removal of notes/logs.

[+bruno-b]

I posted a note for a cache in which I wrote the area was not nice and it was my perception (based on grafitti, broken mopeds, squatters) that the area probably wasnt safe at night.

 

I also suggested the cache should be moved.

 

okay..so I wasnt positive about the cache..which I couldnt reach because of blackberry bushes growing way high.

 

the CO just removed my comment without sending me a note or anything.

 

I think he could have either

-also have posted a note why he didnt agree with my note

or

 

-send me a message to ask me to rephrase certain parts that he didnt agree with.

 

I would like to know your view on this.

[+DanOCan]

As a CO I have no problems with seekers providing me honest feedback about my caches, including the area in which they are hidden.

 

I also suggested the cache should be moved.

 

I think this part crosses the line. Even as a CO who values feedback I would take offence at someone telling me my cache should be moved just because they didn't like it.

 

Stick to the facts and I'm fine. Start adding in opinions and I'm more likely to get my back up in a snit.

 

Fact: The area was pretty rundown and full of litter.

 

Opinion: The area was pretty rundown and full of litter and I think you're cache sucked and should be moved somewhere nicer.

 

Regardless, as a CO I would never delete a log without sending an email to the logger first. I think courtesy should go both ways.

 

Just my take on it based upon the situation you presented.

[+t4e]

CO has the right to remove such notes, its just how it is, even if it seems unprofessional they do not owe you an explanation of any kind

 

i understand your frustration, but it is what it is

 

GC doesn't even require someone to give a reason for deleting a perfectly good standing log

 

that should be a requirement afaic

Edited January 2, 2012 by t4e

[+Harry Dolphin]

I'm not sure what the guideline is for notes. For logs, a CO can delete for offensive material, or giving hints. (I'm sure niraD will be along shortly with the appropriate quote from the Big Book.) I posted a log stating that I thought the parking lot of a porn store was a tacky place to hide a cache. It was deleted. I probably could have had the log reinstated by GS, but chose to post "Found It".

I'm not sure that there are guidelines for notes.

[+cache_test_dummies]

I think he could have either ...

He could have. But he didn't.

 

Not having seen your note, I can't speak to the appropriateness of the cache owners response. Cache owners are allowed to (or are supposed to) delete any logs that "appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate".

 

There are different ways to pass along information in cache logs. Sometimes a more subtle wording can make a big difference. In any case, as a cache owner, I don't think I'd be very receptive to a suggestion to move my cache to a new location. After all, I picked the current location for my own reasons.

 

The fact that you didn't actually find the cache may be playing a role here as well - sometimes people end up searching in the wrong location, and so their logs don't necessarily offer a true reflection of the cache.

[+bruno-b]

 

I also suggested the cache should be moved.

 

I think this part crosses the line. Even as a CO who values feedback I would take offence at someone telling me my cache should be moved just because they didn't like it.

 

I see your point. Maybe this is where I went too far.

 

(though I obviously was right because it was pretty close to a nice park

[Pup Patrol]

It's a service to other cachers to post honest logs about finding graffitti and garbage at a cache location.

 

It's a disservice to other cachers to delete those types of logs.

 

If it was me, I would post another DNF or note, but without the suggestion to move the cache, while still stating the honest facts of what you found there.

 

If the cache owner deletes that, then I would just "move on" and not bother searching for any other caches hidden by that person.

[+NanCycle]

I posted a note for a cache in which I wrote the area was not nice and it was my perception (based on grafitti, broken mopeds, squatters) that the area probably wasnt safe at night.

 

I would like to know your view on this.

 

I had a similar experience. I posted

Thought about going for this one, but with all the DNFs, I decided it's either gone missing or is way over 2.5 difficulty.

Besides, the comments of some seekers make me think that this isn't a place I'd want to go anyway.

 

The CO deleted my note as well as all the DNF logs. I reposted my note with a few additional comments, and it was not deleted again:

 

I am reposting this note which the CO deleted; (please do not delete it again).

 

Thought about going for this one, but with all the DNFs, (there were a bunch of DNFs which the CO also deleted) I decided it's either gone missing or is way over 2.5 difficulty. (Apparently it was just a case of bad coordinates.)

 

Besides, the comments (in the deleted DNF logs) of some seekers make me think that this isn't a place I'd want to go anyway.

 

I don't agree that the CO has a right to delete logs that are simply not complimentary; true, they do have the ability to do so, but I believe that the geopublic has the right to make honest comments without censorship (except censorship such as for profanily or spoilers.)

[+niraD]

I'm not sure what the guideline is for notes. For logs, a CO can delete for offensive material, or giving hints. (I'm sure niraD will be along shortly with the appropriate quote from the Big Book.)

Well, since you insist...

 

The Geocache Maintenance section of the guidelines says in part:

Owner is responsible for geocache page upkeep. 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.

Note the link to the Log Deletion page in the Help Center. The "OWNERS" section of that page is particularly relevant.

[+TerraViators]

IMO, a note should not be deleted because of opinion. Why should all logs be merely facts and no editorializing? I'll take opinions over sterile logs. It was the cachers opinion that it should be removed, not a demand.

[+JohnnyVegas]

I have remove found logs ans well as notes that I did not feel were clear. It can get some cachers upset though. I alway look at the experiance of the cacher leaving the note. Hey if I went through lief being concerned that I might get some oun upset with me all the time, what fun would I be having.

[+BlueDeuce]

As a CO I have no problems with seekers providing me honest feedback about my caches, including the area in which they are hidden.

 

I also suggested the cache should be moved.

 

I think this part crosses the line. Even as a CO who values feedback I would take offence at someone telling me my cache should be moved just because they didn't like it.

 

Stick to the facts and I'm fine. Start adding in opinions and I'm more likely to get my back up in a snit.

 

Fact: The area was pretty rundown and full of litter.

 

Opinion: The area was pretty rundown and full of litter and I think you're cache sucked and should be moved somewhere nicer.

 

Regardless, as a CO I would never delete a log without sending an email to the logger first. I think courtesy should go both ways.

 

Just my take on it based upon the situation you presented.

 

Ayep.

[+JL_HSTRE]

In any case, as a cache owner, I don't think I'd be very receptive to a suggestion to move my cache to a new location. After all, I picked the current location for my own reasons.

 

True, but the area where the cache was placed may have deteriorated in quality since the cache was placed or there may be some issue that the CO did not think of or notice when the cache was originally placed.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Discussion here seems to be about logs... but the OP did not make a log. He/she wrote a note (read it a few times, to make sure).

 

I believe the guidelines address log deletions, but nothing about note deletions.

Based upon that, I think the CO has every right do whatever he/she wants to, for, with and about a note.

 

Make it a log, then ya might have an argument. No log, no gripe.

 

That's my view, as requested.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Gitchee-Gummee

[+redsox_mark]

Discussion here seems to be about logs... but the OP did not make a log. He/she wrote a note (read it a few times, to make sure).

 

I believe the guidelines address log deletions, but nothing about note deletions.

Based upon that, I think the CO has every right do whatever he/she wants to, for, with and about a note.

 

Make it a log, then ya might have an argument. No log, no gripe.

 

That's my view, as requested.

 

This may sound "picky", but a note is a type of log. (As is Found, DNF, NM, etc).

 

I think the guideline

 

"Owner is responsible for geocache page upkeep. 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."

 

applies to all log types. So do not delete any log without good reason.

[+ras_oscar]

The rule I follow when posting logs language that is less than flattering is to assume I am sitting across the table from the CO and we are having a discussion. The anonymity of internet correspondence sometimes emboldens people to communicate in ways they would not follow in person. When I am posting a "DNF" log, I always allow the possibility that the hide is there and I'm not experienced enough to find it. Compare, for example

 

"searched for 30 minutes, its not there, CO needs to go out and replace"

 

with

 

Searched for 30 minutes but this one alluded me. I'll need to sharpen my geo skills and return once another cacher logs a find.

 

 

The message is the same.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Discussion here seems to be about logs... but the OP did not make a log. He/she wrote a note (read it a few times, to make sure).

 

I believe the guidelines address log deletions, but nothing about note deletions.

Based upon that, I think the CO has every right do whatever he/she wants to, for, with and about a note.

 

Make it a log, then ya might have an argument. No log, no gripe.

 

That's my view, as requested.

 

This may sound "picky", but a note is a type of log. (As is Found, DNF, NM, etc).

 

I think the guideline

 

"Owner is responsible for geocache page upkeep. 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."

 

applies to all log types. So do not delete any log without good reason.

While it may be true that a "note" is a form of log, it is only a means of conveying information.

Beings that it (the note) has zero effect upon a persons stats or 'found it' list -- milestones and all that -- I hesitate to see how Groundspeak would intercede and rule that it had any bearing whatsoever with anyone's geocaching accomplishments or the cache history.

As such, I stand by my view of the matter.

 

Also note that I have been wr-wro-wr-wrong before.

[+redsox_mark]

While it may be true that a "note" is a form of log, it is only a means of conveying information.

Beings that it (the note) has zero effect upon a persons stats or 'found it' list -- milestones and all that -- I hesitate to see how Groundspeak would intercede and rule that it had any bearing whatsoever with anyone's geocaching accomplishments or the cache history.

As such, I stand by my view of the matter.

 

Also note that I have been wr-wro-wr-wrong before.

 

I think you are correct that Groundspeak is more likely to get involved with removal of a Found log. But logs are not just for stats, they are to convey information. If I log a note (or a DNF, or a NM) which is not "bogus" and has valid information, I don't think it should be deleted.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Beings that it (the note) has zero effect upon a persons stats or 'found it' list -- milestones and all that -- I hesitate to see how Groundspeak would intercede and rule that it had any bearing whatsoever with anyone's geocaching accomplishments or the cache history.

As such, I stand by my view of the matter.

 

Stand freely ;-) hesitate too.

 

However, the Log Deletion article expressly mentions Write Note log deletion, in terms that suggest it's a Bad Idea.

 

Because you place less value on Write Note, as it's not part of the stats that you track, doesn't alter that Log Deletion references all log types, or that some cachers may value it.

 

Often in these forum discussions, some discount deletion of logs other then Found it! logs. I am as attached to my DNF logs, maybe more. I might be attached to a Write Note log. It's a log a I wrote, it's my history.

[+bruno-b]

Thanks for your views on this. your comments gave me some food for thought:

 

* one thing I did not mention is that I am not a native English speaker (I'm dutch) and the CO most likely is Italian speaking. Maybe the tone of my message (even though not intended) might have sounded rude to him

 

* I do think I crossed the line by suggesting him to move the cache

 

* Next time I will be more careful with the wording of my feedback

 

* I also realised that CO's take pride in their caches in different ways. There seems to be CO's who like it when as many cachers as possible find their cache (hints like: "at the foot of second tree from the left in a blue box - in case you can't find it phone: xyz") while other CO's are very proud the DNF's outnumber the Founds.

 

And now the climax: I messaged the CO to ask him why he removed my note. His reason was that I wrote I crossed a (dead) railroad track and he did not want to encourage other cachers to do the same. I think his intentions are good! So I am going to rephrase my note and post again. (Taking above suggestions into consideration)

 

cheers,

Bruno

Edited January 5, 2012 by bruno-b

[+baloo&bd]

This may sound "picky", but a note is a type of log. (As is Found, DNF, NM, etc).

 

I think the guideline

 

"Owner is responsible for geocache page upkeep. 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."

 

applies to all log types. So do not delete any log without good reason.

 

GS does their very best to stay out of issues like this unless absolutely necessary and, in my experience, try to get the two parties to work things out between themselves first.

 

It has also been my experience that unless the log affects the hunters find counts, they generally will tell you politely to just move along.

 

I have some questions for the OP;

 

1. Did you actually indicate you looked for it anywhere in your log? I ask because your post reads like you decided not to look for it for the reasons you mentioned and, frankly, I would have deleted your log as well. IMO, if you have not looked for it, don't post anything, unless maybe it is your intention to look for it or want me to meet you there to show your gratitude monetarily.

 

2. Assuming the answer to #1 is that you looked for it, why did you not post a DNF, maybe even with your comments, then either email the CO, post a NA or contact the reviewer? All of this assuming that the cache was either unsafe, on private property or somehow did not meet the guidelines. If the area truly had possibly deteriorated over time, as someone indicated earlier, a NM that the owner might want to check the area would even be appropriate.

 

3. Does this somehow directly affect your caching?

 

#3 is the question I wished many answered more often then not. We also need to consider that an area you find undesirable may be an area I have no issue with, so we each have to take into account our own tolerances while hunting these little pieces of Tupperware joy.

[+bruno-b]

1. Did you actually indicate you looked for it anywhere in your log? I ask because your post reads like you decided not to look for it for the reasons you mentioned and, frankly, I would have deleted your log as well. IMO, if you have not looked for it, don't post anything, unless maybe it is your intention to look for it or want me to meet you there to show your gratitude monetarily.

 

I couldn't come closer than 15 meters to the cache. There were thorny bushes, I had to go downhill for a few meters and because it had rained it was muddy and slippery. I did not see any way to come closer to the cache. The reason I did not log a DNF is because I could not get to GZ and hence I could not search the cache. (this is my own condition for either logging a DNF or posting a note.. if I can't get to GZ I couldn't search and I don't consider it a DNF ... this could be argued of course... when you consider finding a way to the cache as searching as well you could consider it a DNF... in this case I decided notto log a DNF)

 

I also wrote this in the note.

 

The reason I did post a note is that I think when fellow cachers want to decide if they are going to try to find a cache, they benefit from other cachers impressions... I know my experience is not objective..but it is up to fellow cachers if they want to base their decision on my note or not

 

 

2. Assuming the answer to #1 is that you looked for it, why did you not post a DNF, maybe even with your comments, then either email the CO, post a NA or contact the reviewer? All of this assuming that the cache was either unsafe, on private property or somehow did not meet the guidelines. If the area truly had possibly deteriorated over time, as someone indicated earlier, a NM that the owner might want to check the area would even be appropriate.

 

See above why I did not post a DNF. I think a NM was not appropriate because I never saw the actual cache and hence I don't know if the cache neede maintenance.. it was just the area that looked run down... I think it is good for other cachers to know this so they can decide whether they want to go or not.

 

3. Does this somehow directly affect your caching?

 

#3 is the question I wished many answered more often then not. We also need to consider that an area you find undesirable may be an area I have no issue with, so we each have to take into account our own tolerances while hunting these little pieces of Tupperware joy.

 

Not quite sure what you mean by this question... in my opinion the area was run down. To give a few examples:

 

- on the road leading to the site there was a burnt out car..it was obvious it was standing there for at least a few weeks already

-graffiti all over the place

-old dead railroad track... people tried to set the "fencing off walls" on fire

-old broken down motorcycles lying around (I guess they were stolen)

-squatters build a tent/hut near the path I followed

 

It was drizzling a bit.. so the weather probably did impact my experience... with blue sunny sky I might have had a better experience

 

did I feel unsafe? not really, though I wouldn't like to be there in the dark.

 

However, I think when a family with kids want to go caching it would be nice for them to know what place they are heading for. I often go caching with my 5 yo daughter.. this time I was alone, but should I have been there with her, I would have gone I think

[AZcachemeister]

I have had some 'less than complimentary' logs posted to some of my caches.

While I really would rather they weren't there, the people who posted them were stating their opinion of the cache and the location. I think it is their right to have their say, unless they resort to profanity. If enough people posted derogatory logs I would need to think again about my choice of location. Attempting to 'sanitize' the listing by deleting logs that point out issues with the location is the wrong way to go about it.

 

It's not all rainbows and fluffy bunnies out there.

This is why I am against the 'Favorites' system, it doesn't address the possibility that a cache may be sub-par...or even totally distasteful. An ANONYMOUS rating system would let people avoid caches that others found to be 'less than ideal'.

[+bruno-b]

AZcachemeister: I was thinking the same... a compulsary 1 (bad) to 10 (good) rating when logging could - when there are enough logs - give an averaged experience rating.

[+niraD]

AZcachemeister: I was thinking the same... a compulsary 1 (bad) to 10 (good) rating when logging could - when there are enough logs - give an averaged experience rating.

A 10-point rating system would be far too precise, especially for something that's compulsory. You'd get a lot of junk data from people who just want to log their finds without thinking about the difference between a 6 and a 7, or even the difference between a 6 and a 9. But this is off-topic, so I'll stop now.

[+bruno-b]

it was just an example..1-5 would do as well

[+power69]

Ahhhhh. homeless camps. my pet peeve.

garbage, drug needles, stinky feces area.

stealth goes out the window if its like this at GZ.