Logging an old archived cache

[+niraD]

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

But keep in mind that people don't always sign logbooks in a consistent order. So if you get a backdated log from 2013-05-16, and the name doesn't appear between a signature from 2013-05-05 and a signature from 2013-05-22, then that doesn't mean that the person didn't sign the logbook. The 2013-05-16 signature might be on an earlier page where the person found space, or on a later page that was completely blank at the time.

 

And then there are logbooks that fall apart, and the loose sheets may be signed in essentially random order.

 

And some newbies sign with their real names, and then log the find later (sometimes months/years later) after finally creating their own geocaching.com accounts.

 

And so on.

[+narcissa]

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

But keep in mind that people don't always sign logbooks in a consistent order. So if you get a backdated log from 2013-05-16, and the name doesn't appear between a signature from 2013-05-05 and a signature from 2013-05-22, then that doesn't mean that the person didn't sign the logbook. The 2013-05-16 signature might be on an earlier page where the person found space, or on a later page that was completely blank at the time.

 

And then there are logbooks that fall apart, and the loose sheets may be signed in essentially random order.

 

And some newbies sign with their real names, and then log the find later (sometimes months/years later) after finally creating their own geocaching.com accounts.

 

And so on.

 

So is your point that cache owners should never bother verifying logs and it's just a free-for-all?

[+noncentric]

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

But keep in mind that people don't always sign logbooks in a consistent order. So if you get a backdated log from 2013-05-16, and the name doesn't appear between a signature from 2013-05-05 and a signature from 2013-05-22, then that doesn't mean that the person didn't sign the logbook. The 2013-05-16 signature might be on an earlier page where the person found space, or on a later page that was completely blank at the time.

 

And then there are logbooks that fall apart, and the loose sheets may be signed in essentially random order.

 

And some newbies sign with their real names, and then log the find later (sometimes months/years later) after finally creating their own geocaching.com accounts.

 

And so on.

If a cacher submits a 'late log' and the name on their account is different than the name they signed in the physical logbook, then I think they should mention that in their online log. Otherwise, their online log could be deleted. A CO comparing physical signatures to online cachers won't be able to reconcile if a cacher signed the physical logbook with something other than their username. In those cases, I think the onus is on the cache finder to mention in their online log what they wrote in the physical log.

 

Most of the 'split account' logs that I've seen have noted something like "found with cacher-abc, now logging with my own account" or "signed as supercacher, now using a new account". It's similar to cachers that sign with one group name and mention in their logs that they signed as "Team-ABC".

[+noncentric]

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.

+1

If a cacher submits an online log with a username that's different from what they wrote in the physical log, then they should mention it in their online log - or else, not be surprised that their online log gets deleted. If their online log gets deleted, then I'd hope they calmly explain to the CO that they signed as "oldname" and have since changed to "newname". I'd also hope that a reasonable response to the CO would result in the CO offering the cache finder to re-log the find on that cache.

[+noncentric]

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.

I'm not following your example very well. In this hypothetical situation, the cacher did not sign your logbook, but they found other caches in the area of your cache? If so, then this is not a matter of 'late logging' a real find.

 

If their name is not in the logbook, then feel free to delete their find. Even if they submitted online logs in the area, if they didn't sign your cache's logbook then they aren't entitled to a Find on it. It's entirely possible that they thought they found your cache because they cached in the area, but they're confusing your cache with a different one.

 

However, about the "within the time frame indicated" part of your first sentence. It doesn't matter if their physical signature in in the correct order within the logbook. Sometimes cachers don't sign on the correct page, so you'd have to look through the entire logbook for their name before saying they didn't sign it. And if they didn't sign the logbook anywhere, then you can delete their find.

[+niraD]

So is your point that cache owners should never bother verifying logs and it's just a free-for-all?

No. My point is that logbooks can get messy, and that you should be careful before deleting someone's log.

 

The Help Center article Log Deletion offers the suggestion, "Assume the best and please deal kindly with logs that may be in error". And it even has a section titled "MESSY SITUATION?"

[+dprovan]

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.

Questioning a find is not the same as demanding proof.

 

It's not a matter of disliking the content, it simply the fact that a log with content is more likely to be a valid find.

[+narcissa]

So is your point that cache owners should never bother verifying logs and it's just a free-for-all?

No. My point is that logbooks can get messy, and that you should be careful before deleting someone's log.

 

The Help Center article Log Deletion offers the suggestion, "Assume the best and please deal kindly with logs that may be in error". And it even has a section titled "MESSY SITUATION?"

 

I don't really see why this comment is aimed at me since I have spent most of this thread arguing in favour of careful consideration before deletion, but at a certain point cache owners do get to exercise their own judgment.

[+narcissa]

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.

Questioning a find is not the same as demanding proof.

 

It's not a matter of disliking the content, it simply the fact that a log with content is more likely to be a valid find.

 

Can you provide some sample text for a note to a cacher that "questions" a find without implicitly or explicitly asking for additional proof?

[+J Grouchy]

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.

Questioning a find is not the same as demanding proof.

 

It's not a matter of disliking the content, it simply the fact that a log with content is more likely to be a valid find.

 

Can you provide some sample text for a note to a cacher that "questions" a find without implicitly or explicitly asking for additional proof?

 

Problem is, you are talking strict interpretations while the rest of us inhabit the real world. If I were to say something like "can you describe the container?", I guarantee you I wouldn't get a response back anything close to your attitude. More likely I'd either get an actual answer to my question or they would quietly delete their find. I honestly can't imagine a single person pulling out the "rule book" and telling me I was breaking guidelines by requesting additional proof. It just won't happen that way.

[cezanne]

Problem is, you are talking strict interpretations while the rest of us inhabit the real world. If I were to say something like "can you describe the container?", I guarantee you I wouldn't get a response back anything close to your attitude. More likely I'd either get an actual answer to my question or they would quietly delete their find. I honestly can't imagine a single person pulling out the "rule book" and telling me I was breaking guidelines by requesting additional proof.

 

Actually, it can happen very easily that I could not describe the container. I cannot even recall how the only container I found yesterday looked like. It was a very nice hike but I was not there for the container and I will certainly never take photos of containers or log books - I do not have any reason to do so.

[+justintim1999]

Problem is, you are talking strict interpretations while the rest of us inhabit the real world. If I were to say something like "can you describe the container?", I guarantee you I wouldn't get a response back anything close to your attitude. More likely I'd either get an actual answer to my question or they would quietly delete their find. I honestly can't imagine a single person pulling out the "rule book" and telling me I was breaking guidelines by requesting additional proof.

 

Actually, it can happen very easily that I could not describe the container. I cannot even recall how the only container I found yesterday looked like. It was a very nice hike but I was not there for the container and I will certainly never take photos of containers or log books - I do not have any reason to do so.

 

After a year or so it's not surprise you can't recall any particulars of the cache. That's part of the issue.

 

I wouldn't expect you too. I'm looking for the response. As J Grouchy pointed out, If the find is bogus most wouldn't challenge the inquiry, they would just go away. If it's legit than explaining why isn't a big deal. Even thought you may not be required to do so I think the cache owner deserves the courtesy of an explanation.

[cezanne]

Actually, it can happen very easily that I could not describe the container. I cannot even recall how the only container I found yesterday looked like. It was a very nice hike but I was not there for the container and I will certainly never take photos of containers or log books - I do not have any reason to do so.

 

After a year or so it's not surprise you can't recall any particulars of the cache. That's part of the issue.

 

I wrote about the container I found *yesterday* (less than 24 hours ago), not a year ago.

 

I can recall many particulars of my walk yesterday (and of caches I found years ago), but not how the container looked like except that its condition was ok - why should I care about more?

Edited May 17, 2016 by cezanne

[+narcissa]

There's that courtesy word again.

 

We all have our own little pet peeves about things cachers do and throwing "courtesy" around is an easy way to give a false air of authority to our personal preferences.

 

As a cache owner, you should really extend people the "courtesy" of adhering to the guidelines you agreed to follow when you published the cache, instead of eyeing people with suspicion and clambouring to justify deleting a log because you simply don't like it.

[+justintim1999]

There's that courtesy word again.

 

We all have our own little pet peeves about things cachers do and throwing "courtesy" around is an easy way to give a false air of authority to our personal preferences.

 

As a cache owner, you should really extend people the "courtesy" of adhering to the guidelines you agreed to follow when you published the cache, instead of eyeing people with suspicion and clambouring to justify deleting a log because you simply don't like it.

 

Courtesy should go both ways. As far as eyeing a two year old log with suspicion, guilty. I also don't like people who routinely log anything late (notice the word routinely). Thankfully I don't have to deal with that very often as most caches are good about that.

 

I like your definition of courtesy. I always thought it was simply a sign of respect.

[+narcissa]

There's that courtesy word again.

 

We all have our own little pet peeves about things cachers do and throwing "courtesy" around is an easy way to give a false air of authority to our personal preferences.

 

As a cache owner, you should really extend people the "courtesy" of adhering to the guidelines you agreed to follow when you published the cache, instead of eyeing people with suspicion and clambouring to justify deleting a log because you simply don't like it.

 

Courtesy should go both ways. As far as eyeing a two year old log with suspicion, guilty. I also don't like people who routinely log anything late (notice the word routinely). Thankfully I don't have to deal with that very often as most caches are good about that.

 

I like your definition of courtesy. I always thought it was simply a sign of respect.

 

I didn't define courtesy. People in this forum like to bring up "courtesy" in situations where others aren't acting the way they would like them to.

 

Your fellow cachers are not obligated to know or abide by your arbitrary time limits on logs.

 

The problem with this notion of "courtesy" is that it's a moving goal post for cachers. My preference is for nicely written logs, and time doesn't matter. TFTC from the field may feel like it lacks courtesy to me but I can't delete that log if they signed the logbook. A log 2 years behind may feel discourteous to you but it breaks no rules.

[+justintim1999]

There's that courtesy word again.

 

We all have our own little pet peeves about things cachers do and throwing "courtesy" around is an easy way to give a false air of authority to our personal preferences.

 

As a cache owner, you should really extend people the "courtesy" of adhering to the guidelines you agreed to follow when you published the cache, instead of eyeing people with suspicion and clambouring to justify deleting a log because you simply don't like it.

 

Courtesy should go both ways. As far as eyeing a two year old log with suspicion, guilty. I also don't like people who routinely log anything late (notice the word routinely). Thankfully I don't have to deal with that very often as most caches are good about that.

 

I like your definition of courtesy. I always thought it was simply a sign of respect.

 

I didn't define courtesy. People in this forum like to bring up "courtesy" in situations where others aren't acting the way they would like them to.

 

Your fellow cachers are not obligated to know or abide by your arbitrary time limits on logs.

 

The problem with this notion of "courtesy" is that it's a moving goal post for cachers. My preference is for nicely written logs, and time doesn't matter. TFTC from the field may feel like it lacks courtesy to me but I can't delete that log if they signed the logbook. A log 2 years behind may feel discourteous to you but it breaks no rules.

 

courtesy. "an easy way to give a false air of authority to our personal preferences."

[+narcissa]

There's that courtesy word again.

 

We all have our own little pet peeves about things cachers do and throwing "courtesy" around is an easy way to give a false air of authority to our personal preferences.

 

As a cache owner, you should really extend people the "courtesy" of adhering to the guidelines you agreed to follow when you published the cache, instead of eyeing people with suspicion and clambouring to justify deleting a log because you simply don't like it.

 

Courtesy should go both ways. As far as eyeing a two year old log with suspicion, guilty. I also don't like people who routinely log anything late (notice the word routinely). Thankfully I don't have to deal with that very often as most caches are good about that.

 

I like your definition of courtesy. I always thought it was simply a sign of respect.

 

I didn't define courtesy. People in this forum like to bring up "courtesy" in situations where others aren't acting the way they would like them to.

 

Your fellow cachers are not obligated to know or abide by your arbitrary time limits on logs.

 

The problem with this notion of "courtesy" is that it's a moving goal post for cachers. My preference is for nicely written logs, and time doesn't matter. TFTC from the field may feel like it lacks courtesy to me but I can't delete that log if they signed the logbook. A log 2 years behind may feel discourteous to you but it breaks no rules.

 

courtesy. "an easy way to give a false air of authority to our personal preferences."

 

Disingenuous, misleading quotations are not helpful and needlessly personal.

 

I understand that you really dislike the idea of late logs and the notion that people are permitted to log caches after they are archived, but no matter how strongly you feel about those issues, they are still a matter of personal preference.

 

My exact words, just a few posts up:

 

throwing "courtesy" around is an easy way to give a false air of authority to our personal preferences

 

This is not a matter of courtesy. Whether or not a fellow cacher is being "courteous" (in your estimation) is not relevant. Your distaste for a particular way of logging does not give you a free pass to disregard the guidelines that you agree to when you publish a cache. Geocachers are not obligated to log within any particular time frame, and cache owners are not permitted to invent their own rules for logging caches on the site.

[+justintim1999]

There's that courtesy word again.

 

We all have our own little pet peeves about things cachers do and throwing "courtesy" around is an easy way to give a false air of authority to our personal preferences.

 

As a cache owner, you should really extend people the "courtesy" of adhering to the guidelines you agreed to follow when you published the cache, instead of eyeing people with suspicion and clambouring to justify deleting a log because you simply don't like it.

 

Courtesy should go both ways. As far as eyeing a two year old log with suspicion, guilty. I also don't like people who routinely log anything late (notice the word routinely). Thankfully I don't have to deal with that very often as most caches are good about that.

 

I like your definition of courtesy. I always thought it was simply a sign of respect.

 

I didn't define courtesy. People in this forum like to bring up "courtesy" in situations where others aren't acting the way they would like them to.

 

Your fellow cachers are not obligated to know or abide by your arbitrary time limits on logs.

 

The problem with this notion of "courtesy" is that it's a moving goal post for cachers. My preference is for nicely written logs, and time doesn't matter. TFTC from the field may feel like it lacks courtesy to me but I can't delete that log if they signed the logbook. A log 2 years behind may feel discourteous to you but it breaks no rules.

 

courtesy. "an easy way to give a false air of authority to our personal preferences."

 

Disingenuous, misleading quotations are not helpful and needlessly personal.

 

I understand that you really dislike the idea of late logs and the notion that people are permitted to log caches after they are archived, but no matter how strongly you feel about those issues, they are still a matter of personal preference.

 

My exact words, just a few posts up:

 

throwing "courtesy" around is an easy way to give a false air of authority to our personal preferences

 

This is not a matter of courtesy. Whether or not a fellow cacher is being "courteous" (in your estimation) is not relevant. Your distaste for a particular way of logging does not give you a free pass to disregard the guidelines that you agree to when you publish a cache. Geocachers are not obligated to log within any particular time frame, and cache owners are not permitted to invent their own rules for logging caches on the site.

 

But you can define how others use the word.

[+narcissa]

There's that courtesy word again.

 

We all have our own little pet peeves about things cachers do and throwing "courtesy" around is an easy way to give a false air of authority to our personal preferences.

 

As a cache owner, you should really extend people the "courtesy" of adhering to the guidelines you agreed to follow when you published the cache, instead of eyeing people with suspicion and clambouring to justify deleting a log because you simply don't like it.

 

Courtesy should go both ways. As far as eyeing a two year old log with suspicion, guilty. I also don't like people who routinely log anything late (notice the word routinely). Thankfully I don't have to deal with that very often as most caches are good about that.

 

I like your definition of courtesy. I always thought it was simply a sign of respect.

 

I didn't define courtesy. People in this forum like to bring up "courtesy" in situations where others aren't acting the way they would like them to.

 

Your fellow cachers are not obligated to know or abide by your arbitrary time limits on logs.

 

The problem with this notion of "courtesy" is that it's a moving goal post for cachers. My preference is for nicely written logs, and time doesn't matter. TFTC from the field may feel like it lacks courtesy to me but I can't delete that log if they signed the logbook. A log 2 years behind may feel discourteous to you but it breaks no rules.

 

courtesy. "an easy way to give a false air of authority to our personal preferences."

 

Disingenuous, misleading quotations are not helpful and needlessly personal.

 

I understand that you really dislike the idea of late logs and the notion that people are permitted to log caches after they are archived, but no matter how strongly you feel about those issues, they are still a matter of personal preference.

 

My exact words, just a few posts up:

 

throwing "courtesy" around is an easy way to give a false air of authority to our personal preferences

 

This is not a matter of courtesy. Whether or not a fellow cacher is being "courteous" (in your estimation) is not relevant. Your distaste for a particular way of logging does not give you a free pass to disregard the guidelines that you agree to when you publish a cache. Geocachers are not obligated to log within any particular time frame, and cache owners are not permitted to invent their own rules for logging caches on the site.

 

But you can define how others use the word.

 

I have been on the forum for a long time and the word "courtesy" is frequently used when people are frustrated with things that other cachers do that aren't actually against the rules. People on the forum love to complain about "courtesy" but what people perceive as "courtesy" varies widely.

 

To you, a late log without an explanation is a lack of "courtesy." You've made it loud and clear that you have a strong personal distaste for this.

 

While it's somewhat understandable that you have those feelings, those feelings don't entitle you to demand proof that someone visited your cache.

[+justintim1999]

There's that courtesy word again.

 

We all have our own little pet peeves about things cachers do and throwing "courtesy" around is an easy way to give a false air of authority to our personal preferences.

 

As a cache owner, you should really extend people the "courtesy" of adhering to the guidelines you agreed to follow when you published the cache, instead of eyeing people with suspicion and clambouring to justify deleting a log because you simply don't like it.

 

Courtesy should go both ways. As far as eyeing a two year old log with suspicion, guilty. I also don't like people who routinely log anything late (notice the word routinely). Thankfully I don't have to deal with that very often as most caches are good about that.

 

I like your definition of courtesy. I always thought it was simply a sign of respect.

 

I didn't define courtesy. People in this forum like to bring up "courtesy" in situations where others aren't acting the way they would like them to.

 

Your fellow cachers are not obligated to know or abide by your arbitrary time limits on logs.

 

The problem with this notion of "courtesy" is that it's a moving goal post for cachers. My preference is for nicely written logs, and time doesn't matter. TFTC from the field may feel like it lacks courtesy to me but I can't delete that log if they signed the logbook. A log 2 years behind may feel discourteous to you but it breaks no rules.

 

courtesy. "an easy way to give a false air of authority to our personal preferences."

 

Disingenuous, misleading quotations are not helpful and needlessly personal.

 

I understand that you really dislike the idea of late logs and the notion that people are permitted to log caches after they are archived, but no matter how strongly you feel about those issues, they are still a matter of personal preference.

 

My exact words, just a few posts up:

 

throwing "courtesy" around is an easy way to give a false air of authority to our personal preferences

 

This is not a matter of courtesy. Whether or not a fellow cacher is being "courteous" (in your estimation) is not relevant. Your distaste for a particular way of logging does not give you a free pass to disregard the guidelines that you agree to when you publish a cache. Geocachers are not obligated to log within any particular time frame, and cache owners are not permitted to invent their own rules for logging caches on the site.

 

But you can define how others use the word.

 

I have been on the forum for a long time and the word "courtesy" is frequently used when people are frustrated with things that other cachers do that aren't actually against the rules. People on the forum love to complain about "courtesy" but what people perceive as "courtesy" varies widely.

 

To you, a late log without an explanation is a lack of "courtesy." You've made it loud and clear that you have a strong personal distaste for this.

 

While it's somewhat understandable that you have those feelings, those feelings don't entitle you to demand proof that someone visited your cache.

 

I haven't' been on this forum a long time and I use the word as it's defined.

 

I've had a few late log on my caches and didn't question any of them because I felt they were simple mistakes and legitimate. Your a self professed late logger so I understand why you feel the way you do. You'll defend your right to log things when you feel like it and use the guidelines as a club on anyone who disagrees. Can't argue with that. I'm done. You can have the last word on this one. Fire away.

[+redsox_mark]

Finding this thread a bit confusing, but let me throw some views out there.

 

- If a CO has reasons to suspect a log is "bogus", it is reasonable to contact the finder and question it. This should be done with sensitivity, and not be seen as accusing.

 

- Log deletion should be used with caution. And if done, I suggest communication with the finder to explain why (unless it is an obviously bogus, like the same account logging finds in 100 countries on the same day).

 

I log my finds fairly quickly, so haven't been in this situation as a finder. (Nor as a CO for that matter). I did have a log deleted recently, without any explanation, which did annoy me. And the deletion was 6 months after I logged my find, so I did have trouble remembering the hide exactly. In my case I eventually made contact with the CO, who explained his reasons (which was that sometime after I found it, the cache was "destroyed", and he blamed me). I explained the best I could what I remember finding, and I did sign the log (I remember doing that). I didn't destroy anything, I put the cache back as I found it. Eventually I had to go to Groundspeak who restored my log. So I know first hand that it is not a nice feeling when a log is wrongly deleted.

[+narcissa]

Your a self professed late logger

 

Unless I'm on vacation, I typically log within two days of a find, sometimes three. As a cache owner I would consider that to be quite prompt.

 

When I started using field notes I discovered some caches that I hadn't logged because of discrepancies in my note-taking. When I logged those, I included a comment about the lateness to avoid confusion. I don't think this makes me a habitual late logger.

 

Regardless, my own logging habits aren't relevant. Everyone is different and the game allows for flexibility.

[+narcissa]

Finding this thread a bit confusing, but let me throw some views out there.

 

- If a CO has reasons to suspect a log is "bogus", it is reasonable to contact the finder and question it. This should be done with sensitivity, and not be seen as accusing.

 

- Log deletion should be used with caution. And if done, I suggest communication with the finder to explain why (unless it is an obviously bogus, like the same account logging finds in 100 countries on the same day).

 

I log my finds fairly quickly, so haven't been in this situation as a finder. (Nor as a CO for that matter). I did have a log deleted recently, without any explanation, which did annoy me. And the deletion was 6 months after I logged my find, so I did have trouble remembering the hide exactly. In my case I eventually made contact with the CO, who explained his reasons (which was that sometime after I found it, the cache was "destroyed", and he blamed me). I explained the best I could what I remember finding, and I did sign the log (I remember doing that). I didn't destroy anything, I put the cache back as I found it. Eventually I had to go to Groundspeak who restored my log. So I know first hand that it is not a nice feeling when a log is wrongly deleted.

 

I would love to see example wording for a letter that "questions" a find without being accusatory or asking for proof.

 

I've never had a log deleted, but I think I would be a little shocked and hurt if I was accused of damaging a cache or falsely logging a find. I certainly hope that a cache owner who had a suspicion like that would take a moment to look at my find history and see that I'm an honest person who puts genuine effort into logging finds in a detailed and considerate way.

 

When evidence for a find is lacking, I think there are very few cachers who don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

[+redsox_mark]

 

I would love to see example wording for a letter that "questions" a find without being accusatory or asking for proof.

 

I've never had a log deleted, but I think I would be a little shocked and hurt if I was accused of damaging a cache or falsely logging a find. I certainly hope that a cache owner who had a suspicion like that would take a moment to look at my find history and see that I'm an honest person who puts genuine effort into logging finds in a detailed and considerate way.

 

When evidence for a find is lacking, I think there are very few cachers who don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

 

I agree that it will be difficult to question someone's log without seeming accusatory. So I agree the best course, unless you have strong evidence, is to assume the finder is honest.

 

Where I was coming from is that I would have preferred the CO in my case explain his concern than to delete my log without explanation. But still better would be to just assume I was honest.

[+dprovan]

Can you provide some sample text for a note to a cacher that "questions" a find without implicitly or explicitly asking for additional proof?

"Hi! I noticed you just recently logged a find (http://coord.info/GLblahblah) dated 2 years ago, on 5/17/2014, for "My Archived Cache" (http://coord.info/GCblahblah) that has been archived for a year now. Since your log gave no specifics, I was wondering if it might be a mistake. If I don't hear from you, I'll assume it was and delete the log for you."

[+narcissa]

Can you provide some sample text for a note to a cacher that "questions" a find without implicitly or explicitly asking for additional proof?

"Hi! I noticed you just recently logged a find (http://coord.info/GLblahblah) dated 2 years ago, on 5/17/2014, for "My Archived Cache" (http://coord.info/GCblahblah) that has been archived for a year now. Since your log gave no specifics, I was wondering if it might be a mistake. If I don't hear from you, I'll assume it was and delete the log for you."

 

This email threatens deletion if someone doesn't contact you.

 

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

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Can you provide some sample text for a note to a cacher that "questions" a find without implicitly or explicitly asking for additional proof?

"Hi! I noticed you just recently logged a find (http://coord.info/GLblahblah) dated 2 years ago, on 5/17/2014, for "My Archived Cache" (http://coord.info/GCblahblah) that has been archived for a year now. Since your log gave no specifics, I was wondering if it might be a mistake. If I don't hear from you, I'll assume it was and delete the log for you."

 

This email threatens deletion if someone doesn't contact you.

 

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

 

If someone posted a found it log today with (TNLNSL as the text of the log) on a cache you archived in the summer 2011 and back dated it in March, 2011 are you going to delete the find?

 

The person is claiming that the physical log has been signed. Suppose the person was no where near the cache but claims that a friend had signed their name.

 

 

 

[+Ambrosia]

<snip>

I also don't like people who routinely log anything late (notice the word routinely).

</snip>

 

I hope that you meant to say that you don't like it when people routinely log anything late. Because otherwise, you're saying that you don't like the people who do it, not their actions. You actually don't like people who log things late?

[+niraD]

I would love to see example wording for a letter that "questions" a find without being accusatory or asking for proof.

I've sent email explaining that logging an EarthCache requires sending the CO answers to the questions in the EC description, and asking the logger to send me his answers to the questions in my EC. My email didn't threaten log deletion, but if I don't get answers to the EC questions, then I'll go that route.

 

And I've sent email asking for a log to be edited, to remove references to an after-hours visit, to avoid encouraging other after-hours visits. Again, I didn't threaten log deletion in the email, and the finder quickly edited the log.

 

And I've sent email a couple times when the log didn't match the situation of my cache, suggesting that maybe they logged the wrong cache. But I didn't threaten log deletion in the email. If one of my caches got a late log that seemed questionable, then this is the approach I'd probably take: I'd send email encouraging them to double-check that they logged the right cache, with no threats of log deletion.

[+narcissa]

I would love to see example wording for a letter that "questions" a find without being accusatory or asking for proof.

I've sent email explaining that logging an EarthCache requires sending the CO answers to the questions in the EC description, and asking the logger to send me his answers to the questions in my EC. My email didn't threaten log deletion, but if I don't get answers to the EC questions, then I'll go that route.

 

And I've sent email asking for a log to be edited, to remove references to an after-hours visit, to avoid encouraging other after-hours visits. Again, I didn't threaten log deletion in the email, and the finder quickly edited the log.

 

And I've sent email a couple times when the log didn't match the situation of my cache, suggesting that maybe they logged the wrong cache. But I didn't threaten log deletion in the email. If one of my caches got a late log that seemed questionable, then this is the approach I'd probably take: I'd send email encouraging them to double-check that they logged the right cache, with no threats of log deletion.

 

Earthcaches are not relevant to this discussion, since responses are required for logging and cache owners are permitted to delete logs when responses aren't received. Let's not muddy the waters by conflating these two very distinct issues.

 

Asking people to modify their logs for a particular reason, like a spoiler, inappropriate language, or legal issue is also not relevant to this discussion. I certainly expect that in the case of a dispute over a log like that, the cache owner would be considered to be in the right.

 

I understand where you're coming from with wanting to contact someone instead of just deleting when the log seems suspicious, but I'm still having trouble conceptualizing how the message could be worded so it doesn't come across as an implicit threat of log deletion or a request for additional proof.

[+niraD]

I understand where you're coming from with wanting to contact someone instead of just deleting when the log seems suspicious, but I'm still having trouble conceptualizing how the message could be worded so it doesn't come across as an implicit threat of log deletion or a request for additional proof.

Well, maybe something like this:

 

----

 

Hi RandomGeocacher,

 

I noticed the Find log you recently posted to my geocache Random Cache (GC98765). Your log mentions swapping trackables, but this geocache is a Bison tube with no room for anything but the log sheet, and there haven't been any trackables logged into (or out of) this cache until your log. Are you sure you logged the correct cache? Perhaps you really meant to log Some Other Cache (GC98756).

 

Darin McGrew

niraD

 

----

 

There's no threat of deletion, just an attempt to clear up something that appears questionable.

[+narcissa]

I understand where you're coming from with wanting to contact someone instead of just deleting when the log seems suspicious, but I'm still having trouble conceptualizing how the message could be worded so it doesn't come across as an implicit threat of log deletion or a request for additional proof.

Well, maybe something like this:

 

----

 

Hi RandomGeocacher,

 

I noticed the Find log you recently posted to my geocache Random Cache (GC98765). Your log mentions swapping trackables, but this geocache is a Bison tube with no room for anything but the log sheet, and there haven't been any trackables logged into (or out of) this cache until your log. Are you sure you logged the correct cache? Perhaps you really meant to log Some Other Cache (GC98756).

 

Darin McGrew

niraD

 

----

 

There's no threat of deletion, just an attempt to clear up something that appears questionable.

 

Yes, I see how that works when there's something odd about the log that makes you legitimately think it's an error, and I do think this is the correct way to handle that kind of situation. When the log is detailed enough that it stands out, chances are it's a good cacher who will appreciate the correction to an honest mistake.

 

When the log is on an archived cache, and it's back-dated to when the cache was active, but it just something like "Found it, thanks!", I don't know if the same approach applies.

 

I know it is a tough situation when our cache owner spidey-senses just know that something is weird, but there's nothing concrete to act on.

 

I was sort of thinking that a jovial email along the lines of "Catching up on your logs I see! I haven't had a notification for that one in a while!" might be a way to kind of bait someone into commenting on it further. I don't know that it would result in anything actually useful in terms of making a decision about the log's legitimacy unless someone straight-up admitted it was fake.

[+niraD]

When the log is on an archived cache, and it's back-dated to when the cache was active, but it just something like "Found it, thanks!", I don't know if the same approach applies.

Honestly, I'm not sure I'd notice. If I did, then I might check to see if the back-dated log matched the date of any other logs. If so, then I might send a message along the lines of "It looks like you're logging caches that you found with SomeOtherCacher. It might cut down on some confusion if you mentioned that in your back-dated logs."

 

But a back-dated log on its own doesn't trigger my "spidey-senses" as a CO. I know people who have been more than a year behind in posting online logs. I've been months behind in posting online logs. I know people who never post online logs. I know people who finally created a geocaching.com account after years of tagging along with someone else, and then posted back-dated logs for all their past finds. I just don't see a reason to question a log's "legitimacy" solely because it was back-dated.

[+dprovan]

"Hi! I noticed you just recently logged a find (http://coord.info/GLblahblah) dated 2 years ago, on 5/17/2014, for "My Archived Cache" (http://coord.info/GCblahblah) that has been archived for a year now. Since your log gave no specifics, I was wondering if it might be a mistake. If I don't hear from you, I'll assume it was and delete the log for you."

This email threatens deletion if someone doesn't contact you.

No, it doesn't. It offers to delete a log filed by mistake. You really have to screw up your eyes and think really bad thoughts about me to see that as a threat.

[+narcissa]

When the log is on an archived cache, and it's back-dated to when the cache was active, but it just something like "Found it, thanks!", I don't know if the same approach applies.

Honestly, I'm not sure I'd notice. If I did, then I might check to see if the back-dated log matched the date of any other logs. If so, then I might send a message along the lines of "It looks like you're logging caches that you found with SomeOtherCacher. It might cut down on some confusion if you mentioned that in your back-dated logs."

 

But a back-dated log on its own doesn't trigger my "spidey-senses" as a CO. I know people who have been more than a year behind in posting online logs. I've been months behind in posting online logs. I know people who never post online logs. I know people who finally created a geocaching.com account after years of tagging along with someone else, and then posted back-dated logs for all their past finds. I just don't see a reason to question a log's "legitimacy" solely because it was back-dated.

 

Yeah, same here, there would need to be something more than the date to alert me. I guess maybe if the log was on an archived cache I might take a look but I don't think I would be terribly bothered by it.

 

And it's obviously more detrimental to the game to delete an honest log than it is to leave a fake one alone.

[+narcissa]

"Hi! I noticed you just recently logged a find (http://coord.info/GLblahblah) dated 2 years ago, on 5/17/2014, for "My Archived Cache" (http://coord.info/GCblahblah) that has been archived for a year now. Since your log gave no specifics, I was wondering if it might be a mistake. If I don't hear from you, I'll assume it was and delete the log for you."

This email threatens deletion if someone doesn't contact you.

No, it doesn't. It offers to delete a log filed by mistake. You really have to screw up your eyes and think really bad thoughts about me to see that as a threat.

 

The "offer" is that you won't delete if they contact you.

 

Therefore, keeping the log intact is contingent on a task above and beyond signing the log.

 

This is not materially different than asking for a password or a photograph. Your fellow geocachers should not be forced to contact you to protect their logs from being deleted.

 

Let me assure you that I respond to comments, not individuals.

[+niraD]

And it's obviously more detrimental to the game to delete an honest log than it is to leave a fake one alone.

Absolutely.

 

And most of the negative consequences for fake logs don't apply to archived caches anyway.

[+dprovan]

Therefore, keeping the log intact is contingent on a task above and beyond signing the log.

You're thinking is based on the assumption that the log's been signed, but that's not an established fact, which is why I'm asking you to confirm that you did.

[+narcissa]

Therefore, keeping the log intact is contingent on a task above and beyond signing the log.

You're thinking is based on the assumption that the log's been signed, but that's not an established fact, which is why I'm asking you to confirm that you did.

 

The signature in the logbook is the only confirmation needed.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

"Hi! I noticed you just recently logged a find (http://coord.info/GLblahblah) dated 2 years ago, on 5/17/2014, for "My Archived Cache" (http://coord.info/GCblahblah) that has been archived for a year now. Since your log gave no specifics, I was wondering if it might be a mistake. If I don't hear from you, I'll assume it was and delete the log for you."

This email threatens deletion if someone doesn't contact you.

No, it doesn't. It offers to delete a log filed by mistake. You really have to screw up your eyes and think really bad thoughts about me to see that as a threat.

 

I don't know you and I don't think really bad thoughts about you, but I would have read that email as a threat as well. "If you don't contact me, I'll delete your log". You may not think it comes across that way, but it does.

[+dprovan]

I don't know you and I don't think really bad thoughts about you, but I would have read that email as a threat as well. "If you don't contact me, I'll delete your log". You may not think it comes across that way, but it does.

No, honestly, nothing about that reads like a threat at all. It takes having the attitude that I'm your adversary before you can see a threat there. If you read it at face value, as the friendly note it is, you'd just tell me not to delete the log without giving a second thought to threats or ALRs.

[+dprovan]

Therefore, keeping the log intact is contingent on a task above and beyond signing the log.

You're thinking is based on the assumption that the log's been signed, but that's not an established fact, which is why I'm asking you to confirm that you did.

The signature in the logbook is the only confirmation needed.

OK, obviously I'm not going to get you to stop from insisting I assume there's a signature on the logbook even though that's exactly what I'm questioning. So let me ask instead what you want to happen. Here's the scenario I imagine:

 

1. I send my message.
   
2. You don't respond.
   
3. I delete your log.
   
4. You appeal to GS.
   
5. Naturally GS supports your appeal. Heck, I'm the one that deleted your log, and even I would support your appeal if I heard about it.
   

Is that what you're imagining as a better way to handle this situation than just telling me the log was no mistake?

[+narcissa]

I don't know you and I don't think really bad thoughts about you, but I would have read that email as a threat as well. "If you don't contact me, I'll delete your log". You may not think it comes across that way, but it does.

No, honestly, nothing about that reads like a threat at all. It takes having the attitude that I'm your adversary before you can see a threat there. If you read it at face value, as the friendly note it is, you'd just tell me not to delete the log without giving a second thought to threats or ALRs.

 

It isn't friendly to blatantly violate the guidelines by asking someone to perform an additional task to keep their log. There is nothing friendly about this action.

[+narcissa]

Therefore, keeping the log intact is contingent on a task above and beyond signing the log.

You're thinking is based on the assumption that the log's been signed, but that's not an established fact, which is why I'm asking you to confirm that you did.

The signature in the logbook is the only confirmation needed.

OK, obviously I'm not going to get you to stop from insisting I assume there's a signature on the logbook even though that's exactly what I'm questioning. So let me ask instead what you want to happen. Here's the scenario I imagine:

 

1. I send my message.
   
2. You don't respond.
   
3. I delete your log.
   
4. You appeal to GS.
   
5. Naturally GS supports your appeal. Heck, I'm the one that deleted your log, and even I would support your appeal if I heard about it.
   

Is that what you're imagining as a better way to handle this situation than just telling me the log was no mistake?

 

Here is the actual scenario:

 

1. Cache owner sends inappropriate email.

2. I immediately file a complaint about the inappropriate email.

3. Cache owner is warned off both log deletion and inappropriate email.

 

Here is what should happen:

 

1. Cache owner checks log himself/herself.

2. Cache owner looks at profile.

3. Cache owner makes a calm and fair decision, erring on the side of caution before deleting a log.

[+justintim1999]

<snip>

I also don't like people who routinely log anything late (notice the word routinely).

</snip>

 

I hope that you meant to say that you don't like it when people routinely log anything late. Because otherwise, you're saying that you don't like the people who do it, not their actions. You actually don't like people who log things late?

 

I don't like the practice of logging anything late. I love people. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

[+dprovan]

1. Cache owner sends inappropriate email.

The only way that email could possibly be considered inappropriate is by assuming, completely contrary to all evidence, that I'm determined to be mean to you.

 

You've come up with a scenario that's even more absurd then the one I imagined. Why would you be so determined be my enemy instead of just interacting with me like a human? Geeze, no wonder GS has to deal with so many ridiculous fights between geocachers.

[+Ambrosia]

<snip>

I also don't like people who routinely log anything late (notice the word routinely).

</snip>

 

I hope that you meant to say that you don't like it when people routinely log anything late. Because otherwise, you're saying that you don't like the people who do it, not their actions. You actually don't like people who log things late?

 

I don't like the practice of logging anything late. I love people. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

 

Oh, good.

[+narcissa]

1. Cache owner sends inappropriate email.

The only way that email could possibly be considered inappropriate is by assuming, completely contrary to all evidence, that I'm determined to be mean to you.

 

You've come up with a scenario that's even more absurd then the one I imagined. Why would you be so determined be my enemy instead of just interacting with me like a human? Geeze, no wonder GS has to deal with so many ridiculous fights between geocachers.

 

The email is inappropriate because it is asking the geocacher to do something above and beyond signing the log in order to prevent the log from being deleted. Whether or not the owner is "mean" is entirely irrelevant.

 

Geocachers are not required to obtain permission, send passcodes, or otherwise communicate with a cache owner in order to log a find. Their signature in the logbook is all that is required.

 

If a cache owner believes the log is fraudulent, it is up to the cache owner to verify that suspicion on their own. Asking a fellow geocacher to perform additional tasks to qualify for a find is inappropriate.

[+Tassie_Boy]

Can someone kick this thread please, this broken record seems to be repeating over and over.