the clarification suggested by Sivartius and the other two points.

 

The guidelines say:

 

"As the owner of your geocache listing, your responsibility includes quality control of all posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate."

 

Maybe the wording can be further improved... but as I read it the "quality control" is explained in the second (bolded by me) line. So for example:

 

- An obviously false find log by an armchair logger

- People using the cache page as a forum

- Use of inappropriate language

 

And I do think the cache owner should do that.

[+MAntunes]

The problem is that, if Groundspeak doesn't define what it considers as offtopic and otherwise inappropriate content then there be room for different interpretations in different situations with different cache owners.

 

You pointed two situations as examples but there can be others. So, if GS doesn't remove the responsability to monitor quality control of the logs, then why not, applying the previous solution, add a list with what situations Groundspeak will consider as offtopic or otherwise inappropriate? I think it is difficult if not impossible but...

 

The main goal of point 2 of my suggestion is to completely free the role of cache owners from the responsibility to monitor quality control of the logs (the main reason that brought the language and the automatic/online translation subject), but if that responsibility must remain, why not clearly define what GS intends as responsibility and what it intends as offtopic or otherwise inappropriate? I must recall that this game/hobby is played by players around all the world with many cultural differences.

 

If the way cannot be to turn this specific part of the guidelines more generic, so that they can be treated in a case-by-case basis, then I think that they should be clearly defined in its complete extend. It is my suggestion.

 

And also GS could confirm, or deny, that not all the published guidelines are being forced to be applied. And if this is truth, what guidelines are ...inactive?

[cezanne]

Maybe the wording can be further improved... but as I read it the "quality control" is explained in the second (bolded by me) line. So for example:

 

- An obviously false find log by an armchair logger

- People using the cache page as a forum

- Use of inappropriate language

 

And I do think the cache owner should do that.

 

Inappropriate and inappropriate language is not the same for me. As I have mentioned before, an empty log would have been one of my classic examples for an inappropriate found it log, but apparently Groundspeak's point of view differs a lot from mine.

 

Moreover, what is regarded as inappropriate language is also subject to both personal interpretation and cultural aspects (e.g. think of US vs. UK for spaz/spastic).

 

While I agree that cache pages are not to be used as forums and such logs should be deleted, typically such discussions about a cache are not off-topic while comments in a found it log on what the cacher has eaten for lunch will be offtopic, but should not be deleted.

 

Actually, I cannot come with any example for a legitimate "found it" log that should be deleted due to being off topic. I think that offtopic is not a suitable term at all in this context.

 

Cezanne

Edited September 23, 2011 by cezanne

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Maybe the wording can be further improved... but as I read it the "quality control" is explained in the second (bolded by me) line. So for example:

 

- An obviously false find log by an armchair logger

- People using the cache page as a forum

- Use of inappropriate language

 

And I do think the cache owner should do that.

 

Inappropriate and inappropriate language is not the same for me. As I have mentioned before, an empty log would have been one of my classic examples for an inappropriate found it log, but apparently Groundspeak's point of view differs a lot from mine.

 

Agreed. I would actually prefer that Groundspeak, or even reviewers, dictate to me what is appropriate and what isn't. However, what's left unsaid it making a determination on the appropriateness of the contents of the log is that the cache owner *only* takes into account their personal interpretation of appropriateness and makes a decision solely based on their ability to fully understand every log. It seems to me that if someone posts a log in a language that I don't understand I might not be aware that it's inappropriate but there is nothing stopping someone that *does* understand the language from sending me a PM or posting a note in the log indicating that the log contains offensive language. If nobody does that, perhaps the log really isn't that inappropriate. What I don't see happening is getting a message directly from someone at Groundspeak asking that a log be deleted because it's inappropriate. As long as Groundspeak doesn't define what is appropriate and what isn't and leaves that up to individual CO to decide I can't seen GS enforcing a "quality control" policy based on their interpretation. Even if that *did* happen, does anyone really believe there would be repercussions for the cache owner if they failed to exercise sufficient quality control? There *have* been instances of caches being archived when a cache owner allowed bogus logs and when a cache owner allowed the page to be used as a forum but those incidents are typically due to an inactive cache owner. Are there actually cases where Groundspeak has asked a CO to remove logs that are inappropriate that were *not* precipitated by comments from other readers of the logs?

 

While I agree that cache pages are not to be used as forums and such logs should be deleted, typically such discussions about a cache are not off-topic while comments in a found it log on what the cacher has eaten for lunch will be offtopic, but should not be deleted.

 

Actually, I cannot come with any example for a legitimate "found it" log that should be deleted due to being off topic. I think that offtopic is not a suitable term at all in this context.

 

Cezanne

 

I think that the interpretation of "off topic" is pretty much as you suggested; that a finder writes a log that has little to do with the actual experience of finding the cache. I suspect most cache owner grant a bit of latitude for "off topic" verbiage in their logs, as more often than not, it's often fairly entertaining and even "what I had for lunch" can be tangentially related to the experience of finding the cache.

[cezanne]

I would actually prefer that Groundspeak, or even reviewers, dictate to me what is appropriate and what isn't. However, what's left unsaid it making a determination on the appropriateness of the contents of the log is that the cache owner *only* takes into account their personal interpretation of appropriateness and makes a decision solely based on their ability to fully understand every log. It seems to me that if someone posts a log in a language that I don't understand I might not be aware that it's inappropriate but there is nothing stopping someone that *does* understand the language from sending me a PM or posting a note in the log indicating that the log contains offensive language. If nobody does that, perhaps the log really isn't that inappropriate.

 

I think one of the key questions is already whether the approach of simply waiting if someone else who understands the log by chance reads it and contacts the cache owner about a potential issue is enough to comply with the current version of the guideline, or whether e.g. the cache owner is expected to translate the logs or have them translated (whether automatically or by another human being is here not the issue). There is a big difference between these two interpretations. If one is not expected to do the translation part (and is free to undergo it just in case of personal interest), then the language issue that MAntunes talks about is resolved.

 

What I don't see happening is getting a message directly from someone at Groundspeak asking that a log be deleted because it's inappropriate.

 

I fully agree. There are some cachers, however, you would like to have the feeling that they are always doing their best in complying with the guidelines and acting as a role model for new cachers. Those are the target group for a version of the guidelines which is satisfiable which is not true at the moment.

 

Are there actually cases where Groundspeak has asked a CO to remove logs that are inappropriate that were *not* precipitated by comments from other readers of the logs?

 

I have not heard about such incidences, but as I mentioned above I think the main issue is a different one for the group who does not feel comfortable with the current guidelines. I think if I understand it correctly it is more about them feeling not being able to fulfill what they think they are expected to do. That's not an issue of getting some form of punishment in case one does not fulfill what is asked for. So whether or Groundspeak takes any action in such cases or not does not play a role here.

 

I think that the interpretation of "off topic" is pretty much as you suggested; that a finder writes a log that has little to do with the actual experience of finding the cache. I suspect most cache owner grant a bit of latitude for "off topic" verbiage in their logs, as more often than not, it's often fairly entertaining and even "what I had for lunch" can be tangentially related to the experience of finding the cache.

 

I think that the link to the "actual experience of finding the cache" has become quite problematic with the increased cache density and in particular with the upcome of mystery caches. If one visits 20 caches in a row, where does the reporting on the experience from one cache (say cache A) to another one (say cache belong to? Is it already off-topic in the log for cache A because cache A has found before going to cache B? It gets even more complex with puzzle caches.

Moreover, I know cachers who regard comments like "At stage 2 I made a break and had a picnic" as offtopic for the experience of finding the cache which is of course true in the strict sense as of course it has no connection to finding the cache itself. Reporting about the nice landscape or the awful weather does not have either.

 

I agree that most cache owners do not care that much about the offtopic issue and I have had only a single incident over 9 years of

caching where a cacher deleted my found it log with the off topic argument. On the other hand, the fact that most cache owners do not seem to care that much, does not mean that this part of the guideline is well formulated. Certainly there cannot be a rule or example for every single possible case (and I certainly would not like such a set of rules), but I wonder what they really have in mind with the mention of "offtopic" in the guidelines.

 

Cezanne

[Sivartius]

I think one of the key questions is already whether the approach of simply waiting if someone else who understands the log by chance reads it and contacts the cache owner about a potential issue is enough to comply with the current version of the guideline, or whether e.g. the cache owner is expected to translate the logs or have them translated (whether automatically or by another human being is here not the issue). There is a big difference between these two interpretations. If one is not expected to do the translation part (and is free to undergo it just in case of personal interest), then the language issue that MAntunes talks about is resolved.

 

What I don't see happening is getting a message directly from someone at Groundspeak asking that a log be deleted because it's inappropriate.

 

I fully agree. There are some cachers, however, you would like to have the feeling that they are always doing their best in complying with the guidelines and acting as a role model for new cachers. Those are the target group for a version of the guidelines which is satisfiable which is not true at the moment.

 

Cezanne

 

Again we have a cultural disconnect. For most Americans, given the fact that logs in a foreign language are not even mentioned, the permissive approach that you mention above is simply assumed. This is, in my personal opinion, what caused all the: "Why is this even a problem/being brought up?" posts at the beginning of the thread. As for the idea of an explicit listing of what is "off-topic", this is not something that would be culturally acceptable for most of America. Our, perhaps excessive, sense of independance, ("Don't tread on me!" "No Taxation without Representation!" and "Millions for defense, but not $1 for Tribute!" being three very simple examples,) would make it very unpopular. Furthermore, it would attract rules-lawyers like honey does ants, trying to see just how far they can push it. ("But it doesn't say it can't say _________!") What might work is a more thorough guideline, like they have for what is and is not appropriate swag. The thing is, that Groundspeak has made a conscious decision to describe a basic attitude, and leave the specifics up to the individual cachers and reviewers wherever possible. While this small/limited government attitude is extremely laudable to the traditional Americans such as myself, it seems that it is confusing and frustrating to those who grew up with ideas of government and rule which were not formed from Thomas Paine's "Common Sense", the Federalist Papers, and the writings of Locke and Hobbes.

Just for a little clarification, one of the unspoken assumptions that underlines all of Groundspeak's rules is this: As long as you are acting within your own interpretation of these rules, and are doing your best, that is ok, and if your interpretation violates our intent in some fundamental and irreconcilable way we will inform you. If we do not you may assume that what you are doing isn't far wrong.

 

Edited for clarity.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Sivartius

[+mullyman]

Is this an international game? Yes.

 

Is it reasonable for anyone who plays it to post in a language that they are comfortable with? Yes.

 

Should anyone have the right to assume that the whole world should speak English? No. After all, English is a minority language.

 

If you are playing an international game, should you be prepared on occasion to engage with unfamiliar languages, for example to ask for a translation in a forum? Yes. If you can't translate, should you give the benefit of the doubt? Your answer to this will probably indicate how uptight you are about playing a game.

 

Are automatic translation tools to be relied upon? No. Can they give a rough guide to meaning? Sometimes.

 

+1 on this. I'm a native English speaker and I live in Japan. There are so many hurdles with the language barrier it's not funny. Oddly enough, the Japanese cachers, from what I've seen, all have learned the acronyms (TFTC, FTF, etc...) and use them religiously. But then you come here and see people griping about people just leaving a TFTC and nothing else. Can't win for losing really. Like the above poster said, it's an international pastime. Be prepared for foreign languages to appear in logs.

MULLY