Logging an old archived cache

[+Ge0Patr0l]

Funny how this topic has progressed.

 

My opinion and plan is to just leave it because as many have pointed out, it's not really worth the time to concern myself over. I was just curious about others thoughts.

[+dprovan]

Again, I think all good cachers attempt to be courteous with each other and forgiving when life gets in the way of perfect behaviour. The harshness that is stated in the forum, is, in my experience, rarely exhibited by cache owners in actuality. The social consequences of being so harsh to others far outweigh any benefits, I think.

I'm glad you said this. My experience is also that cachers are universally nice. When I read the forums too much, it's easy for me to start thinking there are legions of rude geocachers determined to annoy as many people as possible even though I've never see any evidence of it myself. Hey, this reminds me of the challenge cache discussions...

[+justintim1999]

Did they one day wake up in a cold sweat and realize they forgot to log that cache they found in 2013?

 

When I started using the field notes feature I found more than a dozen caches I hadn't logged because of discrepancies in my note-taking. Some of them went back two years.

 

Happily, none of my back-dated logs were deleted or met with name-calling or anything like that (thus validating my belief that most geocachers are actually good people who aren't just looking for reasons to be harsh and unforgiving to others).

 

Very few reasons not to log a find within a couple of days. some situations require a week or so. Anything longer than that and were talking some extraordinary event. I wouldn't expect to simply log a find two years later and expect the cache owner to just accept it. I'd feel like I'd owe it to them to explain myself.

[+narcissa]

Did they one day wake up in a cold sweat and realize they forgot to log that cache they found in 2013?

 

When I started using the field notes feature I found more than a dozen caches I hadn't logged because of discrepancies in my note-taking. Some of them went back two years.

 

Happily, none of my back-dated logs were deleted or met with name-calling or anything like that (thus validating my belief that most geocachers are actually good people who aren't just looking for reasons to be harsh and unforgiving to others).

 

Very few reasons not to log a find within a couple of days. some situations require a week or so. Anything longer than that and were talking some extraordinary event. I wouldn't expect to simply log a find two years later and expect the cache owner to just accept it. I'd feel like I'd owe it to them to explain myself.

 

While you may wish to add an explanation if this happened to you, a cache finder is not required to justify the timing of a log.

[+justintim1999]

Let's put the good guy bad guy thing aside for a minute.

 

Would it be reasonable for a cache owner to delete a find on a cache two years after it's been archived? Let's say the cache owner can't verify the find from the original log book.

[+narcissa]

Let's put the good guy bad guy thing aside for a minute.

 

Would it be reasonable for a cache owner to delete a find on a cache two years after it's been archived? Let's say the cache owner can't verify the find from the original log book.

 

If you have a reason to think it wasn't a real find, yes, it's reasonable.

 

If you're deleting it because you think it's a moral travesty that people can back-date logs, it's not reasonable.

[+dprovan]

Let's put the good guy bad guy thing aside for a minute.

 

Would it be reasonable for a cache owner to delete a find on a cache two years after it's been archived? Let's say the cache owner can't verify the find from the original log book.

Yes, I would consider it reasonable for a CO to assume a "TFTC" log on a cache archived 2 years ago was just a simple mistake and delete it out of hand. If I were the CO, I'd look into it more, but I can't really fault a CO that doesn't bother. I would assume anyone legitimately logging a find 2 years in the past would appreciate that and include the explanation you suggest even though, as narcissa points out, such an explanation isn't technically required.

[+justintim1999]

Let's put the good guy bad guy thing aside for a minute.

 

Would it be reasonable for a cache owner to delete a find on a cache two years after it's been archived? Let's say the cache owner can't verify the find from the original log book.

 

If you have a reason to think it wasn't a real find, yes, it's reasonable.

 

If you're deleting it because you think it's a moral travesty that people can back-date logs, it's not reasonable.

 

Well, it's two years old and I can't verify they signed the actual log.

 

I would explain my actions and ask that the find stand. I wouldn't automatically expect it to.

[+justintim1999]

Let's put the good guy bad guy thing aside for a minute.

 

Would it be reasonable for a cache owner to delete a find on a cache two years after it's been archived? Let's say the cache owner can't verify the find from the original log book.

Yes, I would consider it reasonable for a CO to assume a "TFTC" log on a cache archived 2 years ago was just a simple mistake and delete it out of hand. If I were the CO, I'd look into it more, but I can't really fault a CO that doesn't bother. I would assume anyone legitimately logging a find 2 years in the past would appreciate that and include the explanation you suggest even though, as narcissa points out, such an explanation isn't technically required.

 

I think many of these discussions are predicated on exactly your point. There's a difference in being right within the rules and doing the right thing.

[+lee737]

Let's put the good guy bad guy thing aside for a minute.

 

Would it be reasonable for a cache owner to delete a find on a cache two years after it's been archived? Let's say the cache owner can't verify the find from the original log book.

 

If you have a reason to think it wasn't a real find, yes, it's reasonable.

 

If you're deleting it because you think it's a moral travesty that people can back-date logs, it's not reasonable.

 

I think it is reasonable to delete the log. The cache may have been muggled/replaced in the meantime, and no evidence of the find is there. I think in this circumstance, if the CO wants to play hard-ball, the benefit of the doubt is on their side. Maybe the cacher can support their claim with photos etc, and if the CO wants to use that as verification, so be it - they shouldn't be compelled to though.

Moral travesty? A little histrionic maybe? Back dating logs is one thing, the occasional missed log that is later recalled (as described above) can be understood, but to be 2 years behind on logs to get them 'just right'?? I can't understand how one can be so disorganised to not be able to type an online log (which even long ones take minutes), but so organised to have written notes for that period to then write such log?? Astounding!

 

 

[+narcissa]

Let's put the good guy bad guy thing aside for a minute.

 

Would it be reasonable for a cache owner to delete a find on a cache two years after it's been archived? Let's say the cache owner can't verify the find from the original log book.

 

If you have a reason to think it wasn't a real find, yes, it's reasonable.

 

If you're deleting it because you think it's a moral travesty that people can back-date logs, it's not reasonable.

 

Well, it's two years old and I can't verify they signed the actual log.

 

I would explain my actions and ask that the find stand. I wouldn't automatically expect it to.

 

You also can't verify logs when a cache is muggled and the logbook is gone.

 

Unless there is something you can point to that supports your suspicion that the log is bogus, it isn't reasonable to delete a log merely on the basis that it doesn't meet your personal preferences.

[+narcissa]

Let's put the good guy bad guy thing aside for a minute.

 

Would it be reasonable for a cache owner to delete a find on a cache two years after it's been archived? Let's say the cache owner can't verify the find from the original log book.

 

If you have a reason to think it wasn't a real find, yes, it's reasonable.

 

If you're deleting it because you think it's a moral travesty that people can back-date logs, it's not reasonable.

 

I think it is reasonable to delete the log. The cache may have been muggled/replaced in the meantime, and no evidence of the find is there. I think in this circumstance, if the CO wants to play hard-ball, the benefit of the doubt is on their side. Maybe the cacher can support their claim with photos etc, and if the CO wants to use that as verification, so be it - they shouldn't be compelled to though.

Moral travesty? A little histrionic maybe? Back dating logs is one thing, the occasional missed log that is later recalled (as described above) can be understood, but to be 2 years behind on logs to get them 'just right'?? I can't understand how one can be so disorganised to not be able to type an online log (which even long ones take minutes), but so organised to have written notes for that period to then write such log?? Astounding!

 

Humans can be astounding and late logs are pretty unusual. That doesn't mean that a punitive approach is necessary.

[+narcissa]

Let's put the good guy bad guy thing aside for a minute.

 

Would it be reasonable for a cache owner to delete a find on a cache two years after it's been archived? Let's say the cache owner can't verify the find from the original log book.

Yes, I would consider it reasonable for a CO to assume a "TFTC" log on a cache archived 2 years ago was just a simple mistake and delete it out of hand. If I were the CO, I'd look into it more, but I can't really fault a CO that doesn't bother. I would assume anyone legitimately logging a find 2 years in the past would appreciate that and include the explanation you suggest even though, as narcissa points out, such an explanation isn't technically required.

 

I think many of these discussions are predicated on exactly your point. There's a difference in being right within the rules and doing the right thing.

 

What's the right thing? It probably isn't punitively deleting logs because a cacher has run afoul of arbitrary, unofficial rules created by individual cache owners.

 

The right thing might be to think better of your fellow geocachers and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, assume the log is valid.

[+justintim1999]

Let's put the good guy bad guy thing aside for a minute.

 

Would it be reasonable for a cache owner to delete a find on a cache two years after it's been archived? Let's say the cache owner can't verify the find from the original log book.

 

If you have a reason to think it wasn't a real find, yes, it's reasonable.

 

If you're deleting it because you think it's a moral travesty that people can back-date logs, it's not reasonable.

 

I think it is reasonable to delete the log. The cache may have been muggled/replaced in the meantime, and no evidence of the find is there. I think in this circumstance, if the CO wants to play hard-ball, the benefit of the doubt is on their side. Maybe the cacher can support their claim with photos etc, and if the CO wants to use that as verification, so be it - they shouldn't be compelled to though.

Moral travesty? A little histrionic maybe? Back dating logs is one thing, the occasional missed log that is later recalled (as described above) can be understood, but to be 2 years behind on logs to get them 'just right'?? I can't understand how one can be so disorganised to not be able to type an online log (which even long ones take minutes), but so organised to have written notes for that period to then write such log?? Astounding!

 

I don't believe in playing hardball, not in this game. In six years I've never deleted a log and only deleted one picture because it gave away an important aspect of the cache.

[+narcissa]

Maybe the cacher can support their claim with photos etc, and if the CO wants to use that as verification, so be it - they shouldn't be compelled to though.

 

It's worth pointing out that regardless of the time elapsed, asking a cacher to verify their find with photos would be considered an additional logging requirement and this is specifically against the guidelines.

[+justintim1999]

Let's put the good guy bad guy thing aside for a minute.

 

Would it be reasonable for a cache owner to delete a find on a cache two years after it's been archived? Let's say the cache owner can't verify the find from the original log book.

Yes, I would consider it reasonable for a CO to assume a "TFTC" log on a cache archived 2 years ago was just a simple mistake and delete it out of hand. If I were the CO, I'd look into it more, but I can't really fault a CO that doesn't bother. I would assume anyone legitimately logging a find 2 years in the past would appreciate that and include the explanation you suggest even though, as narcissa points out, such an explanation isn't technically required.

 

I think many of these discussions are predicated on exactly your point. There's a difference in being right within the rules and doing the right thing.

 

What's the right thing? It probably isn't punitively deleting logs because a cacher has run afoul of arbitrary, unofficial rules created by individual cache owners.

 

The right thing might be to think better of your fellow geocachers and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, assume the log is valid.

 

The right thing would be to log your finds and your trackables in a timely manor. By timely I don't mean weeks later. It would also mean not automatically expecting a two year old found log to be accepted without some sort of explanation.

[+lee737]

Maybe the cacher can support their claim with photos etc, and if the CO wants to use that as verification, so be it - they shouldn't be compelled to though.

 

It's worth pointing out that regardless of the time elapsed, asking a cacher to verify their find with photos would be considered an additional logging requirement and this is specifically against the guidelines.

 

If a finder threw that at me in the discussion of proving their very late log, it would just make it all the easier to hit the delete button.....

[+lee737]

 

The right thing would be to log your finds and your trackables in a timely manor. By timely I don't mean weeks later. It would also mean not automatically expecting a two year old found log to be accepted without some sort of explanation.

 

Which 99% of people do, of course.....

 

[+justintim1999]

 

The right thing would be to log your finds and your trackables in a timely manor. By timely I don't mean weeks later. It would also mean not automatically expecting a two year old found log to be accepted without some sort of explanation.

 

Which 99% of people do, of course.....

 

I agree. Most cache owners I've encountered are very understanding and helpful. A lot of that comes from how you approach them.

[+narcissa]

Let's put the good guy bad guy thing aside for a minute.

 

Would it be reasonable for a cache owner to delete a find on a cache two years after it's been archived? Let's say the cache owner can't verify the find from the original log book.

Yes, I would consider it reasonable for a CO to assume a "TFTC" log on a cache archived 2 years ago was just a simple mistake and delete it out of hand. If I were the CO, I'd look into it more, but I can't really fault a CO that doesn't bother. I would assume anyone legitimately logging a find 2 years in the past would appreciate that and include the explanation you suggest even though, as narcissa points out, such an explanation isn't technically required.

 

I think many of these discussions are predicated on exactly your point. There's a difference in being right within the rules and doing the right thing.

 

What's the right thing? It probably isn't punitively deleting logs because a cacher has run afoul of arbitrary, unofficial rules created by individual cache owners.

 

The right thing might be to think better of your fellow geocachers and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, assume the log is valid.

 

The right thing would be to log your finds and your trackables in a timely manor. By timely I don't mean weeks later. It would also mean not automatically expecting a two year old found log to be accepted without some sort of explanation.

 

This is your preference. There are no time limits on logs.

[+narcissa]

Maybe the cacher can support their claim with photos etc, and if the CO wants to use that as verification, so be it - they shouldn't be compelled to though.

 

It's worth pointing out that regardless of the time elapsed, asking a cacher to verify their find with photos would be considered an additional logging requirement and this is specifically against the guidelines.

 

If a finder threw that at me in the discussion of proving their very late log, it would just make it all the easier to hit the delete button.....

 

So as a cache owner you would violate the guidelines to punish someone for pointing them out to you?

[+narcissa]

 

The right thing would be to log your finds and your trackables in a timely manor. By timely I don't mean weeks later. It would also mean not automatically expecting a two year old found log to be accepted without some sort of explanation.

 

Which 99% of people do, of course.....

 

Right, these back-dated logs are highly unusual, so it shouldn't be much of a burden for a cache owner to look at the cacher's profile to make sure it isn't one of these spam accounts, and then move on if it isn't.

 

Deleting valid logs just means drawn-out unpleasantries when the cacher has to have the log reinstated by Groundspeak. Why antagonize someone over an inconsequential personal preference?

[+lee737]

Maybe the cacher can support their claim with photos etc, and if the CO wants to use that as verification, so be it - they shouldn't be compelled to though.

 

It's worth pointing out that regardless of the time elapsed, asking a cacher to verify their find with photos would be considered an additional logging requirement and this is specifically against the guidelines.

 

If a finder threw that at me in the discussion of proving their very late log, it would just make it all the easier to hit the delete button.....

 

So as a cache owner you would violate the guidelines to punish someone for pointing them out to you?

 

Definitely on the cards!

[+Tassie_Boy]

Let's put the good guy bad guy thing aside for a minute.

 

Would it be reasonable for a cache owner to delete a find on a cache two years after it's been archived? Let's say the cache owner can't verify the find from the original log book.

Yes, I would consider it reasonable for a CO to assume a "TFTC" log on a cache archived 2 years ago was just a simple mistake and delete it out of hand. If I were the CO, I'd look into it more, but I can't really fault a CO that doesn't bother. I would assume anyone legitimately logging a find 2 years in the past would appreciate that and include the explanation you suggest even though, as narcissa points out, such an explanation isn't technically required.

 

I think many of these discussions are predicated on exactly your point. There's a difference in being right within the rules and doing the right thing.

 

What's the right thing? It probably isn't punitively deleting logs because a cacher has run afoul of arbitrary, unofficial rules created by individual cache owners.

 

The right thing might be to think better of your fellow geocachers and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, assume the log is valid.

 

The right thing would be to log your finds and your trackables in a timely manor. By timely I don't mean weeks later. It would also mean not automatically expecting a two year old found log to be accepted without some sort of explanation.

 

The right thing to do would be for the CO to accept that sometimes life happens and caches don't get logged for some reason.

 

Looking around on the map the other night i found a cache marked as unfounded that i did actually find 2 years ago, away with family did the cache and logging online was at the very bottom of my lady of things to do that weekend. Heading down there this weekend and after i check the log I'll be claiming the date from 2 years ago.

 

If you were the CO on that one I'd be fighting you all the way to the top over your silly "standard" you have.

[+narcissa]

Maybe the cacher can support their claim with photos etc, and if the CO wants to use that as verification, so be it - they shouldn't be compelled to though.

 

It's worth pointing out that regardless of the time elapsed, asking a cacher to verify their find with photos would be considered an additional logging requirement and this is specifically against the guidelines.

 

If a finder threw that at me in the discussion of proving their very late log, it would just make it all the easier to hit the delete button.....

 

So as a cache owner you would violate the guidelines to punish someone for pointing them out to you?

 

Definitely on the cards!

 

This just seems like it would devolve into a messy dispute that would end with the cache being archived.

 

Logging a cache late is, at worst, a very minor faux pas.

 

Demanding photo proof and deleting logs by people who don't comply with arbitrary rules and demands is very clearly against the guidelines you agree to when you publish a cache listing. I don't see what reasonable motivation there could be for acting with such malice toward fellow geocachers.

[+justintim1999]

Let's put the good guy bad guy thing aside for a minute.

 

Would it be reasonable for a cache owner to delete a find on a cache two years after it's been archived? Let's say the cache owner can't verify the find from the original log book.

Yes, I would consider it reasonable for a CO to assume a "TFTC" log on a cache archived 2 years ago was just a simple mistake and delete it out of hand. If I were the CO, I'd look into it more, but I can't really fault a CO that doesn't bother. I would assume anyone legitimately logging a find 2 years in the past would appreciate that and include the explanation you suggest even though, as narcissa points out, such an explanation isn't technically required.

 

I think many of these discussions are predicated on exactly your point. There's a difference in being right within the rules and doing the right thing.

 

What's the right thing? It probably isn't punitively deleting logs because a cacher has run afoul of arbitrary, unofficial rules created by individual cache owners.

 

The right thing might be to think better of your fellow geocachers and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, assume the log is valid.

 

The right thing would be to log your finds and your trackables in a timely manor. By timely I don't mean weeks later. It would also mean not automatically expecting a two year old found log to be accepted without some sort of explanation.

 

The right thing to do would be for the CO to accept that sometimes life happens and caches don't get logged for some reason.

 

Looking around on the map the other night i found a cache marked as unfounded that i did actually find 2 years ago, away with family did the cache and logging online was at the very bottom of my lady of things to do that weekend. Heading down there this weekend and after i check the log I'll be claiming the date from 2 years ago.

 

If you were the CO on that one I'd be fighting you all the way to the top over your silly "standard" you have.

 

Great! If your name is in the log book from two years ago than by all means log it. Just be thankful it's not one of mine.

[+lee737]

 

... a messy dispute that would end with the cache being archived.

 

 

Rubbish.

[+lee737]

...... Heading down there this weekend and after i check the log I'll be claiming the date from 2 years ago.

 

 

Very good - and I say fair enough if it is in the log. Otherwise just use the current date I suppose....

Edited May 12, 2016 by lee737

[+narcissa]

 

... a messy dispute that would end with the cache being archived.

 

 

Rubbish.

 

Yes, I suppose that is another word you could use for this situation. The good news is that you can avoid these unpleasantries by adhering to the cache placement guidelines, i.e. don't arbitrarily delete logs and don't antagonize cache finders with ALRs.

[+justintim1999]

 

... a messy dispute that would end with the cache being archived.

 

 

Rubbish.

 

Yes, I suppose that is another word you could use for this situation. The good news is that you can avoid these unpleasantries by adhering to the cache placement guidelines, i.e. don't arbitrarily delete logs and don't antagonize cache finders with ALRs.

 

Sorry but can you explain what ALRs means?

[+Tassie_Boy]

 

... a messy dispute that would end with the cache being archived.

 

 

Rubbish.

 

Yes, I suppose that is another word you could use for this situation. The good news is that you can avoid these unpleasantries by adhering to the cache placement guidelines, i.e. don't arbitrarily delete logs and don't antagonize cache finders with ALRs.

 

Sorry but can you explain what ALRs means?

 

Additional logging requirements.

 

Making the cacher do more than just sign the log before accepting they found it.

[+narcissa]

 

... a messy dispute that would end with the cache being archived.

 

 

Rubbish.

 

Yes, I suppose that is another word you could use for this situation. The good news is that you can avoid these unpleasantries by adhering to the cache placement guidelines, i.e. don't arbitrarily delete logs and don't antagonize cache finders with ALRs.

 

Sorry but can you explain what ALRs means?

 

https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

 

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

 

An exception is Challenge Caches, which may only be logged online after the log is signed and the challenge tasks have been met and documented to the cache owner as per instructions on the published listing. Other than documenting a Challenge Cache, physical caches cannot require geocachers to contact anyone.

 

For physical caches all logging requirements beyond finding the cache and signing the log are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional. Cache finders can choose whether or not to attempt or accomplish such tasks. This is a guideline change that applies to all logs written since April 4, 2009. If you own an existing cache with mandatory additional logging requirements, we request that you:

 

Review your own cache listing to see if the ALR can be made into a simple, optional task, or whether it must be removed altogether.

Edit the text of your cache listing and, if necessary, contact a reviewer to change the cache type.

Cease deleting logs based on ALRs.

[+dprovan]

Humans can be astounding and late logs are pretty unusual. That doesn't mean that a punitive approach is necessary.

Deleting a log is not punishment.

[+noncentric]

Maybe the cacher can support their claim with photos etc, and if the CO wants to use that as verification, so be it - they shouldn't be compelled to though.

 

It's worth pointing out that regardless of the time elapsed, asking a cacher to verify their find with photos would be considered an additional logging requirement and this is specifically against the guidelines.

 

If a finder threw that at me in the discussion of proving their very late log, it would just make it all the easier to hit the delete button.....

 

So as a cache owner you would violate the guidelines to punish someone for pointing them out to you?

 

Definitely on the cards!

Deleting a cacher's find because they don't meet an ALR and/or because they point out the guidelines to you that say they don't need to fulfill an ALR? Really? So then this ends up in appeals because the CO isn't being reasonable and doesn't like that someone logged a cache late. What a waste of Groundspeak's time.

[+noncentric]

The right thing to do would be for the CO to accept that sometimes life happens and caches don't get logged for some reason.

 

Looking around on the map the other night i found a cache marked as unfounded that i did actually find 2 years ago, away with family did the cache and logging online was at the very bottom of my lady of things to do that weekend. Heading down there this weekend and after i check the log I'll be claiming the date from 2 years ago.

 

If you were the CO on that one I'd be fighting you all the way to the top over your silly "standard" you have.

 

Great! If your name is in the log book from two years ago than by all means log it. Just be thankful it's not one of mine.

Curious, what would happen if it was one of your caches?

[+Crow-T-Robot]

The right thing to do would be for the CO to accept that sometimes life happens and caches don't get logged for some reason.

 

Looking around on the map the other night i found a cache marked as unfounded that i did actually find 2 years ago, away with family did the cache and logging online was at the very bottom of my lady of things to do that weekend. Heading down there this weekend and after i check the log I'll be claiming the date from 2 years ago.

 

If you were the CO on that one I'd be fighting you all the way to the top over your silly "standard" you have.

 

Great! If your name is in the log book from two years ago than by all means log it. Just be thankful it's not one of mine.

Curious, what would happen if it was one of your caches?

I'm curious as well. The two statements are at odds with one another. The log is valid, so you'd let it stand but it's late so...would you give the cacher a good scolding for not being more prompt with their logging? Glare at their log on your computer screen with a really mean look on your face? Silently wish upon them two dozen DNF's? What?

 

Do cache owners really get themselves wound up over arbitrary matters such as this ?

[+justintim1999]

Let's clear this up a little.

There are two ways to handle logging a cache found two years ago.

 

First would be to e-mail the cache owner and explain what happened and ask to be allowed to log the find. Even if it's not required of you. By doing this you practically guarantee the log will stand.

 

Second would be to just log it with no e-mail and no explanation. Most of the time this would sail right through unwatching or uncaring owners.

 

What if the cache owner questions the validity of the find and the response is, I'm logging it whether you like it or not and if you delete it I'm fighting you all the way to the top.

 

Well that simply doesn't fly with me.

 

The next step, as the cache owner, would be to head out to the cache and check the existing log book for the signature. If it's there than it's a legit find. If it's not than it's sorry better luck next time. I agree this last part is petty and probably a waist of time but......

 

It's how you approach things that matters. People want to be understanding and helpful. No one likes a bully.

[+J Grouchy]

Let's clear this up a little.

There are two ways to handle logging a cache found two years ago.

 

First would be to e-mail the cache owner and explain what happened and ask to be allowed to log the find. Even if it's not required of you. By doing this you practically guarantee the log will stand.

 

Second would be to just log it with no e-mail and no explanation. Most of the time this would sail right through unwatching or uncaring owners.

 

What if the cache owner questions the validity of the find and the response is, I'm logging it whether you like it or not and if you delete it I'm fighting you all the way to the top.

 

Well that simply doesn't fly with me.

 

The next step, as the cache owner, would be to head out to the cache and check the existing log book for the signature. If it's there than it's a legit find. If it's not than it's sorry better luck next time. I agree this last part is petty and probably a waist of time but......

 

It's how you approach things that matters. People want to be understanding and helpful. No one likes a bully.

 

I'd say expecting someone to email a request to log a previous find is over-reaching. You are, I dare say, getting a bit silly about this.

[+narcissa]

Humans can be astounding and late logs are pretty unusual. That doesn't mean that a punitive approach is necessary.

Deleting a log is not punishment.

 

Deleting a valid log because you felt mildly annoyed by someone certainly is.

[+justintim1999]

Let's clear this up a little.

There are two ways to handle logging a cache found two years ago.

 

First would be to e-mail the cache owner and explain what happened and ask to be allowed to log the find. Even if it's not required of you. By doing this you practically guarantee the log will stand.

 

Second would be to just log it with no e-mail and no explanation. Most of the time this would sail right through unwatching or uncaring owners.

 

What if the cache owner questions the validity of the find and the response is, I'm logging it whether you like it or not and if you delete it I'm fighting you all the way to the top.

 

Well that simply doesn't fly with me.

 

The next step, as the cache owner, would be to head out to the cache and check the existing log book for the signature. If it's there than it's a legit find. If it's not than it's sorry better luck next time. I agree this last part is petty and probably a waist of time but......

 

It's how you approach things that matters. People want to be understanding and helpful. No one likes a bully.

 

I'd say expecting someone to email a request to log a previous find is over-reaching. You are, I dare say, getting a bit silly about this.

 

I agree it's silly but that's how I would handle it.

 

You have the right to log a find two years later.

 

The cache owner has the right to question it's validity.

 

How it's handled from there will determine what happens next.

[+narcissa]

Let's clear this up a little.

There are two ways to handle logging a cache found two years ago.

 

First would be to e-mail the cache owner and explain what happened and ask to be allowed to log the find. Even if it's not required of you. By doing this you practically guarantee the log will stand.

 

Second would be to just log it with no e-mail and no explanation. Most of the time this would sail right through unwatching or uncaring owners.

 

What if the cache owner questions the validity of the find and the response is, I'm logging it whether you like it or not and if you delete it I'm fighting you all the way to the top.

 

Well that simply doesn't fly with me.

 

The next step, as the cache owner, would be to head out to the cache and check the existing log book for the signature. If it's there than it's a legit find. If it's not than it's sorry better luck next time. I agree this last part is petty and probably a waist of time but......

 

It's how you approach things that matters. People want to be understanding and helpful. No one likes a bully.

 

Contacting a cacher to challenge the log simply because it is late is bullying. A person standing up for a legitimate find when they receive inappropriate communication from a cache owner is not bullying.

 

This is why it is so important to make sure messages or emails are channeled through the website. Cachers who receive inappropriate messages like this should ignore them and complain directly to TPTB. They will take swift action when a cache owner is deleting logs and bothering people for no reason.

 

So someone logged a cache outside of your personally preferred time window. What do you do?

 

If the logbook from that time is intact and you can verify that there is no log, just delete it.

 

If the cacher's account seems spammy, delete it.

 

Otherwise, just take a deep breathe and remember there is no time limit on logs and nobody is required to jump through hoops to prove a find to you. Replace your logbooks and hold onto the old ones if verifying finds is this important to you.

[+justintim1999]

Let's clear this up a little.

There are two ways to handle logging a cache found two years ago.

 

First would be to e-mail the cache owner and explain what happened and ask to be allowed to log the find. Even if it's not required of you. By doing this you practically guarantee the log will stand.

 

Second would be to just log it with no e-mail and no explanation. Most of the time this would sail right through unwatching or uncaring owners.

 

What if the cache owner questions the validity of the find and the response is, I'm logging it whether you like it or not and if you delete it I'm fighting you all the way to the top.

 

Well that simply doesn't fly with me.

 

The next step, as the cache owner, would be to head out to the cache and check the existing log book for the signature. If it's there than it's a legit find. If it's not than it's sorry better luck next time. I agree this last part is petty and probably a waist of time but......

 

It's how you approach things that matters. People want to be understanding and helpful. No one likes a bully.

 

Contacting a cacher to challenge the log simply because it is late is bullying. A person standing up for a legitimate find when they receive inappropriate communication from a cache owner is not bullying.

 

This is why it is so important to make sure messages or emails are channeled through the website. Cachers who receive inappropriate messages like this should ignore them and complain directly to TPTB. They will take swift action when a cache owner is deleting logs and bothering people for no reason.

 

So someone logged a cache outside of your personally preferred time window. What do you do?

 

If the logbook from that time is intact and you can verify that there is no log, just delete it.

 

If the cacher's account seems spammy, delete it.

 

Otherwise, just take a deep breathe and remember there is no time limit on logs and nobody is required to jump through hoops to prove a find to you. Replace your logbooks and hold onto the old ones if verifying finds is this important to you.

 

How is questioning the validity of a find backdated two years bullying?

 

Even if the original log was destroyed and I couldn't confirm the physical log I'd probably let it be depending on all of the information you referred to in your response. I would think that most cases like this were simple, harmless mistakes and not worthy of further consideration.

 

It's the notion that the cache owner has no business questioning the validity of the log that bugs me. Doing so is somehow inappropriate bordering on harassment.

[+narcissa]

How is questioning the validity of a find backdated two years bullying?

 

Even if the original log was destroyed and I couldn't confirm the physical log I'd probably let it be depending on all of the information you referred to in your response. I would think that most cases like this were simple, harmless mistakes and not worthy of further consideration.

 

It's the notion that the cache owner has no business questioning the validity of the log that bugs me. Doing so is somehow inappropriate bordering on harassment.

 

You can question the validity to yourself and do what you can to reasonably look into it. Check your logbook, scan the profile.

 

Geocachers are not required to log within a particular time frame, and they are not obligated to prove their finds beyond signing the log. Accosting a fellow geocacher because they ran afoul of your personal expectations is not appropriate.

[+justintim1999]

How is questioning the validity of a find backdated two years bullying?

 

Even if the original log was destroyed and I couldn't confirm the physical log I'd probably let it be depending on all of the information you referred to in your response. I would think that most cases like this were simple, harmless mistakes and not worthy of further consideration.

 

It's the notion that the cache owner has no business questioning the validity of the log that bugs me. Doing so is somehow inappropriate bordering on harassment.

 

You can question the validity to yourself and do what you can to reasonably look into it. Check your logbook, scan the profile.

 

Geocachers are not required to log within a particular time frame, and they are not obligated to prove their finds beyond signing the log. Accosting a fellow geocacher because they ran afoul of your personal expectations is not appropriate.

 

Why do you do that? Why did you bring the word accost into the conversation as you did earlier with the word antagonize? When was it ever even intimated that a cacher should be accosted or antagonized for any reason? Asking a question to determine whether a find is legitimate or not is neither of those.

[cezanne]

I would think that most cases like this were simple, harmless mistakes and not worthy of further consideration.

 

It's the notion that the cache owner has no business questioning the validity of the log that bugs me.

 

I would say that it occurs much more frequently that back dated logs arrive because someone did not forget to log but is behind with some or all logs.

 

When someone just forgot to log a single cache, it's quite likely that this person will mention this in the log. When someone is known to be behind with the logging process, it does not make

sense to always provide this explanation.

 

I regularly come across logs in log books (of my own caches and caches I find) that have not yet been followed by online logs. I know from experience that some cachers are very much behind in their logging process. I'm not that extreme but yes, it can happen that I'm behind with some logs for several weeks or in certain cases even months - for example in case of the puzzle cache where I have not yet solved the puzzle I have mentioned earlier in the thread or sometimes after a long exhausting hike where I'm too tired after my return and then do not find not the right time to sit down for at least an hour to write my log (with photo uploading also more) for quite a while. So far it fortunately never has happened that someone questioned any log of mine that came in late.

Edited May 12, 2016 by cezanne

[+justintim1999]

I would think that most cases like this were simple, harmless mistakes and not worthy of further consideration.

 

It's the notion that the cache owner has no business questioning the validity of the log that bugs me.

 

I would say that it occurs much more frequently that back dated logs arrive because someone did not forget to log but is behind with some or all logs.

 

When someone just forgot to log a single cache, it's quite likely that this person will mention this in the log. When someone is known to be behind with the logging process, it does not make

sense to always provide this explanation.

 

I regularly come across logs in log books (of my own caches and caches I find) that have not yet been followed by online logs. I know from experience that some cachers are very much behind in their logging process. I'm not that extreme but yes, it can happen that I'm behind with some logs for several weeks or in certain cases even months - for example in case of the puzzle cache where I have not yet solved the puzzle I have mentioned earlier in the thread or sometimes after a long exhausting hike where I'm too tired after my return and then do not find not the right time to sit down for at least an hour to write my log (with photo uploading also more) for quite a while. So far it fortunately never has happened that someone questioned any log of mine that came in late.

 

Makes sense. A week, a month is perfectly understandable. A year or two raises some red flags and warrants a little looking into.

[cezanne]

Makes sense. A week, a month is perfectly understandable. A year or two raises some red flags and warrants a little looking into.

 

In case of the puzzle cache where I have not yet managed to solve the puzzle but found the cache it is more than 6 months but the cache owner knows about anyway since a long time.

 

It can easily happen that back logs in logging accumulate over time.

 

Noone said that the cache owner cannot look into things. I'm sure however that just like I do know in my area those who are behind with their logging for months the same is true for the cachers in the area where narcissa and her husband cache. There is no reason that such cachers explain each of their logs. Some of those who log late are very trustworthy cachers - I know a number of cachers who log very quickly who are much less trustworthy.

I do not have any reason to question a log just on the basis that it is late. It depends on the circumstances.

[+J Grouchy]

Makes sense. A week, a month is perfectly understandable. A year or two raises some red flags and warrants a little looking into.

 

In case of the puzzle cache where I have not yet managed to solve the puzzle but found the cache it is more than 6 months but the cache owner knows about anyway since a long time.

 

Wait...so you aren't logging it even though you found it because you haven't solved the puzzle? You found the cache, it matters not one single bit whether you solved the puzzle or not.

 

There's some weird asceticism going on in geocaching. People have strange, self-imposed rules about logging or not logging on a cache page.

[cezanne]

Makes sense. A week, a month is perfectly understandable. A year or two raises some red flags and warrants a little looking into.

 

In case of the puzzle cache where I have not yet managed to solve the puzzle but found the cache it is more than 6 months but the cache owner knows about anyway since a long time.

 

Wait...so you aren't logging it even though you found it because you haven't solved the puzzle? You found the cache, it matters not one single bit whether you solved the puzzle or not.

 

There's some weird asceticism going on in geocaching. People have strange, self-imposed rules about logging or not logging on a cache page.

 

I explained in this thread that I'm well aware of the fact that I can log the cache as find right away even more because I did not get the coordinates from someone else but just found an alternative way how to to find out where the cache is hidden. It is my own decision to delay the log in this case and I'm not expecting anyone else to do the same, but it's definitely not forbidden to act like I act in this case and I do not need to defend myself for what I decided because it matters for me whether or not I solved the puzzle in that case. The cache gets found very often so noone is relying on my log and the cache owner knows about the situation too. So the only ones that can have an issue are those that set up rules for others how logging has to be performed even though if someone does not comply with these arbitrary rules they are not affected at all.

Edited May 12, 2016 by cezanne

[+J Grouchy]

Makes sense. A week, a month is perfectly understandable. A year or two raises some red flags and warrants a little looking into.

 

In case of the puzzle cache where I have not yet managed to solve the puzzle but found the cache it is more than 6 months but the cache owner knows about anyway since a long time.

 

Wait...so you aren't logging it even though you found it because you haven't solved the puzzle? You found the cache, it matters not one single bit whether you solved the puzzle or not.

 

There's some weird asceticism going on in geocaching. People have strange, self-imposed rules about logging or not logging on a cache page.

 

I explained in this thread that I'm well aware of the fact that I can log the cache as find right away even more because I did not get the coordinates from someone else but just found an alternative way how to to find out where the cache is hidden. It is my own decision to delay the log in this case and I'm not expecting anyone else to do the same, but it's definitely not forbidden to act like I act in this case and I do not need to defend myself for what I decided because it matters for me whether or not I solved the puzzle in that case. The cache gets found very often so noone is relying on my log and the cache owner knows about the situation too. So the only ones that can have an issue are those that set up rules for others how logging has to be performed even though if someone does not comply with these arbitrary rules they are not affected at all.

 

Who said anything about you needing to "defend" anything? I merely commented on the variety of obsessiveness that appears in here.

 

What IS clear, though, is that you obviously feel defensive about it.