Jump to content

Log Deleted by CO


Driddy

Recommended Posts

I recently had a log deleted by the CO of a cache. My log stated, "This was a quick find. I wish COs of nanos wouldn't put huge logs in them -- it is always a big hassle getting them in and out without shredding them. (Team 100)".

 

When I inquired about why my log had been deleted, I was told that it had been done to give me a chance to relog it and that logs on their caches should not be used as a forum for complaints.

 

While I agree that the tone of my log could have been more constructive, was the CO within Groundspeak Guidelines or commonly accepted practice to delete my log (and without asking me to edit the log before deleting it)?

Link to comment

I recently had a log deleted by the CO of a cache. My log stated, "This was a quick find. I wish COs of nanos wouldn't put huge logs in them -- it is always a big hassle getting them in and out without shredding them. (Team 100)".

 

When I inquired about why my log had been deleted, I was told that it had been done to give me a chance to relog it and that logs on their caches should not be used as a forum for complaints.

 

While I agree that the tone of my log could have been more constructive, was the CO within Groundspeak Guidelines or commonly accepted practice to delete my log (and without asking me to edit the log before deleting it)?

 

They're being a jerk.

 

Just re-log it 'TFTC', and consider using the same for any more of their caches you might visit.

 

EDITED to mention:

Nano caches deserve nano logs! :lol:

Edited by AZcachemeister
Link to comment

As a side note, I've been known to remove a (blank) portion of an over-sized logsheet to facilitate getting it back in the container. If the log is going to get mangled anyway, why not make it easier on yourself?

I'm sure you and I are hardly alone in doing that, either.

 

Didn't Groundspeak say, quite some time ago, that they were going to add a reason for deletion? They need to start writing some of these things down.

Link to comment

As a side note, I've been known to remove a (blank) portion of an over-sized logsheet to facilitate getting it back in the container. If the log is going to get mangled anyway, why not make it easier on yourself?

I made a log roller to help with this. It allows me to roll the log quite tightly, and it will almost always fit back in the blinkie.

Link to comment

>Didn't Groundspeak say, quite some time ago,

>that they were going to add a reason for deletion? They need to start writing some of these things down.

 

WOW, that wold be a super nice and easy feature

I hate to spend alot of time, emailing people telling them stuff, and then ask them to delete,

or I just delete, and then later get a few question emails back.

 

PS: I dont delete or ask for change no matter what kind of stuff people write,

as long as they found the cache and signed the log book..

Link to comment

This is one reason why I feel GS should remove the delete log option away from the cache owners. I see more CO abuse their power than cachers.

 

I agree with this. If a log is bad enough to need to be deleted, it should require a reviewer to do it.

 

We have a local cacher now heavy with the delete key. NM, NA or anything short of praise, its gone.

 

If I have an issue with a log, I'll ask (nicely) the cacher that logged it to adjust their log (major spoiler or similar).

Link to comment

I recently had a log deleted by the CO of a cache. My log stated, "This was a quick find. I wish COs of nanos wouldn't put huge logs in them -- it is always a big hassle getting them in and out without shredding them. (Team 100)".

 

When I inquired about why my log had been deleted, I was told that it had been done to give me a chance to relog it and that logs on their caches should not be used as a forum for complaints.

 

While I agree that the tone of my log could have been more constructive, was the CO within Groundspeak Guidelines or commonly accepted practice to delete my log (and without asking me to edit the log before deleting it)?

 

They're being a jerk.

 

Just re-log it 'TFTC', and consider using the same for any more of their caches you might visit.

 

EDITED to mention:

Nano caches deserve nano logs! :lol:

 

Which is why the appropriate nano log is simply a ".".

Link to comment

 

Which is why the appropriate nano log is simply a ".".

 

Oh, I have a comment about "." logs but I won't say it here for fear of me going on a rant. Anyway, I agree your log should not have been deleted either, unless perhaps the CO did not want it to be known that it was a nano and your log implied that. I would not have deleted this log, I would not have enjoyed it, but I felt it was just describing your experience, nor was abusive, yada yada.

Link to comment

It should probably be noted that the cache pages are not supposed to be a discussion forum. As such, the cache owner was not acting out of his authority when he deleted the online log.

 

You will note that the content of the initial log entry and it's allowed replacement are not very different. It is only the editorializing nature of the log that was changed to make it acceptable.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I have relogged it as "This was a quick find. I had difficulty removing and replacing the log without damaging it because it is very large relative to the size of the container. (Team 100)"

 

On another day I might have written it that way from the outset.

So you replaced a general observation which technically doesn't necessarily apply to that cache with a specific complaint. I'm looking forward to hearing if the CO takes that better.

Link to comment

I have relogged it as "This was a quick find. I had difficulty removing and replacing the log without damaging it because it is very large relative to the size of the container. (Team 100)"

 

On another day I might have written it that way from the outset.

So you replaced a general observation which technically doesn't necessarily apply to that cache with a specific complaint. I'm looking forward to hearing if the CO takes that better.

 

I didn't think the current version reads like a complaint and that was explicitly what I wanted to avoid. I thought it now reads as an account of my experience with the cache, just as one might report that it took a long time to find or that the container was found in the open.

Link to comment

I wonder if the CO deleted the log not because he/she found it offensive or as a complaint but because it clearly gave away the type of container. Maybe they deleted the log so that it wouldn't give away the surprise to future seekers. By rewriting the the post in almost the same words you are still giving away the cache. I think it would have been better to have re-logged "tftc" and left it at that. I too hate nanos because the logs are impossible to put back in but I don't think the cache log post is an appropriate place to air greivances about them.

 

Did the CO state in his listing not to give away any hints in the logs? There was a new cache published in my area recently where the CO added to his listing a request to not post any hints or any photos of the cache in the logs. If they were posted, he said outright that the log would be deleted.

 

As to COs having the access to delete logs, I think it's a good idea. Yes... contacting the poster would be a nice option but there are cases when I could see when an instant deletion might be necessary. I haven't had to delete any logs yet on any of my cache hides but I think that if someone posted a log that gave away the location of the cache or a photo of the cache, or if there was inappropriate language on the log I would want to delete it immediately so it's not sitting out there for everyone to see until the poster has had a chance to get my email and take action. If they do at all.

Link to comment

This is one reason why I feel GS should remove the delete log option away from the cache owners. I see more CO abuse their power than cachers.

 

I agree with this. If a log is bad enough to need to be deleted, it should require a reviewer to do it.

 

We have a local cacher now heavy with the delete key. NM, NA or anything short of praise, its gone.

 

If I have an issue with a log, I'll ask (nicely) the cacher that logged it to adjust their log (major spoiler or similar).

The problem is that Groundspeak still stands by the fact that cache owners are the owners of their listing and cache. If they took away that position, Geocaching.com is no longer a listing service.

 

Groundspeak has been pretty clear about the simple arbitration of deleted logs. Contact Groundspeak, and they will take a look. When it comes to the rules in place, let the writers of the guidelines and rules make the final call. Just because a few people have a "heavy delete hand" doesn't make them right for doing so as an owner. However, removing the ownership of a cache listing and cache would be a silly move by Groundspeak--they'd suddenly "own" all caches around the world, and be held responsible for poor decisions of placers. (Think bomb squads) Much better legal position to be in when they can say, "The geocache belongs to the person who hid it, including the webpage. We are a listing service only."

Link to comment

I wonder if the CO deleted the log not because he/she found it offensive or as a complaint but because it clearly gave away the type of container. Maybe they deleted the log so that it wouldn't give away the surprise to future seekers. By rewriting the the post in almost the same words you are still giving away the cache. I think it would have been better to have re-logged "tftc" and left it at that. I too hate nanos because the logs are impossible to put back in but I don't think the cache log post is an appropriate place to air greivances about them.

 

Did the CO state in his listing not to give away any hints in the logs? There was a new cache published in my area recently where the CO added to his listing a request to not post any hints or any photos of the cache in the logs. If they were posted, he said outright that the log would be deleted.

 

As to COs having the access to delete logs, I think it's a good idea. Yes... contacting the poster would be a nice option but there are cases when I could see when an instant deletion might be necessary. I haven't had to delete any logs yet on any of my cache hides but I think that if someone posted a log that gave away the location of the cache or a photo of the cache, or if there was inappropriate language on the log I would want to delete it immediately so it's not sitting out there for everyone to see until the poster has had a chance to get my email and take action. If they do at all.

The reason the CO gave was, "Logs on my caches are not the forum you should use to complain about things."

 

Also, a subsequent finder also referred to it as a nano and his log was not deleted so I really don't think the issue was that I gave away the container.

Link to comment

I wonder if the CO deleted the log not because he/she found it offensive or as a complaint but because it clearly gave away the type of container. Maybe they deleted the log so that it wouldn't give away the surprise to future seekers. By rewriting the the post in almost the same words you are still giving away the cache. I think it would have been better to have re-logged "tftc" and left it at that. I too hate nanos because the logs are impossible to put back in but I don't think the cache log post is an appropriate place to air greivances about them.

 

Did the CO state in his listing not to give away any hints in the logs? There was a new cache published in my area recently where the CO added to his listing a request to not post any hints or any photos of the cache in the logs. If they were posted, he said outright that the log would be deleted.

 

As to COs having the access to delete logs, I think it's a good idea. Yes... contacting the poster would be a nice option but there are cases when I could see when an instant deletion might be necessary. I haven't had to delete any logs yet on any of my cache hides but I think that if someone posted a log that gave away the location of the cache or a photo of the cache, or if there was inappropriate language on the log I would want to delete it immediately so it's not sitting out there for everyone to see until the poster has had a chance to get my email and take action. If they do at all.

The reason the CO gave was, "Logs on my caches are not the forum you should use to complain about things."

 

Also, a subsequent finder also referred to it as a nano and his log was not deleted so I really don't think the issue was that I gave away the container.

By now it's a moot point anyway. Your new log says the same thing as your first, but different. The new log is still up, right? Glad this was resolved.

 

If anything, we can hope that the owner has taken a moment, calmed down, and has moved on as well. We all have days where things poke us in the ribs a little too hard and get us on edge.

 

Again, glad this seems to have been worked out between you and the owner. Bummer that it happened in the first place, but a lesson hopefully has been learned on both sides.

Link to comment

This is one reason why I feel GS should remove the delete log option away from the cache owners. I see more CO abuse their power than cachers.

 

I agree with this. If a log is bad enough to need to be deleted, it should require a reviewer to do it.

 

We have a local cacher now heavy with the delete key. NM, NA or anything short of praise, its gone.

 

If I have an issue with a log, I'll ask (nicely) the cacher that logged it to adjust their log (major spoiler or similar).

 

reviewers are already busy enough. they don't need to spend time checking flagged log entries.

 

And I only delete log entries if the cacher did not sign the physical log or if they give away clues to harder caches that I own (but always give them the option to edit their entry first).

Link to comment

...reviewers are already busy enough. they don't need to spend time checking flagged log entries.

 

Agreed. I find that it can take days for a reviewer to respond to a new listing or a question or a NA log. If they were asked to intervene in a logging dispute and had to get both sides before making a decision about deleting or not deleting it could be very time-consuming.

Link to comment

It should probably be noted that the cache pages are not supposed to be a discussion forum. As such, the cache owner was not acting out of his authority when he deleted the online log.

 

You will note that the content of the initial log entry and it's allowed replacement are not very different. It is only the editorializing nature of the log that was changed to make it acceptable.

 

A discussion forum would be a series of notes poted to the page by people that never found it. It was a 'find' log. The CO was out of line by deleting the find log because of negative feedback. It seems that the CO has twisted the definition of negative feedback to be construed as a 'discussion forum' to give themself a seemingly legal reason to delete it. The OP should write to Groundspeak and ask them to reinstate it, as it's possible that they have done this to other finders.

Link to comment

It should probably be noted that the cache pages are not supposed to be a discussion forum. As such, the cache owner was not acting out of his authority when he deleted the online log.

 

You will note that the content of the initial log entry and it's allowed replacement are not very different. It is only the editorializing nature of the log that was changed to make it acceptable.

 

A discussion forum would be a series of notes poted to the page by people that never found it. It was a 'find' log. The CO was out of line by deleting the find log because of negative feedback. It seems that the CO has twisted the definition of negative feedback to be construed as a 'discussion forum' to give themself a seemingly legal reason to delete it.

I think that your position would be more compelling if the OP wasn't able to relog the find in a way that included his negative feedback.
The OP should write to Groundspeak and ask them to reinstate it, as it's possible that they have done this to other finders.
Given that the cache owner has allowed the re-entered find log to stand, I don't see TPTB reinstating the original one.
Link to comment

I didn't think the current version reads like a complaint and that was explicitly what I wanted to avoid. I thought it now reads as an account of my experience with the cache, just as one might report that it took a long time to find or that the container was found in the open.

I agree it doesn't read like a complaint, but it nevertheless is a complaint: the log is too big for the container, so it's a pain to deal with. That is a specific comment on what the CO did, so it differs from a report just dealing with the location or condition of the container that the CO might not be aware of.

 

Don't get me wrong. I consider this replacement log very well worded and quite polite (not that the original log was any less so). In addition, as you point out, it's an entirely approapriate description of your visit, as opposed to the original which was, technically, "unrelated" editorializing. That's why I was interested in whether the CO accepted the replacement: on the one hand, it addresses his specific objection because the original was more like a general discussion in a forum, but on the other hand, the new one says something is wrong about this cache. As I understand it, the second log didn't get deleted, which could be interpretted as confirming that the CO really was just being silly strict about the discussion, as opposed to him being a jerk because he didn't like someone suggesting his cache was less than perfect.

 

Although personally, I'm inclined to believe the "had a bad day" explanation.

Link to comment

I recently had a log deleted by the CO of a cache. My log stated, "This was a quick find. I wish COs of nanos wouldn't put huge logs in them -- it is always a big hassle getting them in and out without shredding them. (Team 100)".

 

When I inquired about why my log had been deleted, I was told that it had been done to give me a chance to relog it and that logs on their caches should not be used as a forum for complaints.

 

While I agree that the tone of my log could have been more constructive, was the CO within Groundspeak Guidelines or commonly accepted practice to delete my log (and without asking me to edit the log before deleting it)?

 

They're being a jerk.

 

Just re-log it 'TFTC', and consider using the same for any more of their caches you might visit.

 

EDITED to mention:

Nano caches deserve nano logs! :lol:

 

Which is why the appropriate nano log is simply a ".".

 

I prefer this one... ( ! )

 

It kind of looks like what I think the CO was being.

Edited by Trinity's Crew
Link to comment

How is "the log is too big to fit into the container" a complaint, anymore than "the cache is soaking wet"? Honest question here...if someone informs the cache owner of a wet cache, it's only considered needing maintenance, but having difficulty putting a cache back together, because of it's intended contents, isn't? I'm just a little confused on how there's any difference between these 2 things. ?

Link to comment

There has been a bit of criticism of the CO in this thread. I don't think ill of the CO and would rather that we keep the discussion centered on the circumstances under which it is appropriate to delete logs. The CO and I had several polite exchanges over e-mail after I inquired as to why the log was deleted. I bear the CO no ill will and don't wish to escalate the matter or complain to Groundspeak.

 

I would like to thank everyone for their input and I have learned from both the CO and the posters in this thread. With respect to the original scenario, a fellow cacher made a suggestion to me offline as to how I might have handled it differently -- I could have posted a Found log and then followed it with an NM indicating that the CO might wish to consider removing some of the paper. At this point it would not make sense to do that (the cache was found quite a while ago and the CO has already taken some actions that probably makes the log a little easier to handle.

Link to comment

This is one reason why I feel GS should remove the delete log option away from the cache owners. I see more CO abuse their power than cachers.

 

I agree with this. If a log is bad enough to need to be deleted, it should require a reviewer to do it.

 

We have a local cacher now heavy with the delete key. NM, NA or anything short of praise, its gone.

 

If I have an issue with a log, I'll ask (nicely) the cacher that logged it to adjust their log (major spoiler or similar).

 

That CO can delete the NA all (s)he wants the email to the reviewer has already been sent he may delete the log but the reviewer has been notified with what the log original said.

Link to comment

There has been a bit of criticism of the CO in this thread. I don't think ill of the CO and would rather that we keep the discussion centered on the circumstances under which it is appropriate to delete logs. The CO and I had several polite exchanges over e-mail after I inquired as to why the log was deleted. I bear the CO no ill will and don't wish to escalate the matter or complain to Groundspeak.

 

I would like to thank everyone for their input and I have learned from both the CO and the posters in this thread. With respect to the original scenario, a fellow cacher made a suggestion to me offline as to how I might have handled it differently -- I could have posted a Found log and then followed it with an NM indicating that the CO might wish to consider removing some of the paper. At this point it would not make sense to do that (the cache was found quite a while ago and the CO has already taken some actions that probably makes the log a little easier to handle.

Very good to hear you've got it all sorted out. (Also, good on ya for trying to keep the criticism dialed down)

Link to comment

It should probably be noted that the cache pages are not supposed to be a discussion forum. As such, the cache owner was not acting out of his authority when he deleted the online log.

 

You will note that the content of the initial log entry and it's allowed replacement are not very different. It is only the editorializing nature of the log that was changed to make it acceptable.

 

A discussion forum would be a series of notes poted to the page by people that never found it. It was a 'find' log. The CO was out of line by deleting the find log because of negative feedback. It seems that the CO has twisted the definition of negative feedback to be construed as a 'discussion forum' to give themself a seemingly legal reason to delete it.

I think that your position would be more compelling if the OP wasn't able to relog the find in a way that included his negative feedback.
The OP should write to Groundspeak and ask them to reinstate it, as it's possible that they have done this to other finders.
Given that the cache owner has allowed the re-entered find log to stand, I don't see TPTB reinstating the original one.

I think your argument would be more compelling if you felt the same reasoning held for logs that wax poetically about the virtues of the cache. Editorializing comments can be positive as well as negative. The reality seems to be the CO did not like the wording of the OP's log so it was deleted. I really can't muster any support for that mindset.

Link to comment

It should probably be noted that the cache pages are not supposed to be a discussion forum. As such, the cache owner was not acting out of his authority when he deleted the online log.

 

You will note that the content of the initial log entry and it's allowed replacement are not very different. It is only the editorializing nature of the log that was changed to make it acceptable.

 

I was going to disagree with your first paragraph, but you put it in perspective with the second. I agree, editorializing is not necessary, but I feel that we are supposed to use the logs to relate our experience, good or bad. If I relate a bad experience, the CO should take it to heart and not simply delete the log because he doesn't like it. I posted a DNF a couple of months ago that stated that I couldn't continue to search because the smell of the rancid used cooking grease container at GZ was making me sick. It was promptly deleted. In retrospect, I may have editorialized a bit.

Link to comment

I think it is a good feature, to let a CO delete logs,

no need to waste reviewers time on this.

however misuse of this power is not a good idea,

I prefer as honost logs as possible, god or bad,

surely not all people can like all caches, but if they directly hate them,

and write very bad logs for them, why not stay home ?

or find another hobby ?

 

one smart dude once said:

if you cant say anything good, say nothing..

I guess that is when they invented the TFTC log :-)

Edited by OZ2CPU
Link to comment

There has been a bit of criticism of the CO in this thread. I don't think ill of the CO and would rather that we keep the discussion centered on the circumstances under which it is appropriate to delete logs. The CO and I had several polite exchanges over e-mail after I inquired as to why the log was deleted. I bear the CO no ill will and don't wish to escalate the matter or complain to Groundspeak.

 

I would like to thank everyone for their input and I have learned from both the CO and the posters in this thread. With respect to the original scenario, a fellow cacher made a suggestion to me offline as to how I might have handled it differently -- I could have posted a Found log and then followed it with an NM indicating that the CO might wish to consider removing some of the paper. At this point it would not make sense to do that (the cache was found quite a while ago and the CO has already taken some actions that probably makes the log a little easier to handle.

 

IMO, not enough cachers write honest logs with the idea that they may offend the CO or that their log might get deleted. This leads to bad caches. The one at the grease container that I mentioned is a good example. All of the logs leading up to it made it sound like it was a good clever cache that I would enjoy looking for. The CO continues to hide these types of caches because he continues to get logs like "Great cache". Meanwhile, people at the events and Meet & Greets are shaking their heads at how bad the caches actually are.

 

If you had posted either of your logs to any of my caches, I would have contacted you to determine exactly what the problem was and then I would fix it. If one of my caches made you frustrated enough to voice it in your log, then I'm doing something wrong. Without those opinions, I can't make better caches and better experiences for the finders. If I start letting my ego run things, nobody wins.

 

I'm happy that you resolved things with this CO. That does not mean what he did was the correct thing to do. You said that it was a learning experience for you. We can only hope that it was for him as well.

Link to comment

How is "the log is too big to fit into the container" a complaint, anymore than "the cache is soaking wet"?

First of all, I think you're assuming complaints are automatically negative and shouldn't be logged. There's nothing wrong with a legitimate complaint.

 

Anyway, those are both complaints, but the difference is that the first is criticizing the CO, since he made the log too big, while the second is criticizing the current state of the cache, something that the CO may have had no control over. That doesn't make much difference to me, and I have no problem with either, but a CO with a thin skin might take the first more personally than the second. I'm neutral about whether anyone should accommodate such a reaction, though.

Link to comment

With respect to the original scenario, a fellow cacher made a suggestion to me offline as to how I might have handled it differently -- I could have posted a Found log and then followed it with an NM indicating that the CO might wish to consider removing some of the paper.

You could have, but I'd say this was some serious overkill. Personally, I think your first log -- approximately "these tiny caches over stuffed with logs drive me crazy" in passing -- was perfect, and your second log -- approximately "I had trouble putting the log back" -- was OK, but personally I think it sounds whiny. The NM approach is saying the cache is no good because there's too much log in it. Remember, an NM literally means the cache is broken and (in your opinion) must be fixed. Even I would be shocked to see someone post an NM just because he gets miffed about rolling a nano log tightly enough to get it back in.

Link to comment

This is one reason why I feel GS should remove the delete log option away from the cache owners. I see more CO abuse their power than cachers.

I don't mind the delete log option, but make it so it won't be deleted unless the CO adds a note that would be automatically sent to the cacher explaing why.

Link to comment

This is one reason why I feel GS should remove the delete log option away from the cache owners. I see more CO abuse their power than cachers.

I don't mind the delete log option, but make it so it won't be deleted unless the CO adds a note that would be automatically sent to the cacher explaing why.

I have sent an email to the cacher through their profile that I am deleting their log and why. Then I delete.

 

That said, I've only had to do a few, and mostly on my Earthcaches. If I audit my logbook and see that an online log missed the logbook, I email them to find out what happened, and only in a couple cases have I deleted in those cases. But, in all cases, I email the cacher. The function exists, but few take the time to be diplomatic...or use it at all.

Link to comment

This is one reason why I feel GS should remove the delete log option away from the cache owners. I see more CO abuse their power than cachers.

I don't mind the delete log option, but make it so it won't be deleted unless the CO adds a note that would be automatically sent to the cacher explaing why.

I have sent an email to the cacher through their profile that I am deleting their log and why. Then I delete.

 

That said, I've only had to do a few, and mostly on my Earthcaches. If I audit my logbook and see that an online log missed the logbook, I email them to find out what happened, and only in a couple cases have I deleted in those cases. But, in all cases, I email the cacher. The function exists, but few take the time to be diplomatic...or use it at all.

 

There should be an automatic note feature and it should be required to use it when deleting a log. The lackeys agree and told us quite some time ago that this feature would be coming.

Link to comment

This is one reason why I feel GS should remove the delete log option away from the cache owners. I see more CO abuse their power than cachers.

Groundspeak give COs the authority to delete logs because they believe that bogus, off-topic, and inappropriate logs should be removed. Cache owners are get notification when their caches are log and are in the best position to respond to these problems. Imagine an obscenity laden log that had to first be reported, then reviewed, and finally deleted. A cache owner can take care of this post haste. Of course when cache owners don't fulfill the responsibility the logs can still be report to TPTB but hopefully most are caught by owners.

 

In giving cache owners the responsibility there is an opportunity for abuse. Once again, abuse can be reported to TPTB to take care of it. However most case end like this one, where the OP found a way to word their log that the cache owner accepts:

 

I have relogged it as "This was a quick find. I had difficulty removing and replacing the log without damaging it because it is very large relative to the size of the container. (Team 100)"

 

On another day I might have written it that way from the outset.

 

Some people don't take criticism well. The original post was critical of cache owners who squeeze too much scroll into a nano cache. The rewording simple state that the finder had difficulty replacing the scroll. Just a slight difference in wording and it's not taken a personal attack (even though it was not meant as one).

Link to comment

As a cache owner, if I feel a log is beside the mark, I first contact the geocacher and ask them to adjust it.

I haven't had to delete a log so far.

 

GOF and Bacall: I would do that, but some places simply don't fit anything larger than a nano...

 

It's a different topic, but that re-enforces the idea that not every place needs a cache.

Link to comment

This is one reason why I feel GS should remove the delete log option away from the cache owners. I see more CO abuse their power than cachers.

I don't mind the delete log option, but make it so it won't be deleted unless the CO adds a note that would be automatically sent to the cacher explaing why.

I have sent an email to the cacher through their profile that I am deleting their log and why. Then I delete.

 

That said, I've only had to do a few, and mostly on my Earthcaches. If I audit my logbook and see that an online log missed the logbook, I email them to find out what happened, and only in a couple cases have I deleted in those cases. But, in all cases, I email the cacher. The function exists, but few take the time to be diplomatic...or use it at all.

 

There should be an automatic note feature and it should be required to use it when deleting a log. The lackeys agree and told us quite some time ago that this feature would be coming.

It already is in place for deleting photos, if memory serves.

Link to comment

This is one reason why I feel GS should remove the delete log option away from the cache owners. I see more CO abuse their power than cachers.

I don't mind the delete log option, but make it so it won't be deleted unless the CO adds a note that would be automatically sent to the cacher explaing why.

I have sent an email to the cacher through their profile that I am deleting their log and why. Then I delete.

 

That said, I've only had to do a few, and mostly on my Earthcaches. If I audit my logbook and see that an online log missed the logbook, I email them to find out what happened, and only in a couple cases have I deleted in those cases. But, in all cases, I email the cacher. The function exists, but few take the time to be diplomatic...or use it at all.

 

There should be an automatic note feature and it should be required to use it when deleting a log. The lackeys agree and told us quite some time ago that this feature would be coming.

It already is in place for deleting photos, if memory serves.

 

Yes, deleting photos from a log requires you to give a reason, which is emailed to the logger, along with a direct link to the deleted photo. Unfortunately, it is also emailed to everyone that is watching the cache, so you basically email a direct link to a photo to the very people that you don't want to see the photo. That was reported in February and confirmed as a bug.

Link to comment

This is one reason why I feel GS should remove the delete log option away from the cache owners. I see more CO abuse their power than cachers.

I don't mind the delete log option, but make it so it won't be deleted unless the CO adds a note that would be automatically sent to the cacher explaing why.

I have sent an email to the cacher through their profile that I am deleting their log and why. Then I delete.

 

That said, I've only had to do a few, and mostly on my Earthcaches. If I audit my logbook and see that an online log missed the logbook, I email them to find out what happened, and only in a couple cases have I deleted in those cases. But, in all cases, I email the cacher. The function exists, but few take the time to be diplomatic...or use it at all.

 

There should be an automatic note feature and it should be required to use it when deleting a log. The lackeys agree and told us quite some time ago that this feature would be coming.

It already is in place for deleting photos, if memory serves.

 

Yes, deleting photos from a log requires you to give a reason, which is emailed to the logger, along with a direct link to the deleted photo. Unfortunately, it is also emailed to everyone that is watching the cache, so you basically email a direct link to a photo to the very people that you don't want to see the photo. That was reported in February and confirmed as a bug.

Oh, so my memory did serve. Wow, thanks for confirming it. :blink:

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...