Logging an old archived cache

[+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.

 

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.

 

Your fellow geocachers are not required to legitimize their finds to you by answering questions or providing proof.

 

What question could you possibly ask that wouldn't be an explicit or implicit accusation or a request for proof?

[cezanne]

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

 

There is no obsessiveness involved. It's a personal decision and a case to case decision.

 

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

 

No. I used the example earlier in this thread to provide one of many reasons why it can easily happen that someone logs a cache long after the actual find.

Some of the other reasons (account splits, general back log etc) are well known. I wanted to contribute another potential reason, that's it.

 

With regard to having to defend anything, I did not mean this specific example I brought up with and not you as a person. I meant that in this thread there are several cachers

who create the impression that someone who logs a cache very late needs to defend themselves in a way or even provide a proof (like a photo).

Edited May 12, 2016 by cezanne

[+niraD]

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.

I wouldn't "ask to be allowed to log the find". Either I found it or I didn't. If I found it, then I'll log the find, even if my log is late. If I didn't find it, then I won't log the find. There is no reason to "ask to be allowed to log the find".

 

But what I have done when my logs are delayed by more than a couple weeks has been to include an explanation of the delay at the beginning of the log, so it's the first thing the CO (or anyone watching the cache) sees when they read the email notification of my log. Then I edit my log to remove the explanation, because the explanation makes sense only if you receive an email notification with a date significantly before the date you receive the notifications.

[+dprovan]

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.

I think separate e-mail would be silly. The explanation is clearly important information relevant to claiming the find, so it should be in the find log.

[+justintim1999]

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.

I wouldn't "ask to be allowed to log the find". Either I found it or I didn't. If I found it, then I'll log the find, even if my log is late. If I didn't find it, then I won't log the find. There is no reason to "ask to be allowed to log the find".

 

But what I have done when my logs are delayed by more than a couple weeks has been to include an explanation of the delay at the beginning of the log, so it's the first thing the CO (or anyone watching the cache) sees when they read the email notification of my log. Then I edit my log to remove the explanation, because the explanation makes sense only if you receive an email notification with a date significantly before the date you receive the notifications.

 

That's all any cache owner could ask for. Whether you volunteer that information in advance or include it in a response to a cache owners inquiry.

[+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.

 

Your fellow geocachers are not required to legitimize their finds to you by answering questions or providing proof.

 

What question could you possibly ask that wouldn't be an explicit or implicit accusation or a request for proof?

 

But they are required to have the name in the log book. I guess if their name isn't in the log book and they are not required (or willing) to offer any assistance in helping me determine the validity of the claim, than I'm not required to allow the find. No ifs ands or buts. The rules are the rules right?

[+narcissa]

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.

I wouldn't "ask to be allowed to log the find". Either I found it or I didn't. If I found it, then I'll log the find, even if my log is late. If I didn't find it, then I won't log the find. There is no reason to "ask to be allowed to log the find".

 

But what I have done when my logs are delayed by more than a couple weeks has been to include an explanation of the delay at the beginning of the log, so it's the first thing the CO (or anyone watching the cache) sees when they read the email notification of my log. Then I edit my log to remove the explanation, because the explanation makes sense only if you receive an email notification with a date significantly before the date you receive the notifications.

 

When I've had to back-date logs, I mentioned it in my logs too. I think it's obvious that this is best practice for the person logging the cache in this situation, but the absence of such a note doesn't warrant log deletion.

 

Now that I'm thinking about it there is an Earthcache I visited in, uh, 2009 but, sadly, I lost the paper I wrote the answers on and it's hard to get back to the site to do it again.

 

If that piece of paper (with the Earthcache logging task answers I wrote in 2009) turns up before I get back there, I'm sending the CO the answers and logging it.

 

The log will say 2009.

Edited May 12, 2016 by narcissa

[+narcissa]

But they are required to have the name in the log book. I guess if their name isn't in the log book and they are not required (or willing) to offer any assistance in helping me determine the validity of the claim, than I'm not required to allow the find. No ifs ands or buts. The rules are the rules right?

 

If you don't have the logbook anymore, you can't prove that they didn't sign it. Deleting a log in this case would be setting yourself up for an unpleasant dispute that will not end in your favour.

 

Your fellow geocachers are not obligated to photograph or otherwise preserve your logbook in case you decide that you don't like their find.

 

If you are intent on gatekeeping your caches in this manner, you should be reconciling your logs on a frequent basis. Then you would know who hasn't logged yet and the late log wouldn't come as a surprise in the first place.

[+bflentje]

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.

 

There's a distinct difference between a little looking into and outright deleting the log. I cringe when I say this, but Narcissa's argument is more black and white than yours. Your argument has a lot of gray area to it. While I am pretty meticulous at managing the logs of my caches I think in this situation some flexibility, at least in terms of "finding out first", is quite necessary.

[+J Grouchy]

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.

I wouldn't "ask to be allowed to log the find". Either I found it or I didn't. If I found it, then I'll log the find, even if my log is late. If I didn't find it, then I won't log the find. There is no reason to "ask to be allowed to log the find".

 

But what I have done when my logs are delayed by more than a couple weeks has been to include an explanation of the delay at the beginning of the log, so it's the first thing the CO (or anyone watching the cache) sees when they read the email notification of my log. Then I edit my log to remove the explanation, because the explanation makes sense only if you receive an email notification with a date significantly before the date you receive the notifications.

 

When I've had to back-date logs, I mentioned it in my logs too. I think it's obvious that this is best practice for the person logging the cache in this situation, but the absence of such a note doesn't warrant log deletion.

 

Now that I'm thinking about it there is an Earthcache I found in, uh, 2009 but I lost the paper I wrote the answers on and it's hard to get back to the site to do it again. If that piece of paper turns up before I get back there, I'm logging it and it will say 2009.

 

Well, if you aren't fulfilling the logging requirements since you lost your answers, you can't really claim the find anyway. Just sayin'...

Edited May 12, 2016 by J Grouchy

[+dprovan]

There's a distinct difference between a little looking into and outright deleting the log. I cringe when I say this, but Narcissa's argument is more black and white than yours. Your argument has a lot of gray area to it. While I am pretty meticulous at managing the logs of my caches I think in this situation some flexibility, at least in terms of "finding out first", is quite necessary.

In general, it's always a good idea to be flexible. But you assign the burden of proof to the CO. I think there comes a time when the delay needs to be explained. Yes, personally, I'd investigate, and if found evidence of hanky-panky, I might delete the log. But despite what I'd recommend, I cannot complain about a CO that just assumes a log without explanation on a long archived cache is just a simple mistake and deletes it without giving it a thought.

[+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.

 

There's a distinct difference between a little looking into and outright deleting the log. I cringe when I say this, but Narcissa's argument is more black and white than yours. Your argument has a lot of gray area to it. While I am pretty meticulous at managing the logs of my caches I think in this situation some flexibility, at least in terms of "finding out first", is quite necessary.

 

Absolutely. If there is any doubt that the log is fraudulent than the find would not be deleted. My only point here is that the cache owner has a right to verify that the find is legit and a two year backlog is enough for me to enquire. If it is on the level what's the harm in explaining the error regardless of the rules? If the cache owner is responsible for the accuracy of the cache page then why is this type of inquiry a problem? This should be a cordial inquiry and a cordial response and move on.

[+narcissa]

Absolutely. If there is any doubt that the log is fraudulent than the find would not be deleted. My only point here is that the cache owner has a right to verify that the find is legit and a two year backlog is enough for me to enquire. If it is on the level what's the harm in explaining the error regardless of the rules? If the cache owner is responsible for the accuracy of the cache page then why is this type of inquiry a problem? This should be a cordial inquiry and a cordial response and move on.

 

The cache owner does not have a right to ask fellow geocachers for proof of visit. Regardless of how "cordial" you try to make the request, it's inappropriate and constitutes an ALR.

 

Your fellow geocacher is not to blame if the logbook they signed has been lost, discarded, or is otherwise unavailable to you.

[cezanne]

My only point here is that the cache owner has a right to verify that the find is legit and a two year backlog is enough for me to enquire. If it is on the level what's the harm in explaining the error regardless of the rules? If the cache owner is responsible for the accuracy of the cache page then why is this type of inquiry a problem? This should be a cordial inquiry and a cordial response and move on.

 

With the same logic you could question every log. I would not question the late log of someone who is known for late logging except in a situation where the log does not fit at all to the cache.

[+narcissa]

My only point here is that the cache owner has a right to verify that the find is legit and a two year backlog is enough for me to enquire. If it is on the level what's the harm in explaining the error regardless of the rules? If the cache owner is responsible for the accuracy of the cache page then why is this type of inquiry a problem? This should be a cordial inquiry and a cordial response and move on.

 

With the same logic you could question every log. I would not question the late log of someone who is known for late logging except in a situation where the log does not fit at all to the cache.

 

With this logic, I could just throw all my logbooks in the garbage and delete any find by someone I don't like. Whoops, logbook is gone, prove you were there.

Edited May 12, 2016 by narcissa

[+justintim1999]

Absolutely. If there is any doubt that the log is fraudulent than the find would not be deleted. My only point here is that the cache owner has a right to verify that the find is legit and a two year backlog is enough for me to enquire. If it is on the level what's the harm in explaining the error regardless of the rules? If the cache owner is responsible for the accuracy of the cache page then why is this type of inquiry a problem? This should be a cordial inquiry and a cordial response and move on.

 

The cache owner does not have a right to ask fellow geocachers for proof of visit. Regardless of how "cordial" you try to make the request, it's inappropriate and constitutes an ALR.

 

Your fellow geocacher is not to blame if the logbook they signed has been lost, discarded, or is otherwise unavailable to you.

 

I thought I had the right to expect the log book to be signed? If that's so than I do have the right to ask fellow geocachers for proof of visit.

 

It's not the cache owners fault the log book as disappeared or been destroyed within the last two years.

[+narcissa]

Absolutely. If there is any doubt that the log is fraudulent than the find would not be deleted. My only point here is that the cache owner has a right to verify that the find is legit and a two year backlog is enough for me to enquire. If it is on the level what's the harm in explaining the error regardless of the rules? If the cache owner is responsible for the accuracy of the cache page then why is this type of inquiry a problem? This should be a cordial inquiry and a cordial response and move on.

 

The cache owner does not have a right to ask fellow geocachers for proof of visit. Regardless of how "cordial" you try to make the request, it's inappropriate and constitutes an ALR.

 

Your fellow geocacher is not to blame if the logbook they signed has been lost, discarded, or is otherwise unavailable to you.

 

I thought I had the right to expect the log book to be signed? If that's so than I do have the right to ask fellow geocachers for proof of visit.

 

It's not the cache owners fault the log book as disappeared or been destroyed within the last two years.

 

It may or may not be the cache owner's fault. That's irrelevant.

 

The absence of the logbook means the find can't be disproven, so unless you have another good indication that it's fake, you have no basis for deleting the find.

 

If you plan to delete logs, the onus is on you to back up that decision. Your fellow geocachers are under no obligation to provide additional proof. Your request for additional proof is an ALR, regardless of how nicely you try to word it.

[+justintim1999]

My only point here is that the cache owner has a right to verify that the find is legit and a two year backlog is enough for me to enquire. If it is on the level what's the harm in explaining the error regardless of the rules? If the cache owner is responsible for the accuracy of the cache page then why is this type of inquiry a problem? This should be a cordial inquiry and a cordial response and move on.

 

With the same logic you could question every log. I would not question the late log of someone who is known for late logging except in a situation where the log does not fit at all to the cache.

 

With this logic, I could just throw all my logbooks in the garbage and delete any find by someone I don't like. Whoops, logbook is gone, prove you were there.

 

Not every cacher that visits my caches is "known" In fact many are unknown. It's not up to me to figure out if these cachers are "late loggers".

 

With your logic I should simply close my eyes and allow any and all logs to stand. I'm not questioning every log, only the one that's two years old.

 

Have you ever deleted a bogus log? Did you just delete it because you were sure it was bogus or did you ask a few questions? The forum is loaded with comments about "fake finds" and people who claim finds without ever visiting the area. These are routinely deleted yet you can't even question a find that was made two years ago?

 

I wonder why these number hounds log fake finds using the current dates? They should just back date them a couple of years and claim they use to live in the area or was on vacation at the time and forgot to log the find. Can't question them about it. Good chance the original log is lost or destroyed so more likely than not you can't verify it and from what I'm hearing Groundspeak will even side with them in a dispute.

[+narcissa]

Not every cacher that visits my caches is "known" In fact many are unknown. It's not up to me to figure out if these cachers are "late loggers".

 

With your logic I should simply close my eyes and allow any and all logs to stand. I'm not questioning every log, only the one that's two years old.

 

Have you ever deleted a bogus log? Did you just delete it because you were sure it was bogus or did you ask a few questions? The forum is loaded with comments about "fake finds" and people who claim finds without ever visiting the area. These are routinely deleted yet you can't even question a find that was made two years ago?

 

I wonder why these number hounds log fake finds using the current dates? They should just back date them a couple of years and claim they use to live in the area or was on vacation at the time and forgot to log the find. Can't question them about it. Good chance the original log is lost or destroyed so more likely than not you can't verify it and from what I'm hearing Groundspeak will even side with them in a dispute.

 

Unfortunately, when your approach to the game is to assume that everyone else is out to do bad things, you will frequently find the game more frustrating than it needs to be.

 

Nobody is telling you not to delete logs when you have evidence that they are false.

[+justintim1999]

Not every cacher that visits my caches is "known" In fact many are unknown. It's not up to me to figure out if these cachers are "late loggers".

 

With your logic I should simply close my eyes and allow any and all logs to stand. I'm not questioning every log, only the one that's two years old.

 

Have you ever deleted a bogus log? Did you just delete it because you were sure it was bogus or did you ask a few questions? The forum is loaded with comments about "fake finds" and people who claim finds without ever visiting the area. These are routinely deleted yet you can't even question a find that was made two years ago?

 

I wonder why these number hounds log fake finds using the current dates? They should just back date them a couple of years and claim they use to live in the area or was on vacation at the time and forgot to log the find. Can't question them about it. Good chance the original log is lost or destroyed so more likely than not you can't verify it and from what I'm hearing Groundspeak will even side with them in a dispute.

 

Unfortunately, when your approach to the game is to assume that everyone else is out to do bad things, you will frequently find the game more frustrating than it needs to be.

 

Nobody is telling you not to delete logs when you have evidence that they are false.

 

You obviously don't know me or my approach to the game so we'll just disregard that assumption.

 

I guess questioning finds from "back loggers" is off limits.

[+narcissa]

Not every cacher that visits my caches is "known" In fact many are unknown. It's not up to me to figure out if these cachers are "late loggers".

 

With your logic I should simply close my eyes and allow any and all logs to stand. I'm not questioning every log, only the one that's two years old.

 

Have you ever deleted a bogus log? Did you just delete it because you were sure it was bogus or did you ask a few questions? The forum is loaded with comments about "fake finds" and people who claim finds without ever visiting the area. These are routinely deleted yet you can't even question a find that was made two years ago?

 

I wonder why these number hounds log fake finds using the current dates? They should just back date them a couple of years and claim they use to live in the area or was on vacation at the time and forgot to log the find. Can't question them about it. Good chance the original log is lost or destroyed so more likely than not you can't verify it and from what I'm hearing Groundspeak will even side with them in a dispute.

 

Unfortunately, when your approach to the game is to assume that everyone else is out to do bad things, you will frequently find the game more frustrating than it needs to be.

 

Nobody is telling you not to delete logs when you have evidence that they are false.

 

You obviously don't know me or my approach to the game so we'll just disregard that assumption.

 

I guess questioning finds from "back loggers" is off limits.

 

Contacting a fellow geocacher to demand proof that they visited your cache is off limits.

 

It is certainly a good idea, if you find any log suspicious, to check out the cacher's profile and review your logbook (if it's available to you).

[cezanne]

Not every cacher that visits my caches is "known" In fact many are unknown. It's not up to me to figure out if these cachers are "late loggers".

 

I do regard it as my job to try to figure it out.

 

With your logic I should simply close my eyes and allow any and all logs to stand. I'm not questioning every log, only the one that's two years old.

 

I question logs that seem strange to me regardless of their age. The age does not play a role for me.

 

Have you ever deleted a bogus log? Did you just delete it because you were sure it was bogus or did you ask a few questions?

 

I have a few deleted bogus logs for my virtual cache which could not be legitimate logs - the virtual is quite complex and linked to a complex mystery-multi cache and I received logs on it from people who not even have been in the town where the cache is located. I did not ask any questions, just deleted the logs which were obvious bogus logs (of cachers with other bogus logs on the same day too).

 

The forum is loaded with comments about "fake finds" and people who claim finds without ever visiting the area. These are routinely deleted yet you can't even question a find that was made two years ago?

 

Good chance the original log is lost or destroyed so more likely than not you can't verify it and from what I'm hearing Groundspeak will even side with them in a dispute.

 

Cache owners who are concerned about this should visit their caches regularly and take photos of the log book and archive old log books at home.

 

Log books and pages of it can always get lost. It happened to me once that the page where I logged was not there two days after my visit - the cache owner had no doubt that I was at the cache. I would not have been able to prove my visit as I never take photos of log books.

 

A TFTC cache log alerts me much more than a detailed log back dated to 2 years ago as the detailled log will often allow me to be quite confident that the cacher has really been at the cache. Moreover, in many cases I encountered the logs in the log book anyway when I visited the cache.

[+dprovan]

Contacting a fellow geocacher to demand proof that they visited your cache is off limits.

If I do an investigation (as you have suggested) and discover something that makes me think it's unlikely the find was made, I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to demand proof. Surely you'd agree with that. So the real question here is not whether I can ever demand proof, but rather whether the cache being archived for 2 years is sufficient cause, in itself, to switch the burden of proof to the claimant.

[+narcissa]

Contacting a fellow geocacher to demand proof that they visited your cache is off limits.

If I do an investigation (as you have suggested) and discover something that makes me think it's unlikely the find was made, I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to demand proof. Surely you'd agree with that. So the real question here is not whether I can ever demand proof, but rather whether the cache being archived for 2 years is sufficient cause, in itself, to switch the burden of proof to the claimant.

 

If you honestly believe the find is not legitimate based on your investigation, delete the find.

 

By contacting the cacher and demanding proof you are violating the guidelines and undermining your own case. Cachers are not required to provide proof, even if you are really, really bothered by the lateness of their log.

Edited May 12, 2016 by narcissa

[cezanne]

Contacting a fellow geocacher to demand proof that they visited your cache is off limits.

If I do an investigation (as you have suggested) and discover something that makes me think it's unlikely the find was made, I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to demand proof. Surely you'd agree with that. So the real question here is not whether I can ever demand proof, but rather whether the cache being archived for 2 years is sufficient cause, in itself, to switch the burden of proof to the claimant.

 

First, the cache in the OP got archived in July 2015 - the log was back dated to 2014.

 

Second, it depends on what basis you decide that it's unlikely that the find was made. In my opinion, it does not suffice for such a conclusion that someone caches differently than oneself. If some people always log their finds quickly, fine, but not everyone is doing that. If some cachers find all traditionals along the route of a multi cache they visit, fine, but not not everyone is doing that (omitting easy caches along the way is something which has already been used as an argument for fake finds which were legitimate finds).

 

Third, it depends what you have in mind when you use the term proof. For example, if someone would ask me about something I could answer after having been at the cache location that's something different than e.g. if someone would only accept a photo of the log book. However in none of the cases mentioned above, I feel that asking for any sort of proof is appropriate. There needs to be stronger evidence.

[+dprovan]

If you honestly believe the find is not legitimate based on your investigation, delete the find.

Ah, OK. I consider deleting the find an indirect way of demanding proof since, after all, if they think I'm being unreasonable, they're going to have to show why somehow. I wasn't expecting you to think it's way worse for me to be nice about it and discuss my concerns with them instead of summarily deleting the find without warning.

[+dprovan]

First, the cache in the OP got archived in July 2015 - the log was back dated to 2014.

Back dating a fictitious log by a couple years is one way to minimize the chances of the shenanigans being noticed.

 

Second, it depends on what basis you decide that it's unlikely that the find was made. In my opinion, it does not suffice for such a conclusion that someone caches differently than oneself.

It's not that someone caches differently. It's that if there was a reasonable explanation such as "I'm different because it takes me years to log my finds", I would expect the explanation to be presented. With no explanation, I'm comfortable with a CO concluding it's a scam even though I'd discourage overreacting.

 

Third, it depends what you have in mind when you use the term proof.

Well, I'm talking about the burden of proof, meaning who has to make the case. By I don't actually mean the claimant has to provide proof; I'm really saying they'd need to provide an explanation for why what I'm seeing is consistent with their legitimate find.

 

As usual, I'm not suggesting an ironclad rule that tells us who should win an appeal. If a case like this goes to appeal, then both sides are wrong, so I don't care much who wins.

[+narcissa]

If you honestly believe the find is not legitimate based on your investigation, delete the find.

Ah, OK. I consider deleting the find an indirect way of demanding proof since, after all, if they think I'm being unreasonable, they're going to have to show why somehow. I wasn't expecting you to think it's way worse for me to be nice about it and discuss my concerns with them instead of summarily deleting the find without warning.

 

Cache owners can't demand proof, no matter how "nice" the request is.

 

If you know the log is fake, what is the purpose of the email? You're the one who will end up defending the decision to delete if it was a legitimate find and they complain about it.

[cezanne]

First, the cache in the OP got archived in July 2015 - the log was back dated to 2014.

Back dating a fictitious log by a couple years is one way to minimize the chances of the shenanigans being noticed.

 

I do not agree. It might in some cases be harder to check whether the log book has been signed. Other than that I see no real difference.

My point above was however only that the cache was not a cache being archived since 2 years.

 

Second, it depends on what basis you decide that it's unlikely that the find was made. In my opinion, it does not suffice for such a conclusion that someone caches differently than oneself.

It's not that someone caches differently. It's that if there was a reasonable explanation such as "I'm different because it takes me years to log my finds", I would expect the explanation to be presented. With no explanation, I'm comfortable with a CO concluding it's a scam even though I'd discourage overreacting.

 

I do think that "caching diferently" plays a role. As I said it happened to me that a log that has not been backdated and was very detailled, got questioned because I did not find the easy traditionals I passed on the way. I was told that every cacher would visit those as will and would not skip them. In my opinion this is a very questionable reason for questioning a log and the pure fact that a log is back dated is also questionable if there is no further evidence.

 

Again: If someone logs such a backdated log just for a single cache and in particular if this is a special cache (very difficult, log book got lost etc) and the logger is not known locally or is known for questionable logging, then there might be reasons to think that maybe the log is a fake. In most cases of backdated logs a closer log will show however that the cacher is behind with logging in general. In most cases where someone forgot to log just a single cache, an explanation is mentioned anyway.

 

 

Third, it depends what you have in mind when you use the term proof.

Well, I'm talking about the burden of proof, meaning who has to make the case. By I don't actually mean the claimant has to provide proof; I'm really saying they'd need to provide an explanation for why what I'm seeing is consistent with their legitimate find.

 

Ok, that differs from the statement some made here that they would request a log book photo or something of that type.

 

Suppose that there existed some cachers in your area that are late with almost every of their logs and well known for that. Do you really expect them to include an explanation in each of their logs? Doesn't it get boring?

 

Would you e.g. expect the husband of narcissa to mention that he logs late in every log? His wife is typically mentioning that they cached together anyway - so there is enough evidence to guess that his logs are not fake logs (among many other evidence).

Some here said that it is not the business of the cache owner to look into the case (e.g. previous logs, what other logs on the cache around the same time say etc), but I disagree with that.

 

As usual, I'm not suggesting an ironclad rule that tells us who should win an appeal. If a case like this goes to appeal, then both sides are wrong, so I don't care much who wins.

 

If someone is two years behind with logging and cannot present a log book photo he/she is definitely not wrong.

Edited May 13, 2016 by cezanne

[+Pond Bird]

If a person truly signed the logbook, or can somehow prove they were there to make the found, whether or not the cache is still in play, then they should be able to log it.

[+justintim1999]

What dose the online found log prove? Nothing.

 

When there is a question on the authenticity of a find the burden of proof lies with the cache finder not the cache owner. The fact that it's being logged late increases the likelihood that the cache owner won't be able to verify the physical log. You logged the cache late and I'm questioning it. simple as that.

 

Look, log your finds in a timely manor. If you don't or can't, be prepared for the cache owner to inquire about it. You can be cordial about it or you can throw a bunch of "I'm perfectly with in my rites" and "It's none of you business" bologna at them. The second choice is only going to prompt the cache owner to feel even more strongly that there is something not right with the find and start investigating.

 

Maybe the problem is with the no time limit to log caches thing. Maybe there should be. At least it would give the cache owner some say in this thing.

Edited May 15, 2016 by justintim1999

[+NYPaddleCacher]

If a person truly signed the logbook, or can somehow prove they were there to make the found, whether or not the cache is still in play, then they should be able to log it.

 

The problem with that is that some will attempt to make a find so that they can log it on a cache that should *not* be in play.

 

Some times a cache is placed without permission or the status of location where a cache has been placed changes. If people continue to find the cache and post found it logs some will still consider it "still in play" and that can cause issues with land managers that don't want people to searching for containers on the property they manage. Searching for caches that should not be in play can give the game a black eye.

 

 

[+narcissa]

What dose the online found log prove? Nothing.

 

When there is a question on the authenticity of a find the burden of proof lies with the cache finder not the cache owner. The fact that it's being logged late increases the likelihood that the cache owner won't be able to verify the physical log. You logged the cache late and I'm questioning it. simple as that.

 

Look, log your finds in a timely manor. If you don't or can't, be prepared for the cache owner to inquire about it. You can be cordial about it or you can throw a bunch of "I'm perfectly with in my rites" and "It's none of you business" bologna at them. The second choice is only going to prompt the cache owner to feel even more strongly that there is something not right with the find and start investigating.

 

Maybe the problem is with the no time limit to log caches thing. Maybe there should be. At least it would give the cache owner some say in this thing.

 

If a cache owner decides to delete a log, defending that decision if it is challenged will be up to the cache owner. Cachers are not required to prove finds beyond signing the log. Asking for additional proof is not permitted. Read the guidelines.

 

You can "question" a log by acting reasonably within the means you do have to investigate it. Account seems spammy? Delete. Name not in logbook? Delete.

 

Don't have the logbook? You're just going to have to live and learn and do a better job of holding on to log books if it bothers you that much.

 

It's unfortunate that sometimes people log finds when they shouldn't, but there's no real functional reason to restrict the timing of logs. It's just being harsh to people who don't do things the way you'd like them to.

 

If we had a rule for every personal preference that someone felt strongly about we wouldn't have geocaches at all.

[+Tassie_Boy]

[

 

Don't have the logbook? You're just going to have to live and learn and do a better job of holding on to log books if it bothers you that much.

 

 

Correct, if you are that worried about it then make sure you keep on top of maintenance and ensure there is a decent log book there so no one has to log with a scrap of paper then make sure you file them away properly.

 

Whinge and complain all you want but the onus is on the CO to explain why the log should be deleted and i suspect that if a log deletion were to be taken to HQ they side with the cacher until proven otherwise.

[+narcissa]

[

 

Don't have the logbook? You're just going to have to live and learn and do a better job of holding on to log books if it bothers you that much.

 

 

Correct, if you are that worried about it then make sure you keep on top of maintenance and ensure there is a decent log book there so no one has to log with a scrap of paper then make sure you file them away properly.

 

Whinge and complain all you want but the onus is on the CO to explain why the log should be deleted and i suspect that if a log deletion were to be taken to HQ they side with the cacher until proven otherwise.

 

Of course they would. Cache owners can't go around deleting finds because they're mildly bothered that someone didn't do something a particular way.

[+justintim1999]

If a person truly signed the logbook, or can somehow prove they were there to make the found, whether or not the cache is still in play, then they should be able to log it.

 

The problem with that is that some will attempt to make a find so that they can log it on a cache that should *not* be in play.

 

Some times a cache is placed without permission or the status of location where a cache has been placed changes. If people continue to find the cache and post found it logs some will still consider it "still in play" and that can cause issues with land managers that don't want people to searching for containers on the property they manage. Searching for caches that should not be in play can give the game a black eye.

 

Yup. I've had this discussion before. Caches that are archived should have a time limit to be logged and the container should be removed from play. I understand the logistics involved in this but regardless, that's how the game should be played.

[+justintim1999]

What dose the online found log prove? Nothing.

 

When there is a question on the authenticity of a find the burden of proof lies with the cache finder not the cache owner. The fact that it's being logged late increases the likelihood that the cache owner won't be able to verify the physical log. You logged the cache late and I'm questioning it. simple as that.

 

Look, log your finds in a timely manor. If you don't or can't, be prepared for the cache owner to inquire about it. You can be cordial about it or you can throw a bunch of "I'm perfectly with in my rites" and "It's none of you business" bologna at them. The second choice is only going to prompt the cache owner to feel even more strongly that there is something not right with the find and start investigating.

 

Maybe the problem is with the no time limit to log caches thing. Maybe there should be. At least it would give the cache owner some say in this thing.

 

If a cache owner decides to delete a log, defending that decision if it is challenged will be up to the cache owner. Cachers are not required to prove finds beyond signing the log. Asking for additional proof is not permitted. Read the guidelines.

 

You can "question" a log by acting reasonably within the means you do have to investigate it. Account seems spammy? Delete. Name not in logbook? Delete.

 

Don't have the logbook? You're just going to have to live and learn and do a better job of holding on to log books if it bothers you that much.

 

It's unfortunate that sometimes people log finds when they shouldn't, but there's no real functional reason to restrict the timing of logs. It's just being harsh to people who don't do things the way you'd like them to.

 

If we had a rule for every personal preference that someone felt strongly about we wouldn't have geocaches at all.

 

Questioning a late find is more about gauging the response than it is a personal attack. If the answer is acceptable and I feel comfortable that the find it legit I don't have to bother with researching the cachers habits and retrieving the original log book to verify. We sound like this is an everyday occurrence which it isn't. But, when it dose happen I'd like to know that as the cache owner I have some say in how I manage my caches.

 

Again, another rare occasion but I've had travel bugs go missing from my caches. Waited a few weeks for them to surface. Marked them as missing only to have someone log a find 6 weeks back and mention that they picked up a travel bug. there are some situations when logging a cache late matters.

Edited May 16, 2016 by justintim1999

[+justintim1999]

[

 

Don't have the logbook? You're just going to have to live and learn and do a better job of holding on to log books if it bothers you that much.

 

 

Correct, if you are that worried about it then make sure you keep on top of maintenance and ensure there is a decent log book there so no one has to log with a scrap of paper then make sure you file them away properly.

 

Whinge and complain all you want but the onus is on the CO to explain why the log should be deleted and i suspect that if a log deletion were to be taken to HQ they side with the cacher until proven otherwise.

 

This is not about proving that you didn't find the cache. If I take the time to verify the log book and I find you name in it, great, I'm satisfied. It's about having the right, as a cache owner, to question whether or not you actually did.

 

You want to avoid the whining? Log you caches in a timely manor.

[+narcissa]

Questioning a late find is more about gauging the response than it is a personal attack. If the answer is acceptable and I feel comfortable that the find it legit I don't have to bother with researching the cachers habits and retrieving the original log book to verify. We sound like this is an everyday occurrence which it isn't. But, when it dose happen I'd like to know that as the cache owner I have some say in how I manage my caches.

 

Again, another rare occasion but I've had travel bugs go missing from my caches. Waited a few weeks for them to surface. Marked them as missing only to have someone log a find 6 weeks back and mention that they picked up a travel bug. there are some situations when logging a cache late matters.

 

You do have a say in how you manage your caches, but there are limits. Hold onto your logbooks, look at people's profiles.

 

Cachers are not obligated to perform any additional tasks or answer additional questions or provide additional proof in order to validate a find. The guidelines are very clear that asking people to do anything beyond signing the logbook is considered an additional logging requirement and it's not permitted. The timing doesn't matter, no matter how much it bothers you.

 

While logging within a certain time period may, indeed, be preferable for you for many reasons, that doesn't change the fact that cachers are not obligated to log within a certain period of time. Your personal preferences are valid but they do not entitle you to make up your own rules.

 

The guidelines are very clear and you must indicate agreement with them every time you publish or change a cache listing. If you don't like the guidelines and the latitude they allow for finders, perhaps this is not the site for you to host your cache listings.

[+narcissa]

It's about having the right, as a cache owner, to question whether or not you actually did.

 

You have the "right," if it can be called that, to reconcile the written logs with the online logs. You also have the "right" to view other people's profiles.

 

You don't have the "right" to demand additional proof of cachers.

 

The use of the word "right" in this context is a little problematic because this is a privately operated website. You have the "right" to do what you'd like with the container you put out but if you'd like to list it here, there are terms you must follow.

 

Again, you should refer to the geocaching guidelines, specifically the guideline about additional logging requirements. Cache owners confirm that their listing are in keeping with these guidelines each and every time they publish or change a cache listing.

 

Note that there is no statute of limitations or time limit or anything else time-related that gives you a free pass to disregard the guidelines.

[+justintim1999]

It's about having the right, as a cache owner, to question whether or not you actually did.

 

You have the "right," if it can be called that, to reconcile the written logs with the online logs. You also have the "right" to view other people's profiles.

 

You don't have the "right" to demand additional proof of cachers.

 

The use of the word "right" in this context is a little problematic because this is a privately operated website. You have the "right" to do what you'd like with the container you put out but if you'd like to list it here, there are terms you must follow.

 

Again, you should refer to the geocaching guidelines, specifically the guideline about additional logging requirements. Cache owners confirm that their listing are in keeping with these guidelines each and every time they publish or change a cache listing.

 

Note that there is no statute of limitations or time limit or anything else time-related that gives you a free pass to disregard the guidelines.

 

So I'm better off not enquiring and simply consulting the original log book. If their name is not listed within the time frame indicated than delete the find?

 

I can tell you what happens next. I receive an e-mail asking why I deleted the find. I explain the above situation. I'll receive a response that goes something like this. "Sorry for the late logging. I was visiting family in the area and forgot I found your cache along with a few others in the area." I take a look and sure enough they did find a few other caches in the area around that time. I reply "No problem. The log looked a little suspicious. Please re-find. Thanks".

 

If I were allowed to ask the question and received this answer everything else could be avoided. But I guess it's bad geocaching etiquette to do that.

[+narcissa]

It's about having the right, as a cache owner, to question whether or not you actually did.

 

You have the "right," if it can be called that, to reconcile the written logs with the online logs. You also have the "right" to view other people's profiles.

 

You don't have the "right" to demand additional proof of cachers.

 

The use of the word "right" in this context is a little problematic because this is a privately operated website. You have the "right" to do what you'd like with the container you put out but if you'd like to list it here, there are terms you must follow.

 

Again, you should refer to the geocaching guidelines, specifically the guideline about additional logging requirements. Cache owners confirm that their listing are in keeping with these guidelines each and every time they publish or change a cache listing.

 

Note that there is no statute of limitations or time limit or anything else time-related that gives you a free pass to disregard the guidelines.

 

So I'm better off not enquiring and simply consulting the original log book. If their name is not listed within the time frame indicated than delete the find?

 

I can tell you what happens next. I receive an e-mail asking why I deleted the find. I explain the above situation. I'll receive a response that goes something like this. "Sorry for the late logging. I was visiting family in the area and forgot I found your cache along with a few others in the area." I take a look and sure enough they did find a few other caches in the area around that time. I reply "No problem. The log looked a little suspicious. Please re-find. Thanks".

 

If I were allowed to ask the question and received this answer everything else could be avoided. But I guess it's bad geocaching etiquette to do that.

 

It's not a matter of etiquette. Cachers are not obligated to perform additional tasks or otherwise provide proof of their find. This is very clear in the guidelines that you agree to when you publish a cache.

 

Whether or not you choose to respond or otherwise entertain the complaints of someone who claimed a find but didn't sign the logbook is entirely up to you.

 

I can tell you that if a cache owner ever asked me for additional proof of a find, I would not reply. I would forward the message directly to TPTB, citing the ALR guideline, and that would be the end of that story.

[+justintim1999]

It's about having the right, as a cache owner, to question whether or not you actually did.

 

You have the "right," if it can be called that, to reconcile the written logs with the online logs. You also have the "right" to view other people's profiles.

 

You don't have the "right" to demand additional proof of cachers.

 

The use of the word "right" in this context is a little problematic because this is a privately operated website. You have the "right" to do what you'd like with the container you put out but if you'd like to list it here, there are terms you must follow.

 

Again, you should refer to the geocaching guidelines, specifically the guideline about additional logging requirements. Cache owners confirm that their listing are in keeping with these guidelines each and every time they publish or change a cache listing.

 

Note that there is no statute of limitations or time limit or anything else time-related that gives you a free pass to disregard the guidelines.

 

So I'm better off not enquiring and simply consulting the original log book. If their name is not listed within the time frame indicated than delete the find?

 

I can tell you what happens next. I receive an e-mail asking why I deleted the find. I explain the above situation. I'll receive a response that goes something like this. "Sorry for the late logging. I was visiting family in the area and forgot I found your cache along with a few others in the area." I take a look and sure enough they did find a few other caches in the area around that time. I reply "No problem. The log looked a little suspicious. Please re-find. Thanks".

 

If I were allowed to ask the question and received this answer everything else could be avoided. But I guess it's bad geocaching etiquette to do that.

 

It's not a matter of etiquette. Cachers are not obligated to perform additional tasks or otherwise provide proof of their find. This is very clear in the guidelines that you agree to when you publish a cache.

 

Whether or not you choose to respond or otherwise entertain the complaints of someone who claimed a find but didn't sign the logbook is entirely up to you.

 

I can tell you that if a cache owner ever asked me for additional proof of a find, I would not reply. I would forward the message directly to TPTB, citing the ALR guideline, and that would be the end of that story.

 

what would you do if they deleted your log?

[+narcissa]

It's about having the right, as a cache owner, to question whether or not you actually did.

 

You have the "right," if it can be called that, to reconcile the written logs with the online logs. You also have the "right" to view other people's profiles.

 

You don't have the "right" to demand additional proof of cachers.

 

The use of the word "right" in this context is a little problematic because this is a privately operated website. You have the "right" to do what you'd like with the container you put out but if you'd like to list it here, there are terms you must follow.

 

Again, you should refer to the geocaching guidelines, specifically the guideline about additional logging requirements. Cache owners confirm that their listing are in keeping with these guidelines each and every time they publish or change a cache listing.

 

Note that there is no statute of limitations or time limit or anything else time-related that gives you a free pass to disregard the guidelines.

 

So I'm better off not enquiring and simply consulting the original log book. If their name is not listed within the time frame indicated than delete the find?

 

I can tell you what happens next. I receive an e-mail asking why I deleted the find. I explain the above situation. I'll receive a response that goes something like this. "Sorry for the late logging. I was visiting family in the area and forgot I found your cache along with a few others in the area." I take a look and sure enough they did find a few other caches in the area around that time. I reply "No problem. The log looked a little suspicious. Please re-find. Thanks".

 

If I were allowed to ask the question and received this answer everything else could be avoided. But I guess it's bad geocaching etiquette to do that.

 

It's not a matter of etiquette. Cachers are not obligated to perform additional tasks or otherwise provide proof of their find. This is very clear in the guidelines that you agree to when you publish a cache.

 

Whether or not you choose to respond or otherwise entertain the complaints of someone who claimed a find but didn't sign the logbook is entirely up to you.

 

I can tell you that if a cache owner ever asked me for additional proof of a find, I would not reply. I would forward the message directly to TPTB, citing the ALR guideline, and that would be the end of that story.

 

what would you do if they deleted your log?

 

I would just ask TPTB to restore the log. There is no point in engaging in a dispute with a hot-headed cache owner who wants to make up his/her own rules.

 

This has never happened to me or my husband. I've logged a handful of caches that were about two years behind, and my husband is always way behind, and nobody ever reacts to it in this manner.

[+dprovan]

This has never happened to me or my husband. I've logged a handful of caches that were about two years behind, and my husband is always way behind, and nobody ever reacts to it in this manner.

Perhaps this is why you're having trouble seeing the situation where the old log is, in fact, invalid. Most likely, no one questions you or your husband's late finds because they seem entirely reasonable. I imagine they're all well written logs worthy of a 2 year wait. If, on the other hand, you wait 2 years and then log "TFTC", I hope you would understand if the CO questions the find and asks what could possibly have taken so long to file a vacuous log.

 

When I support the CO asking questions, I'm imagining cases where 99% of the time, the CO's suspicions were well founded, the log is invalid, and the person posting the log won't notice it's been deleted and probably wouldn't care, anyway, 'cuz it's just one of hundreds of bogus logs he filed that day. The only time I expect a legitimate log to trigger questioning is when it's vacuous in relation to the cache -- for example, someone splitting an account after a divorce -- and in those cases, the logger can and should avoid any such problems by explaining why they're logging an event that actually has nothing to do with the cache.

[+justintim1999]

It's about having the right, as a cache owner, to question whether or not you actually did.

 

You have the "right," if it can be called that, to reconcile the written logs with the online logs. You also have the "right" to view other people's profiles.

 

You don't have the "right" to demand additional proof of cachers.

 

The use of the word "right" in this context is a little problematic because this is a privately operated website. You have the "right" to do what you'd like with the container you put out but if you'd like to list it here, there are terms you must follow.

 

Again, you should refer to the geocaching guidelines, specifically the guideline about additional logging requirements. Cache owners confirm that their listing are in keeping with these guidelines each and every time they publish or change a cache listing.

 

Note that there is no statute of limitations or time limit or anything else time-related that gives you a free pass to disregard the guidelines.

 

So I'm better off not enquiring and simply consulting the original log book. If their name is not listed within the time frame indicated than delete the find?

 

I can tell you what happens next. I receive an e-mail asking why I deleted the find. I explain the above situation. I'll receive a response that goes something like this. "Sorry for the late logging. I was visiting family in the area and forgot I found your cache along with a few others in the area." I take a look and sure enough they did find a few other caches in the area around that time. I reply "No problem. The log looked a little suspicious. Please re-find. Thanks".

 

If I were allowed to ask the question and received this answer everything else could be avoided. But I guess it's bad geocaching etiquette to do that.

 

It's not a matter of etiquette. Cachers are not obligated to perform additional tasks or otherwise provide proof of their find. This is very clear in the guidelines that you agree to when you publish a cache.

 

Whether or not you choose to respond or otherwise entertain the complaints of someone who claimed a find but didn't sign the logbook is entirely up to you.

 

I can tell you that if a cache owner ever asked me for additional proof of a find, I would not reply. I would forward the message directly to TPTB, citing the ALR guideline, and that would be the end of that story.

 

what would you do if they deleted your log?

 

I would just ask TPTB to restore the log. There is no point in engaging in a dispute with a hot-headed cache owner who wants to make up his/her own rules.

 

This has never happened to me or my husband. I've logged a handful of caches that were about two years behind, and my husband is always way behind, and nobody ever reacts to it in this manner.

 

Sorry but who is TPTB?

[+J Grouchy]

It's about having the right, as a cache owner, to question whether or not you actually did.

 

You have the "right," if it can be called that, to reconcile the written logs with the online logs. You also have the "right" to view other people's profiles.

 

You don't have the "right" to demand additional proof of cachers.

 

The use of the word "right" in this context is a little problematic because this is a privately operated website. You have the "right" to do what you'd like with the container you put out but if you'd like to list it here, there are terms you must follow.

 

Again, you should refer to the geocaching guidelines, specifically the guideline about additional logging requirements. Cache owners confirm that their listing are in keeping with these guidelines each and every time they publish or change a cache listing.

 

Note that there is no statute of limitations or time limit or anything else time-related that gives you a free pass to disregard the guidelines.

 

So I'm better off not enquiring and simply consulting the original log book. If their name is not listed within the time frame indicated than delete the find?

 

I can tell you what happens next. I receive an e-mail asking why I deleted the find. I explain the above situation. I'll receive a response that goes something like this. "Sorry for the late logging. I was visiting family in the area and forgot I found your cache along with a few others in the area." I take a look and sure enough they did find a few other caches in the area around that time. I reply "No problem. The log looked a little suspicious. Please re-find. Thanks".

 

If I were allowed to ask the question and received this answer everything else could be avoided. But I guess it's bad geocaching etiquette to do that.

 

It's not a matter of etiquette. Cachers are not obligated to perform additional tasks or otherwise provide proof of their find. This is very clear in the guidelines that you agree to when you publish a cache.

 

Whether or not you choose to respond or otherwise entertain the complaints of someone who claimed a find but didn't sign the logbook is entirely up to you.

 

I can tell you that if a cache owner ever asked me for additional proof of a find, I would not reply. I would forward the message directly to TPTB, citing the ALR guideline, and that would be the end of that story.

 

what would you do if they deleted your log?

 

I would just ask TPTB to restore the log. There is no point in engaging in a dispute with a hot-headed cache owner who wants to make up his/her own rules.

 

This has never happened to me or my husband. I've logged a handful of caches that were about two years behind, and my husband is always way behind, and nobody ever reacts to it in this manner.

 

Sorry but who is TPTB?

 

The Powers That Be. In this case, Groundspeak.

[+narcissa]

This has never happened to me or my husband. I've logged a handful of caches that were about two years behind, and my husband is always way behind, and nobody ever reacts to it in this manner.

Perhaps this is why you're having trouble seeing the situation where the old log is, in fact, invalid. Most likely, no one questions you or your husband's late finds because they seem entirely reasonable. I imagine they're all well written logs worthy of a 2 year wait. If, on the other hand, you wait 2 years and then log "TFTC", I hope you would understand if the CO questions the find and asks what could possibly have taken so long to file a vacuous log.

 

When I support the CO asking questions, I'm imagining cases where 99% of the time, the CO's suspicions were well founded, the log is invalid, and the person posting the log won't notice it's been deleted and probably wouldn't care, anyway, 'cuz it's just one of hundreds of bogus logs he filed that day. The only time I expect a legitimate log to trigger questioning is when it's vacuous in relation to the cache -- for example, someone splitting an account after a divorce -- and in those cases, the logger can and should avoid any such problems by explaining why they're logging an event that actually has nothing to do with the cache.

 

No matter how much you may dislike the timing or content of a log, the guidelines are very clear about this: cachers are not required to provide additional proof to verify a find.

 

Whether it's an essay or TFTC, the question is inappropriate. Look at the logs and view the profile. If it's unclear from that view, leave the log alone and do a better job of preserving your logbooks for next time.

[+justintim1999]

It's about having the right, as a cache owner, to question whether or not you actually did.

 

You have the "right," if it can be called that, to reconcile the written logs with the online logs. You also have the "right" to view other people's profiles.

 

You don't have the "right" to demand additional proof of cachers.

 

The use of the word "right" in this context is a little problematic because this is a privately operated website. You have the "right" to do what you'd like with the container you put out but if you'd like to list it here, there are terms you must follow.

 

Again, you should refer to the geocaching guidelines, specifically the guideline about additional logging requirements. Cache owners confirm that their listing are in keeping with these guidelines each and every time they publish or change a cache listing.

 

Note that there is no statute of limitations or time limit or anything else time-related that gives you a free pass to disregard the guidelines.

 

So I'm better off not enquiring and simply consulting the original log book. If their name is not listed within the time frame indicated than delete the find?

 

I can tell you what happens next. I receive an e-mail asking why I deleted the find. I explain the above situation. I'll receive a response that goes something like this. "Sorry for the late logging. I was visiting family in the area and forgot I found your cache along with a few others in the area." I take a look and sure enough they did find a few other caches in the area around that time. I reply "No problem. The log looked a little suspicious. Please re-find. Thanks".

 

If I were allowed to ask the question and received this answer everything else could be avoided. But I guess it's bad geocaching etiquette to do that.

 

It's not a matter of etiquette. Cachers are not obligated to perform additional tasks or otherwise provide proof of their find. This is very clear in the guidelines that you agree to when you publish a cache.

 

Whether or not you choose to respond or otherwise entertain the complaints of someone who claimed a find but didn't sign the logbook is entirely up to you.

 

I can tell you that if a cache owner ever asked me for additional proof of a find, I would not reply. I would forward the message directly to TPTB, citing the ALR guideline, and that would be the end of that story.

 

what would you do if they deleted your log?

 

I would just ask TPTB to restore the log. There is no point in engaging in a dispute with a hot-headed cache owner who wants to make up his/her own rules.

 

This has never happened to me or my husband. I've logged a handful of caches that were about two years behind, and my husband is always way behind, and nobody ever reacts to it in this manner.

 

Sorry but who is TPTB?

 

The Powers That Be. In this case, Groundspeak.

 

Thank You.

 

What if I contacted TPTB and indicated that I thought the find was bogus. It's two years backdated and I can't find any record of the log book being signed. What would happen then?

[+narcissa]

What if I contacted TPTB and indicated that I thought the find was bogus. It's two years backdated and I can't find any record of the log book being signed. What would happen then?

 

Why would you bother? If the logbook wasn't signed, delete the log.