Jump to content

Log Deleted - your comments please!


Followers 4

Recommended Posts

I posted the following log yesterday

 

Not really a D4, is it....spotted this from about 5 yards away, straight to it. As has already been noted on several occasions, the log is 100% full, no way I could sign. If CO wishes me to give a full description of where cache is, to prove find, I'm more than happy to oblige!

 

I have a message in my Inbox this morning to say that the CO has deleted my log. I'm somewhat at a loss as to why. He / she may be a bit miffed that their precious D4 was spotted straight away, but if they were that concerned about it, then they should have got out to replace the log (NM posted by last finder on 7th Sep, which was the 4th reference to the fact that the log needs replacing.)

 

I'd say I'm fully justified to have steam coming out of my ears right now. No sign of a message from the CO asking me to amend something that he / she may not have been happy about, just a straight "red card". Your opinion, please, dear reader!

Link to comment

I would email the CO and ask what the issue with your log was, technically speaking you must sign the log to claim the find but you were not able in this case as it was full. I know in the past if I have not had a spare log I have managed to squeeze initals and date in somewhere. It may have been a D4 but had not been replaced properly, so maybe that upset the CO:unsure:

Link to comment

Yes I think at times a little diplomacy is called for.

I can upset people with my comments (a family thing I think) where I don't mean to.

So it can often require a cautious response.

 

A message to the CO may be required to clear up the whole thing.

 

Langy

Link to comment

Clearly you've re-logged with a neutral comment so I suppose it doesn't matter now. Only 2 DNFs in 39 attempts, so the cache sounds rather overgraded. A 4* nano would probably take me two visits at least. But a lot of caches are very overgraded, and many are undergraded too.

 

As it's a nano, I appreciate that a full log is very difficult to sign. Perhaps the best policy is merely to comment that the log is full, and not mention that you couldn't sign it. You know you found the cache. In the highly unlikely event that the cache owner disputes your find, you can then point out that it was impossible.

 

Point of interest; should you grade a cache assuming that the hint is used? I would have thought so, but I suspect that in this case the CO has graded for searching without the hint. In which case the grading might be correct - but who is going to avoid the hint completely and leave empty-handed?

Link to comment

The CO has responded to my query about the deletion. He states that "....nobody has or will be accusing you of not finding the cache simply cause there's no room to sign the log, so the log wasn't deleted for that reason.

 

The only reason therefore, is my comment that it's "Not really a D4, is it....spotted this from about 5 yards away, straight to it". A red card offence? I think not! Anyway, a bland TFTC (Grrr) has now been logged, which will hopefully draw the episode to an end.

Link to comment

Clearly you've re-logged with a neutral comment ...

 

I wouldn't call that a neutral comment! :rolleyes:

Saying TFTC is pretty positive.

 

If I had to relog I would just put our usual # number and nothing else. I certainly wouldn't be saying 'thanks' or any abbreviation of it

 

 

Mark

Link to comment

I was asked once to remove my log as they felt my opinion was wrong. Sorry but it was my opinion and the criticism should be taken with the positive. So I refused and left my comment as it was, it was never deleted but I'm now black listed and slagged off at every event in the area that they attend, lol!

Link to comment

Hmmm seems I am going to buck the trend here so sorry in advance.

 

Reading the OP which you say you logged it looks superior, mocking, and dismissive.

 

Mocking - Not really a D4 is it.....

Superior - spotted this from about 5 yards away

Dismissive - If CO wishes me to give a full description of where cache is, to prove find, I'm more than happy to oblige!

 

Now whether you intended that tone or not, I would suggest that was how it was taken. Lacking tone of voice or detailed info all the CO has is your log. And I would have taken that log as ungrateful and bolshy. Add to that tone, the fact that you did not actually sign the log, would mean technically you cant log the cache. I would have taken a phot of the cache to send to the CO if they disputed my find or left a scrap of paper in the cache. However I usually replace the log for the CO and have done on many occasions. Not suggesting you should have, but we are all in this together eh.

 

As for D4 that is experience based, meaning it depends on what caches you have found so far. I may have done lots of D4 caches and so I might think it was a D2. Others may find it more D4. Its a guide after all.

 

If I was to look at your log I would think that you seem to think its your job to police caches lol. Frustrated reviewer? lol.

 

Dont take offence to either me or the CO. Just be grateful on logs for ANY effort a CO has gone to to put it out there for you to find. Its not your place to review a cache nor lecture the CO on their efforts on the main cache page. If you feel strongly enough, write a nice review and then email them to let them know of your experience. That way everyone stays friends. The CO isnt embarrassed or shown up by their mistake and you get to have your say.

 

Well, you asked, I hope you take the comments as they are meant to be. Helpful and informative not attacking.

 

Best Wishes and glad you got your log in there in the end.

Link to comment

Yes, Seaglass Pirates, you are bucking the trend, aren't you!

 

Mocking? No. The cache has 2 dnfs out of 39 visitors. The 2 cachers who logged dnfs have a total of 46 finds between then. For them, this may well be a D4, as it would probably be their first experience of such a cache (a magnetic nano on the underside of a metal gate hinge – yes, really...a D4!) But for any cacher with a modicum of experience, this would be standard stuff. And surely that’s how a D rating should be calculated. My first ever find was a bog standard sandwich box at the base of a tree, a D1.5, but to me, at the time, it was a D5, because I didn’t really have a clue as to how this game worked, or exactly what I was looking for, but the correct rating is 1.5, not 5. My querying of the D4 rating was, I contest, fully justified. (As an aside, how many COs are tempted to “inflate” D and / or T ratings, so that they can gain a certain amount of “geokudos”, by being seen to set caches that are “cunning”, or similar – when in actual fact they’re not? And is it not more likely that this would happen when the CO in question has only 129 finds to his name....maybe he genuinely believes that this is a D4, as, when he saw it advertised on ebay, he thought it was the craftiest cache container he’d ever seen in all his caching days)

 

Superior? No. I did see it from 5 yards away, what’s wrong with me saying that? How many logs have you read which say “Nice easy find” “Saw it at once”, or similar. Are you suggesting that they should all be deleted, because they’re “superior”? No, of course you’re not. So, why should mine be deleted for that reason? It shouldn't. My seeing it straight away is further proof that the cache doesn't deserve its D rating. (If you looked at a cross section of my logs, you would also see that, far from being “superior” in attitude, I more often than not bemoan my lack of caching ability, my favourite phrase being that “The Curse of the Dumb a** Geocacher” strikes again). A further point to consider is that maybe the only reason why I saw it straight away is that it's been replaced wrongly by a previous cacher, in an easy to spot location. By telling the CO of this fact, I could actually be alerting him to the fact that he needs to pay a visit to reposition the cache so that it regains the true characteristics of a D4.

 

Dismissive. No. Technically, of course, you are correct, I didn't sign the log. But whose fault is that? Mine or the CO’s? The CO has been aware for the past couple of months that the log is full. If I had attempted to put my name on, it would have been at the expense of potentially defacing an earlier entry, thus putting that cacher’s log in jeopardy. Yes, I could have taken a photo, but not all of us are fully in tune with the wonders of modern technology. I didn't have my camera with me, and my mobile doesn't have a camera. Really, it doesn't! My offer of an exact description was therefore made as a genuine offer to assure the CO, if in any doubt, of my find. You seem to think that it would have been better if I’d not made this offer?

 

The CO was happy to accept that I’d found the cache, and acknowledged the fact that the log needed replacing, so that was not the reason that he took umbrage. The reason for the deletion is therefore one or both of my questioning the D level, and / or the fact that I saw it from 5 yards away. Cause for an instant deletion, without so much as a by your leave....surely not?

 

As you point out, my find has now been recorded by means of a TFTC. I'm confident that it’s the only TFTC that I've logged in 2600+ finds. TFTC is an insult to a CO who has gone to the effort of placing the cache, and I make sure that I always try to write something for each cache, even if it’s on a long series. However, if my “caching experience” at a particular cache is not entirely positive, I don’t see the harm in saying so. After all, the log will not only be read by the CO, but potentially by many other cachers considering a visit to that cache, and could assist them in making a judgement as to whether a visit should be made or not. You say that “if you feel strongly enough (presumably about a negative aspect of a cache) write a nice review and email them to let them know of your experience”. You’re not serious, are you? So, if I find a cache in a particularly undesirable location for example, or if there’s evidence of local drug taking, I shouldn't mention it in my pink fluffy log, I should merely write privately to the CO? That’s ridiculous. As far as I'm aware, we still live in a democracy.

 

So, we will have to agree to disagree!

Edited by Team Airtomoreira
Link to comment

Hmmm seems I am going to buck the trend here so sorry in advance.

 

Reading the OP which you say you logged it looks superior, mocking, and dismissive.

 

Mocking - Not really a D4 is it.....

Superior - spotted this from about 5 yards away

Dismissive - If CO wishes me to give a full description of where cache is, to prove find, I'm more than happy to oblige!

 

Huh? Are you serious?

 

How is questioning the rating "mocking" unless your skin is so thin people don't dare breathe too hard in your presence? It seems an entirely reasonable comment to make if the D/T rating appears off, especially if it appears way off. I've often commented that a T1 cache needs to be re-rated if it's the kind of thing that involves battling with trees or reaching high up into a bush.

 

Superior? If the logger spotted it from 5 yards away then there's nothing wrong with saying that, especially since it backs up his assertion that D4 is inaccurate. If it can be seen from that distance then it clearly won't take a cacher any length of time to find it, and therefore doesn't fit the descriptions for a D4 rating.

 

Dismissive? How is a cacher unable to sign a log that the CO knows has been full for some time and hasn't addressed (in other words, when the CO has failed to maintain his cache) supposed to verify that he did in fact find it and didn't just claim it from his armchair?

 

Now whether you intended that tone or not, I would suggest that was how it was taken. Lacking tone of voice or detailed info all the CO has is your log. And I would have taken that log as ungrateful and bolshy. Add to that tone, the fact that you did not actually sign the log, would mean technically you cant log the cache. I would have taken a phot of the cache to send to the CO if they disputed my find or left a scrap of paper in the cache. However I usually replace the log for the CO and have done on many occasions. Not suggesting you should have, but we are all in this together eh.

 

If the CO has such a thin skin that he can't cope with comments that don't gush about what a great cache he set then perhaps he should try a different hobby. As with everything else if you want honest feedback ask the community, if you wand unconditional praise ask your mummy.

 

As for D4 that is experience based, meaning it depends on what caches you have found so far. I may have done lots of D4 caches and so I might think it was a D2. Others may find it more D4. Its a guide after all.

 

It's a guide, with guidelines. Being able to spot a cache from 15 feet away without looking for it to any extent over and above knowing it's around there somewhere doesn't really match any concept of the third highest difficulty rating available.

 

If I was to look at your log I would think that you seem to think its your job to police caches lol. Frustrated reviewer? lol.

 

Do you really not see the difference between a bit of constructive feedback and an attempt to "police caches"? Perhaps the CO is an inexperienced cache hider who needs a bit of guidance in rating caches, whether they realise it or not?

 

Dont take offence to either me or the CO. Just be grateful on logs for ANY effort a CO has gone to to put it out there for you to find. Its not your place to review a cache nor lecture the CO on their efforts on the main cache page. If you feel strongly enough, write a nice review and then email them to let them know of your experience. That way everyone stays friends. The CO isnt embarrassed or shown up by their mistake and you get to have your say.

 

Of course it is our place, anyone's place, to comment on their experience of the cache whether it was positive or negative. The logs are read by the cache owner (hopefully) and other cache seekers. If a cache has a good description but the logs say what a dismal place it's hidden I'll be grateful for that information so I can make a more informed decision whether to bother going to look for it. If I've chosen a D4 cache to seek expecting a challenge I'd want to know that it's badly misrated as it would be irritating to go out expecting a challenging hunt only to find it in plain view within 30 seconds of arrival (just like it would be annoying to plan a visit to a beautiful park to look for a cache only to find it hidden among six-foot high nettles, or similar).

 

There's a huge gap between "lecturing a CO" and giving feedback on why you think their ratings are inaccurate. Frankly if I'm reading the logs on someone's cache I'd want positive and negative experiences to read, if someone finds a cache in a dismal location, badly maintained and potentially dangerous to access it makes far more sense to write that in a log than to write a log saying what a great cache it is and then emailing the owner telling them what a bad cache it is. As I said above if people can't cope with comments both positive and negative they shouldn't hide caches.

Link to comment

Yes, Seaglass Pirates, you are bucking the trend, aren't you!

 

Mocking? No. The cache has 2 dnfs out of 39 visitors. The 2 cachers who logged dnfs have a total of 46 finds between then. For them, this may well be a D4, as it would probably be their first experience of such a cache (a magnetic nano on the underside of a metal gate hinge – yes, really...a D4!) But for any cacher with a modicum of experience, this would be standard stuff. And surely that’s how a D rating should be calculated. My first ever find was a bog standard sandwich box at the base of a tree, a D1.5, but to me, at the time, it was a D5, because I didn’t really have a clue as to how this game worked, or exactly what I was looking for, but the correct rating is 1.5, not 5. My querying of the D4 rating was, I contest, fully justified. (As an aside, how many COs are tempted to “inflate” D and / or T ratings, so that they can gain a certain amount of “geokudos”, by being seen to set caches that are “cunning”, or similar – when in actual fact they’re not? And is it not more likely that this would happen when the CO in question has only 129 finds to his name....maybe he genuinely believes that this is a D4, as, when he saw it advertised on ebay, he thought it was the craftiest cache container he’d ever seen in all his caching days)

 

Superior? No. I did see it from 5 yards away, what’s wrong with me saying that? How many logs have you read which say “Nice easy find” “Saw it at once”, or similar. Are you suggesting that they should all be deleted, because they’re “superior”? No, of course you’re not. So, why should mine be deleted for that reason? It shouldn't. My seeing it straight away is further proof that the cache doesn't deserve its D rating. (If you looked at a cross section of my logs, you would also see that, far from being “superior” in attitude, I more often than not bemoan my lack of caching ability, my favourite phrase being that “The Curse of the Dumb a** Geocacher” strikes again). A further point to consider is that maybe the only reason why I saw it straight away is that it's been replaced wrongly by a previous cacher, in an easy to spot location. By telling the CO of this fact, I could actually be alerting him to the fact that he needs to pay a visit to reposition the cache so that it regains the true characteristics of a D4.

 

Dismissive. No. Technically, of course, you are correct, I didn't sign the log. But whose fault is that? Mine or the CO’s? The CO has been aware for the past couple of months that the log is full. If I had attempted to put my name on, it would have been at the expense of potentially defacing an earlier entry, thus putting that cacher’s log in jeopardy. Yes, I could have taken a photo, but not all of us are fully in tune with the wonders of modern technology. I didn't have my camera with me, and my mobile doesn't have a camera. Really, it doesn't! My offer of an exact description was therefore made as a genuine offer to assure the CO, if in any doubt, of my find. You seem to think that it would have been better if I’d not made this offer?

 

The CO was happy to accept that I’d found the cache, and acknowledged the fact that the log needed replacing, so that was not the reason that he took umbrage. The reason for the deletion is therefore one or both of my questioning the D level, and / or the fact that I saw it from 5 yards away. Cause for an instant deletion, without so much as a by your leave....surely not?

 

As you point out, my find has now been recorded by means of a TFTC. I'm confident that it’s the only TFTC that I've logged in 2600+ finds. TFTC is an insult to a CO who has gone to the effort of placing the cache, and I make sure that I always try to write something for each cache, even if it’s on a long series. However, if my “caching experience” at a particular cache is not entirely positive, I don’t see the harm in saying so. After all, the log will not only be read by the CO, but potentially by many other cachers considering a visit to that cache, and could assist them in making a judgement as to whether a visit should be made or not. You say that “if you feel strongly enough (presumably about a negative aspect of a cache) write a nice review and email them to let them know of your experience”. You’re not serious, are you? So, if I find a cache in a particularly undesirable location for example, or if there’s evidence of local drug taking, I shouldn't mention it in my pink fluffy log, I should merely write privately to the CO? That’s ridiculous. As far as I'm aware, we still live in a democracy.

 

So, we will have to agree to disagree!

 

Wow that is an extremely looooong reply. So when you asked for an opinion as to why your log was deleted, what you actually meant was - I only want opinions that don't disagree with mine. Ok, no problem lol.

 

Two small points

 

1. The opinion I gave was asked for by you. Not unsolicited. I acknowledge the other comment by another poster that both negative and positive feedback is sought. But not in this instance obviously lol.

 

2. I think you have, given your energetic state, muddled what you asked for with what I would have done. I never said I would have deleted your log. I stated why I thought your log was deleted. In effect agreeing with you. It was how you wrote it not what you wrote. So the claims of thin skin etc are I am afraid wide of the mark. I would have ignored your log. And btw thank you for your caching resume. The greater the number of finds the more correct you are in any given situation. Got it. I'll have to get caching quick lol. Make me smarter, better faster!!

 

This is all over a nano right? Not world peace? Curing cancer .... no? oh.

Link to comment

SP, I think you will find that the only reason that I have quoted the number of caches I've found is to emphasise the fact that I do not enjoy writing TFTC as a log entry. As a CO yourself, you can surely agree with this attitude? Alas, in this case, TFTC seems far more acceptable than a description of my experience with the cache.

 

I am grateful for your input, despite the fact that we are coming at this from different directions. Of course I'm more grateful for the several other contributors who agree with me!

 

Now, I really must get back to my LHC experiments....where is that pesky Higgs Boson particle? I'm sure I put it down here somewhere.....oh well, just have to go and get another one.

Link to comment

As a CO myself.... You're both 'in the wrong'.

 

You should be a little less harsh and a more positive attitude with your comments. Think of it as....would you enjoy the same negativity in logs on your hidden caches?

 

The CO should've ignored your log and just 'let it go'.

 

If that were me (CO), I would've went out and checked my cache immediately. If that log had any spare room on it for you to sign, then I would call BS and I would want proof you were there. But then again.... I honestly don't care.

 

If people are playing the game dishonestly.... That's their decision. I'm not about to worry myself over it.

Link to comment

As a CO myself.... You're both 'in the wrong'.

 

You should be a little less harsh and a more positive attitude with your comments. Think of it as....would you enjoy the same negativity in logs on your hidden caches?

No, it's not wrong to be honest in logs - it's the best thing to do for the overall benefit of caching. If all you have ever found are sympathetically hidden caches in great locations, clean and dry with space in the log book, then you've been very lucky indeed. If a cache is sub-standard then it needs to be mentioned, else everyone who follows you will see the same problems. The log in question wasn't rude, it wasn't even negative, it just stated things as the finder found them, which is exactly what logs are for.

 

Rgds, Andy

Link to comment

No Andy I am afraid I will have to pull you up there. Sorry.

 

The log in question wasn't rude, it wasn't even negative, it just stated things as the finder found them, which is exactly what logs are for

 

Here is where you are incorrect. what you meant to say was this -

 

IN MY OPINION and/or FROM MY PERSPECTIVE The log in question wasn't rude, it wasn't even negative, it just stated things as the finder found them, which is exactly what logs are for.

 

Unless you are telling me how to geocache :blink: and how to think?

 

In my opinion it could appear rude and could have been put in a much more pleasant way. Clearly the CO thought the same. So whilst it may be your opinion or your way of doing things, it isnt law.

 

on a completely different track i've seen some of your award coins in person. Not quite geocoin standard are they lol but a nice thought and I guess its a nice idea to enrich the geocaching experience. Well done!

Link to comment

As a CO myself.... You're both 'in the wrong'.

 

You should be a little less harsh and a more positive attitude with your comments. Think of it as....would you enjoy the same negativity in logs on your hidden caches?

No, it's not wrong to be honest in logs - it's the best thing to do for the overall benefit of caching. If all you have ever found are sympathetically hidden caches in great locations, clean and dry with space in the log book, then you've been very lucky indeed. If a cache is sub-standard then it needs to be mentioned, else everyone who follows you will see the same problems. The log in question wasn't rude, it wasn't even negative, it just stated things as the finder found them, which is exactly what logs are for.

 

Rgds, Andy

I agree wholeheartedly with Andy. I would also add, that being honest in logs (in my opinion obviously :rolleyes: ) is a very important part of the game both now and for the future. As has already been mentioned, it is sometimes crucial too.

Link to comment

SP, with regard to your comments on Amberel's award coins, should you not have prefaced your statement that they're "not quite geocoin standard, are they" with IN MY OPINION and/or FROM MY PERSPECTIVE???

 

Just trying to be helpful.

 

Yes exactly. I should have. And it was actually my point. Amberel was supposed to bite but you did instead. Ah well the point is made. That despite what we write it can be taken in many ways. Agressive, or in the case of my post about Andy's coins, rude and condescending. I could argue I am correct and in fact I am only stating what I think is true. But really, it is how things are taken, and how it could be taken that really counts. How it is meant to be taken is not always how it is taken.

 

For clarity Andy I think your coins are fantastic. I am very jealous of moms. I had hoped for one for Dead Men one day but the audit log says you have only lingered briefly. Not a puzzle guy eh lol. And genuinely I apologise for any offence my point may have caused. It really was just to show you how easy offence can be taken from a civil statement despite what I might think when making it. Whilst it might be factual and expected it can be seen as unkind. Just because someone may see it as factual etc it still could be seen as unkind.

Link to comment

No Andy I am afraid I will have to pull you up there. Sorry.

 

The log in question wasn't rude, it wasn't even negative, it just stated things as the finder found them, which is exactly what logs are for

 

Here is where you are incorrect. what you meant to say was this -

 

IN MY OPINION and/or FROM MY PERSPECTIVE The log in question wasn't rude, it wasn't even negative, it just stated things as the finder found them, which is exactly what logs are for.

Actually I did NOT mean to write "In my opinion". Rudeness and negativity are fuzzy lines. If something is near the line, yes, I'll prefix my comments by "in my opinion" or similar. When it's not near the line, then adding that prefix to every comment becomes tiresome for writer and readers alike. Anyone taking offence at the OP is unusually sensitive.

 

Most cache owners want accurate feedback. Of course I like to get appreciative logs on my caches, but ONLY if they deserve it. If I set a rubbish cache I want to know that people don't like it, so I try to do better next time. I want to know if it needs maintenance, and if ignore valid maintenance requests it's right that I'm reminded about it.

 

Being obliged to write only glowing praise on logs for poor, or poorly maintained, caches, just in case the cache owner is highly sensitive, is absurd. It would mean that the majority of cache owners are deprived of the information they need.

 

If someone is so sensitive that they don't want to know what people think, then maybe they shouldn't be setting caches in the first place.

 

on a completely different track i've seen some of your award coins in person. Not quite geocoin standard are they lol but a nice thought and I guess its a nice idea to enrich the geocaching experience. Well done!

No, they are not even remotely up to commercial quality, I generally make this clear to recipients before I make them, so they are not disappointed by their expectations being too high. To counter that, each one is unique.

 

Rgds, Andy

Link to comment

Amberel was supposed to bite but you did instead. Ah well the point is made. That despite what we write it can be taken in many ways. Agressive, or in the case of my post about Andy's coins, rude and condescending.

 

In case you wondered about the sequence of these posts, I started my previous reply, got called to dinner, and finished it off afterwards, so I didn't see everything in between :lol: .

 

Actually, I think it makes my point to some degree, because I didn't take offence - it was accurate.

 

Not a puzzle guy eh lol.

Only if I have to. i.e. I can do them, but don't enjoy them, and solve them only as a means to an end - there are loads of outstanding caches at the other end of a tricky puzzle.

 

Dead Men? You'll have to remind me, I'm afraid.

 

Rgds, Andy

Link to comment

It's of no consequence Andy. I happened to see moms which has pride of place in her collection. Everyone gets told about it. And One got placed in my cache. One you had made for the Sonatellas I think. I think it is terrific gift, if not time consuming I reckon. Cast aluminium they look like but the folks say its another process from memory. Whichever and however they come about they are very desirable. I'll have to stick to pathtags for now though lol.

Link to comment

No, it's not wrong to be honest in logs - it's the best thing to do for the overall benefit of caching. If all you have ever found are sympathetically hidden caches in great locations, clean and dry with space in the log book, then you've been very lucky indeed. If a cache is sub-standard then it needs to be mentioned, else everyone who follows you will see the same problems. The log in question wasn't rude, it wasn't even negative, it just stated things as the finder found them, which is exactly what logs are for.

 

Rgds, Andy

 

There are respectful ways of saying the same things. It's called ' Constructive Criticism'

Link to comment

There are respectful ways of saying the same things. It's called ' Constructive Criticism'

The only thing that might have been added to make it more constructive is the difficulty rating the finder thought appropriate. It's hard to be constructive about the cache owner ignoring log full reports for a couple of months, but it still needs to be said.

 

Rgds, Andy

Link to comment

There are respectful ways of saying the same things. It's called ' Constructive Criticism'

The only thing that might have been added to make it more constructive is the difficulty rating the finder thought appropriate. It's hard to be constructive about the cache owner ignoring log full reports for a couple of months, but it still needs to be said.

 

Rgds, Andy

 

I'd agree with that. It's easy to say "that's wrong" but more useful to say what might be more appropriate. The times (not all that many) that I've queried a cache rating I've always tried to explain why I thought it was wrong and what sort of figure I thought it should be.

Link to comment

GROUNDHOG DAY!!!!

 

Another Sunday, another D4 that was an instant find.....and for just about everyone else, by the look of the previous logs. Aaaargh!

 

Gosh! I was FTF on that one and I never realised it was a D4!

To be honest, I rarely look at the D/T ratings anyway because they are pretty much meaningless.

 

It just emphasizes how silly D/T grid related challenge caches are! :rolleyes:

 

Mark

Link to comment

The reason for the deletion is therefore one or both of my questioning the D level, and / or the fact that I saw it from 5 yards away. Cause for an instant deletion, without so much as a by your leave....surely not?

 

I’m not sure deletion at all however I do feel for the CO a little too. Perhaps an immediate deletion to hide from future viewers what was there but then courteous to follow up with a quick e-mail to you saying why and discussing.

 

I remember that the location was given away for one of my hides and I was disappointed so I e-mailed and asked to address that one part. The finder did oblige and quickly too but maybe I should have deleted in hindsight. As it turns out he was upset with me asking to change and he changed to just TFTC too. The resultant “stand off” was a pity really because we are now friends but it took a mutual friend to close the gap.

 

I’m not saying you gave the game away with your comments or they deserved to be deleted. I see no reason for constructive feedback in a log. While giving that feedback in a log, perhaps there’s an opportunity to elaborate further with an e-mail to the CO saying why not a D4. It is frustrating to go to a high D or T to find it’s not. I visited a high terrain rated cache in Devon at a waterfall and assumed I would have to climb into the falls, so I did. I only to find my caching buddy had found the cache without getting the slightest wet. Still fun and it was down to my assumption rather than the CO’s description.

 

It just emphasizes how silly D/T grid related challenge caches are! :rolleyes:

So true. And that’s my excuse for not filling mine...

 

TFTC is an insult to a CO

 

An insult? I’d say not really. TFTC is at least thanking them on the web. It’s quick boring and well the list goes on but is it really an insult? I want to know a little more about the finders experience as a CO but that’s surely my want not need. I don’t feel insulted if someone uses TFTC, I’m not sure I even take it to mean they didn’t enjoy the experience rather that they don’t do the web, lazy, short on time, new, well the list again goes on.

 

As a CO myself.... You're both 'in the wrong'.

 

You should be a little less harsh and a more positive attitude with your comments. Think of it as....would you enjoy the same negativity in logs on your hidden caches?

No, it's not wrong to be honest in logs - it's the best thing to do for the overall benefit of caching. If all you have ever found are sympathetically hidden caches in great locations, clean and dry with space in the log book, then you've been very lucky indeed. If a cache is sub-standard then it needs to be mentioned, else everyone who follows you will see the same problems. The log in question wasn't rude, it wasn't even negative, it just stated things as the finder found them, which is exactly what logs are for.

 

Rgds, Andy

 

Honest yes but I’d agree with trying to be considerate in the log and expand personally, which is the point I took away from Lieblweb’s post. Again, not saying TA wasn’t.

 

_______________________

 

Drat, I kept forgetting to say in my opinion or appear to me...

:lol: And sorry, I couldn't help laughing when I just googled "in my opinion" and found "Phrase idiots use to let others be guaranteed what he or she says is actually his or her opinion." or "Abbreviation for "In My Opinion." Use if you want to a) weaken your argument significantly, or B) make it known that this is not your neighbor's opinon or you ..." :lol:

 

Edited as links were broken.

Edited by metal-bijou
Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...