Deleting maintance logs

[+TeamKross]

Hi,

 

A cache in our area was disabled by the owner after the cache being damaged which was good of them. They replaced it a little while later and re-activated the cache. However, I noticed that they deleted the disabled and enabled logs. I know there probably isin't any rule against this but thought to myself, why?? I own a few caches and have had to disable my caches a couple times due to local floods etc but I've never deleted the disabled/enabled logs. To me it tells a story about the cache and shows people that I maintain them all the time.

 

Obviously there are going to be different ways of looking at this with no actual rule against it but what are peoples thoughts about it?

 

TeamKross

[4wheelin_fool]

It's a form of OCD to keep the page clean. Some delete DNFs for the same reason. They really shouldn't, as the logs are a historical record, but just watch 10 episodes of "Monk" and perhaps you will understand.

Edited July 31, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+The_Incredibles_]

I delete extra logs like this sometimes when it starts to clutter the cache page too much. Usually it's notes that I delete. I would definitely make sure there was an owner maintenance left, though, to show maintenance was done.

[+briansnat]

Doesn't bother me either way. Whatever the cache owner decides. Though it can be helpful if a maint log is left intact after a series of DNFs or logs mentioning issues, so searchers know the issue has been resolved.

Edited July 31, 2013 by briansnat

[+SwineFlew]

Its best to let logs alone. Its the history of the cache. If the CO doesnt like long DNF logs with a NM log, they should get on the ball and fix it in the first place.Its not loggers fault that the CO is lazy.

Edited July 31, 2013 by SwineFlew

[+TeamKross]

Its best to let logs alone. Its the history of the cache. If the CO doesnt like long DNF logs with a NM log, they should get on the ball and fix it in the first place.Its not loggers fault that the CO is lazy.

 

I agree its the history of the cache and probably would be better to leave it there to show maintenance etc. The CO in this case was very good in getting onto it and fixing it but I thought it was strange whey they deleted the logs. Anyway, it is their cache is suppose.

[+WRASTRO]

Some cache owners just don't seem to like to allow the posted history of logs on their cache remain. For some reason a "clean" cache page means only found it logs. In my opinion this is remaking history and should not be done. The only logs I have ever deleted from a cache page were a clear fake found it and an inadvertent double log. I emailed both cachers and told them why I deleted their logs.

[+MartyBartfast]

I suppose if someone's doing paperless caching and have only downloaded the latest 5 logs from this cache to their GPS and they want to look at those logs for any clues from previous finders it's going to be a pain if out of 5 logs all they get is :

 

• A real log from the last finder
  
• NM log is wet
  
• Tmp disabled - I'll replace it soon
  
• Maintenance - I've replaced the log
  
• Enabled - it's back online
  

 

I wouldn't do it myself though.

[+-CJ-]

I've deleted such logs to lower chances for local cache thieves to find out that a cache which had been stolen was back in game. This may sound ridiculous but when you have to replace dozens of your caches per year you use different ways to make their life as long as possible.

[+Don_J]

Some cache owners just don't seem to like to allow the posted history of logs on their cache remain. For some reason a "clean" cache page means only found it logs. In my opinion this is remaking history and should not be done. The only logs I have ever deleted from a cache page were a clear fake found it and an inadvertent double log. I emailed both cachers and told them why I deleted their logs.

 

I agree. The history tells a story that some may not want told. There is a cache in the Hollywood/LA area that seems to disappear about every three months. The cache owner diligently and promptly replaces it and leaves all of the logs on the cache page. I may get the cache some day because it looks like an interesting spot, but I won't leave someones geocoin in it because of the history shown in the logs.

 

Some cache owners know this and don't like it. The other situation is the wide use of the third party program, GSAK. GSAK will tell you what type of logs the last four logs are. Some people that are interested in finding a lot of easy caches in a short amount of time will filter for cache that have all found logs for the last four logs. If your cache just went through a cycle of NM, Disable, OM, Enable. It will be excluded from those people's caching runs. For some reason, this is important to some cache owners. Personally, I could not care less if some power cachers miss my cache when they blow through town like a tornado.

[+Don_J]

I suppose if someone's doing paperless caching and have only downloaded the latest 5 logs from this cache to their GPS and they want to look at those logs for any clues from previous finders it's going to be a pain if out of 5 logs all they get is :

 

• A real log from the last finder
  
• NM log is wet
  
• Tmp disabled - I'll replace it soon
  
• Maintenance - I've replaced the log
  
• Enabled - it's back online
  

 

I wouldn't do it myself though.

 

Not much different than:

 

• 
   
  
• Found it with John, Chris, and Tom. TFTC
  
• Out caching with John, Chris, and Bill. TFTC
  
• Found it while caching with Bill, John and Tom. TFTC
  
• Bill found it while Chris, Tom and I sat in the car. TFTC
  

Edited July 31, 2013 by Don_J