Has Groundspeak/Geocaching.com forbidden us from stepping in poo?

[+c45]

...or don't they just want us to log it?

 

Last year, I briefly visited France and found cache GC28PD9. Unfortunatelly, I was a bit too focused on my garmin and accidentally stepped in something brown, soft and smelly when I approached the cache.

 

I logged it with a harmless "I found it...and also stepped in s***" (translation of my original log in French). I realize that the word "s***" could be a bit controverisal, but in this context it was not used as a profanity or in any other disrespectful manner, but just to describe my experience. After all, I literally stepped in a brown present.

 

Nine months (!?!) after I logged the cache, the owner decided to remove my log. Simply because he feels that it isn't interesting for other cachers to read that I stepped in something. So, not feeling that it is a spoiler or a profanity, but just that it is uninteresting.

 

The support that geocaching has provided is to re-activate my log ...but also censoring it to a simple "I found it".

 

As I am not getting any feedback or explanation from geoaching.com (which I, as a paying customer, find a bit disappointing) I would like to pose the same question to the community: Is there anything in the guidelines that justify the censoring of my log? Or are the owners entitled to dictate what may and may not be written in the logs, depending on what they think might be interesting.

 

I am sure that I am not the first or the last cacher to inadvertently coat my shoe with a brown cream. Are we in these situations not allowed to share our caching story with others?

Edited September 19, 2013 by c45

[+JBnW]

Why on the world would you think anyone would want to read about that? Why in the world would you want to make an issue of it?

[+cerberus1]

Is there anything in the guidelines that justify the censoring of my log? Or are the owners entitled to dictate what may and may not be written in the logs, depending on what they think might be interesting.

 

I am sure that I am not the first or the last cacher to inadvertently coat my shoe with a brown cream. Are we in these situations not allowed to share our caching story with others?

Sure. Under Cache Ownership and/or Log Deletion in the guidelines, I guess someone didn't think s*** was proper.

I've seen probably a hundred logs of, "stepped in poo" with no problems.

Means the same, your choice of words might have been the issue.

 

- As far as deleting because it was uninteresting, never heard that one before...

[Clan Riffster]

If your log included the word I suspect it did, I'm not surprised that it was deleted. While the word in question certainly describes the brown, smelly mass you stepped in, many people view it as an expletive. Other descriptors which are less likely to offend include 'poo' and 'feces'. By deliberately choosing a word which many find offensive, you run the risk of getting your log deleted.

 

Why it took so long to be deleted is anybody's guess.

 

Perhaps the owner was okay with it, and someone else whined to The Lily Pad?

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

"I stepped in something foul....not Oui Oui but Poo Poo!"

[+wimseyguy]

You can step in it all you want; you just cannot boast about it in your log apparently.

[+FunnyNose]

Why on the world would you think anyone would want to read about that? Why in the world would you want to make an issue of it?

 

Because I read logs on caches that I seek. It is nice to know if there are irresponsible dog owners that use the area and I can avoid having stinky shoes the rest of the day.

[+The_Incredibles_]

You're not supposed to be using swear words in your log. Sometimes it's good to warn other cachers. Here we say something like 'dog bomb at GZ'.

[+c45]

ok, just to clarify, I tried to practice and improve my French when I wrote the log, so I did actually not write the word "s***", but "merde", which literally translated means s***, poo, excrement, feces, dog bomb or whatever you want to call it. To propose me to use other English words is not really productive. I am also not really fluent in French and do not know all the synonyms for this brown delicacy. Sure, I fully agree to use another word had I written the log in English.

 

The owner emphasizes that the only reason for the log removal is that the log was uninteresting, not because it contains a profanity (which I am not completely convinced that it is in French). As geocaching.com chooses to censor the log indicates for me that the owners may dictate what is interesting and remove unwanted logs.

[+Don_J]

ok, just to clarify, I tried to practice and improve my French when I wrote the log, so I did actually not write the word "s***", but "merde", which literally translated means s***, poo, excrement, feces, dog bomb or whatever you want to call it. To propose me to use other English words is not really productive. I am also not really fluent in French and do not know all the synonyms for this brown delicacy. Sure, I fully agree to use another word had I written the log in English.

 

The owner emphasizes that the only reason for the log removal is that the log was uninteresting, not because it contains a profanity (which I am not completely convinced that it is in French). As geocaching.com chooses to censor the log indicates for me that the owners may dictate what is interesting and remove unwanted logs.

 

Your French is not good. Is this also true of the cache owner's English? Perhaps "uninteresting" is not the proper word for his issue with your log but simply the word that came out of the translator?

[+c45]

ok, just to clarify, I tried to practice and improve my French when I wrote the log, so I did actually not write the word "s***", but "merde", which literally translated means s***, poo, excrement, feces, dog bomb or whatever you want to call it. To propose me to use other English words is not really productive. I am also not really fluent in French and do not know all the synonyms for this brown delicacy. Sure, I fully agree to use another word had I written the log in English.

 

The owner emphasizes that the only reason for the log removal is that the log was uninteresting, not because it contains a profanity (which I am not completely convinced that it is in French). As geocaching.com chooses to censor the log indicates for me that the owners may dictate what is interesting and remove unwanted logs.

 

Your French is not good. Is this also true of the cache owner's English? Perhaps "uninteresting" is not the proper word for his issue with your log but simply the word that came out of the translator?

 

Thanks you for your evaluation, as I initially wrote, my French is not fluent, but I do understand a quite bit and I do not need to use a translator. however, please feel free to translate the justification from the owner, maybe your translator comes to a different conclusion than me.

 

"Quant au pourquoi j'ai supprimé votre log :

 

pour moi un log peut avoir deux buts :

--- indiquer Found It ou DNF d'une part

--- donner un détail utile aux autres : que le log est trempé ou plein pour le poseur, que la boîte a disparu, etc.

 

Mais dire que vous avez marché dedans ne me semblait pas un élément particulièrement intéressant pour les autres.

 

C'est pour cela que je l'ai supprimé, et uniquement pour cela."

[cezanne]

Thanks you for your evaluation, as I initially wrote, my French is not fluent, but I do understand a quite bit and I do not need to use a translator. however, please feel free to translate the justification from the owner, maybe your translator comes to a different conclusion than me.

 

I did not need a translator either - I could read the French text without one. I believe that the owner and Groundspeak have different issues with your log. Groundspeak might have thought that a particular word might have caused the cache owner to delete your log while the cache owner is one of those cachers who has quite a restricted idea about the contents and purpose of logs.

He/she would have an issue with almost all of my logs. The part of my log that is directly directed to the cache owner and tells about the condition of the container is typically very short. Most of my logs deal with my experience and that often include even things that happen before or after the cache (e.g. a traffic jam on my way to the cache, having had a good meal directly after the cache nearby, having found mushrooms on my way, having enjoyed a nice sunset on my way home etc).

 

There is definitely no part of the guidelines that supports the belief of the cache owner that logs have just the two purposes he/she mentions.

 

Cezanne

Edited September 20, 2013 by cezanne

[+redsox_mark]

I think Cezanne has it right.

 

The owner would still object if you used a different word. They don't think what you stepped in has anything to do with the cache. (I don't agree with the owner).

 

We don't know why Groundspeak did what they did, but most likely because of the "word". But also I think they take a simple view of these things. It is easy to re-instate your find with a blank log.. it is harder to mediate between 2 parties about exactly what should be allowed in the log.

 

I don't think it is worth the hassle, but if you want to push this further re-edit your log to add your story in the most polite words possible. Use English if you are not confident in doing it in French. See what the owner does. And if they delete it see what Groundspeak does.

[+ras_oscar]

I think Cezanne has it right.

 

The owner would still object if you used a different word. They don't think what you stepped in has anything to do with the cache. (I don't agree with the owner).

 

We don't know why Groundspeak did what they did, but most likely because of the "word". But also I think they take a simple view of these things. It is easy to re-instate your find with a blank log.. it is harder to mediate between 2 parties about exactly what should be allowed in the log.

 

I don't think it is worth the hassle, but if you want to push this further re-edit your log to add your story in the most polite words possible. Use English if you are not confident in doing it in French. See what the owner does. And if they delete it see what Groundspeak does.

To the OP;

 

Do what you feel is appropriate, but If i were in your shoes... after finishing with the lysol, I'd log a TNLNSL TFTC and move on. Life is too short to sweat the petty stuff.

Edited September 20, 2013 by ras_oscar

[cezanne]

I'd log a TNLNSL TFTC and move on. Life is too short to sweat the petty stuff.

 

For me the contents of my logs is much more important that a "found it" smilie.

So it conyeys the completely wrong message for me to log a found it log with something like

TNLNSL TFTC which just is completely meaningless for me.

 

Cezanne

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I've mentioned stepping in the stuff in a log, before, but it wasn't dog stuff, if you get my drift. I'm just wondering why you chose the most uncreative way to describe it. You could have called it a smelly brown curd squeezed from a canine anus. You could have called it the post-digestive byproduct of a quadruped's alimentary canal. The mushy brown substance most closely resembling the ideas set forth by (your choice politician here).

[cezanne]

I've mentioned stepping in the stuff in a log, before, but it wasn't dog stuff, if you get my drift. I'm just wondering why you chose the most uncreative way to describe it. You could have called it a smelly brown curd squeezed from a canine anus. You could have called it the post-digestive byproduct of a quadruped's alimentary canal. The mushy brown substance most closely resembling the ideas set forth by (your choice politician here).

 

I think that the French cache owner would have deleted the log with such a formulation as well and probably even more than with a straight formulation. The objection put forward by mail does not relate at all to the formulation of the log, but just to the fact that the reported experience by c45 is not related to the cache and thus not of interest to owner and other cachers. It is this latter point that would motivate me to fight for the log if it were mine.

Next time someone might come and delete for example a log of mine because I report that I suffered from knee pain in the descent.

 

Cezanne

Edited September 20, 2013 by cezanne

[4wheelin_fool]

The owner emphasizes that the only reason for the log removal is that the log was uninteresting, not because it contains a profanity (which I am not completely convinced that it is in French). As geocaching.com chooses to censor the log indicates for me that the owners may dictate what is interesting and remove unwanted logs.

 

That's crazy. It sure sounds interesting. Its not everyday that someone gets to step into a stinky turd pumped out of a dog's rectum. What was the texture? Like play doh, or hard and lumpy? Was it dark brown or have a lighter color? Was there small items mixed in? Was it just dropped in a standard single line, or did the dog pile it upwards in a fanciful design? What was your reaction? Disbelief? Shock? Anger? Depression? Did you finally accept it? Or did you whack your shoe on a tree or rock to get it off?

[+dprovan]

ok, just to clarify, I tried to practice and improve my French when I wrote the log, so I did actually not write the word "s***", but "merde", which literally translated means s***, poo, excrement, feces, dog bomb or whatever you want to call it. To propose me to use other English words is not really productive. I am also not really fluent in French and do not know all the synonyms for this brown delicacy. Sure, I fully agree to use another word had I written the log in English.

Well, of course people are suggesting alternatives in English to give you ideas what to consider in French. But even if you did know the French equivalents that aren't offensive, I would suggest just not being specific, the equivalent of "Watch where you step. I didn't."

 

The owner emphasizes that the only reason for the log removal is that the log was uninteresting, not because it contains a profanity (which I am not completely convinced that it is in French). As geocaching.com chooses to censor the log indicates for me that the owners may dictate what is interesting and remove unwanted logs.

I'm not entirely convinced this would have come up if you hadn't dropped the M bomb, but it really doesn't matter. He wants you to remove the passage entirely, so why not just be gracious about it and take it out instead of accusing him of censorship? What comes through as important to me here is your inability to be polite to someone that put out a cache for your enjoyment.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I think that the French cache owner would have deleted the log with such a formulation as well and probably even more than with a straight formulation.

 

I'm sure he would have, but it would have made for a more interesting read in the time leading up to the deletion. If anyone happens to step in the stuff at one of my caches, I should certainly hope to find something cleverly written, like this:

 

Its not everyday that someone gets to step into a stinky turd pumped out of a dog's rectum. What was the texture? Like play doh, or hard and lumpy? Was it dark brown or have a lighter color? Was there small items mixed in? Was it just dropped in a standard single line, or did the dog pile it upwards in a fanciful design? What was your reaction? Disbelief? Shock? Anger? Depression? Did you finally accept it? Or did you whack your shoe on a tree or rock to get it off?

 

You caught me sipping a beverage on that one. I just managed not to blow it out my nose. Thanks for the laugh.

[+Don_J]

I think Cezanne has it right.

 

The owner would still object if you used a different word. They don't think what you stepped in has anything to do with the cache. (I don't agree with the owner).

 

We don't know why Groundspeak did what they did, but most likely because of the "word". But also I think they take a simple view of these things. It is easy to re-instate your find with a blank log.. it is harder to mediate between 2 parties about exactly what should be allowed in the log.

 

I don't think it is worth the hassle, but if you want to push this further re-edit your log to add your story in the most polite words possible. Use English if you are not confident in doing it in French. See what the owner does. And if they delete it see what Groundspeak does.

 

I'd edit my log to "Signed log, TFTC". And be done with it. If he deletes it again, I'd have Groundspeak reinstate it again. At that point, maybe someone at Groundspeak will explain to him that unless the log contains spoilers, bad language or is completely bogus, he has no business deleting it.

 

Just another reason why Groundspeak needs to give us the ability to ignore all caches by a single user. This guy would go on the list in a heartbeat. Hide a cache where people let their dogs poop and then complain when someone mentions it?

[+Don_J]

ok, just to clarify, I tried to practice and improve my French when I wrote the log, so I did actually not write the word "s***", but "merde", which literally translated means s***, poo, excrement, feces, dog bomb or whatever you want to call it. To propose me to use other English words is not really productive. I am also not really fluent in French and do not know all the synonyms for this brown delicacy. Sure, I fully agree to use another word had I written the log in English.

 

The owner emphasizes that the only reason for the log removal is that the log was uninteresting, not because it contains a profanity (which I am not completely convinced that it is in French). As geocaching.com chooses to censor the log indicates for me that the owners may dictate what is interesting and remove unwanted logs.

 

Your French is not good. Is this also true of the cache owner's English? Perhaps "uninteresting" is not the proper word for his issue with your log but simply the word that came out of the translator?

 

Thanks you for your evaluation, as I initially wrote, my French is not fluent, but I do understand a quite bit and I do not need to use a translator. however, please feel free to translate the justification from the owner, maybe your translator comes to a different conclusion than me.

 

"Quant au pourquoi j'ai supprimé votre log :

 

pour moi un log peut avoir deux buts :

--- indiquer Found It ou DNF d'une part

--- donner un détail utile aux autres : que le log est trempé ou plein pour le poseur, que la boîte a disparu, etc.

 

Mais dire que vous avez marché dedans ne me semblait pas un élément particulièrement intéressant pour les autres.

 

C'est pour cela que je l'ai supprimé, et uniquement pour cela."

 

Thank you. I was just throwing that out for thought, but it does appear that this guy wants to enforce some sort of logging standards on his caches. He will be in constant conflict with other cachers and Groundspeak. I'd personally stay away from his caches.

Edited September 20, 2013 by Don_J

[+Don_J]

I'd log a TNLNSL TFTC and move on. Life is too short to sweat the petty stuff.

 

For me the contents of my logs is much more important that a "found it" smilie.

So it conyeys the completely wrong message for me to log a found it log with something like

TNLNSL TFTC which just is completely meaningless for me.

 

Cezanne

 

Yes, but with this particular cache owner, you can't write what you want. You have to write what he wants. At that point, he'd get a "TFTC" from me.

[+Don_J]

ok, just to clarify, I tried to practice and improve my French when I wrote the log, so I did actually not write the word "s***", but "merde", which literally translated means s***, poo, excrement, feces, dog bomb or whatever you want to call it. To propose me to use other English words is not really productive. I am also not really fluent in French and do not know all the synonyms for this brown delicacy. Sure, I fully agree to use another word had I written the log in English.

Well, of course people are suggesting alternatives in English to give you ideas what to consider in French. But even if you did know the French equivalents that aren't offensive, I would suggest just not being specific, the equivalent of "Watch where you step. I didn't."

 

The owner emphasizes that the only reason for the log removal is that the log was uninteresting, not because it contains a profanity (which I am not completely convinced that it is in French). As geocaching.com chooses to censor the log indicates for me that the owners may dictate what is interesting and remove unwanted logs.

I'm not entirely convinced this would have come up if you hadn't dropped the M bomb, but it really doesn't matter. He wants you to remove the passage entirely, so why not just be gracious about it and take it out instead of accusing him of censorship? What comes through as important to me here is your inability to be polite to someone that put out a cache for your enjoyment.

 

Kind of funny. I've put out 197 caches for other people's enjoyment and for some reason, have never had the desire to dictate how the people who find them should write their logs.

 

Deleting a log seven months after it is posted because you find it uninteresting? This guy has no business owning caches because he obviously hasn't read the guidelines.

 

If someone posted that they stepped in dog s# next to my cache, I would write to them and apologize for their bad experience, ask them to please edit their log to say dog poop instead of s#, and then I would go and clean up the dog poop and re-evaluate my caches location.

[+c45]

I've mentioned stepping in the stuff in a log, before, but it wasn't dog stuff, if you get my drift. I'm just wondering why you chose the most uncreative way to describe it. You could have called it a smelly brown curd squeezed from a canine anus. You could have called it the post-digestive byproduct of a quadruped's alimentary canal. The mushy brown substance most closely resembling the ideas set forth by (your choice politician here).

 

I think that the French cache owner would have deleted the log with such a formulation as well and probably even more than with a straight formulation. The objection put forward by mail does not relate at all to the formulation of the log, but just to the fact that the reported experience by c45 is not related to the cache and thus not of interest to owner and other cachers. It is this latter point that would motivate me to fight for the log if it were mine.

Next time someone might come and delete for example a log of mine because I report that I suffered from knee pain in the descent.

 

Cezanne

 

I am glad that someone understood my main point, as it was not so much to discuss different words or invent new expressions. There are probably plenty of other forums devoted for that. Don't get me wrong, I do find the expressions funny and am a bit tempted to quote them in my log.

 

However, the main question still remains unanswered; to what extent are the cache owners entitled to remove or censor logs and to dictate the content of the log? Sure, I fully understand if someone writes a spoiler or if someone uses profanity....but if the log is not interesting? Who's to judge what's interesting? Everything and nothing is interesting, it just depends on who you ask (and also when you ask).

 

I do understand that it is difficult to mediate between 2 parties, but what signals are geocaching.com really sending in this case? A short summary:

1) cache owner finds my log uninteresting and wants it censored. (so not because of the brown word)

2) geocaching.com censors my log without any further explanation (maybe because of the brown word, maybe not. Who knows?).

If I would be in the owners shoes (clean hopefully), I would clearly see it as a confirmation that I have the right to censor uninteresting logs. So, what stops him from repeating this and annoying the next cacher?

[+dprovan]

Kind of funny. I've put out 197 caches for other people's enjoyment and for some reason, have never had the desire to dictate how the people who find them should write their logs.

Good for you. I certainly hope most COs feel that way. I don't say the CO is entitled to say what goes in his log, I merely say that there's no good reason to pick a fight with someone doing something nice for you just because you think they're being silly about content.

 

And even after reading the message, I'm still not convinced he would have brought this up if it weren't how it was said. The way I read it, he's trying to explain the deletion in a way that avoids making him look like a prude, but I can't shake the feeling that he wouldn't have considered deleting it -- boring content or not -- if it hadn't had an offensive word in it, and used by a non-French speaker, to boot.

[+dprovan]

However, the main question still remains unanswered; to what extent are the cache owners entitled to remove or censor logs and to dictate the content of the log?

I'm relatively sure the cache owner isn't entitled to control content beyond the obvious issues. If it weren't for the offensive term, I fully expect that you could have gotten your log reinstated if you had appealed. I guess I didn't really realize there was any question about that.

 

My point remains that if it means that much to him, why does it mean so much to you that you're determined to defy him? The way you're discussing it, it's as if you want to annoy him just because of the principle.

[+-CJ-]

For me English is a second language so I was especially intrigued by this thread. A bunch of new idioms like "dog bomb" and "brown word" Sorry about this comment but your discussion made me think of what could happen with logs of those cachers who know English POOrly.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

For me English is a second language so I was especially intrigued by this thread. A bunch of new idioms like "dog bomb" and "brown word" Sorry about this comment but your discussion made me think of what could happen with logs of those cachers who know English POOrly.

 

Good point. I know what you're thinking:

 

 

I don't recommend the "dog bomb" euphemism when logging in foreign countries.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

However, the main question still remains unanswered; to what extent are the cache owners entitled to remove or censor logs and to dictate the content of the log?

 

If the log is bogus, it can be deleted.

 

If the log contains spoilers, the owner can ask to have it modified, or choose to encrypt it.

 

If the log is profane, abusive, contains spam (advertizing), is off-topic or promotes anything illegal, then it can be deleted.

 

I think that notes can be deleted if the logs start turning into something like this forum. The logs should not be used as a discussion thread on the subject of the cache.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

 

Do what you feel is appropriate, but If i were in your shoes... after finishing with the lysol, I'd log a TNLNSL TFTC and move on. Life is too short to sweat the petty stuff.

 

And don't pet the sweaty stuff either.

[Keystone]

I've mentioned stepping in the stuff in a log, before, but it wasn't dog stuff, if you get my drift. I'm just wondering why you chose the most uncreative way to describe it. You could have called it a smelly brown curd squeezed from a canine anus. You could have called it the post-digestive byproduct of a quadruped's alimentary canal. The mushy brown substance most closely resembling the ideas set forth by (your choice politician here).

 

I think that the French cache owner would have deleted the log with such a formulation as well and probably even more than with a straight formulation. The objection put forward by mail does not relate at all to the formulation of the log, but just to the fact that the reported experience by c45 is not related to the cache and thus not of interest to owner and other cachers. It is this latter point that would motivate me to fight for the log if it were mine.

Next time someone might come and delete for example a log of mine because I report that I suffered from knee pain in the descent.

 

Cezanne

 

I am glad that someone understood my main point, as it was not so much to discuss different words or invent new expressions. There are probably plenty of other forums devoted for that. Don't get me wrong, I do find the expressions funny and am a bit tempted to quote them in my log.

 

However, the main question still remains unanswered; to what extent are the cache owners entitled to remove or censor logs and to dictate the content of the log? Sure, I fully understand if someone writes a spoiler or if someone uses profanity....but if the log is not interesting? Who's to judge what's interesting? Everything and nothing is interesting, it just depends on who you ask (and also when you ask).

 

I do understand that it is difficult to mediate between 2 parties, but what signals are geocaching.com really sending in this case? A short summary:

1) cache owner finds my log uninteresting and wants it censored. (so not because of the brown word)

2) geocaching.com censors my log without any further explanation (maybe because of the brown word, maybe not. Who knows?).

If I would be in the owners shoes (clean hopefully), I would clearly see it as a confirmation that I have the right to censor uninteresting logs. So, what stops him from repeating this and annoying the next cacher?

Bear in mind that there are maybe five employees at Groundspeak that handle all the customer service requests, including log deletion disputes and a lot of other issues, for the entire world. You are not going to get a full court hearing. The simple solution of restoring the log with short boring text is the quick and easy answer. I would not read too much into it or search too deeply for "motive" or "policy."

 

My understanding of "policy" is that the inclusion of a dirty word is valid grounds for log deletion, fixed by an edit or relog without the dirty word. Also, writing in your log about the experience with the cache visit is generally not grounds for deletion just because the log text didn't interest the owner. But, I'm just a volunteer cache reviewer and we are not the log police.

 

So, it would be a far more interesting thread if your log had no dirty words in it, but was still deleted and replaced with the simple text.

[+tozainamboku]

Bear in mind that there are maybe five employees at Groundspeak that handle all the customer service requests, including log deletion disputes and a lot of other issues, for the entire world. You are not going to get a full court hearing. The simple solution of restoring the log with short boring text is the quick and easy answer. I would not read too much into it or search too deeply for "motive" or "policy."

 

My understanding of "policy" is that the inclusion of a dirty word is valid grounds for log deletion, fixed by an edit or relog without the dirty word. Also, writing in your log about the experience with the cache visit is generally not grounds for deletion just because the log text didn't interest the owner. But, I'm just a volunteer cache reviewer and we are not the log police.

 

So, it would be a far more interesting thread if your log had no dirty words in it, but was still deleted and replaced with the simple text.

My guess is that if there are only five employees handling all the customer service request, they're likely going to side with the cache owner and not reinstate the log. You can always relog your find in some way that doesn't offend the owner.

 

The guidelines tell the cache owner to delete logs that are bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate. It should not be surprising that different people may have different opinions over what is off-topic or inappropriate.

 

The Help Center still contains a paragraph encouraging people to resolve these disputes on their own

We know that sometimes this issue can be contentious. If the other party is being stubborn, ask yourself, "Is this dispute really worth my time?" Try being the bigger person and conceding the point. You may discover that you feel better for doing so. At the very least, it will put the matter quickly behind you.

[+c45]

However, the main question still remains unanswered; to what extent are the cache owners entitled to remove or censor logs and to dictate the content of the log?

I'm relatively sure the cache owner isn't entitled to control content beyond the obvious issues. If it weren't for the offensive term, I fully expect that you could have gotten your log reinstated if you had appealed. I guess I didn't really realize there was any question about that.

 

My point remains that if it means that much to him, why does it mean so much to you that you're determined to defy him? The way you're discussing it, it's as if you want to annoy him just because of the principle.

 

It seems like you are attacking a straw man here. I have no idea where this misconception that I want "to pick a fight with someone" or "annoy" and "defy" the cache owner comes from. I would truly recommend you to re-read the entire discussion to clarify your factual misinterpretations and to understand what I want to discuss (even the topic title should give you an insinuation).

 

To clarify what I have already stressed in my past posts: I am disappointed about the lack of feedback from geocaching.com. I would like to know why geocaching.com (not the owner) censored my log when re-activating it; is it because it contains the brown word (in French however) or is it because they support the owner, for whom the content of the log is uninteresting (even if I would use another word).

 

If it is just because this specific word, I could accept it, reformulate myself and move on.

 

If they instead support the owner and consider my story irrelevant, I am a bit more worried. What's next? To remove logs which do not demonstrate enough gratitude for someone putting out a cache for others enjoyment. I guess there are many potential renegade cache owners out there, ready to enforce their own set of standards.

 

The only one trying to pick a fight in this thread is you... with a straw man!

[+dprovan]

The only one trying to pick a fight in this thread is you... with a straw man!

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. When someone uses the word "censorship", I assume it's because they intend to stand against it, not because it's something they're casually curious about.

[4wheelin_fool]

My guess is that if there are only five employees handling all the customer service request, they're likely going to side with the cache owner and not reinstate the log. You can always relog your find in some way that doesn't offend the owner.

 

The guidelines tell the cache owner to delete logs that are bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate. It should not be surprising that different people may have different opinions over what is off-topic or inappropriate.

 

The Help Center still contains a paragraph encouraging people to resolve these disputes on their own

We know that sometimes this issue can be contentious. If the other party is being stubborn, ask yourself, "Is this dispute really worth my time?" Try being the bigger person and conceding the point. You may discover that you feel better for doing so. At the very least, it will put the matter quickly behind you.

 

Its likely that they are just not trying to take any sides. The log should not have been deleted, but this is a just a silly issue that either side should not be getting their ire up about. The log was edited. Let it go.

 

[cezanne]

You can always relog your find in some way that doesn't offend the owner.

 

But in some cases this then reduces to just saying that one found the cache and the found it smilies are the least relevant aspect for me. I wish to report my experience. I do not write my logs in order to make them interesting for the owner or the majority of cachers - I write them for me and a small group of other cachers and friends.

If a cache owner feels offended, I'm willing to try reformulating to log, but if the issue is that the cache owner does not regard my logs to be interesting, this touches a major point due to what I described above. I even mention in my profile that it is not even my intent to write logs that are interesting to the average cache owner.

 

Cezanne

Edited September 21, 2013 by cezanne

[+AutisticMajor]

I would just like to mention France (and Paris') reputation as the dog mess capitol of the world. This is probably a constant hazard to the geocachers living there, hence the remark of 'uninteresting'.

 

Remember the ads? "You're right not to clean it up, he does it very well for you."

[+kunarion]

hence the remark of 'uninteresting'.

I had the impression that the Cache Owner cleans up after cachers, that one may have one's "uninteresting" logs removed -- "uninteresting" being anything unflattering about that cache.

 

I don't exercise so much control over logs on my caches. And lots of logs are kind of on the unflattering side. And there's a chance of various forms of "poo" just about anywhere outdoors, with the risk that it ends up as the log story.

 

Unless I consider it an accomplishment, or something the Cache Owner vindictively left for me to step in (and made it unavoidable), I might log "stepped in something" and follow that with a cache log that is a non-poo story. But as long as the cacher can refrain from potty mouth, I won't delete their extended description of potty stepping.

Edited September 21, 2013 by kunarion

[+wimseyguy]

Honestly, I cannot believe there is this much ado about poo.

[+kunarion]

Honestly, I cannot believe there is this much ado about poo.

This would be a common topic of there was a poovenir.

[+cwgrizz]

I have been known to post a log or two along this line. A couple of years ago, I posted a DNF for GCV9KY. It is an interesting Multi in a semi-remote area, where people camp and hunt on occasion. The cache itself has an interesting story and I posted (IMHO) a couple of fun logs, similar to the one expressed here in this thread. I like to write logs with some humor and some insight to my experience. This thread has brought up some other thoughts as well. Many hate TFTC logs, but then someone complains about a longer log. Hmmmmm!

 

Not that this provides any real contribution to this discussion, the discussion brought back memories of an interesting cache.

[+kunarion]

Many hate TFTC logs, but then someone complains about a longer log.

Maybe the OP left a TMI log.

[7rxc]

I think that logs of all types should belong to the finders account. The Cache Owner should only have the right to show or not show that log on their page. This goes for Trackables as well... Owner can display the logs or type of logs they wish on their page, but the logs are property of the finder. This would be subject to the usual 'quality' control about language etc. of course.

 

Allowing the Cache Owner too much freedom to criticize valid logs would amount to an ALR... must meet my wishes or no log for you! Like I said, build in the controls to allow selection of type of log if you must, but control at a level like this, should only be for GS, the finder and in the event of a offensive log as is covered in the guidelines.

 

Not having the experience of dealing with the cache(s) by the owner, I can't comment on the validity of adding to the ignore list if you can. I wonder if GS can tell how many logs have been hidden by this guy, since deletes don't really ever happen? If so, does he have a history of this action, only leaving 'choice' entries? That would be an indication of the fact that they want the type of display control above.

 

Doug 7rxc

[cezanne]

 

I had the impression that the Cache Owner cleans up after cachers, that one may have one's "uninteresting" logs removed -- "uninteresting" being anything unflattering about that cache.

 

According to his explanation it appears that the focus is not on unflattering and that he might as well have deleted a log of mine where I for example said that m knee was hurting at the cache or that back at home I had a nice meal.

 

Cezanne

[+Jammalees]

next time use 'crotte de chien'.. it's slightly more polite than 'merde de chien' - though I doubt it would have helped given the CO's response ;-)

[+Manville Possum]

Honestly, I cannot believe there is this much ado about poo.

Well, I have hidden and listed more than one fake turd geocache container hide. We have a listing in our area called "That looks real" that is near a dog park, I logged a dnf on it. What I found was real.