Logging an old archived cache

[+dprovan]

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.

I'm sad we can't see eye to eye on this. One last question: would you report your friend to GS if he sent you that e-mail?

[+narcissa]

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.

One last question: would you report your friend to GS if he sent you that e-mail?

 

What kind of friend would falsely log someone's cache?

 

What kind of friend would suspect a friend of doing that?

 

One way or another I think an email like that would mark the end of the friendship. I would be very disappointed that my "friend" didn't trust me and couldn't even be bothered to check the log him/herself. I would report it rather than kowtow to hurtful and accusatory demands.

 

Yet again, it is worth noting that I have never encountered this kind of severity among my fellow geocachers, friends or strangers, and neither has my husband (despite being history's greatest monster, always behind on logging).

[cezanne]

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.

I'm sad we can't see eye to eye on this. One last question: would you report your friend to GS if he sent you that e-mail?

 

I have a question for you: While I would not report someone who sends a mail with your suggested content to GS, I would be disappointed and I wonder why you could not just leave it with the question whether a mistake happened and omit the part with "I'll delete the log for you unless you do not reply" (no exact quote).

 

If you do not get a reply, you could check the log book at your next cache visit and delete the log also later and in case that the log book got lost, I rather would let the log stand even in case of doubts except if there is further evidence for a fake log.

[+dprovan]

I have a question for you: While I would not report someone who sends a mail with your suggested content to GS, I would be disappointed and I wonder why you could not just leave it with the question whether a mistake happened and omit the part with "I'll delete the log for you unless you do not reply" (no exact quote).

I offered to delete the log for them because I want to be helpful.

 

If you do not get a reply, you could check the log book at your next cache visit and delete the log also later and in case that the log book got lost, I rather would let the log stand even in case of doubts except if there is further evidence for a fake log.

Well, you're forgetting that the scenario is a long archived cache, but allow me to answer the question as if we're discussing an active cache. I'm asking a friendly question. You seem to read it as an intentional attempt to get an excuse to delete a valid log. If I was suspicious of subterfuge and the cache were still in place, yes, I could go check the log. But I'm not suspicious of anything: I'm just asking if they made a mistake.

 

As upsetting and frustrating as this thread has been, I think it's worth exploring this apparent inability of some people to take a friendly message at face value. Let's review. Here's narcissa's original question and my reply:

 

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."

My reply does exactly what she asks: questions the find without demanding proof. It's a casual e-mail, worded exactly as I would word it if I were asking a good friend about a possible mistake. The whole point of my answer was that questioning a find is entirely different than demanding evidence to support a find. It was easy for me to write because I am, in fact, uninterested in proof. I'm only interested in whether they think the find is valid: they don't need to convince me it's valid because I'm prepared to take their word for it.

 

I consider them a friend even though I don't know them yet. To read my e-mail as inappropriate, you have to assume it was written by an enemy. And that is what disturbs me.

[+narcissa]

I have a question for you: While I would not report someone who sends a mail with your suggested content to GS, I would be disappointed and I wonder why you could not just leave it with the question whether a mistake happened and omit the part with "I'll delete the log for you unless you do not reply" (no exact quote).

I offered to delete the log for them because I want to be helpful.

 

If you do not get a reply, you could check the log book at your next cache visit and delete the log also later and in case that the log book got lost, I rather would let the log stand even in case of doubts except if there is further evidence for a fake log.

Well, you're forgetting that the scenario is a long archived cache, but allow me to answer the question as if we're discussing an active cache. I'm asking a friendly question. You seem to read it as an intentional attempt to get an excuse to delete a valid log. If I was suspicious of subterfuge and the cache were still in place, yes, I could go check the log. But I'm not suspicious of anything: I'm just asking if they made a mistake.

 

As upsetting and frustrating as this thread has been, I think it's worth exploring this apparent inability of some people to take a friendly message at face value. Let's review. Here's narcissa's original question and my reply:

 

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."

My reply does exactly what she asks: questions the find without demanding proof. It's a casual e-mail, worded exactly as I would word it if I were asking a good friend about a possible mistake. The whole point of my answer was that questioning a find is entirely different than demanding evidence to support a find. It was easy for me to write because I am, in fact, uninterested in proof. I'm only interested in whether they think the find is valid: they don't need to convince me it's valid because I'm prepared to take their word for it.

 

I consider them a friend even though I don't know them yet. To read my e-mail as inappropriate, you have to assume it was written by an enemy. And that is what disturbs me.

 

You're right, the example doesn't ask for proof.

 

Instead, it asks the geocacher to respond to a private message, and indicates the log will be deleted if he/she doesn't.

 

Again, please refer to the guidelines. A geocache can be logged as found when the physical log is signed. This request for confirmation certainly constitutes an additional logging requirement, since it clearly states that failure to comply will result in log deletion.

 

It doesn't matter if that request is sandwiched into an email that seems to be otherwise friendly. When a cache owner violates the guidelines and makes an inappropriate request, that cache owner shouldn't expect "friendly" behaviour in response.

 

I don't consider unknown cachers or cache owners to be friends or enemies. I expect cache owners to adhere to the guidelines they agreed to when they submitted the cache for publication. I expect cachers to log finds on my caches honestly, even if the log is late or all it says is TFTC. It is disappointing when geocachers fail to meet basic expectations but it isn't a matter of friend/enemy.

[cezanne]

I have a question for you: While I would not report someone who sends a mail with your suggested content to GS, I would be disappointed and I wonder why you could not just leave it with the question whether a mistake happened and omit the part with "I'll delete the log for you unless you do not reply" (no exact quote).

I offered to delete the log for them because I want to be helpful.

 

That might well be but I doubt that many will understand it that way (confer also what others, not only narcissa commented).

 

If you do not get a reply, you could check the log book at your next cache visit and delete the log also later and in case that the log book got lost, I rather would let the log stand even in case of doubts except if there is further evidence for a fake log.

Well, you're forgetting that the scenario is a long archived cache,

 

The OP is about an archived cache, yes. Not all of this discussion is about archived caches however and archived does not mean necessarily that no log book is available.

 

It should also be taken into consideration that some in this thread argued that it is not the task of the cache owner to investigate the case first and that every backdated log should come with an explanation or should otherwise get questioned.

 

but allow me to answer the question as if we're discussing an active cache. I'm asking a friendly question. You seem to read it as an intentional attempt to get an excuse to delete a valid log.

 

No, I don't. I do not mind the question. What I do not like is what you add. What you do in the intent to be helpful is like a thread for many. Omit the part about deleting and my overall impression of what you send out changes completetely.

Edited May 19, 2016 by cezanne

[+dprovan]

What kind of friend would falsely log someone's cache?

Who falsely logged whose cache?

 

What kind of friend would suspect a friend of doing that?

Who's suspecting who of falsely logging someone's cache?

 

One way or another I think an email like that would mark the end of the friendship. I would be very disappointed that my "friend" didn't trust me and couldn't even be bothered to check the log him/herself. I would report it rather than kowtow to hurtful and accusatory demands.

Wow. "Hey, this looks like a mistake," ends a friendship?

 

Yet again, it is worth noting that I have never encountered this kind of severity among my fellow geocachers, friends or strangers, and neither has my husband (despite being history's greatest monster, always behind on logging).

Severity? Severity?! Please, PLEASE, tell me what in my e-mail is severe.

 

All I can figure is this goes back you use air quoting "question", perhaps suggesting you can't imagine someone actually just questioning, so you thought the answer would be someone demanding proof while only pretending to question. But read my suggested e-mail. It really is just a friendly question. It truly pains me that you can only read its entirely innocent words as the severe demand for proof that would end a friendship. Heck, I was trying to start a friendship.

[+justintim1999]

Don't look now Dprovan but you've been hit with the guideline club! Do you want to borrow my "reasonability" shield?

Edited May 19, 2016 by justintim1999

[+dprovan]

I have a question for you: While I would not report someone who sends a mail with your suggested content to GS, I would be disappointed and I wonder why you could not just leave it with the question whether a mistake happened and omit the part with "I'll delete the log for you unless you do not reply" (no exact quote).

I offered to delete the log for them because I want to be helpful.

That might well be but I doubt that many will understand it that way (confer also what others, not only narcissa commented).

Sad but true. I really couldn't have expressed this offer in a more friendly way, yet both of you think most cachers would view it as an evil threat. That's unhealthy, and I want to change that. In fact, I want to encourage people to read an actual threat as a friendly offer:

 

"If you don't prove you found this cache, I'm going to delete your stupid log!"

"Oh, sorry, I didn't realize it was confusing. When I found the cache, I was in TeamFamily, but we got divorced. No need to delete the log. Thanks for the offer, though!"

 

Being the voice of reason is much easier and often more effective than throwing punches by getting someone from GS involved.

[+narcissa]

What kind of friend would falsely log someone's cache?

Who falsely logged whose cache?

 

What kind of friend would suspect a friend of doing that?

Who's suspecting who of falsely logging someone's cache?

 

One way or another I think an email like that would mark the end of the friendship. I would be very disappointed that my "friend" didn't trust me and couldn't even be bothered to check the log him/herself. I would report it rather than kowtow to hurtful and accusatory demands.

Wow. "Hey, this looks like a mistake," ends a friendship?

 

Yet again, it is worth noting that I have never encountered this kind of severity among my fellow geocachers, friends or strangers, and neither has my husband (despite being history's greatest monster, always behind on logging).

Severity? Severity?! Please, PLEASE, tell me what in my e-mail is severe.

 

All I can figure is this goes back you use air quoting "question", perhaps suggesting you can't imagine someone actually just questioning, so you thought the answer would be someone demanding proof while only pretending to question. But read my suggested e-mail. It really is just a friendly question. It truly pains me that you can only read its entirely innocent words as the severe demand for proof that would end a friendship. Heck, I was trying to start a friendship.

 

I do regret if my comments have been interpreted in a personal manner. I'm attempting to address this conceptually by examining the request itself, rather than the wording it's couched in or the individual who suggested the example wording.

 

The request states that the log will be deleted if the cache owner doesn't receive a response. That puts it beyond questioning.

 

I do have trouble understanding why a late log would be worth so much hassle, but everyone has their quirks and pet peeves. When those quirks result in arbitrary rules being imposed on other geocachers, it causes problems.

 

Asking fellow geocachers to jump through hoops to "confirm" a find just isn't appropriate and there is no amount of "friendly" wording that would make it any less disappointing to receive an email like that.

[+narcissa]

I have a question for you: While I would not report someone who sends a mail with your suggested content to GS, I would be disappointed and I wonder why you could not just leave it with the question whether a mistake happened and omit the part with "I'll delete the log for you unless you do not reply" (no exact quote).

I offered to delete the log for them because I want to be helpful.

That might well be but I doubt that many will understand it that way (confer also what others, not only narcissa commented).

Sad but true. I really couldn't have expressed this offer in a more friendly way, yet both of you think most cachers would view it as an evil threat. That's unhealthy, and I want to change that. In fact, I want to encourage people to read an actual threat as a friendly offer:

 

"If you don't prove you found this cache, I'm going to delete your stupid log!"

"Oh, sorry, I didn't realize it was confusing. When I found the cache, I was in TeamFamily, but we got divorced. No need to delete the log. Thanks for the offer, though!"

 

Being the voice of reason is much easier and often more effective than throwing punches by getting someone from GS involved.

 

There's nothing reasonable about a cache owner telling someone he or she will delete their log if the cacher doesn't respond to an unsolicited message.

Edited May 19, 2016 by narcissa

[cezanne]

Sad but true. I really couldn't have expressed this offer in a more friendly way, yet both of you think most cachers would view it as an evil threat. That's unhealthy, and I want to change that. In fact, I want to encourage people to read an actual threat as a friendly offer:

 

Not only me and narcissa read it that way. Crow_Robot voiced the same impression.

 

As I'm regarded, it is not about any emotions or theories about nice or evil at all. Try to understand that what apparently is meant as an offer from your side, will not be understood as an offer by the majority.

 

If a mistake happens to me, I'm glad that someone informs me and even if no mistake happened, I do not mind if someone asks me whether a mistake happened.

 

I do not consider it as an offer or help when you state that you are going to delete a log if you receive no reply. And I certainly will not thank someone who offered to delete one my logs - If I wish to delete

a log I do it myself - that's very easy and straightforward and there is not the slightest advantage in having someone else do it.

It's not that you offer me to take over some tiresome work for me. There I might answer "Thank you for the offer, but I prefer to decline it", but definitely not for deleting one of my logs.

 

Being the voice of reason is much easier and often more effective than throwing punches by getting someone from GS involved.

 

I have said before that I would not involve GS.

[+niraD]

I really couldn't have expressed this offer in a more friendly way

How about this:

 

"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."

[+justintim1999]

I really couldn't have expressed this offer in a more friendly way

How about this:

 

"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."

 

We can all agree that the wording should be taken into consideration? If we're arguing about the wording than can we agree that the asking of the question is acceptable? If it comes down to the rules and what's reasonable then the rules will ultimately win out. We're talking about guidelines here which are recommendations or suggestions.

 

If it's a friendly inquiry by the cache owner than why not put them at ease and simply respond in kind? If it's a legitimate find than what's the harm. Why do the guidelines even have to be evoked? Quoting guidelines takes what should be a simple exchange and turns it into something more.

 

An archived cache is a whole different animal. After a certain period of time they should be locked. The container should have been retrieved so there shouldn't be anything to find. In my opinion logging it two years after the fact then hiding behind the guidelines is weak.

[+niraD]

An archived cache is a whole different animal.

Why?

 

After a certain period of time they should be locked. The container should have been retrieved so there shouldn't be anything to find. In my opinion logging it two years after the fact then hiding behind the guidelines is weak.

How about "hiding behind" the fact that you found the cache two years ago, before it was archived, when the container was still there to be found, when the log was still there to be signed, and (for whatever reason) are just now logging that find?

[+justintim1999]

An archived cache is a whole different animal.

Why?

 

After a certain period of time they should be locked. The container should have been retrieved so there shouldn't be anything to find. In my opinion logging it two years after the fact then hiding behind the guidelines is weak.

How about "hiding behind" the fact that you found the cache two years ago, before it was archived, when the container was still there to be found, when the log was still there to be signed, and (for whatever reason) are just now logging that find?

 

The first question I answered in the second part.

 

The second question I answered in the last sentence of my post.

[+narcissa]

We're talking about guidelines here which are recommendations or suggestions.

 

Incorrect.

 

Logs deleted over arbitrary house rules invented by cache owners will, in fact, be reinstated upon complaint.

 

There seems to be some confusion with Geocaching 101 or the Help Center or something like that.

 

Cache owners must confirm that their cache placement is in accordance with the guidelines whenever they submit a cache for publication. https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

If it's a friendly inquiry by the cache owner than why not put them at ease and simply respond in kind? If it's a legitimate find than what's the harm. Why do the guidelines even have to be evoked? Quoting guidelines takes what should be a simple exchange and turns it into something more.

 

The real "simple exchange" is the online log. The cache owner should not initiate unsolicited contact with a cacher because he/she simply doesn't like a log.

 

An archived cache is a whole different animal. After a certain period of time they should be locked. The container should have been retrieved so there shouldn't be anything to find. In my opinion logging it two years after the fact then hiding behind the guidelines is weak.

 

No, it isn't. Archived caches are rarely locked and are, sometimes, logged legitimately for various reasons.

 

The discussion is centred around finds that theoretically occurred while the cache was active, so the comment about cache retrieval is irrelevant, as are general personal preferences about archived caches.

[+narcissa]

An archived cache is a whole different animal.

Why?

 

After a certain period of time they should be locked. The container should have been retrieved so there shouldn't be anything to find. In my opinion logging it two years after the fact then hiding behind the guidelines is weak.

How about "hiding behind" the fact that you found the cache two years ago, before it was archived, when the container was still there to be found, when the log was still there to be signed, and (for whatever reason) are just now logging that find?

 

The first question I answered in the second part.

 

The second question I answered in the last sentence of my post.

 

There was a restatement of personal preferences, but nothing of merit to substantiate the claim that archived caches are subject to different rules or considerations than active caches.

[+J Grouchy]

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.

 

The signature that you cannot confirm is actually there?

 

The cache is archived and the log book is gone. The only rule for claiming a find is the log be signed. Neither can confirm whether the signature is or is not there, so I'm pretty sure if it actually escalated to the higher-ups, GS would probably side with the CO...you know, the person that actually owned the cache and did the work of listing and (presumably) maintaining it to some degree.

[+justintim1999]

We're talking about guidelines here which are recommendations or suggestions.

 

Incorrect.

 

Logs deleted over arbitrary house rules invented by cache owners will, in fact, be reinstated upon complaint.

 

There seems to be some confusion with Geocaching 101 or the Help Center or something like that.

 

Cache owners must confirm that their cache placement is in accordance with the guidelines whenever they submit a cache for publication. https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

If it's a friendly inquiry by the cache owner than why not put them at ease and simply respond in kind? If it's a legitimate find than what's the harm. Why do the guidelines even have to be evoked? Quoting guidelines takes what should be a simple exchange and turns it into something more.

 

The real "simple exchange" is the online log. The cache owner should not initiate unsolicited contact with a cacher because he/she simply doesn't like a log.

 

An archived cache is a whole different animal. After a certain period of time they should be locked. The container should have been retrieved so there shouldn't be anything to find. In my opinion logging it two years after the fact then hiding behind the guidelines is weak.

 

No, it isn't. Archived caches are rarely locked and are, sometimes, logged legitimately for various reasons.

 

The discussion is centred around finds that theoretically occurred while the cache was active, so the comment about cache retrieval is irrelevant, as are general personal preferences about archived caches.

 

You simply can't lower your self to include a simple explication in your log. Why that's so difficult I don't know. You'd rather quote guideline's all day than give the cache owner one ounce of courtesy. OOPS! I used the "C" word again.

[+narcissa]

We're talking about guidelines here which are recommendations or suggestions.

 

Incorrect.

 

Logs deleted over arbitrary house rules invented by cache owners will, in fact, be reinstated upon complaint.

 

There seems to be some confusion with Geocaching 101 or the Help Center or something like that.

 

Cache owners must confirm that their cache placement is in accordance with the guidelines whenever they submit a cache for publication. https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

If it's a friendly inquiry by the cache owner than why not put them at ease and simply respond in kind? If it's a legitimate find than what's the harm. Why do the guidelines even have to be evoked? Quoting guidelines takes what should be a simple exchange and turns it into something more.

 

The real "simple exchange" is the online log. The cache owner should not initiate unsolicited contact with a cacher because he/she simply doesn't like a log.

 

An archived cache is a whole different animal. After a certain period of time they should be locked. The container should have been retrieved so there shouldn't be anything to find. In my opinion logging it two years after the fact then hiding behind the guidelines is weak.

 

No, it isn't. Archived caches are rarely locked and are, sometimes, logged legitimately for various reasons.

 

The discussion is centred around finds that theoretically occurred while the cache was active, so the comment about cache retrieval is irrelevant, as are general personal preferences about archived caches.

 

You simply can't lower your self to include a simple explication in your log. Why that's so difficult I don't know. You'd rather quote guideline's all day than give the cache owner one ounce of courtesy. OOPS! I used the "C" word again.

 

This isn't about me. Stop making it personal.

 

I am fully in favour of cachers applying best practices to their logs. I have never disputed that a well-written log can ameliorate confusion.

 

Unfortunately, sometimes as cache owners we have to deal with cachers who fall behind on logging and don't apply best practices to their logs.

 

Punitively deleting logs that we don't like based on personal preferences isn't reasonable, and it's against the guidelines. Placing a cache doesn't entitle the cache owner to make up arbitrary rules about who can log it and how.

[+dprovan]

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

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

[+dprovan]

I do regret if my comments have been interpreted in a personal manner. I'm attempting to address this conceptually by examining the request itself, rather than the wording it's couched in or the individual who suggested the example wording.

The entire point here is that you're imagining "the request itself" and reacting to it even though that request that you're imagining has nothing to do with what's being asked. You're still convinced my question was "couched", but it wasn't. It was honest. And, after 2 days of me explaining that to you, you still won't let go of your imaginary accusation and threat, and you still won't even try to see the question for what it really is.

[+narcissa]

I do regret if my comments have been interpreted in a personal manner. I'm attempting to address this conceptually by examining the request itself, rather than the wording it's couched in or the individual who suggested the example wording.

The entire point here is that you're imagining "the request itself" and reacting to it even though that request that you're imagining has nothing to do with what's being asked. You're still convinced my question was "couched", but it wasn't. It was honest. And, after 2 days of me explaining that to you, you still won't let go of your imaginary accusation and threat, and you still won't even try to see the question for what it really is.

 

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

 

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

 

If the cacher wants to keep the log from being deleted, the cacher has no choice but to respond to the email. There is nothing friendly about putting someone in that position. Some cachers may not want to communicate privately with a stranger for any number of reasons, and, more importantly, they aren't required to.

 

When someone logs a cache as found, they are already communicating to the cache owner that the logbook has been signed. Cachers are not required to further qualify their finds. The friendliness of the request is irrelevant. The content, not the tone, makes it inappropriate.

 

If the cache owner believes the log to be false, the cache owner should review the logbook and the profile before making a considered decision to delete the find.

 

If the cache owner believes that the log is an honest mistake but has no way to verify, a message that doesn't threaten log deletion might be appropriate, but the cache owner should not expect or demand a response.

[+narcissa]

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

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

 

A cache owner determined to be less "negative" might do well to reconsider looking at logs as "mistakes" simply because they were posted after an arbitrary cut-off date. Geocachers are not required to log within a specific time frame.

[+niraD]

There was a restatement of personal preferences, but nothing of merit to substantiate the claim that archived caches are subject to different rules or considerations than active caches.

Exactly.

 

After a certain period of time they should be locked.

Locking archived caches after "a certain period of time" will cause real inconvenience to geocachers: to those catching up on logging their field notes, to those splitting a group account, to those finally creating a geocaching.com account after some time geocaching as a tag-along, and perhaps to others as well.

 

What is the benefit of locking archived caches that justifies this inconvenience?

[+cerberus1]

It's convenient (for me) to use one of my archived caches for pics here.

I wouldn't like to see them locked due to created issues that rarely (or don't really) exist.

Thanks.

[+noncentric]

Just putting a link to this recent thread here: Old Logs: What do you do with them? There weren't a lot of responses in that thread and it was about 50:50 between saving and trashing. Reading through this thread, it seems saving (or documenting in some way) might be a better idea.

 

If I submitted a late log on a cache that's now archived, then I wouldn't mind a question like:

"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

I didn't see your username on the logsheet

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.

"

If I didn't respond within a couple weeks and my log was deleted, then I wouldn't be surprised.

 

If I received a message like:

"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

I threw away the logsheet when I archived the cache and am not able to check whether you signed it or not

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.

"

If I didn't respond within a couple weeks and my log was deleted, then I'd be a bit annoyed.

 

Of course, if a cache is muggled then all bets are off.

[cezanne]

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

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

 

I'm not sure that I understand your usage of rampant correctly. I do not think that the issue here is a negative attitude. You need not use the term threat - call it whatever you want, but understand that hardly anyone will consider your statement that you will delete a log unless you receive an answer as an offer. Deleting logs is nothing a normal cachers wants to get help with. If you offer to a cache owner, to have a look whether a cache is still there or to exchange a log book, yes, that's an offer one might accept or decline.

 

So if I assume that what you write is not meant as threat, then the interpretation that remains would be that you think that I'm silly and need help with deleting a log. I'm sorry but I cannot avoid having the impression that typically it's in the interest of a cache owner who sends out such mails that a log gets quickly deleted and not in the interest of the logger. If the intent is really only to point out a potential mistake, that's fine, but then you can leave out your offer and will be much better off. What do you lose by ommitting what you call offer?

[+justintim1999]

There was a restatement of personal preferences, but nothing of merit to substantiate the claim that archived caches are subject to different rules or considerations than active caches.

Exactly.

 

After a certain period of time they should be locked.

Locking archived caches after "a certain period of time" will cause real inconvenience to geocachers: to those catching up on logging their field notes, to those splitting a group account, to those finally creating a geocaching.com account after some time geocaching as a tag-along, and perhaps to others as well.

 

What is the benefit of locking archived caches that justifies this inconvenience?

 

This stems from an issue I have with cache containers not being removed after being archived and cachers finding them and being allowed to log them.

[+justintim1999]

This all boils down to three questions.

 

1. Dose a cache owner have the right to question a find?

 

2. Is a log backdated two years questionable?

 

3. Can/should the cache owner be able to enquire about a questionable log?

 

I say yes to all three.

 

The only thing left is how the finder handles the enquiry. As we've seen that will dictate how simple or complicated things get.

[+noncentric]

There was a restatement of personal preferences, but nothing of merit to substantiate the claim that archived caches are subject to different rules or considerations than active caches.

Exactly.

 

After a certain period of time they should be locked.

Locking archived caches after "a certain period of time" will cause real inconvenience to geocachers: to those catching up on logging their field notes, to those splitting a group account, to those finally creating a geocaching.com account after some time geocaching as a tag-along, and perhaps to others as well.

 

What is the benefit of locking archived caches that justifies this inconvenience?

 

This stems from an issue I have with cache containers not being removed after being archived and cachers finding them and being allowed to log them.

I hope we aren't going to repeat all the discussion about removing archived caches. It wasn't that long ago, last month, that we went through that: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=338552&view=findpost&p=5577471

Edited May 20, 2016 by noncentric

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

[+narcissa]

There was a restatement of personal preferences, but nothing of merit to substantiate the claim that archived caches are subject to different rules or considerations than active caches.

Exactly.

 

After a certain period of time they should be locked.

Locking archived caches after "a certain period of time" will cause real inconvenience to geocachers: to those catching up on logging their field notes, to those splitting a group account, to those finally creating a geocaching.com account after some time geocaching as a tag-along, and perhaps to others as well.

 

What is the benefit of locking archived caches that justifies this inconvenience?

 

This stems from an issue I have with cache containers not being removed after being archived and cachers finding them and being allowed to log them.

 

This is off topic. The original post is about someone who found the cache while it was active.

[cezanne]

What is the benefit of locking archived caches that justifies this inconvenience?

 

This stems from an issue I have with cache containers not being removed after being archived and cachers finding them and being allowed to log them.

 

Logs for a point in time when the cache was still active are a completely different topic not related to containers that have not been removed.

It could happen that a cache gets archived a few hours after I have been there. There is no convincing argument that makes a backdated log automatically more questionable than

the same type of log when it comes earlier.

[+narcissa]

This all boils down to three questions.

 

1. Dose a cache owner have the right to question a find?

 

2. Is a log backdated two years questionable?

 

3. Can/should the cache owner be able to enquire about a questionable log?

 

I say yes to all three.

 

The only thing left is how the finder handles the enquiry. As we've seen that will dictate how simple or complicated things get.

 

1. Review the logbook and look at the profile to see their other logging activity. This should be sufficient.

 

2. Probably not, but if it is, follow the two steps outlined.

 

3. The cache owner can attempt to ask but should not demand or even expect a reply. Making the find contingent on a reply is an ALR. Geocachers are not required to validate finds with a cache owner, even if the cache owner really really really really doesn't like late logs. Personal preferences do not supercede the guidelines a cache owner agreed to upon publication.

Edited May 20, 2016 by narcissa

[+justintim1999]

This all boils down to three questions.

 

1. Dose a cache owner have the right to question a find?

 

2. Is a log backdated two years questionable?

 

3. Can/should the cache owner be able to enquire about a questionable log?

 

I say yes to all three.

 

The only thing left is how the finder handles the enquiry. As we've seen that will dictate how simple or complicated things get.

 

1. Review the logbook and look at the profile to see their other logging activity. This should be sufficient.

 

2. Probably not, but if it is, follow the two steps outlined.

 

3. The cache owner can attempt to ask but should not demand or even expect a reply. Making the find contingent on a reply is an ALR. Geocachers are not required to validate finds with a cache owner, even if the cache owner really really really really doesn't like late logs. Personal preferences do not supercede the guidelines a cache owner agreed to upon publication.

 

Please respond with a simple yes or no. Thanks

[+narcissa]

This all boils down to three questions.

 

1. Dose a cache owner have the right to question a find?

 

2. Is a log backdated two years questionable?

 

3. Can/should the cache owner be able to enquire about a questionable log?

 

I say yes to all three.

 

The only thing left is how the finder handles the enquiry. As we've seen that will dictate how simple or complicated things get.

 

1. Review the logbook and look at the profile to see their other logging activity. This should be sufficient.

 

2. Probably not, but if it is, follow the two steps outlined.

 

3. The cache owner can attempt to ask but should not demand or even expect a reply. Making the find contingent on a reply is an ALR. Geocachers are not required to validate finds with a cache owner, even if the cache owner really really really really doesn't like late logs. Personal preferences do not supercede the guidelines a cache owner agreed to upon publication.

 

Please respond with a simple yes or no. Thanks

 

No.

 

Particularly for forum users who aren't familiar with the guidelines, the issue can't summarized in monosyllables.

 

Cache owners can always "question" a find.

 

Cache owners can't make up their own rules for a find.

[+justintim1999]

What is the benefit of locking archived caches that justifies this inconvenience?

 

This stems from an issue I have with cache containers not being removed after being archived and cachers finding them and being allowed to log them.

 

Logs for a point in time when the cache was still active are a completely different topic not related to containers that have not been removed.

It could happen that a cache gets archived a few hours after I have been there. There is no convincing argument that makes a backdated log automatically more questionable than

the same type of log when it comes earlier.

 

In the case of the original post the cache was archived and removed in October of 2014. Strangely enough the backdated log was for October of 2014, a year later. To me this fact alone is odd.

 

The argument is that the log is questionable and the cache owner should have a right to inquire. The original log may confirm the find. If the original log had been destroyed or lost (this is directly related to the amount of time that has passed) than what is a cache owner suppose to do? Most would probably choose the path of least resistance and forget about it. That decision should be a choice not a mandate. It's the late log that is causing the problem not some over baring cache owner. Now, the burden of proof lies solely with the cache owner. Without the ability to even ask a question what recourse do they have?

 

Your basically saying that the integrity of the cache log is none of the cache owners business. The fact that you've interpreted the guidelines as "I'll log finds when ever I feel like it" is how you'll justify it.

 

A simple exchange between the two parties will most likely solve the problem. If you simply log caches late than what's the harm in saying that in the log or in response to a cache owners question?

 

No reasonable person would look at this situation and interpret the cache owners inquiry as malicious regardless what the guidelines say.

Edited May 20, 2016 by justintim1999

[+narcissa]

What is the benefit of locking archived caches that justifies this inconvenience?

 

This stems from an issue I have with cache containers not being removed after being archived and cachers finding them and being allowed to log them.

 

Logs for a point in time when the cache was still active are a completely different topic not related to containers that have not been removed.

It could happen that a cache gets archived a few hours after I have been there. There is no convincing argument that makes a backdated log automatically more questionable than

the same type of log when it comes earlier.

 

In the case of the original post the cache was archived and removed in October of 2014. Strangely enough the backdated log was for October of 2014, a year later. To me this fact alone is odd.

 

The argument is that the log is questionable and the cache owner should have a right to inquire. The original log may confirm the find. If the original log had been destroyed or lost (this is directly related to the amount of time that has passed) than what is a cache owner suppose to do? Most would probably choose the path of least resistance and forget about it. That decision should be a choice not a mandate. It's the late log that is causing the problem not some over baring cache owner. Now, the burden of proof lies solely with the cache owner. Without the ability to even ask a question what recourse do they have?

 

Your basically saying that the integrity of the cache log is none of the cache owners business. The fact that you've interpreted the guidelines as "I'll log finds when ever I feel like it" is how you'll justify it.

 

A simple exchange between the two parties will most likely solve the problem. If you simply log caches late than what's the harm in saying that in the log or in response to a cache owners question?

 

No reasonable person would look at this situation and interpret the cache owners inquiry as malicious regardless what the guidelines say.

 

If the "inquiry" contains a threat of log deletion that makes the find contingent on reply, it isn't reasonable.

 

Cachers are permitted to contact each other through the site.

 

Cache owners are not permitted to coerce a response by threatening log deletion.

 

Sometimes, often even, a "questionable" log just has to stand because there isn't sufficient evidence to merit deleting it.

[+IOError]

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

 

Just my two cents.

[+justintim1999]

What is the benefit of locking archived caches that justifies this inconvenience?

 

This stems from an issue I have with cache containers not being removed after being archived and cachers finding them and being allowed to log them.

 

Logs for a point in time when the cache was still active are a completely different topic not related to containers that have not been removed.

It could happen that a cache gets archived a few hours after I have been there. There is no convincing argument that makes a backdated log automatically more questionable than

the same type of log when it comes earlier.

 

In the case of the original post the cache was archived and removed in October of 2014. Strangely enough the backdated log was for October of 2014, a year later. To me this fact alone is odd.

 

The argument is that the log is questionable and the cache owner should have a right to inquire. The original log may confirm the find. If the original log had been destroyed or lost (this is directly related to the amount of time that has passed) than what is a cache owner suppose to do? Most would probably choose the path of least resistance and forget about it. That decision should be a choice not a mandate. It's the late log that is causing the problem not some over baring cache owner. Now, the burden of proof lies solely with the cache owner. Without the ability to even ask a question what recourse do they have?

 

Your basically saying that the integrity of the cache log is none of the cache owners business. The fact that you've interpreted the guidelines as "I'll log finds when ever I feel like it" is how you'll justify it.

 

A simple exchange between the two parties will most likely solve the problem. If you simply log caches late than what's the harm in saying that in the log or in response to a cache owners question?

 

No reasonable person would look at this situation and interpret the cache owners inquiry as malicious regardless what the guidelines say.

 

If the "inquiry" contains a threat of log deletion that makes the find contingent on reply, it isn't reasonable.

 

Cachers are permitted to contact each other through the site.

 

Cache owners are not permitted to coerce a response by threatening log deletion.

 

Sometimes, often even, a "questionable" log just has to stand because there isn't sufficient evidence to merit deleting it.

 

That's never been my position. I've always indicated that the correspondence be cordial. At least we agree that we can communicate and that the inquiry alone shouldn't violate the guidelines.

 

The last point of contention is the "questionable log just has to stand." The cache owner should absolutely be reasonable when it comes to this and never delete a log without careful consideration BUT, the ultimate decision to keep or delete a log has to be the cache owners call.

[cezanne]

If the CO were of the mind that this type of logging should be questioned they should have kept the logs. They did not do their due diligence. The finder should have logged their find in a timely fashion (NOTE: This is not always possible and by no means a requirement of any type). They didn't. They did not perform their due diligence in this matter.

 

As there is no rule that enforces online logs at all, there also cannot be a rule for when the online logs have to be written. That is not a matter of diligence.

[cezanne]

 

In the case of the original post the cache was archived and removed in October of 2014. Strangely enough the backdated log was for October of 2014, a year later. To me this fact alone is odd.

 

According to the OP the cache was archived in removed in 2015 when the cache owners moved away, not in October 2014.

 

The argument is that the log is questionable and the cache owner should have a right to inquire. The original log may confirm the find. If the original log had been destroyed or lost (this is directly related to the amount of time that has passed) than what is a cache owner suppose to do?

 

No, the original log can get lost also 5 minutes after my find. That would mean that every cacher would need to document each find by a photo which is clearly not acceptable to me.

 

If the log is not available any longer and there is no further evidence than a single late log, the cache owner is best advised with leaving the log stand and moving on.

 

 

A simple exchange between the two parties will most likely solve the problem. If you simply log caches late than what's the harm in saying that in the log or in response to a cache owners question?

 

Where do you draw the line? It#s evident that the log is late so when you receive the reply that the cacher is logging late you will not know more than before.

If you require a photo or a description of the container, you go beyond what is acceptable.

 

No reasonable person would look at this situation and interpret the cache owners inquiry as malicious regardless what the guidelines say.

 

If you are content with the answer "I'm logging late", then there is no malicious intent, I agree, but then I would think that the question is pretty silly as you can see that yourself.

[+narcissa]

What is the benefit of locking archived caches that justifies this inconvenience?

 

This stems from an issue I have with cache containers not being removed after being archived and cachers finding them and being allowed to log them.

 

Logs for a point in time when the cache was still active are a completely different topic not related to containers that have not been removed.

It could happen that a cache gets archived a few hours after I have been there. There is no convincing argument that makes a backdated log automatically more questionable than

the same type of log when it comes earlier.

 

In the case of the original post the cache was archived and removed in October of 2014. Strangely enough the backdated log was for October of 2014, a year later. To me this fact alone is odd.

 

The argument is that the log is questionable and the cache owner should have a right to inquire. The original log may confirm the find. If the original log had been destroyed or lost (this is directly related to the amount of time that has passed) than what is a cache owner suppose to do? Most would probably choose the path of least resistance and forget about it. That decision should be a choice not a mandate. It's the late log that is causing the problem not some over baring cache owner. Now, the burden of proof lies solely with the cache owner. Without the ability to even ask a question what recourse do they have?

 

Your basically saying that the integrity of the cache log is none of the cache owners business. The fact that you've interpreted the guidelines as "I'll log finds when ever I feel like it" is how you'll justify it.

 

A simple exchange between the two parties will most likely solve the problem. If you simply log caches late than what's the harm in saying that in the log or in response to a cache owners question?

 

No reasonable person would look at this situation and interpret the cache owners inquiry as malicious regardless what the guidelines say.

 

If the "inquiry" contains a threat of log deletion that makes the find contingent on reply, it isn't reasonable.

 

Cachers are permitted to contact each other through the site.

 

Cache owners are not permitted to coerce a response by threatening log deletion.

 

Sometimes, often even, a "questionable" log just has to stand because there isn't sufficient evidence to merit deleting it.

 

That's never been my position. I've always indicated that the correspondence be cordial. At least we agree that we can communicate and that the inquiry alone shouldn't violate the guidelines.

 

The last point of contention is the "questionable log just has to stand." The cache owner should absolutely be reasonable when it comes to this and never delete a log without careful consideration BUT, the ultimate decision to keep or delete a log has to be the cache owners call.

 

If there's a complaint about the deletion of a valid log, then ultimately it's Groundspeak's call (and they tend to side with finders). Cache owners don't have absolute authority over the cache listing.

[+narcissa]

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

 

Just my two cents.

 

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

 

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

 

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

[+narcissa]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

A ) Take a hike, Poindexter.

 

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

 

C ) *no reply*

 

D ) lol you caught me lol

Edited May 20, 2016 by narcissa

[+MtnMutt-ProDuckShins]

I f you happen to archived the cache, did you keep the log book/sheet. Check to see if that is a true log. If it has been some time as if a couple of months .. delete.

 

Also check the profile of the person in question and see their pattern of caches of later. If you feel they are playing the Log Archive Game .. Delete.

 

It all comes down to you need to make the final say.

[+justintim1999]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

A ) Take a hike, Poindexter.

 

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

 

C ) *no reply*

 

D ) lol you caught me lol

 

I guess answering yes or no is just not possible.

[+justintim1999]

What is the benefit of locking archived caches that justifies this inconvenience?

 

This stems from an issue I have with cache containers not being removed after being archived and cachers finding them and being allowed to log them.

 

Logs for a point in time when the cache was still active are a completely different topic not related to containers that have not been removed.

It could happen that a cache gets archived a few hours after I have been there. There is no convincing argument that makes a backdated log automatically more questionable than

the same type of log when it comes earlier.

 

In the case of the original post the cache was archived and removed in October of 2014. Strangely enough the backdated log was for October of 2014, a year later. To me this fact alone is odd.

 

The argument is that the log is questionable and the cache owner should have a right to inquire. The original log may confirm the find. If the original log had been destroyed or lost (this is directly related to the amount of time that has passed) than what is a cache owner suppose to do? Most would probably choose the path of least resistance and forget about it. That decision should be a choice not a mandate. It's the late log that is causing the problem not some over baring cache owner. Now, the burden of proof lies solely with the cache owner. Without the ability to even ask a question what recourse do they have?

 

Your basically saying that the integrity of the cache log is none of the cache owners business. The fact that you've interpreted the guidelines as "I'll log finds when ever I feel like it" is how you'll justify it.

 

A simple exchange between the two parties will most likely solve the problem. If you simply log caches late than what's the harm in saying that in the log or in response to a cache owners question?

 

No reasonable person would look at this situation and interpret the cache owners inquiry as malicious regardless what the guidelines say.

 

If the "inquiry" contains a threat of log deletion that makes the find contingent on reply, it isn't reasonable.

 

Cachers are permitted to contact each other through the site.

 

Cache owners are not permitted to coerce a response by threatening log deletion.

 

Sometimes, often even, a "questionable" log just has to stand because there isn't sufficient evidence to merit deleting it.

 

That's never been my position. I've always indicated that the correspondence be cordial. At least we agree that we can communicate and that the inquiry alone shouldn't violate the guidelines.

 

The last point of contention is the "questionable log just has to stand." The cache owner should absolutely be reasonable when it comes to this and never delete a log without careful consideration BUT, the ultimate decision to keep or delete a log has to be the cache owners call.

 

If there's a complaint about the deletion of a valid log, then ultimately it's Groundspeak's call (and they tend to side with finders). Cache owners don't have absolute authority over the cache listing.

 

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