Messaging Etiquette

[+DubbleG]

I had a cacher that I've never met or even corresponded with send me a message which read as follows:

 

It was disabled. Quit being so hauty. Its the guy's first hide. Maybe make some suggestions.

 

My opinion is that a log is between the author and the CO and nobody else's business (assuming, of course, it adheres to the guidelines). I found it quite rude that someone I don't know would PM me with such a snarky message. I was wondering if others think it is OK to message a complete stranger and offer up an unsolicited opinion on their log.

[+Touchstone]

I had a cacher that I've never met or even corresponded with send me a message which read as follows:

 

It was disabled. Quit being so hauty. Its the guy's first hide. Maybe make some suggestions.

 

My opinion is that a log is between the author and the CO and nobody else's business (assuming, of course, it adheres to the guidelines). I found it quite rude that someone I don't know would PM me with such a snarky message. I was wondering if others think it is OK to message a complete stranger and offer up an unsolicited opinion on their log.

Everyone has a bad day occasionally. I would hope that I don't come across as haughty in my online logs (or forum posts for that matter), but if I did, I would appreciate someone gently reminding me, as they did in your case.

 

If I were to respond to a post of that sort, I would thank them for their valuable counsel, and then edit my log entry accordingly.

 

You're entitled to your opinion, but that fact of the matter is, log entries on the website are there for the entire world to see. It's a bit naive to think that it's some sort of private conversation that others can ignore. My rule of thumb is to always word my log entries carefully, as if I were talking to the cache owner face to face.

[+Rustynails]

I had a cacher that I've never met or even corresponded with send me a message which read as follows:

 

It was disabled. Quit being so hauty. Its the guy's first hide. Maybe make some suggestions.

 

My opinion is that a log is between the author and the CO and nobody else's business (assuming, of course, it adheres to the guidelines). I found it quite rude that someone I don't know would PM me with such a snarky message. I was wondering if others think it is OK to message a complete stranger and offer up an unsolicited opinion on their log.

 

A log is for anyone to read. If you have something to say to CO you don't want others to know about, send a private message.

[+Manville Possum]

I was wondering if others think it is OK to message a complete stranger and offer up an unsolicited opinion on their log.

 

No, it's not okay. I would have suggested that they mind their own business.... then block them from my message center.

[+DubbleG]

I was wondering if others think it is OK to message a complete stranger and offer up an unsolicited opinion on their log.

 

No, it's not okay. I would have suggested that they mind their own business.... then block them from my message center.

 

Exactly what I did

[+DubbleG]

A log is for anyone to read. If you have something to say to CO you don't want others to know about, send a private message.

 

There was nothing in my log that I wanted private. Yes, anyone can read the log. What I felt was wrong/rude was for someone who doesn't even know me to sent an unsolicited PM with their opinion of my log.

Edited June 5, 2016 by DubbleG

[+Crow-T-Robot]

A log is for anyone to read. If you have something to say to CO you don't want others to know about, send a private message.

 

There was nothing in my log that I wanted private. Yes, anyone can read the log. What I felt was wrong/rude was for someone who doesn't even know me to sent an unsolicited PM with their opinion of my log.

 

What is wrong/rude about them having an opinion of your log and sending you an unsolicited PM about it? It sounds as though they could have had more tact in their approach, but receiving the PM shouldn't cause you to feel insulted. Was there something in the message that you could take and learn from? It may not have been wrapped in a pretty bow, but that doesn't mean there wasn't some helpful advice included in the PM.

[+cerberus1]

It seems (to me) that we're not getting the whole story...

 

What made the "rude" person send you that message ?

 

Sounds like maybe a cache page log from you might have come off a bit arrogant/superior (haughty), and not wanting to turn the cache page into a forum (and maybe having a Reviewer archive it), this "rude" person properly sent you a pm message instead.

 

Please explain. Thanks.

[+Manville Possum]

It seems (to me) that we're not getting the whole story...

 

What made the "rude" person send you that message ?

 

Sounds like maybe a cache page log from you might have come off a bit arrogant/superior (haughty), and not wanting to turn the cache page into a forum (and maybe having a Reviewer archive it), this "rude" person properly sent you a pm message instead.

 

Please explain. Thanks.

 

You may have just asked the million dollar question.

 

It would be interesting to view both sides.

[+Touchstone]

It seems (to me) that we're not getting the whole story...

 

What made the "rude" person send you that message ?

 

Sounds like maybe a cache page log from you might have come off a bit arrogant/superior (haughty), and not wanting to turn the cache page into a forum (and maybe having a Reviewer archive it), this "rude" person properly sent you a pm message instead.

 

Please explain. Thanks.

 

You may have just asked the million dollar question.

 

It would be interesting to view both sides.

Indeed. Like most carefully choreographed posts on this forum, I tend to approach with suspicion, any topic that is as lopsided as this one. If you want my honest opinion, post both sides of the story, and I'll give you an unvarnished answer. My tendency is to take the side of the accused, since they are not here to defend themselves...well, unless they are so obviously wrong that it's pointless to defend them.

 

That being said, I think I found the log entry, and it did seem rather benign, compared to the PM that was posted. It was a bit harsh IMO.

[+Manville Possum]

Yes, anyone can read the log.

 

Will you point us to your log in question?

[+WarNinjas]

I agree that the message could have been worded better but I think the idea of one member contacting another about a log is OK. Like you said you have never met him so you don't know his personality.

[+DubbleG]

A number of replies want the "whole picture" and rather than post numerous, individual, replies I think it is easier just to provide a link to the cache where my log can be read.

 

Cache with log

[+cerberus1]

... I think I found the log entry, and it did seem rather benign, compared to the PM that was posted. It was a bit harsh IMO.

After reading the log, if it wasn't edited later, I agree.

Don't do those kinda caches anymore because they tend to have the most issues, but the OPs log was similar to what I would have said.

[+narcissa]

A log is for anyone to read. If you have something to say to CO you don't want others to know about, send a private message.

 

There was nothing in my log that I wanted private. Yes, anyone can read the log. What I felt was wrong/rude was for someone who doesn't even know me to sent an unsolicited PM with their opinion of my log.

 

The tone of the message is rude, but it isn't necessarily "wrong" to reach out to someone about a concern like that. Whether or not you agree with their concern is up to you.

 

Cache logs are public. You are mistaken in your assumption that they are a communication between the finder and the cache owner. They are also meant to be seen by others. The cache page is not meant to be used as a forum, so private messages are, sometimes, the better way to resolve issues.

 

I believe you can block people from sending you messages again but if someone gets persistent about contacting you through the site against your wishes, file a complaint. They deal with that stuff quite promptly.

 

I have always had a personal policy of not using the message centre because I don't like the way it was implemented. I use email instead, and I will only email through the site (i.e. without revealing my personal email address) unless it's someone I know and trust. You just don't know when someone is going to get a little unhinged about something stupid and it's best to have some back-up.

[+Manville Possum]

... I think I found the log entry, and it did seem rather benign, compared to the PM that was posted. It was a bit harsh IMO.

After reading the log, if it wasn't edited later, I agree.

Don't do those kinda caches anymore because they tend to have the most issues, but the OPs log was similar to what I would have said.

 

I don't see any issues with the log either, and like you say, it's looks like something I would have posted. Also it appears like a cache that I would have ignored in the first place.

 

And for the well meaning cacher that sent the PM, mind your own business and don't contact strangers that don't want your opinion. Just play the game, and don't try and moderate others.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Dunno. I will express my opinions on the caches that I seek. If I love it, I will post that. If I think it is terrible, I will log that. Sometimes I will get responses from COs. "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything." But that was a hole drilled into a post and covered with a reflector. Guidelines violation. (Also exposed that that CO uses several handles to hide caches...)

Logged "Not sure why this parking lot is in great need of a cache." Saw a log from another local geocacher "No clue why Harry Dolphin felt the need to leave a Rude comment. I will no longer participate in his Caches."

I found that to be very strange. Too bad. So sad.

But, I will continue to post what I think about the caches that I am seeking. What's wrong with telling the truth?

[+NanCycle]

Dunno. I will express my opinions on the caches that I seek. If I love it, I will post that. If I think it is terrible, I will log that. Sometimes I will get responses from COs. "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything." But that was a hole drilled into a post and covered with a reflector. Guidelines violation. (Also exposed that that CO uses several handles to hide caches...)

Logged "Not sure why this parking lot is in great need of a cache." Saw a log from another local geocacher "No clue why Harry Dolphin felt the need to leave a Rude comment. I will no longer participate in his Caches."

I found that to be very strange. Too bad. So sad.

But, I will continue to post what I think about the caches that I am seeking. What's wrong with telling the truth?

 

I so much upset a CO by saying in my Found log that the cache wasn't really hidden at all that I was written up on the cache page as a "complainer." My intent was to alert the CO that maybe the cache had not been replaced as it was intended to be hidden. That was after being about the 14th person to mention that the coordinates were off by 60-70 feet and in someone's back yard. Yep, I just complain about every little thing. The log is wet, the container is broken, the lid is missing. And, oh yes, buried caches are in violation of the guidelines.

[+Pond Bird]

I've had a person send me an email regarding somebody else's log on one of my caches and I just ignored it because it was unwarranted.

[+dprovan]

I disagree with you entirely about the etiquette. Just as with any public conversation, there's no reason someone else shouldn't politely join in.

 

The specific message wasn't the best, but I see no reason to get upset about it. Just say "thanks for the advice" and forget about it. It sounds to me like an older brother or someone else with a personal relation to the CO, so although your criticism wasn't out of line, I can see someone's knee jerking about it. There's no reason to take it personally.

[+DubbleG]

I disagree with you entirely about the etiquette. Just as with any public conversation, there's no reason someone else shouldn't politely join in.

 

The specific message wasn't the best, but I see no reason to get upset about it. Just say "thanks for the advice" and forget about it. It sounds to me like an older brother or someone else with a personal relation to the CO, so although your criticism wasn't out of line, I can see someone's knee jerking about it. There's no reason to take it personally.

 

I would equate this to two people having a conversation on a plane. While the conversation may be overheard by others, I would consider it rude for someone to barge in with their opinion where it wasn't asked for. That's what the individual who sent the PM did. He made it worse by doing so in the manner he did but even had it been done in a nicer manner it was still unwelcome. The key with what you wrote is "politely join in" which he most certainly did not. That's probably what set me off in the first place. Had it been a "nice note" I likely would've ignored it.

 

From the perspective of whether or not he was wrong to send the PM in the first place we will simply have to agree to disagree. (I wonder if it is a generational thing. Today people seem to have a lot less sense of privacy than my generation. I'm not saying that as a criticism, just as an observation. I also think people are much too free in how they express themselves online. I doubt anyone would say something like that to a total stranger if it were face to face.) I do feel somewhat vindicated inasmuch as the general consensus seems to be that his PM was a bit over the top compared to my original, unedited post.

[cezanne]

I would equate this to two people having a conversation on a plane. While the conversation may be overheard by others, I would consider it rude for someone to barge in with their opinion where it wasn't asked for. That's what the individual who sent the PM did.

 

One certainly can discuss about the tone of the message you received.

 

I definitely do not agree however with your comparison. Logs are for everyone, not just directed to the cache owner. Messages only to the cache owner should be sent by PM.

[+justintim1999]

If I received this log on one of my caches it wouldn't have bothered me.

 

The cache owner did preform maintenance on the cache after an issue and then disabled it for some unknown reason.

 

Looks like the op's find attempt was simply bad timing.

 

Although the log is a little negative, in my opinion there is nothing in there that should elicit a response. I don't see why a third party would feel they needed to even comment.

[+narcissa]

Dunno. I will express my opinions on the caches that I seek. If I love it, I will post that. If I think it is terrible, I will log that. Sometimes I will get responses from COs. "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything." But that was a hole drilled into a post and covered with a reflector. Guidelines violation. (Also exposed that that CO uses several handles to hide caches...)

Logged "Not sure why this parking lot is in great need of a cache." Saw a log from another local geocacher "No clue why Harry Dolphin felt the need to leave a Rude comment. I will no longer participate in his Caches."

I found that to be very strange. Too bad. So sad.

But, I will continue to post what I think about the caches that I am seeking. What's wrong with telling the truth?

 

As much as people talk about filtering and attributes and other ways to select caches, there's nothing like an honest, descriptive log from a good cacher to help me decide if a cache is worth going after. If people don't like hearing that their caches are guidelines-violating junk, they should hide better caches.

[+dprovan]

I would equate this to two people having a conversation on a plane.

Nope, nothing like that. Your log message is for other cachers as much as it's for the CO. Seekers read logs all the time expecting information about the cache. This is nothing like a private conversation not intended to be overheard. You can disagree, but you really shouldn't expect anyone else to see it as in any way private.

 

The key with what you wrote is "politely join in" which he most certainly did not. That's probably what set me off in the first place. Had it been a "nice note" I likely would've ignored it.

Well, that's good at least. I can understand someone losing their cool over that message, even though I'd still tell them they're being kinda silly. But that's still no reason to start thinking your broadcast log message is somehow privately directed at only the CO.

 

(I wonder if it is a generational thing. Today people seem to have a lot less sense of privacy than my generation. I'm not saying that as a criticism, just as an observation. I also think people are much too free in how they express themselves online. I doubt anyone would say something like that to a total stranger if it were face to face.)

I'm guessing I'm older than you, so that's not it. On the other hand, perhaps you don't have enough experience on the web to distinguish public postings from private messages.

 

(By the way, I'm stipulating for the sake of discussion that your log was intended only for the CO, but we both know that's not really true. You said what you said in your DNF to underscore to everyone else why you didn't think this cache would be worth looking for even if it were replaced.)

 

I do feel somewhat vindicated inasmuch as the general consensus seems to be that his PM was a bit over the top compared to my original, unedited post.

Fine, as long as you also listen to me when I suggest that, even so, you shouldn't have taken his gaff so seriously.

[+bflentje]

I was wondering if others think it is OK to message a complete stranger and offer up an unsolicited opinion on their log.

 

No, it's not okay. I would have suggested that they mind their own business.... then block them from my message center.

 

I'd take a different approach. I would try not to be so thin skinned and I would get over myself. If you can dish it you should be able to take it.

[+J Grouchy]

Summing up what others have said that I agree with:

 

1. Your log didn't seem "haughty" (not a fan of that word). I've written several like it myself, usually on caches that take me to places filled with trash and not worthy of a cache.

2. The private message came off rather rude. I have noticed quite a deterioration in civility online in recent years. Just reading through comments on news stories or facebook pages is often enough to make one wonder whether we are nearing the end of days...

3. No, your logs are not private and should never be written in a way that is intended to be some sort of private communication to the CO. I read past logs all the time for stories or information that may be useful or important. They are posted on a publicly accessible cache page.

[+dprovan]

1. Your log didn't seem "haughty" (not a fan of that word). I've written several like it myself, usually on caches that take me to places filled with trash and not worthy of a cache.

Since I've been a little critical of the OP, I should mention that what he posted in his DNF was information I would find useful, and I have no objection to the wording.

 

2. The private message came off rather rude. I have noticed quite a deterioration in civility online in recent years. Just reading through comments on news stories or facebook pages is often enough to make one wonder whether we are nearing the end of days...

Actually, I don't really agree that the message was rude. The most offensive thing about the message is the spelling of "hauty" and, I have to admit, I kinda discount that sentence since the fact that he can't spell haughty makes me think he doesn't really know what it means. The rest of the message is as mundane as it is misguided: yes, it was, in fact, disabled, as the OP himself noted in his log, so that's just a statement of fact. It's also just a fact that it's the guy's first hide. That's no excuse, and the title announced that already, but there's nothing rude about saying it. And he recommends being friendly and making suggestions, which is fine advice and not at all rude even though I think the implicit advice in the OP's DNF should be sufficient.

[+Manville Possum]

I was wondering if others think it is OK to message a complete stranger and offer up an unsolicited opinion on their log.

 

No, it's not okay. I would have suggested that they mind their own business.... then block them from my message center.

 

I'd take a different approach. I would try not to be so thin skinned and I would get over myself. If you can dish it you should be able to take it.

 

Cool... we could go back and fourth with nasty emails. Great idea.

[+DubbleG]

In rereading the messages on this thread I've come to the conclusion that I have not properly expressed my thoughts about "privacy" with logs. I may have actually made things worse with a bad analogy. Hopefully I can restate things better here...

 

• Logs are "public" inasmuch as as they are in an open forum and available for anyone to read.
• Logs are "private" in that it isn't anybody's business to critique another person's log (unless they are violating the regulations). Doing so via PM is, to me, more egregious as they are then moving the conversation from a public forum to a private one. The CO and the log author should, IMO, be the only ones to comment on a log's contents. Obviously that isn't absolute inasmuch as other logs may reference helpful information, or refute incorrect information, in other logs.

I took offense at the tone of the PM which I felt was an unwarranted attack on a my innocuous log. Silly, in retrospect, but I'm human and entitled to having a bad day. I still have no regrets about my log nor about blocking the cacher who felt he had the right to stick his nose where it wasn't wanted nor warranted.

 

At this point further discussion isn't likely to change my thinking so I will close by thanking you for your opinions on the topic and will "sign off" from this thread. Happy Caching!

[+niraD]

3. No, your logs are not private and should never be written in a way that is intended to be some sort of private communication to the CO.

Unless that's you shtick, of course. There are people who write their logs from the point of view of their dog. There are people who write their logs as though they are speaking to the cache, as if the cache were a person. So I suppose, if you wanted to, you could write you logs as though they are some sort of private, intimate communication to the CO...

 

Logs are "private" in that it isn't anybody's business to critique another person's log (unless they are violating the regulations). Doing so via PM is, to me, more egregious as they are then moving the conversation from a public forum to a private one.

Would you rather the criticism of your log have been posted to the cache as a Note? Or even posted to the cache page itself by the CO?

 

The rule I've heard is "public praise, private criticism". I have a tough time blaming someone for taking their criticism offline, addressing just the person involved privately.

 

Furthermore, Groundspeak specifically does not want cache logs to be used as a forum. Cache pages have been locked when they were being used as a forum. So if you're going to discuss something that was written in a cache log, then you SHOULD discuss it privately or in some other non-private setting.

 

And no, that doesn't mean I agree with the criticism that was sent to you privately.

[+L0ne.R]

Dunno. I will express my opinions on the caches that I seek. If I love it, I will post that. If I think it is terrible, I will log that. Sometimes I will get responses from COs. "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything." But that was a hole drilled into a post and covered with a reflector. Guidelines violation. (Also exposed that that CO uses several handles to hide caches...)

Logged "Not sure why this parking lot is in great need of a cache." Saw a log from another local geocacher "No clue why Harry Dolphin felt the need to leave a Rude comment. I will no longer participate in his Caches."

I found that to be very strange. Too bad. So sad.

But, I will continue to post what I think about the caches that I am seeking. What's wrong with telling the truth?

 

As much as people talk about filtering and attributes and other ways to select caches, there's nothing like an honest, descriptive log from a good cacher to help me decide if a cache is worth going after.

 

+1.

 

I really appreciate honest reviews that describe the cache experience so that others can judge for themselves whether they'd enjoy visiting the location and cache.

 

I want to know if the log and contents are wet and moldy. If the container is broken. If it's listed as a small but it's really a micro. I want to know if the area is junky or unattractive (parking lot, next to a dumpster). If the area makes people nervous (in or near a playground, in a bad part of town). I want to know if the coordinates are off. If there are houses in plain sight of the cache area. I want to know if the terrain 1.5 cache is a 60m bushwack through the forest.

[+dprovan]

I'd take a different approach. I would try not to be so thin skinned and I would get over myself. If you can dish it you should be able to take it.

Cool... we could go back and fourth with nasty emails. Great idea.

I think bflentje's point is that either side could stop the back and forth, not that both sides are justified in continuing it.

[+Manville Possum]

I'd take a different approach. I would try not to be so thin skinned and I would get over myself. If you can dish it you should be able to take it.

Cool... we could go back and fourth with nasty emails. Great idea.

I think bflentje's point is that either side could stop the back and forth, not that both sides are justified in continuing it.

 

I kinda thought I was just getting flamed and laughed it off, but thanks for your opinion.

[+DubbleG]

Would you rather the criticism of your log have been posted to the cache as a Note? Or even posted to the cache page itself by the CO?

Having forgotten to unsubscribe to this thread I saw this and had to reply. (I guess I'm not yet ready to "sign off" on this topic )

 

The short answer to your question is "I would rather the criticism not have been made at all since it was none of their business to do so in the first place."

 

If the CO is unhappy with a log then they are within their rights to comment. If someone else isn't happy then they can raise an issue with Groundspeak but shouldn't directly contact the logger. That is the crux of my argument.

 

I should note that even the CO has restrictions. I had a CO delete one of my logs because they were not happy with the opinion I expressed. They didn't refute my find, just didn't like that I felt their cache placement was disrespectful. I relogged my original statement and told them that if they removed it again that I would take it up with Groundspeak myself. They then proceeded to encrypt my log .

[+dprovan]

In rereading the messages on this thread I've come to the conclusion that I have not properly expressed my thoughts about "privacy" with logs. I may have actually made things worse with a bad analogy. Hopefully I can restate things better here...

 

• Logs are "public" inasmuch as as they are in an open forum and available for anyone to read.
• Logs are "private" in that it isn't anybody's business to critique another person's log (unless they are violating the regulations).
  

No, I disagree. I think the first point implies the second point is false: they are public, so it makes no sense to pretend they aren't.

 

Doing so via PM is, to me, more egregious as they are then moving the conversation from a public forum to a private one.

While there's an element of intrusion in taking a public discussion private, in the case of logs, the person making the comment has no choice as discussions are forbidden in logs. And I consider that rule quite valid, so I would applaud the commenter for taking the conversation private even if there weren't such a rule, since that's the other side of the coin: his comment to you was absolutely private so it makes no sense to put it in the public log. (I might make the same observation about the comments in your DNF log if I bought the claim that they were intended as private communications to the CO.)

 

Furthermore, sending you a private message eliminates the possibility that he's not being sincere and is only posturing against you for the benefit of anyone else reading the logs. In other words, he has made it clear he's personally commenting on what you said, not publicly criticizing you for saying it.

 

I took offense at the tone of the PM which I felt was an unwarranted attack on a my innocuous log.

You felt it was an attack, but it was really just a minor expression of displeasure.

 

Silly, in retrospect, but I'm human and entitled to having a bad day. I still have no regrets about my log nor about blocking the cacher who felt he had the right to stick his nose where it wasn't wanted nor warranted.

The second sentence here belies the first one. But I agree there was nothing wrong with your side of the interaction. The only thing you did that might be criticized is bringing your displeasure here to the forums, but even that worked out because we had a nice discussion of the issue.

[+dprovan]

If the CO is unhappy with a log then they are within their rights to comment. If someone else isn't happy then they can raise an issue with Groundspeak but shouldn't directly contact the logger. That is the crux of my argument.

Oh, please, no. He had a problem with your log, he brought it privately to you. There's no reason to waste Groundspeak's time on something that can easily be settled by adults. Ignore it, fine, problem solved. Don't claim he should have taken his minor comments to the highest court in the land.

[+DubbleG]

No, I disagree. I think the first point implies the second point is false: they are public, so it makes no sense to pretend they aren't.

Things aren't always as black and white as you're making them out to be. Something doesn't have to be %100 one or the other. But perhaps we are getting caught up in semantics. How about I restate it as it is "bad form" to critique another person's log that is not in violation of the guidelines and rude to PM someone out of the blue to express unrequested criticism.

 

While there's an element of intrusion in taking a public discussion private, in the case of logs, the person making the comment has no choice as discussions are forbidden in logs. And I consider that rule quite valid, so I would applaud the commenter for taking the conversation private even if there weren't such a rule, since that's the other side of the coin: his comment to you was absolutely private so it makes no sense to put it in the public log. (I might make the same observation about the comments in your DNF log if I bought the claim that they were intended as private communications to the CO.)

 

Furthermore, sending you a private message eliminates the possibility that he's not being sincere and is only posturing against you for the benefit of anyone else reading the logs. In other words, he has made it clear he's personally commenting on what you said, not publicly criticizing you for saying it.

Again, public vs. private is moot. The issue, to me, is that he had no business making a comment in the first place. It was none of his business. And you're incorrect about the person having had no choice. He had one that he disregarded - to keep his mouth shut. Yes, posting on the logs is a rule violation but not posting and not messaging would have been just fine.

 

You felt it was an attack, but it was really just a minor expression of displeasure.

Was it "Pearl Harbor"? No. A spitball in class is still an attack of sorts and, again, one that shouldn't have been made in the first place.

 

Oh, please, no. He had a problem with your log, he brought it privately to you. There's no reason to waste Groundspeak's time on something that can easily be settled by adults. Ignore it, fine, problem solved. Don't claim he should have taken his minor comments to the highest court in the land.

Maybe if he needed to approach the "highest court in the land" he would have thought twice about spouting off. As things stand it is apparently too easy for anyone to express their unwanted opinions. A PM isn't like these forums where one has an option to participate or not.

[+dprovan]

Again, public vs. private is moot. The issue, to me, is that he had no business making a comment in the first place.

He has every right to express his opinion about something you said in public.

 

It was none of his business.

That's where you're wrong. "Public" means it's everyone's business.

[+niraD]

It was none of his business.

That's where you're wrong. "Public" means it's everyone's business.

As it says in Learn How to Log Your Find: "Enter any comments you wish to share with the owner and/or community regarding your find."

 

Comments are shared with the cache owner and/or the geocaching community.

 

They are the business of anyone in the geocaching community.

[+DubbleG]

He has every right to express his opinion about something you said in public.

So I can just walk up to you and give you my unsolicited opinion that I don't like your shirt and that's OK because you're wearing it in public?

 

That's where you're wrong. "Public" means it's everyone's business.

Again, there are no absolutes. We have freedom of speech in this country but I can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. There are limits. Clearly we are at an impasse so at this point I am bowing out of this bickering because it is pointless.

Edited June 6, 2016 by DubbleG

[+DubbleG]

As it says in Learn How to Log Your Find: "Enter any comments you wish to share with the owner and/or community regarding your find."

 

Comments are shared with the cache owner and/or the geocaching community.

 

They are the business of anyone in the geocaching community.

His unsolicited comments were expressed via PM, not via the logs, so that does not apply.

[+niraD]

As it says in Learn How to Log Your Find: "Enter any comments you wish to share with the owner and/or community regarding your find."

 

Comments are shared with the cache owner and/or the geocaching community.

 

They are the business of anyone in the geocaching community.

His unsolicited comments were expressed via PM, not via the logs, so that does not apply.

I thought your objection was based on the idea that your posted log was none of his business. Apparently your objection is based on something else, like the ability to contact you privately being none of his business. Unfortunately, Groundspeak provides links for people to contact you privately on your profile page, and provides a link to your profile page on every log you post.

[+igator210]

There is a little bit of irony and hypocrisy in this thread: debating a private message on a public forum on whether it is ok to privately message someone over a post on a public page.

[+DubbleG]

I thought your objection was based on the idea that your posted log was none of his business. Apparently your objection is based on something else, like the ability to contact you privately being none of his business. Unfortunately, Groundspeak provides links for people to contact you privately on your profile page, and provides a link to your profile page on every log you post.

 

Interesting. When you put it like that I have to consider that, yes, my objection is more related to "messaging" and the appropriate use of it. My original post started with "I had a cacher that I've never met or even corresponded with send me a message..." and what I find objectionable is that he had the nerve to make an unsolicited comment about my log. I suppose "technically" it is his business since my log was "public domain" but I think he is wrong inasmuch as he stepped over the line once he PM'd me. I'll have to think about it a bit more but I do appreciate the perspective. I also am somewhat bemused to find that I got caught up in the argument and lost sight of the original issue

[+DubbleG]

There is a little bit of irony and hypocrisy in this thread: debating a private message on a public forum on whether it is ok to privately message someone over a post on a public page.

 

Irony - absolutely! Where's the hypocrisy? (Seriously, I don't see it and would like to know).

[+The Jester]

let's turn this around for a moment to think of it another way. Would you be as upset if someone expessed an unsolicited opinion in favor of one of your logs? Aren't the 'rights' the same? An usolicited opinion is an unsolicited opinion, whether postive or negitive...

 

With the shirt example, if a negitive opinion isn't allowed, why would a postive opinion be acceptable? "I really like that shirt" is OK, but "I really don't like that shirt" isn't?

 

Just something to think about.

[+J Grouchy]

I thought your objection was based on the idea that your posted log was none of his business. Apparently your objection is based on something else, like the ability to contact you privately being none of his business. Unfortunately, Groundspeak provides links for people to contact you privately on your profile page, and provides a link to your profile page on every log you post.

 

Interesting. When you put it like that I have to consider that, yes, my objection is more related to "messaging" and the appropriate use of it. My original post started with "I had a cacher that I've never met or even corresponded with send me a message..." and what I find objectionable is that he had the nerve to make an unsolicited comment about my log. I suppose "technically" it is his business since my log was "public domain" but I think he is wrong inasmuch as he stepped over the line once he PM'd me. I'll have to think about it a bit more but I do appreciate the perspective. I also am somewhat bemused to find that I got caught up in the argument and lost sight of the original issue

 

I see absolutely nothing wrong with him contacting you regarding your log. If he'd wished to praise you for your comment, would you even have come in here to complain? I suspect your issue is not at all with someone contacting you to discuss your log and everything to do with it being a criticism of your comment. Yes, I personally believe the way the PM was worded was somewhat rude, discourteous, unfortunate...whatever. Not trollish or inflammatory, but it could definitely have been worded in a nicer way. It was, however, not some breach of etiquette or inappropriate for him to contact you. I'm sorry you feel that any opinions related to your publicly accessible log shouldn't be expressed directly to you. If you are not open to any discussion about what you post online, perhaps you ought not log online.

[+DubbleG]

let's turn this around for a moment to think of it another way. Would you be as upset if someone expessed an unsolicited opinion in favor of one of your logs? Aren't the 'rights' the same? An usolicited opinion is an unsolicited opinion, whether postive or negitive...

 

With the shirt example, if a negitive opinion isn't allowed, why would a postive opinion be acceptable? "I really like that shirt" is OK, but "I really don't like that shirt" isn't?

 

Just something to think about.

In the strictest sense I agree with you that the 'rights' are the same. Just because you "can" do something doesn't mean that you "should". From a societal perspective I would disagree. I was taught "if you don't have something nice to say don't say anything at all". So expressing a positive opinion, solicited or not, would be OK but expressing a negative would be frowned upon. It is more than likely that the wording of the PM is what set me off and started all this. However, I still feel it is wrong to send an unsolicited critique to someone you don't know and who has not expressed interest in feedback.

 

I'm clearly in the minority here with regard to what is appropriate with regard to unsolicited feedback. As I was the one who instigated this little "fact finding" inquiry I have to suck it up and accept that.

[+narcissa]

I thought your objection was based on the idea that your posted log was none of his business. Apparently your objection is based on something else, like the ability to contact you privately being none of his business. Unfortunately, Groundspeak provides links for people to contact you privately on your profile page, and provides a link to your profile page on every log you post.

 

Interesting. When you put it like that I have to consider that, yes, my objection is more related to "messaging" and the appropriate use of it. My original post started with "I had a cacher that I've never met or even corresponded with send me a message..." and what I find objectionable is that he had the nerve to make an unsolicited comment about my log. I suppose "technically" it is his business since my log was "public domain" but I think he is wrong inasmuch as he stepped over the line once he PM'd me. I'll have to think about it a bit more but I do appreciate the perspective. I also am somewhat bemused to find that I got caught up in the argument and lost sight of the original issue

 

There are three distinct issues here.

 

1. Someone sent you a message. This is a function that is built into the site and it is an acceptable way for geocachers to communicate with each other.

 

2. Logs are public, and subject to scrutiny by others cachers. That is a fact of the game.

 

3. The message you received was probably unnecessary, and the tone was rude. This is where a line was crossed: in the content of the message, not the fact of it. It's natural to feel irritated at a rude message, and you are under no obligation to respond to it.