Logging an old archived cache

[+narcissa]

So finders have absolute authority of the cache listing? I think the cache owner would get the nod.

 

If cache owners were permitted to delete logs every time they didn't like the look of something, there would be an incredible volume of complaints/appeals.

 

The general expectation is that a log should be left alone unless there are extenuating circumstances (i.e. abusive language) or the log is obviously false (i.e. account shows bizarre logging behaviour, signature in log is absent).

 

I mean, I would love it if I could delete every log that was disappointing or annoying, but that would be like, 75% of the logs.

 

I know that unless I can back up the deletion with evidence that the log is fake, deleting the log is likely result in a complaint by the cacher, followed an embarassing conversation with Groundspeak where I come out looking like a tin-pot dictator with no credibility.

 

For even the most persnickety cache owners, that's enough of a deterrent to keep arbitrary deletions at a minimum.

[+narcissa]

So let's imagine that I'm a persnickety cache owner who gets a notification that my long-archived cache has been logged. The find date is before the cache was archived.

 

That's an outrage! People who log late are awful!

 

I shoot off an email to the cacher that says "Holy late logging Batman! What gives?"

 

How should I react to these replies? Which reply warrants deleting the find?

 

A ) Take a hike, Poindexter.

 

B ) I'm so sorry, my wife divorced me and kept the family account so I'm re-logging my finds under this new one.

 

C ) *no reply*

 

D ) lol you caught me lol

 

I guess answering yes or no is just not possible.

 

So which ones warrant log deletion? Let's assume the log was an illegible sogging mess that I had to throw out, so I can't refer back to it.

[+IOError]

I have read this whole thread over days. This whole thing comes down to a question of due diligence. In this case both parties failed. If the CO were of the mind that this type of logging should be questioned they should have kept the logs. They did not do their due diligence. The finder should have logged their find in a timely fashion (NOTE: This is not always possible and by no means a requirement of any type). They didn't. They did not perform their due diligence in this matter. So when both parties fail to perform their due diligence in any matter the way it stands at the end of the day is the way it is left. The success of either party to perform their due diligence in this matter would have avoided this situation in it's entirety. Since both parties failed the situation stands as is. That's how most any transaction works.

 

Just my two cents.

 

Again, there's a wide margin between what is actually required of cache owners and cache finders, and what should be considered "best practices."

 

Of course there are any number of ways the situation could be avoided. The cache could have written a more detailed log, and the cache owner could have restrained his/her personal emotions upon receiving the late log. It's a two-way street.

 

Geocachers are a diverse group of humans, not robots, with varied quirks and pet peeves. In reality, we are prone to disappointing each other on occasion. Digging our heels in about what people should do in an ideal world just doesn't work in this game.

 

I agree. That's why in this situation with things as they stand, that's how they are left. Done. If anything else had been done this wouldn't be a topic and we wouldn't be spending days on this.

Edited May 20, 2016 by IOError

[+narcissa]

I have read this whole thread over days. This whole thing comes down to a question of due diligence. In this case both parties failed. If the CO were of the mind that this type of logging should be questioned they should have kept the logs. They did not do their due diligence. The finder should have logged their find in a timely fashion (NOTE: This is not always possible and by no means a requirement of any type). They didn't. They did not perform their due diligence in this matter. So when both parties fail to perform their due diligence in any matter the way it stands at the end of the day is the way it is left. The success of either party to perform their due diligence in this matter would have avoided this situation in it's entirety. Since both parties failed the situation stands as is. That's how most any transaction works.

 

Just my two cents.

 

Again, there's a wide margin between what is actually required of cache owners and cache finders, and what should be considered "best practices."

 

Of course there are any number of ways the situation could be avoided. The cache could have written a more detailed log, and the cache owner could have restrained his/her personal emotions upon receiving the late log. It's a two-way street.

 

Geocachers are a diverse group of humans, not robots, with varied quirks and pet peeves. In reality, we are prone to disappointing each other on occasion. Digging our heels in about what people should do in an ideal world just doesn't work in this game.

 

I agree. That's why in this situation with things as they stand, that's how they are left. Done. If anything else had been done this wouldn't be a topic and we wouldn't be spending days on this.

 

The forum is, in part, a place where geocachers can hash out issues like this that arise when humans act like humans, and not robots.

 

Sometimes threads are long and repetitive, particularly when new people jump in without reading the previous pages. It's just how it goes.

 

To the best of my knowledge, participation in the forum is not mandatory.

[+dprovan]

Again it appears that some comments are veering towards the personal. That is unfortunate, but let me again confirm that my comments are about the case outlined in the original post and the example text, not the individuals participating in this discussion.

I'm sorry for the confusion. I am putting us both in the hypothetical and discussing it as if it really happened. Then I'm thinking about how I, as the CO, would react to your comments. So no offense taken. On the other hand, perhaps you should think about why you're so worried that I'm taking offense in this forum conversation, but you're not worried at all about what offense I'd take if this were really happening.

 

What is imaginary?

I was going to try to explain what you were imagining, but then you wrote it up yourself in more obvious terms than I would have dared use:

 

So let's imagine that I'm a persnickety cache owner who gets a notification that my long-archived cache has been logged. The find date is before the cache was archived.

 

That's an outrage! People who log late are awful!

In the scenario, I'm not outraged. I don't care if you're logging late. I'm not being persnickety. I'm just wondering if you made a mistake. You are imagining that I'm convinced the log is invalid and that my goal here is to delete it against your wishes. That's a complete fiction you've fabricated in your own head. All that matters to me is whether you think the log's valid.

 

The example text clearly states that their log will be deleted if the cacher doesn't respond. "Friendly" wording doesn't change the fact that it's an inappropriate request.

I am offering to delete a log that we both agree is invalid. I can't even imagine you thinking the log is valid but not telling me, so I'm not bothering to consider that possibility at all and would be horrified to realize, after the fact, that that's what happened. You have in your head that I'm chomping at the bit to delete the log against your wishes, but it's just not the case. You imagined that.

 

You're imagining I have a secret motive and that I'm only "couching" a demand to make it seem friendly. But, no, I'm honestly just being friendly. Read it again if you don't believe me, but this time read it as if I'm your best friend that you know for a fact would never delete a log you wanted to stand, since that's exactly my attitude.

 

If the cacher wants to keep the log from being deleted, the cacher has no choice but to respond to the email.

It's true that if you don't respond, I'll delete the log, but I don't feel like I'm forcing you to do anything because I'm assuming you would respond whether I said that or not since that's what polite people do when they're asked a friendly question. As far as I can see, the only reason you're not going to respond is because you want to stand on some principle. Obviously it's going to take way more effort to get GS involved that it would be to just confirm the find's valid.

 

There is nothing friendly about putting someone in that position. Some cachers may not want to communicate privately with a stranger for any number of reasons, and, more importantly, they aren't required to.

I have to admit I'm not really grasping the concept of geocaching without ever engaging in private conversations, but if you don't want to communicate privately, then you can simply update your log to explain. And perhaps next time it will occur to you to just explain in the log when you first post it, but, of course, that's up to you.

[+dprovan]

Again, there's a wide margin between what is actually required of cache owners and cache finders, and what should be considered "best practices."

 

Of course there are any number of ways the situation could be avoided. The cache could have written a more detailed log, and the cache owner could have restrained his/her personal emotions upon receiving the late log. It's a two-way street.

 

Geocachers are a diverse group of humans, not robots, with varied quirks and pet peeves. In reality, we are prone to disappointing each other on occasion. Digging our heels in about what people should do in an ideal world just doesn't work in this game.

I was floored when I read these remarkably observant comments. I has no idea you had this kind of insight into what's going on here. The only thing you're missing is that you're the one that's reacting emotionally, and you're the one that's digging in your heals about what people should do in an ideal world. My hypothetical CO and I are entirely flexible in the matter. Neither of us had any idea you'd react negatively to his friendly question and humble offer. I consider being friendly the best practice.

 

But then in a later note, everything came into focus:

 

I mean, I would love it if I could delete every log that was disappointing or annoying, but that would be like, 75% of the logs.

I doubt there's anything I can do to convince you not to think that way, but I beg you to stop assuming everyone else feels that way. I'd hate to delete any log, no matter how I felt about it. And I consider every log precious, so I can't even imagine what could make you disappointed if not annoyed by an overwhelming majority of the logs you get.

[+narcissa]

Again it appears that some comments are veering towards the personal. That is unfortunate, but let me again confirm that my comments are about the case outlined in the original post and the example text, not the individuals participating in this discussion.

I'm sorry for the confusion. I am putting us both in the hypothetical and discussing it as if it really happened. Then I'm thinking about how I, as the CO, would react to your comments. So no offense taken. On the other hand, perhaps you should think about why you're so worried that I'm taking offense in this forum conversation, but you're not worried at all about what offense I'd take if this were really happening.

 

What is imaginary?

I was going to try to explain what you were imagining, but then you wrote it up yourself in more obvious terms than I would have dared use:

 

So let's imagine that I'm a persnickety cache owner who gets a notification that my long-archived cache has been logged. The find date is before the cache was archived.

 

That's an outrage! People who log late are awful!

In the scenario, I'm not outraged. I don't care if you're logging late. I'm not being persnickety. I'm just wondering if you made a mistake. You are imagining that I'm convinced the log is invalid and that my goal here is to delete it against your wishes. That's a complete fiction you've fabricated in your own head. All that matters to me is whether you think the log's valid.

 

The example text clearly states that their log will be deleted if the cacher doesn't respond. "Friendly" wording doesn't change the fact that it's an inappropriate request.

I am offering to delete a log that we both agree is invalid. I can't even imagine you thinking the log is valid but not telling me, so I'm not bothering to consider that possibility at all and would be horrified to realize, after the fact, that that's what happened. You have in your head that I'm chomping at the bit to delete the log against your wishes, but it's just not the case. You imagined that.

 

You're imagining I have a secret motive and that I'm only "couching" a demand to make it seem friendly. But, no, I'm honestly just being friendly. Read it again if you don't believe me, but this time read it as if I'm your best friend that you know for a fact would never delete a log you wanted to stand, since that's exactly my attitude.

 

If the cacher wants to keep the log from being deleted, the cacher has no choice but to respond to the email.

It's true that if you don't respond, I'll delete the log, but I don't feel like I'm forcing you to do anything because I'm assuming you would respond whether I said that or not since that's what polite people do when they're asked a friendly question. As far as I can see, the only reason you're not going to respond is because you want to stand on some principle. Obviously it's going to take way more effort to get GS involved that it would be to just confirm the find's valid.

 

There is nothing friendly about putting someone in that position. Some cachers may not want to communicate privately with a stranger for any number of reasons, and, more importantly, they aren't required to.

I have to admit I'm not really grasping the concept of geocaching without ever engaging in private conversations, but if you don't want to communicate privately, then you can simply update your log to explain. And perhaps next time it will occur to you to just explain in the log when you first post it, but, of course, that's up to you.

 

The replies here are, once again, highly personal which makes them somewhat irrelevant. Once again, I'll remind you that my comments are not about a particular individual and are about the example text, not a specific scenario that may have been in mind when that text was provided as an example.

 

To be clear: I believe in applying best practices when logging. I don't believe that someone who doesn't apply best practices should have their log deleted by a cache owner who doesn't like it.

 

As a cache owner, I don't ever know if a particular find is valid unless I see the name in the logbook. The fact that a log was written after a cache was archived and/or two years after the alleged find doesn't automatically make it invalid. I must assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the log is valid.

 

Evidence to the contrary means a logbook, or perhaps some weirdness in the user's profile that suggests fraudulent logging.

 

The "friendliness" is not at issue here. Cachers are not obligated to validate their finds through private communication with a cache owner. The tone of the request does not matter. It constitutes an additional logging requirement.

 

The cacher is not under any obligation to reply, or to update the log. A cache owner who deletes under these circumstances is in the wrong.

 

Personal feelings about "friendship" and the importance of communication are not relevant.

 

There are many good reasons to communicate privately with other caches, but it's not required.

 

There are many valid reasons why someone may not wish to communicate privately with another cacher. That's okay, because that communication is not required.

[+justintim1999]

So finders have absolute authority of the cache listing? I think the cache owner would get the nod.

 

If cache owners were permitted to delete logs every time they didn't like the look of something, there would be an incredible volume of complaints/appeals.

 

The general expectation is that a log should be left alone unless there are extenuating circumstances (i.e. abusive language) or the log is obviously false (i.e. account shows bizarre logging behaviour, signature in log is absent).

 

I mean, I would love it if I could delete every log that was disappointing or annoying, but that would be like, 75% of the logs.

 

I know that unless I can back up the deletion with evidence that the log is fake, deleting the log is likely result in a complaint by the cacher, followed an embarassing conversation with Groundspeak where I come out looking like a tin-pot dictator with no credibility.

 

For even the most persnickety cache owners, that's enough of a deterrent to keep arbitrary deletions at a minimum.

 

Sometimes a fake log isn't that obvious. Take the example given. A log back dated a year to the month it was archived. That's why I'd rather contact the finder and sort it out together. To be honest I'd accept just about any explanation. What I'd have a hard time accepting is no response or an invitation to read the guidelines.

Edited May 20, 2016 by justintim1999

[+narcissa]

Again, there's a wide margin between what is actually required of cache owners and cache finders, and what should be considered "best practices."

 

Of course there are any number of ways the situation could be avoided. The cache could have written a more detailed log, and the cache owner could have restrained his/her personal emotions upon receiving the late log. It's a two-way street.

 

Geocachers are a diverse group of humans, not robots, with varied quirks and pet peeves. In reality, we are prone to disappointing each other on occasion. Digging our heels in about what people should do in an ideal world just doesn't work in this game.

I was floored when I read these remarkably observant comments. I has no idea you had this kind of insight into what's going on here. The only thing you're missing is that you're the one that's reacting emotionally, and you're the one that's digging in your heals about what people should do in an ideal world. My hypothetical CO and I are entirely flexible in the matter. Neither of us had any idea you'd react negatively to his friendly question and humble offer. I consider being friendly the best practice.

 

But then in a later note, everything came into focus:

 

I mean, I would love it if I could delete every log that was disappointing or annoying, but that would be like, 75% of the logs.

I doubt there's anything I can do to convince you not to think that way, but I beg you to stop assuming everyone else feels that way. I'd hate to delete any log, no matter how I felt about it. And I consider every log precious, so I can't even imagine what could make you disappointed if not annoyed by an overwhelming majority of the logs you get.

 

My comments are mainly about how cache owners should react, in accordance with the guidelines, in a world that is never ideal and where geocachers frequently make mistakes or do things that are kind of annoying.

 

As cache owners, we're not supposed to be severe gatekeepers looking for reasons to delete logs. We're not supposed to be demanding independent verification that people were at our caches.

 

These comments are becoming rather personal to the point that the thread is now probably in jeopardy. That's a shame.

[+narcissa]

So finders have absolute authority of the cache listing? I think the cache owner would get the nod.

 

If cache owners were permitted to delete logs every time they didn't like the look of something, there would be an incredible volume of complaints/appeals.

 

The general expectation is that a log should be left alone unless there are extenuating circumstances (i.e. abusive language) or the log is obviously false (i.e. account shows bizarre logging behaviour, signature in log is absent).

 

I mean, I would love it if I could delete every log that was disappointing or annoying, but that would be like, 75% of the logs.

 

I know that unless I can back up the deletion with evidence that the log is fake, deleting the log is likely result in a complaint by the cacher, followed an embarassing conversation with Groundspeak where I come out looking like a tin-pot dictator with no credibility.

 

For even the most persnickety cache owners, that's enough of a deterrent to keep arbitrary deletions at a minimum.

 

Sometimes a fake log isn't that obvious. Take the example given. A log back dated a year to the month it was archived. That's why I'd rather contact the finder and sort it out together. To be honest I'd accept just about any explanation. What I'd have a hard time accepting is no response or an invitation to read the guidelines.

 

Yep, sometimes fake logs aren't that obvious. Oh well!

 

Sometimes, as cache owners, we must learn to accept that people can be disappointing and aside from trying to preserve our logbooks better, there's not much we can do about it.

 

The impulse to reach out when something looks odd is understandable, but it's important to keep expectations in check and word those communications cautiously.

 

We're not entitled to receive a response when we send unsolicited private messages. Deleting a log because someone didn't answer an email simply isn't appropriate cache owner behaviour.

 

Remember: Deleting a valid log is far worse than allowing a questionable log to stand.

[+justintim1999]

Again, there's a wide margin between what is actually required of cache owners and cache finders, and what should be considered "best practices."

 

Of course there are any number of ways the situation could be avoided. The cache could have written a more detailed log, and the cache owner could have restrained his/her personal emotions upon receiving the late log. It's a two-way street.

 

Geocachers are a diverse group of humans, not robots, with varied quirks and pet peeves. In reality, we are prone to disappointing each other on occasion. Digging our heels in about what people should do in an ideal world just doesn't work in this game.

I was floored when I read these remarkably observant comments. I has no idea you had this kind of insight into what's going on here. The only thing you're missing is that you're the one that's reacting emotionally, and you're the one that's digging in your heals about what people should do in an ideal world. My hypothetical CO and I are entirely flexible in the matter. Neither of us had any idea you'd react negatively to his friendly question and humble offer. I consider being friendly the best practice.

 

But then in a later note, everything came into focus:

 

I mean, I would love it if I could delete every log that was disappointing or annoying, but that would be like, 75% of the logs.

I doubt there's anything I can do to convince you not to think that way, but I beg you to stop assuming everyone else feels that way. I'd hate to delete any log, no matter how I felt about it. And I consider every log precious, so I can't even imagine what could make you disappointed if not annoyed by an overwhelming majority of the logs you get.

 

My comments are mainly about how cache owners should react, in accordance with the guidelines, in a world that is never ideal and where geocachers frequently make mistakes or do things that are kind of annoying.

 

As cache owners, we're not supposed to be severe gatekeepers looking for reasons to delete logs. We're not supposed to be demanding independent verification that people were at our caches.

 

These comments are becoming rather personal to the point that the thread is now probably in jeopardy. That's a shame.

 

No one is looking for reasons to delete logs. Why would I take the time and effort to place and maintain caches only to delete logs?

 

I'm frustrated that my comments are not being taken a face value. I used the word courtesy meaning civil and polite and you define that as "a false air of authority to our personal preference."

 

I'm simply asking a question and that makes me a severe gatekeeper?

 

I value your opinion as I do everyone who chooses to participate. I just ask that you accept my comments as they are written and if I word something wrong give me the chance to correct it.

[+dprovan]

Try to understand that what apparently is meant as an offer from your side, will not be understood as an offer by the majority.

I understand it's rampant, although I hope it wouldn't really be misconstrued by the majority. But either way, such a negative attitude is unhealthy to our hobby, and I'm trying to convince you and the others to consider a different way of reacting to other cachers. There's no downside to considering it an offer, and there's nothing but downside to considering it a threat.

I'm not sure that I understand your usage of rampant correctly.

By "rampant", I mean it's a widely held attitude, echoing what you're saying, but I'm slipping in the editorial comment that it's out of control to contrast with what I take to be your position that it's perfectly reasonable.

 

I do not think that the issue here is a negative attitude. You need not use the term threat - call it whatever you want, but understand that hardly anyone will consider your statement that you will delete a log unless you receive an answer as an offer.

I don't understand. If you reject that it's an offer, what term other than "threat" could I use for what you're imagining?

 

Anyway, the point was that it was, in fact, an offer, so even though you think most people would make the same mistake and see it as a non-offer (i.e., a threat), that doesn't mean we should accept that reaction as a given.

 

Deleting logs is nothing a normal cachers wants to get help with.

My hypothetical CO didn't really give any thought about what the seeker would or wouldn't want help with. He hardly wanted to bother the seeker with the question to begin with, so it seems rude of him to then demand the seeker implement the solution.

 

So if I assume that what you write is not meant as threat, then the interpretation that remains would be that you think that I'm silly and need help with deleting a log.

Wow. You really, really have to go a long way to turn that into an insult. Don't do that. Be friendly.

 

What do you lose by ommitting what you call offer?

It's true that all I gained by that comment was, I thought, being friendlier, but I didn't actually give any possible negative interpretation a thought because I can't imagine making a threat, I can't imagine thinking that someone was threatening me while pretending to be friendly, and I can't think of any reason I should imagine such a threat.

[+narcissa]

Again, there's a wide margin between what is actually required of cache owners and cache finders, and what should be considered "best practices."

 

Of course there are any number of ways the situation could be avoided. The cache could have written a more detailed log, and the cache owner could have restrained his/her personal emotions upon receiving the late log. It's a two-way street.

 

Geocachers are a diverse group of humans, not robots, with varied quirks and pet peeves. In reality, we are prone to disappointing each other on occasion. Digging our heels in about what people should do in an ideal world just doesn't work in this game.

I was floored when I read these remarkably observant comments. I has no idea you had this kind of insight into what's going on here. The only thing you're missing is that you're the one that's reacting emotionally, and you're the one that's digging in your heals about what people should do in an ideal world. My hypothetical CO and I are entirely flexible in the matter. Neither of us had any idea you'd react negatively to his friendly question and humble offer. I consider being friendly the best practice.

 

But then in a later note, everything came into focus:

 

I mean, I would love it if I could delete every log that was disappointing or annoying, but that would be like, 75% of the logs.

I doubt there's anything I can do to convince you not to think that way, but I beg you to stop assuming everyone else feels that way. I'd hate to delete any log, no matter how I felt about it. And I consider every log precious, so I can't even imagine what could make you disappointed if not annoyed by an overwhelming majority of the logs you get.

 

My comments are mainly about how cache owners should react, in accordance with the guidelines, in a world that is never ideal and where geocachers frequently make mistakes or do things that are kind of annoying.

 

As cache owners, we're not supposed to be severe gatekeepers looking for reasons to delete logs. We're not supposed to be demanding independent verification that people were at our caches.

 

These comments are becoming rather personal to the point that the thread is now probably in jeopardy. That's a shame.

 

No one is looking for reasons to delete logs. Why would I take the time and effort to place and maintain caches only to delete logs?

 

I'm frustrated that my comments are not being taken a face value. I used the word courtesy meaning civil and polite and you define that as "a false air of authority to our personal preference."

 

I'm simply asking a question and that makes me a severe gatekeeper?

 

I value your opinion as I do everyone who chooses to participate. I just ask that you accept my comments as they are written and if I word something wrong give me the chance to correct it.

 

That was not a definition of the word courtesy. That is a description of how the word is frequently applied in the forum. This is the second time my words have been misrepresented in this fashion. It's disappointing.

 

Remember, one person's concept of "courtesy" may differ from another person's concept of "courtesy." Unless two geocachers know each other well, it may be extremely difficult for one geocacher to predict what another geocacher will interpret as a lack of "courtesy."

 

Some cache owners may interpret a late log as a lack of courtesy. Others don't. It's highly subjective.

 

The word "courtesy" has very little meaning or relevance in this discussion. Sometimes geocachers, intentionally or inadvertently, demonstrate behaviour that will be interpreted as a lack of courtesy. Good cache owners must learn to set aside their personal feelings in order to make decisions that are fair and in accordance with the guidelines.

 

We can all implore each other to show "courtesy" but just between the handful of individuals participating in this discussion, perceptions of courtesy vary widely. Your concept of "courtesy" is just as valid as mine, and it's just as irrelevant.

 

Questioning people's logs on the basis of personal preferences is poor practice for cache owners. Whether it's a preference for punctuality, a preference for detailed and nicely written logs (mine), a preference for a description of the trade (a real example), these preferences do not entitle us to apply undue scrutiny to a geocacher's log.

[cezanne]

I do not think that the issue here is a negative attitude. You need not use the term threat - call it whatever you want, but understand that hardly anyone will consider your statement that you will delete a log unless you receive an answer as an offer.

I don't understand. If you reject that it's an offer, what term other than "threat" could I use for what you're imagining?

 

Anyway, the point was that it was, in fact, an offer, so even though you think most people would make the same mistake and see it as a non-offer (i.e., a threat), that doesn't mean we should accept that reaction as a given.

 

Threat someone includes for me that it is someone actually fears. There are cachers out there who do not care that much about their logs.

 

Deleting logs is nothing a normal cachers wants to get help with.

My hypothetical CO didn't really give any thought about what the seeker would or wouldn't want help with. He hardly wanted to bother the seeker with the question to begin with, so it seems rude of him to then demand the seeker implement the solution.

 

That's the source of our disagreement. I consider what you suggested to write at least borderline rude while if you ommited it, I would not see the slightest sign of rudeness.

I would not write anything about log deletion at all in a mail of the type you suggested, i.e. I also would not write "Please delete the log yourself in case a mistake happened".

 

 

So if I assume that what you write is not meant as threat, then the interpretation that remains would be that you think that I'm silly and need help with deleting a log.

Wow. You really, really have to go a long way to turn that into an insult. Don't do that. Be friendly.

 

My problem is just that I cannot imagine any friendly reason for being forced to reply. It would mean e.g. that someone who goes on a lengthy vacation or had to go for a longer stay in hospital might

get deleted a legitimate log just because of not replying. The same would apply in case your mail gots stuck in a spam filter.

 

It's true that all I gained by that comment was, I thought, being friendlier, but I didn't actually give any possible negative interpretation a thought because I can't imagine making a threat, I can't imagine thinking that someone was threatening me while pretending to be friendly, and I can't think of any reason I should imagine such a threat.

 

I fully believe you that you really meant it in a friendly way. This does not change the fact that most cachers I know would react angry at first. If something like that happened to me, I would not notify GS, I would reply to the cache owner and if he/she then reacted as you here, everything would be fine afterwards. I would tell this cache owner however that what he/she meant friendly is very likely to be understood in a not-friendly way.

That's not because we all think negatively about each other, but rather because most cachers I know will find it quite absurd that someone mentions deleting one of their logs and is having a helpful offer in mind.

[+niraD]

It's the late log that is causing the problem not some over baring cache owner.

I forget... What problem is the late log creating again?

 

 

I'm simply asking a question and that makes me a severe gatekeeper?

Asking a question isn't a problem.

 

Asking a question and "offering" to delete the log if one doesn't get a reply in a certain amount of time is a problem. In that situation, the cache owner has no way to know that the late logger saw the "offer". And the late logger might have replied, but the cache owner might not have seen that reply.

[+justintim1999]

Again, there's a wide margin between what is actually required of cache owners and cache finders, and what should be considered "best practices."

 

Of course there are any number of ways the situation could be avoided. The cache could have written a more detailed log, and the cache owner could have restrained his/her personal emotions upon receiving the late log. It's a two-way street.

 

Geocachers are a diverse group of humans, not robots, with varied quirks and pet peeves. In reality, we are prone to disappointing each other on occasion. Digging our heels in about what people should do in an ideal world just doesn't work in this game.

I was floored when I read these remarkably observant comments. I has no idea you had this kind of insight into what's going on here. The only thing you're missing is that you're the one that's reacting emotionally, and you're the one that's digging in your heals about what people should do in an ideal world. My hypothetical CO and I are entirely flexible in the matter. Neither of us had any idea you'd react negatively to his friendly question and humble offer. I consider being friendly the best practice.

 

But then in a later note, everything came into focus:

 

I mean, I would love it if I could delete every log that was disappointing or annoying, but that would be like, 75% of the logs.

I doubt there's anything I can do to convince you not to think that way, but I beg you to stop assuming everyone else feels that way. I'd hate to delete any log, no matter how I felt about it. And I consider every log precious, so I can't even imagine what could make you disappointed if not annoyed by an overwhelming majority of the logs you get.

 

My comments are mainly about how cache owners should react, in accordance with the guidelines, in a world that is never ideal and where geocachers frequently make mistakes or do things that are kind of annoying.

 

As cache owners, we're not supposed to be severe gatekeepers looking for reasons to delete logs. We're not supposed to be demanding independent verification that people were at our caches.

 

These comments are becoming rather personal to the point that the thread is now probably in jeopardy. That's a shame.

 

No one is looking for reasons to delete logs. Why would I take the time and effort to place and maintain caches only to delete logs?

 

I'm frustrated that my comments are not being taken a face value. I used the word courtesy meaning civil and polite and you define that as "a false air of authority to our personal preference."

 

I'm simply asking a question and that makes me a severe gatekeeper?

 

I value your opinion as I do everyone who chooses to participate. I just ask that you accept my comments as they are written and if I word something wrong give me the chance to correct it.

 

That was not a definition of the word courtesy. That is a description of how the word is frequently applied in the forum. This is the second time my words have been misrepresented in this fashion. It's disappointing.

 

Remember, one person's concept of "courtesy" may differ from another person's concept of "courtesy." Unless two geocachers know each other well, it may be extremely difficult for one geocacher to predict what another geocacher will interpret as a lack of "courtesy."

 

Some cache owners may interpret a late log as a lack of courtesy. Others don't. It's highly subjective.

 

The word "courtesy" has very little meaning or relevance in this discussion. Sometimes geocachers, intentionally or inadvertently, demonstrate behaviour that will be interpreted as a lack of courtesy. Good cache owners must learn to set aside their personal feelings in order to make decisions that are fair and in accordance with the guidelines.

 

We can all implore each other to show "courtesy" but just between the handful of individuals participating in this discussion, perceptions of courtesy vary widely. Your concept of "courtesy" is just as valid as mine, and it's just as irrelevant.

 

Questioning people's logs on the basis of personal preferences is poor practice for cache owners. Whether it's a preference for punctuality, a preference for detailed and nicely written logs (mine), a preference for a description of the trade (a real example), these preferences do not entitle us to apply undue scrutiny to a geocacher's log.

 

It may have been used in that context by others but that's not how I was using it. I was using it as it's defined in the dictionary.

 

Again, I'm not questioning anyone's logs based "personal preferences". These are words that you chose to use. I may question a year old log on a cache that's been archived.

 

I'm sorry but I have a hard time believing that the log in question. let me repeat that. "The log in question" was a year late because the finder wanted to write a nice log.

[+justintim1999]

It's the late log that is causing the problem not some over baring cache owner.

I forget... What problem is the late log creating again?

 

 

I'm simply asking a question and that makes me a severe gatekeeper?

Asking a question isn't a problem.

 

Asking a question and "offering" to delete the log if one doesn't get a reply in a certain amount of time is a problem. In that situation, the cache owner has no way to know that the late logger saw the "offer". And the late logger might have replied, but the cache owner might not have seen that reply.

 

For me a log that's a month or two old wouldn't be a problem unless I have a reason to believe that it's not legitimate. A year old log on an archived cache raises my eyebrow.

 

In this case I would ask a question. No response or a negative response would probably prompt me to look into it deeper. I'm sure that 9 out of 10 times the name would be in the original log book. I could consult the original log book first and research the finders logging patterns and check to see if they logged any other caches in the area around the same time. A simple correspondence could avoid all that. Hey, if I feel that strongly about it I'm willing to put in the time.

[+narcissa]

That was not a definition of the word courtesy. That is a description of how the word is frequently applied in the forum. This is the second time my words have been misrepresented in this fashion. It's disappointing.

 

Remember, one person's concept of "courtesy" may differ from another person's concept of "courtesy." Unless two geocachers know each other well, it may be extremely difficult for one geocacher to predict what another geocacher will interpret as a lack of "courtesy."

 

Some cache owners may interpret a late log as a lack of courtesy. Others don't. It's highly subjective.

 

The word "courtesy" has very little meaning or relevance in this discussion. Sometimes geocachers, intentionally or inadvertently, demonstrate behaviour that will be interpreted as a lack of courtesy. Good cache owners must learn to set aside their personal feelings in order to make decisions that are fair and in accordance with the guidelines.

 

We can all implore each other to show "courtesy" but just between the handful of individuals participating in this discussion, perceptions of courtesy vary widely. Your concept of "courtesy" is just as valid as mine, and it's just as irrelevant.

 

Questioning people's logs on the basis of personal preferences is poor practice for cache owners. Whether it's a preference for punctuality, a preference for detailed and nicely written logs (mine), a preference for a description of the trade (a real example), these preferences do not entitle us to apply undue scrutiny to a geocacher's log.

 

It may have been used in that context by others but that's not how I was using it. I was using it as it's defined in the dictionary.

 

Again, I'm not questioning anyone's logs based "personal preferences". These are words that you chose to use. I may question a year old log on a cache that's been archived.

 

I'm sorry but I have a hard time believing that the log in question. let me repeat that. "The log in question" was a year late because the finder wanted to write a nice log.

 

Each person's perception of courtesy is different. What one person perceives as "civil" or "polite" can be quite different from person to person. This makes it virtually useless unless it is specifically defined. Rather than leaning on vague terms like "courtesy" it is more useful, when confronted with a difficult situation, to refer to expectations that are specifically defined, like the cache placement guidelines. Hurt feelings over issues of subjective courtesy aren't a valid reason for "questioning" logs.

 

The fact that a late log is "questionable" to one cacher owner, but not another, is absolutely a matter of personal preference. That's why there is so much disagreement over it. Many cache owners wouldn't notice it at all, others notice the date and see a red flag. That's to be expected with humans.

 

As cache owners we should strive to keep our personal preferences, notions of courtesy, and other subjective emotional conditions in check. Undue scrutiny of a log because of a minor personal preference isn't really fair, but a given cacher isn't going to know that a cache owner took a closer look at a log and perused a profile in search of more information.

 

A cacher is going to know that they are the subject of unfair scrutiny if they receive an email "questioning" their log. Cache owners who choose to take that step would be best advised to tread very carefully in the wording of such "questions" in order to avoid inappropriate demands, requests, and threats.

[+justintim1999]

That was not a definition of the word courtesy. That is a description of how the word is frequently applied in the forum. This is the second time my words have been misrepresented in this fashion. It's disappointing.

 

Remember, one person's concept of "courtesy" may differ from another person's concept of "courtesy." Unless two geocachers know each other well, it may be extremely difficult for one geocacher to predict what another geocacher will interpret as a lack of "courtesy."

 

Some cache owners may interpret a late log as a lack of courtesy. Others don't. It's highly subjective.

 

The word "courtesy" has very little meaning or relevance in this discussion. Sometimes geocachers, intentionally or inadvertently, demonstrate behaviour that will be interpreted as a lack of courtesy. Good cache owners must learn to set aside their personal feelings in order to make decisions that are fair and in accordance with the guidelines.

 

We can all implore each other to show "courtesy" but just between the handful of individuals participating in this discussion, perceptions of courtesy vary widely. Your concept of "courtesy" is just as valid as mine, and it's just as irrelevant.

 

Questioning people's logs on the basis of personal preferences is poor practice for cache owners. Whether it's a preference for punctuality, a preference for detailed and nicely written logs (mine), a preference for a description of the trade (a real example), these preferences do not entitle us to apply undue scrutiny to a geocacher's log.

 

It may have been used in that context by others but that's not how I was using it. I was using it as it's defined in the dictionary.

 

Again, I'm not questioning anyone's logs based "personal preferences". These are words that you chose to use. I may question a year old log on a cache that's been archived.

 

I'm sorry but I have a hard time believing that the log in question. let me repeat that. "The log in question" was a year late because the finder wanted to write a nice log.

 

Each person's perception of courtesy is different. What one person perceives as "civil" or "polite" can be quite different from person to person. This makes it virtually useless unless it is specifically defined. Rather than leaning on vague terms like "courtesy" it is more useful, when confronted with a difficult situation, to refer to expectations that are specifically defined, like the cache placement guidelines. Hurt feelings over issues of subjective courtesy aren't a valid reason for "questioning" logs.

 

The fact that a late log is "questionable" to one cacher owner, but not another, is absolutely a matter of personal preference. That's why there is so much disagreement over it. Many cache owners wouldn't notice it at all, others notice the date and see a red flag. That's to be expected with humans.

 

As cache owners we should strive to keep our personal preferences, notions of courtesy, and other subjective emotional conditions in check. Undue scrutiny of a log because of a minor personal preference isn't really fair, but a given cacher isn't going to know that a cache owner took a closer look at a log and perused a profile in search of more information.

 

A cacher is going to know that they are the subject of unfair scrutiny if they receive an email "questioning" their log. Cache owners who choose to take that step would be best advised to tread very carefully in the wording of such "questions" in order to avoid inappropriate demands, requests, and threats.

 

The definition of courtesy is pretty clear. NOUN "The showing of politeness in one's attitude and behavior toward others." Nothing vague about that.

 

I don't see logging an archived cache a year later as a minor personal preference. How many people "prefer" to log caches a year after the fact?

 

I think that most people who noticed a log like this would think it a little odd.

 

Before we go any further lets both define "late". If the log is more than a month old I consider it late. Not bad but late.

 

Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way. Being from Massachusetts I am pre-disposed to the Boston tea party gene.

[+narcissa]

Each person's perception of courtesy is different. What one person perceives as "civil" or "polite" can be quite different from person to person. This makes it virtually useless unless it is specifically defined. Rather than leaning on vague terms like "courtesy" it is more useful, when confronted with a difficult situation, to refer to expectations that are specifically defined, like the cache placement guidelines. Hurt feelings over issues of subjective courtesy aren't a valid reason for "questioning" logs.

 

The fact that a late log is "questionable" to one cacher owner, but not another, is absolutely a matter of personal preference. That's why there is so much disagreement over it. Many cache owners wouldn't notice it at all, others notice the date and see a red flag. That's to be expected with humans.

 

As cache owners we should strive to keep our personal preferences, notions of courtesy, and other subjective emotional conditions in check. Undue scrutiny of a log because of a minor personal preference isn't really fair, but a given cacher isn't going to know that a cache owner took a closer look at a log and perused a profile in search of more information.

 

A cacher is going to know that they are the subject of unfair scrutiny if they receive an email "questioning" their log. Cache owners who choose to take that step would be best advised to tread very carefully in the wording of such "questions" in order to avoid inappropriate demands, requests, and threats.

 

The definition of courtesy is pretty clear. NOUN "The showing of politeness in one's attitude and behavior toward others." Nothing vague about that.

 

I don't see logging an archived cache a year later as a minor personal preference. How many people "prefer" to log caches a year after the fact?

 

I think that most people who noticed a log like this would think it a little odd.

 

Before we go any further lets both define "late". If the log is more than a month old I consider it late. Not bad but late.

 

Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way. Being from Massachusetts I am pre-disposed to the Boston tea party gene.

 

Again, one person's perception of "polite" behaviour can be quite different from another person's perception. I don't think it's polite to phone someone after 8pm. Someone else might think it's polite to phone someone up to 11pm. Who gets the final say on what's polite? It just doesn't work.

 

Logging caches late is a thing that happens. Whether or not it's a "personal preference" on the part of the person logging isn't relevant to this discussion. The rules do not prohibit late logging. Cachers can log finds when they feel like it or when they get around to it. That may be irksome to some or many cache owners. Claims about the preferences of a silent majority are not relevant.

 

There is no standard definition of "late" in terms of cache logging. Geocachers are not required to log finds within a specific time frame. Personal preferences and definitions of lateness are not relevant.

 

I can trace my lineage to half a dozen Revolutionary War soldiers from Vermont and Massachusetts, but that isn't relevant either.

Edited May 20, 2016 by narcissa

[+justintim1999]

Each person's perception of courtesy is different. What one person perceives as "civil" or "polite" can be quite different from person to person. This makes it virtually useless unless it is specifically defined. Rather than leaning on vague terms like "courtesy" it is more useful, when confronted with a difficult situation, to refer to expectations that are specifically defined, like the cache placement guidelines. Hurt feelings over issues of subjective courtesy aren't a valid reason for "questioning" logs.

 

The fact that a late log is "questionable" to one cacher owner, but not another, is absolutely a matter of personal preference. That's why there is so much disagreement over it. Many cache owners wouldn't notice it at all, others notice the date and see a red flag. That's to be expected with humans.

 

As cache owners we should strive to keep our personal preferences, notions of courtesy, and other subjective emotional conditions in check. Undue scrutiny of a log because of a minor personal preference isn't really fair, but a given cacher isn't going to know that a cache owner took a closer look at a log and perused a profile in search of more information.

 

A cacher is going to know that they are the subject of unfair scrutiny if they receive an email "questioning" their log. Cache owners who choose to take that step would be best advised to tread very carefully in the wording of such "questions" in order to avoid inappropriate demands, requests, and threats.

 

The definition of courtesy is pretty clear. NOUN "The showing of politeness in one's attitude and behavior toward others." Nothing vague about that.

 

I don't see logging an archived cache a year later as a minor personal preference. How many people "prefer" to log caches a year after the fact?

 

I think that most people who noticed a log like this would think it a little odd.

 

Before we go any further lets both define "late". If the log is more than a month old I consider it late. Not bad but late.

 

Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way. Being from Massachusetts I am pre-disposed to the Boston tea party gene.

 

Again, one person's perception of "polite" behaviour can be quite different from another person's perception. I don't think it's polite to phone someone after 8pm. Someone else might think it's polite to phone someone up to 11pm. Who gets the final say on what's polite? It just doesn't work.

 

Logging caches late is a thing that happens. Whether or not it's a "personal preference" on the part of the person logging isn't relevant to this discussion. The rules do not prohibit late logging. Cachers can log finds when they feel like it or when they get around to it. That may be irksome to some or many cache owners. Claims about the preferences of a silent majority are not relevant.

 

There is no standard definition of "late" in terms of cache logging. Geocachers are not required to log finds within a specific time frame. Personal preferences and definitions of lateness are not relevant.

 

I can trace my lineage to half a dozen Revolutionary War soldiers from Vermont and Massachusetts, but that isn't relevant either.

 

The Revolutionary War reference describes how I perceive things. It was a joke.

[+niraD]

I don't see logging an archived cache a year later as a minor personal preference. How many people "prefer" to log caches a year after the fact?

 

I think that most people who noticed a log like this would think it a little odd.

Well, it's unusual. But odd?

 

I think logs written from the perspective of the geocacher's dog are odd. And logs written from the perspective of the geocache being found are odd. By comparison, late logs are pretty tame.

[+cheech gang]

Oh boy. Now you can debate ad infinitum the difference between unusual and odd. Cheezits!

[+on4bam]

Does anyone have an idea of how many logs could have been written while this thread was/is running? If people spend all their time here, no wonder there's no time to log online

[+noncentric]

(http://coord.info/GCblahblah) that has been archived for a year now. Since I threw away the logsheet when I archived the cache and am not able to check whether you signed it or not

There is nothing in the guidelines that requires a cache owner to keep old logsheets.

And there in nothing in the guidelines stating that online logs have to be submitted within x days of signing the physical log. My point is that if a CO doesn't care to save their logsheets, then they shouldn't put the onus on the finder to prove that they signed the physical log. If a CO throws away a logsheet when their cache is archived and a 'late log' is submitted online, then it's the CO's problem that they didn't save the logsheet to see if the signature is there or not.

 

My comment was that I, as a cache finder, would be annoyed if my online find was deleted because the CO didn't retain the logsheet to check for signatures. I didn't say the guidelines mandated that CO's keep logsheets.

[+narcissa]

Does anyone have an idea of how many logs could have been written while this thread was/is running? If people spend all their time here, no wonder there's no time to log online

 

I am all caught up on my logs.

[+niraD]

Does anyone have an idea of how many logs could have been written while this thread was/is running? If people spend all their time here, no wonder there's no time to log online

I am all caught up on my logs.

I'm not. But I need information that I don't have here before I can continue getting caught up.

[+kunarion]

Does anyone have an idea of how many logs could have been written while this thread was/is running? If people spend all their time here, no wonder there's no time to log online

I save time in forum threads by replying "TFTT" instead of some wordy reply. This provides plenty of time in cache logs for not only "TFTC", but a smiley face at the end.

Edited May 21, 2016 by kunarion

[+narcissa]

Does anyone have an idea of how many logs could have been written while this thread was/is running? If people spend all their time here, no wonder there's no time to log online

I am all caught up on my logs.

I'm not. But I need information that I don't have here before I can continue getting caught up.

 

Well, I am outraged and offended.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Does anyone have an idea of how many logs could have been written while this thread was/is running? If people spend all their time here, no wonder there's no time to log online

I am all caught up on my logs.

I'm not. But I need information that I don't have here before I can continue getting caught up.

 

Well, I am outraged and offended.

 

Yeah. That's pretty much what this thread has become.

[+dprovan]

Asking a question and "offering" to delete the log if one doesn't get a reply in a certain amount of time is a problem. In that situation, the cache owner has no way to know that the late logger saw the "offer". And the late logger might have replied, but the cache owner might not have seen that reply.

First, my e-mail didn't "offer" to delete the log, it offered to delete the log.

 

Second, my e-mail didn't give a deadline.

 

Third, when you take into account how infrequently logs are questioned, the scenarios you've come up with, as well as the one mentioned earlier of the cacher being being incommunicado, are so exceedingly unlikely that I wouldn't expect to see one in my life time.

 

Fourth, the accidental deletion of a log is a trivial problem.

 

Fifth, if you're that worried about it, make sure to explain your unusual log in the log itself to minimize the chance of any misunderstandings.

[+justintim1999]

I don't see logging an archived cache a year later as a minor personal preference. How many people "prefer" to log caches a year after the fact?

 

I think that most people who noticed a log like this would think it a little odd.

Well, it's unusual. But odd?

 

I think logs written from the perspective of the geocacher's dog are odd. And logs written from the perspective of the geocache being found are odd. By comparison, late logs are pretty tame.

 

OK. Unusual, out of the ordinary, They all work.

Edited May 21, 2016 by justintim1999

[+justintim1999]

(http://coord.info/GCblahblah) that has been archived for a year now. Since I threw away the logsheet when I archived the cache and am not able to check whether you signed it or not

There is nothing in the guidelines that requires a cache owner to keep old logsheets.

And there in nothing in the guidelines stating that online logs have to be submitted within x days of signing the physical log. My point is that if a CO doesn't care to save their logsheets, then they shouldn't put the onus on the finder to prove that they signed the physical log. If a CO throws away a logsheet when their cache is archived and a 'late log' is submitted online, then it's the CO's problem that they didn't save the logsheet to see if the signature is there or not.

 

My comment was that I, as a cache finder, would be annoyed if my online find was deleted because the CO didn't retain the logsheet to check for signatures. I didn't say the guidelines mandated that CO's keep logsheets.

 

I don't know if others do but I save my log sheets.

[+justintim1999]

To everyone. I apologize to being part of this whole debacle. If you've been painfully reading all this I hope you realized that I'm not against late logging. I personally don't like it but I hold no ill will towards those who do. For as long as I've been a cache owner I've never deleted a log. My downfall is I have a very hard time with anyone telling me what I can and can't do with "my" caches. This personal flaw has more to do with this mess than anything.

 

I'm going to challenge any cache that looks like it may be bogus. If that offends some people I'm sorry.

 

I hope that whatever bad blood may have been spilled can be taken with a grain of salt, and we can all remain friendly.

 

Please take this apology as it was written. Sincerely.

[+coachstahly]

 

A cacher is going to know that they are the subject of unfair scrutiny if they receive an email "questioning" their log.

 

What if it was a false find logged by the finder? Would you still consider it unfair scrutiny? The way I read this is that ANY email that questions a find is unfair. I hope you're not advocating that point of view because then the finder is infallible.

 

As to the OP, there's no way to prove, one way or the other, that the log is a false one. Although I might have my doubts, I'd let the log stand.

[+narcissa]

 

A cacher is going to know that they are the subject of unfair scrutiny if they receive an email "questioning" their log.

 

What if it was a false find logged by the finder? Would you still consider it unfair scrutiny? The way I read this is that ANY email that questions a find is unfair. I hope you're not advocating that point of view because then the finder is infallible.

 

As to the OP, there's no way to prove, one way or the other, that the log is a false one. Although I might have my doubts, I'd let the log stand.

 

If the additional scrutiny is on the basis of a personal pet peeve rather than something actually suspicious, I would call that unfair.

 

Most logs these days are very similar to each other. Why would some arbitrary date cut-off mark the line between false and not false?

 

If someone's really concerned about false logs, that's likely the wrong yardstick to measure them by.

[+narcissa]

Asking a question and "offering" to delete the log if one doesn't get a reply in a certain amount of time is a problem. In that situation, the cache owner has no way to know that the late logger saw the "offer". And the late logger might have replied, but the cache owner might not have seen that reply.

First, my e-mail didn't "offer" to delete the log, it offered to delete the log.

 

Second, my e-mail didn't give a deadline.

 

Third, when you take into account how infrequently logs are questioned, the scenarios you've come up with, as well as the one mentioned earlier of the cacher being being incommunicado, are so exceedingly unlikely that I wouldn't expect to see one in my life time.

 

Fourth, the accidental deletion of a log is a trivial problem.

 

Fifth, if you're that worried about it, make sure to explain your unusual log in the log itself to minimize the chance of any misunderstandings.

 

The example email text stated that a lack of reply would result in log deletion.

 

That makes the find contingent on private communication. Cache owners are not permitted to create additional rules and tasks like that.

 

A friendly cache owner just wouldn't put someone in that position.

[+dprovan]

If the additional scrutiny is on the basis of a personal pet peeve rather than something actually suspicious, I would call that unfair.

This sounds perfect in theory, but this discussion makes it clear that you cannot imagine scrutiny caused by anything other than a pet peeve, so in practice you'll think any scrutiny must be unfair.

 

A friendly cache owner just wouldn't put someone in that position.

A friendly geocacher, owner or seeker, wouldn't have imagined the comment as putting anyone in any position.

[+niraD]

First, my e-mail didn't "offer" to delete the log, it offered to delete the log.

And this is an offer too, huh?

 

"Hi! I noticed you've had a car parked in your driveway for the past 2 years. Since I haven't seen you driving it or working on it in all that time, I was wondering if it might be a worthless wreck. If I don't hear from you, I'll assume it is and dispose of it for you."

[+narcissa]

If the additional scrutiny is on the basis of a personal pet peeve rather than something actually suspicious, I would call that unfair.

This sounds perfect in theory, but this discussion makes it clear that you cannot imagine scrutiny caused by anything other than a pet peeve, so in practice you'll think any scrutiny must be unfair.

 

A friendly cache owner just wouldn't put someone in that position.

A friendly geocacher, owner or seeker, wouldn't have imagined the comment as putting anyone in any position.

 

It doesn't really matter if the scrutiny is unfair as long as it's limited to reasonable actions, i.e. checking the logbook and reviewing the online profile.

 

When that scrutiny leads to unfair actions, like emailing people and asking them to perform tasks above and beyond signing the log, it's problematic. Making someone's find contingent on an email response is an unfair action. The example email text that we're discussing certainly puts a cacher in a difficult position where they must respond to the email whether they'd like to or not. The friendliness red herring is irrelevant. It's an inappropriate offer/request/demand.

 

Geocachers are not required to respond to such inquiries and are not required to meet a subjective standard of friendliness to log a find.

Edited May 21, 2016 by narcissa

[+dprovan]

First, my e-mail didn't "offer" to delete the log, it offered to delete the log.

And this is an offer too, huh?

 

"Hi! I noticed you've had a car parked in your driveway for the past 2 years. Since I haven't seen you driving it or working on it in all that time, I was wondering if it might be a worthless wreck. If I don't hear from you, I'll assume it is and dispose of it for you."

That's not a very similar case. First of all, the log's more like a derelict in my driveway. And a car would have an unknown and possibly very great value, while a find log has a reasonably well defined and quite minimal value.

 

If your point is that it's possible to read those words as a threat in the right context, I've never denied that. But I've also explained that my statement wasn't a threat in this context, and shown why it's reasonable not to interpret it as a threat. And my more important point is that there's no good reason to see it as a threat even it was intended as one.

 

In fact, your case is an excellent example of that point: no matter how entirely convinced you are that the above message is threatening to have your car towed, you have every reason in the world to start by saying, "No, it's not a worthless wreck. Thanks, anyway!", and no particular reason not to start that way. Whether towing my car would be legal or not, I would hate to have my car towed for no reason other than I was too busy fuming to answer the question.