Deleting a log

[+GrammyJinxx]

Does anyone know how to delete a log of someone who logged your cache as found but the name is not on the physical log?

[+geocat_]

On the cache page, scroll down to the log in question, select "view log" and then click the red garbage can on the next page. ONLY do this if you have some EVIDENCE that the person claiming the find did not sign it.

[+GrammyJinxx]

Thanks, geocat! Yes, two cachers "found" all five of my caches. They logged a lot of caches in the area today and yesterday and I thought it was odd since many of them were hard and time consuming. Thought I'd check my caches and neither name was on any of the logs. When I did some caching later, I choose some caches that they had "found" and the names weren't those logs either. On the way home I stopped at few I had already found and the same thing, their names weren't there.

Thanks for your help...I got the logs deleted!

[+NanCycle]

Thanks, geocat! Yes, two cachers "found" all five of my caches. They logged a lot of caches in the area today and yesterday and I thought it was odd since many of them were hard and time consuming. Thought I'd check my caches and neither name was on any of the logs. When I did some caching later, I choose some caches that they had "found" and the names weren't those logs either. On the way home I stopped at few I had already found and the same thing, their names weren't there.

Thanks for your help...I got the logs deleted!

 

In this case, since you say that many of the caches were hard and time consuming, you are probably right that they didn't actually find them, but in other cases it might be good to give the situation a bit more thought. Such as, if their individual names were not on the log, did they sign with a team name? Or in the case of nanos, did they just use initials? It would be wise on their part if they mentioned this in their on-line log, but they might not think of it, or consider it necessary. For instance, on many nanos I just put the mo/dy of the date and "NC" instead of taking two lines and I never mention this in my posts.

[+dprovan]

Sounds like they should be reported to Groundspeak. Did you mention the bogus logs in your own find logs so the other COs are alerted to the problem?

[+GrammyJinxx]

Sounds like they should be reported to Groundspeak. Did you mention the bogus logs in your own find logs so the other COs are alerted to the problem?

 

Their names or initials were not on any of my cache logs. I checked a couple caches that had recently been placed that I had already found and no name or group name. Found another one like that today. There were 86 caches "found" by one of them, I didn't check to see if the other one cached that many too. I emailed the major geocaches in this area. Two emailed back and said oh yes, they know of these cachers and they have a bad reputation. Another cacher checked her caches today and their names weren't on any of hers.

[+GrammyJinxx]

So, where do you go in Groundspeak to report a problem?

[Jayme H]

The best way to report a TOU issue is through the Help Center. Find it at: geocaching.com/help

[+dprovan]

The best way to report a TOU issue is through the Help Center. Find it at: geocaching.com/help

Just out of curiosity, how would I "categorize this request"? I don't see anything in the drop down list that says, "Report misbehaving geocachers."

 

(I'm also wondering what "TOU" stands for. Tattling On User?)

[+weeziemi]

For any following this, I was contacted by GrammyJinxx about this and checked my two caches they logged and they did not sign. I sent e-mails to both and asked that they describe the caches as they each had very distinctive hides. One e-mailed back to say there was muggle activity in the area and they didn't want to draw attention so just replaced the cache and moved on. Trust me, that was not very likely given the locations. I re-asked for descriptions and have not heard back. I wanted them to be aware they are being watched. I gave them 24 hours to reply then would delete their log entries.

[+Traditional Bill]

The best way to report a TOU issue is through the Help Center. Find it at: geocaching.com/help

Just out of curiosity, how would I "categorize this request"? I don't see anything in the drop down list that says, "Report misbehaving geocachers."

 

(I'm also wondering what "TOU" stands for. Tattling On User?)

 

I'm sure it stands for "terms of use".

[+dprovan]

(I'm also wondering what "TOU" stands for. Tattling On User?)

I'm sure it stands for "terms of use".

Thanks. I thought I was making a joke with "tattling on user", but I guess I was pretty much right on the money.

[+J Grouchy]

For any following this, I was contacted by GrammyJinxx about this and checked my two caches they logged and they did not sign. I sent e-mails to both and asked that they describe the caches as they each had very distinctive hides. One e-mailed back to say there was muggle activity in the area and they didn't want to draw attention so just replaced the cache and moved on. Trust me, that was not very likely given the locations. I re-asked for descriptions and have not heard back. I wanted them to be aware they are being watched. I gave them 24 hours to reply then would delete their log entries.

 

That's just too lenient. I haven't run across any discrepancies yet, but would have no problem just deleting the log without feeling a need to explain myself or give warnings and deadlines. My cache, my logbook. Sign it or the log is gone. Not sure what all the hand-wringing is about...

[+Traditional Bill]

For any following this, I was contacted by GrammyJinxx about this and checked my two caches they logged and they did not sign. I sent e-mails to both and asked that they describe the caches as they each had very distinctive hides. One e-mailed back to say there was muggle activity in the area and they didn't want to draw attention so just replaced the cache and moved on. Trust me, that was not very likely given the locations. I re-asked for descriptions and have not heard back. I wanted them to be aware they are being watched. I gave them 24 hours to reply then would delete their log entries.

 

That's just too lenient. I haven't run across any discrepancies yet, but would have no problem just deleting the log without feeling a need to explain myself or give warnings and deadlines. My cache, my logbook. Sign it or the log is gone. Not sure what all the hand-wringing is about...

 

+1

 

I wouldn't wait another minute to delete the logs in question. I've deleted logs from cachers before who didn't sign and I'd do it again too. If there is any doubt in your mind still that they didn't sign and they're offering you half brained excuses and/or obvious lies then you are within every right to take the smiley from them.

[+Don_J]

For any following this, I was contacted by GrammyJinxx about this and checked my two caches they logged and they did not sign. I sent e-mails to both and asked that they describe the caches as they each had very distinctive hides. One e-mailed back to say there was muggle activity in the area and they didn't want to draw attention so just replaced the cache and moved on. Trust me, that was not very likely given the locations. I re-asked for descriptions and have not heard back. I wanted them to be aware they are being watched. I gave them 24 hours to reply then would delete their log entries.

 

That's just too lenient. I haven't run across any discrepancies yet, but would have no problem just deleting the log without feeling a need to explain myself or give warnings and deadlines. My cache, my logbook. Sign it or the log is gone. Not sure what all the hand-wringing is about...

 

+1

 

I wouldn't wait another minute to delete the logs in question. I've deleted logs from cachers before who didn't sign and I'd do it again too. If there is any doubt in your mind still that they didn't sign and they're offering you half brained excuses and/or obvious lies then you are within every right to take the smiley from them.

 

If someone offered you a full brained excuse that made sense and obviously wasn't a lie, would you let it slide?

[+Traditional Bill]

For any following this, I was contacted by GrammyJinxx about this and checked my two caches they logged and they did not sign. I sent e-mails to both and asked that they describe the caches as they each had very distinctive hides. One e-mailed back to say there was muggle activity in the area and they didn't want to draw attention so just replaced the cache and moved on. Trust me, that was not very likely given the locations. I re-asked for descriptions and have not heard back. I wanted them to be aware they are being watched. I gave them 24 hours to reply then would delete their log entries.

 

That's just too lenient. I haven't run across any discrepancies yet, but would have no problem just deleting the log without feeling a need to explain myself or give warnings and deadlines. My cache, my logbook. Sign it or the log is gone. Not sure what all the hand-wringing is about...

 

+1

 

I wouldn't wait another minute to delete the logs in question. I've deleted logs from cachers before who didn't sign and I'd do it again too. If there is any doubt in your mind still that they didn't sign and they're offering you half brained excuses and/or obvious lies then you are within every right to take the smiley from them.

 

If someone offered you a full brained excuse that made sense and obviously wasn't a lie, would you let it slide?

 

It really depends on the situation. Let's say they get to the cache, find it and the log book is soaked. They take a picture of the log and privately email me to let me know. At that point I'd let them claim a find, yeah. But simply saying "yeah there was some muggles around, so we couldn't sign but we found and claimed it!". Yeah, that wouldn't fly.

[+J Grouchy]

For any following this, I was contacted by GrammyJinxx about this and checked my two caches they logged and they did not sign. I sent e-mails to both and asked that they describe the caches as they each had very distinctive hides. One e-mailed back to say there was muggle activity in the area and they didn't want to draw attention so just replaced the cache and moved on. Trust me, that was not very likely given the locations. I re-asked for descriptions and have not heard back. I wanted them to be aware they are being watched. I gave them 24 hours to reply then would delete their log entries.

 

That's just too lenient. I haven't run across any discrepancies yet, but would have no problem just deleting the log without feeling a need to explain myself or give warnings and deadlines. My cache, my logbook. Sign it or the log is gone. Not sure what all the hand-wringing is about...

 

+1

 

I wouldn't wait another minute to delete the logs in question. I've deleted logs from cachers before who didn't sign and I'd do it again too. If there is any doubt in your mind still that they didn't sign and they're offering you half brained excuses and/or obvious lies then you are within every right to take the smiley from them.

 

If someone offered you a full brained excuse that made sense and obviously wasn't a lie, would you let it slide?

 

It really depends on the situation. Let's say they get to the cache, find it and the log book is soaked. They take a picture of the log and privately email me to let me know. At that point I'd let them claim a find, yeah. But simply saying "yeah there was some muggles around, so we couldn't sign but we found and claimed it!". Yeah, that wouldn't fly.

 

On one of my most recent hides, I unwittingly put it next to a poison ivy vine (I had thought they were a lot "shaggier" than that!). A finder emailed me a photo of the cache itself, so I let him have the find and when I ran out to move the cache I signed his name for him. I'm not THAT much of a stickler for the rules...but like you said, flippant comments about muggles and such don't give me much sympathy. I've been stymied by an overabundance of muggles before...and in those cases I post a note about it (if it's so bad I can't really even do a proper search).

[+K13]

Why move it? To me, a hide in Poison ivy is like a hide in a tall tree. If the finder doesn't feel like climbing (allergic to heights, maybe) should a Cache Owner rush out, climb up and sign this non-logger's name to the logsheet to justify his 'find'?

The finder in your case could have used a grabber to retrieve the cache or just logged a DNF, (and mentioned his aversion to poison ivy in his log) and moved on.

 

It's just another obstacle to overcome to sign the log and count as a find. There are Attributes that should tell the finder about what to expect when searching for a cache, and poisonous plants is one of the attributes, as is tree climbing.

[+Don_J]

For any following this, I was contacted by GrammyJinxx about this and checked my two caches they logged and they did not sign. I sent e-mails to both and asked that they describe the caches as they each had very distinctive hides. One e-mailed back to say there was muggle activity in the area and they didn't want to draw attention so just replaced the cache and moved on. Trust me, that was not very likely given the locations. I re-asked for descriptions and have not heard back. I wanted them to be aware they are being watched. I gave them 24 hours to reply then would delete their log entries.

 

That's just too lenient. I haven't run across any discrepancies yet, but would have no problem just deleting the log without feeling a need to explain myself or give warnings and deadlines. My cache, my logbook. Sign it or the log is gone. Not sure what all the hand-wringing is about...

 

+1

 

I wouldn't wait another minute to delete the logs in question. I've deleted logs from cachers before who didn't sign and I'd do it again too. If there is any doubt in your mind still that they didn't sign and they're offering you half brained excuses and/or obvious lies then you are within every right to take the smiley from them.

 

If someone offered you a full brained excuse that made sense and obviously wasn't a lie, would you let it slide?

 

It really depends on the situation. Let's say they get to the cache, find it and the log book is soaked. They take a picture of the log and privately email me to let me know. At that point I'd let them claim a find, yeah. But simply saying "yeah there was some muggles around, so we couldn't sign but we found and claimed it!". Yeah, that wouldn't fly.

 

Okay, I was just wondering how hard of a line you would draw. What you just described is what I have always considered to be a photo log, when someone takes a photo of the log because for one reason or another, they can't physically sign it. There is an active thread here about how that term has taken on an entirely different meaning.

[+dprovan]

Why move it? To me, a hide in Poison ivy is like a hide in a tall tree.

My guess is that he moved it so he wouldn't become known as an obnoxious CO that intentionally hides caches in poison ivy.

[+Don_J]

Why move it? To me, a hide in Poison ivy is like a hide in a tall tree. If the finder doesn't feel like climbing (allergic to heights, maybe) should a Cache Owner rush out, climb up and sign this non-logger's name to the logsheet to justify his 'find'?

The finder in your case could have used a grabber to retrieve the cache or just logged a DNF, (and mentioned his aversion to poison ivy in his log) and moved on.

 

It's just another obstacle to overcome to sign the log and count as a find. There are Attributes that should tell the finder about what to expect when searching for a cache, and poisonous plants is one of the attributes, as is tree climbing.

 

I would never intentionally put a cache in poison oak. If I found out that my cache was in PO, I'd move it if possible. If not, I would warn profusely on my cache page. If it was impossible to get the cache without coming in contact with the PO, I'd archive the cache, as I did with my very first cache. Grabbers are not really a solution unless you are able to clean the grabbers as soon as you are through.

[+geocat_]

 

Okay, I was just wondering how hard of a line you would draw. What you just described is what I have always considered to be a photo log, when someone takes a photo of the log because for one reason or another, they can't physically sign it. There is an active thread here about how that term has taken on an entirely different meaning.

 

If someone sent a photo log only because there was some sort of problem that was not intended by me as the CO and was not something that the finder could fix, then I would consider allowing it. For example, if the cache had been muggled and destroyed and the finder wanted to show me what had occurred at the site or if a bird had built a nest right next to the cache and the finder used his brain and didn't want to disturb the nest. Usually, this type of situation would have me disable the cache until said situation could be fixed.

[+WarNinjas]

I have had what the original poster is talking about happen to some of our caches around here. Logging 100 finds in a day that they obviously didn't do. Of course delete those. I have in my beginning days logged a find for spotting the cache and not being able to sign it due to muggles (only a couple). Those were far away from home and not ones I would get back to any time soon and I did see them. I wouldn't have claimed a find if I didn't see them. I also found other caches on those days so I didn't use any for the streak. I felt I was doing the CO a favor. I could have pulled it out and signed it in front of everyone and had a very good chance one of them would have came and taken it after. Just my thought on it as a CO of many caches I would rather someone not sign it that found it then sign it and get it muggled. I wouldn't feel bad at all if a CO had deleted one of those finds and I haven't done that in a long time just those few at first but wouldn't say I would never do it again if a crazy situation came up. Keep in mind these were easy to grab caches nothing up a tree or anything. Those would never be logged without signing.