Messaging Etiquette

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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.

 

While insinuating that someone that doesn't handle the situation in the same manner as he would is "thin skinned" and "can't get over themselves". That sounds more like escalation than at attempt to stop the back and forth.

[+DubbleG]

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.

I think it would be a nice enhancement to be able to "opt out" of messaging or, better still, provide a list of cachers that are allowed to contact you. (e.g. friends list). Or does that already exist and I just missed it?

[+bflentje]

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.

 

+1

[+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.

 

While insinuating that someone that doesn't handle the situation in the same manner as he would is "thin skinned" and "can't get over themselves". That sounds more like escalation than at attempt to stop the back and forth.

 

That's the way I saw it because it was directed at me and not a response to the OP.

[+bflentje]

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.

 

While insinuating that someone that doesn't handle the situation in the same manner as he would is "thin skinned" and "can't get over themselves". That sounds more like escalation than at attempt to stop the back and forth.

 

On a certain level, everyone in this situation is damned if they do, or damned if they don't. I am merely suggesting that someone take the high road and stop this cycle of I-am-offended-madness. That can take the form of not being so thin skinned or getting over yourself. If you think that is an escalation then perhaps some self reflection is in order.

[+niraD]

I think it would be a nice enhancement to be able to "opt out" of messaging or, better still, provide a list of cachers that are allowed to contact you. (e.g. friends list). Or does that already exist and I just missed it?

On the message center, you can block an individual. See also the Help Center article Message Center - Frequently Asked Questions.

 

For email, you can apply whatever filters you like, using whatever filters your email system provides.

 

Or, if you really want to minimize interactions with other geocachers, then you could refrain from posting online logs. There are some geocachers who take this approach.

[+cerberus1]

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.

I think it would be a nice enhancement to be able to "opt out" of messaging or, better still, provide a list of cachers that are allowed to contact you. (e.g. friends list). Or does that already exist and I just missed it?

If folks years ago had that "opt out" and used it, more than a dozen COs wouldn't have known the name of, and precedure a cache creep used when stealing over 30 caches (mostly ammo cans).

All of them unknown to us at the time, with no way to contact them because they "opted out", and we weren't on a "friends list"?

- Luckily , since that isn't an option, all were happy for the info, salvaged what they could, and eventually the creep was caught.

 

I email the CO if something's off, but maybe not proper to talk about on the cache page.

Most are appreciative that I kept (whatever) between us.

You'd (I guess) just have to be embarrassed instead.

[+narcissa]

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.

I think it would be a nice enhancement to be able to "opt out" of messaging or, better still, provide a list of cachers that are allowed to contact you. (e.g. friends list). Or does that already exist and I just missed it?

 

You can block or report people who abuse the message system.

 

Otherwise, it is obviously not optimal to prevent geocachers from communicating with each other. This game often requires communication for a variety of reasons.

[+narcissa]

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.

I think it would be a nice enhancement to be able to "opt out" of messaging or, better still, provide a list of cachers that are allowed to contact you. (e.g. friends list). Or does that already exist and I just missed it?

If folks years ago had that "opt out" and used it, more than a dozen COs wouldn't have known the name of, and precedure a cache creep used when stealing over 30 caches (mostly ammo cans).

All of them unknown to us at the time, with no way to contact them because they "opted out", and we weren't on a "friends list"?

- Luckily , since that isn't an option, all were happy for the info, salvaged what they could, and eventually the creep was caught.

 

I email the CO if something's off, but maybe not proper to talk about on the cache page.

Most are appreciative that I kept (whatever) between us.

You'd (I guess) just have to be embarrassed instead.

 

This is a really great example of why communication between cachers is so vital.

 

Opting out of messages would mean no Earthcaches. The remaining virtual caches wouldn't work anymore either.

 

Cachers wouldn't be able to ask for hints, or ask questions about things like terrain. Do you think I'd be able to reach this cache with a stroller? Who knows, I'm not allowed to ask.

 

Cache owners couldn't follow up on DNFs.

 

Etcetera.

[+DubbleG]

Opting out of messages would mean no Earthcaches. The remaining virtual caches wouldn't work anymore either.

 

Cachers wouldn't be able to ask for hints, or ask questions about things like terrain. Do you think I'd be able to reach this cache with a stroller? Who knows, I'm not allowed to ask.

 

Cache owners couldn't follow up on DNFs.

 

Etcetera.

 

I don't agree with any of this. There was no messaging system until fairly recently, only email. How would opting out of messaging impact the ability to provide answers to Earthcaches or Virtuals via email? In addition, conceivably, the CO of caches requiring feedback wouldn't opt out. And the mere fact that I can block some users means that there are valid cases to do so. All I'm saying is that it would nice to be able to do it as a default rather than having to block individuals.

[+DubbleG]

Or, if you really want to minimize interactions with other geocachers, then you could refrain from posting online logs. There are some geocachers who take this approach.

 

How does that work? Logging is a requirement. I suppose one could just write "Found" to meet the letter of the law but, for me, that would be an insult to the CO and no use to anyone looking for additional help. I'd rather deal with the occasional yahoo who thinks it is their job to moderate my posts than to not provide meaningful information in my logs.

[+dprovan]

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?

Sure you can comment on my shirt, although I don't know why you'd bother since I'm unlikely care about a stranger's opinion.

 

But that's not the situation here. The situation here is walking up and finding two of your friends talking, and you decide one of them is being rude and insulting to the other. It's not only acceptable, it's your responsibility to take the rude friend aside and explain why that behavior isn't considered acceptable in your circle of friends. In your case, the person that sent you the PM was wrong about you being insulting, but he believed you were, so you can't fault him because he stepped in to correct you. After all, it's not like his comment hurt you. All you have to do is explain why you consider your log appropriate.

 

I would have expected someone that tried to invoke the whippersnapper argument on me to have a more refined sense of honor. You're literally arguing against standing up for the little guy.

[+dprovan]

That's the way I saw it because it was directed at me and not a response to the OP.

I read it as a comment on the topic, not a comment on your behavior.

[+dprovan]

I was taught "if you don't have something nice to say don't say anything at all".

I bet you were also taught that if you see someone being mean, you should stand up and say something.

[+Manville Possum]

That's the way I saw it because it was directed at me and not a response to the OP.

I read it as a comment on the topic, not a comment on your behavior.

 

Thank you for your opinion.

[+niraD]

Or, if you really want to minimize interactions with other geocachers, then you could refrain from posting online logs. There are some geocachers who take this approach.

How does that work? Logging is a requirement.

It's pretty easy, really. Find the geocache, sign the physical log (or not), and then... don't post any online log.

 

I've encountered people who geocache that way because they started before online logs existed, and they see no reason to start posting online logs now. Other people do it because they're concerned about privacy, stalkers, etc. Other people do it because they think there is too much emphasis on one's Find Count in today's geocaching. And so on.

 

A slight variation of this is to post Notes instead of Finds. That way, the owner gets email with the content of the Note log, but others can't easily pull up a list of all your Finds, because you haven't logged them as Finds, and the site doesn't make it easy to pull up a list of Notes. But it doesn't look like this variation would have spared you the unpleasant interaction that prompted this thread.

[+DubbleG]

Sure you can comment on my shirt, although I don't know why you'd bother since I'm unlikely care about a stranger's opinion.

Sorry, but you're being disingenuous. It is easy to say you wouldn't care on a forum where you have no emotional investment. I rather think you'd be taken aback if approached IRL by a stranger with sharp words.

 

But that's not the situation here. The situation here is walking up and finding two of your friends talking, and you decide one of them is being rude and insulting to the other. It's not only acceptable, it's your responsibility to take the rude friend aside and explain why that behavior isn't considered acceptable in your circle of friends. In your case, the person that sent you the PM was wrong about you being insulting, but he believed you were, so you can't fault him because he stepped in to correct you. After all, it's not like his comment hurt you. All you have to do is explain why you consider your log appropriate.

 

I would have expected someone that tried to invoke the whippersnapper argument on me to have a more refined sense of honor. You're literally arguing against standing up for the little guy.

You're fabricating the situation to suit your argument. You have no way of knowing if the poster knew the CO so the "friends" argument doesn't hold water. Even if I buy your argument that he was standing up for the little guy, which I don't, the method used was such that the message was lost in the delivery. He could have been 100% right (which he was not given that my post had no ill intent) but because of how he addressed things what he said meant nothing.

 

Finally, much as I love to have the last word I can tell that is a trait you and I share. This will continue w/o adding any benefit so I will close and leave the final word to you.

[+narcissa]

Opting out of messages would mean no Earthcaches. The remaining virtual caches wouldn't work anymore either.

 

Cachers wouldn't be able to ask for hints, or ask questions about things like terrain. Do you think I'd be able to reach this cache with a stroller? Who knows, I'm not allowed to ask.

 

Cache owners couldn't follow up on DNFs.

 

Etcetera.

 

I don't agree with any of this. There was no messaging system until fairly recently, only email. How would opting out of messaging impact the ability to provide answers to Earthcaches or Virtuals via email? In addition, conceivably, the CO of caches requiring feedback wouldn't opt out. And the mere fact that I can block some users means that there are valid cases to do so. All I'm saying is that it would nice to be able to do it as a default rather than having to block individuals.

 

So, you are totally okay with receiving the same message by email through the site, but not in the message centre? Why?

 

This is a social game that is wholly based on people putting out geocaches and communicating with each other about them. If you would prefer not to draw attention to yourself on the off chance that some white knight will send you a mildly rude message, don't log your finds online.

[+narcissa]

Also, FWIW, you can disable notifications from the ridiculous message centre. I just let the messages pile up in there because anyone worthy of a response will see on my profile that I prefer email.

 

So if I have to get a rude message, the message centre is better because I won't see it.

[+dprovan]

Sorry, but you're being disingenuous. It is easy to say you wouldn't care on a forum where you have no emotional investment. I rather think you'd be taken aback if approached IRL by a stranger with sharp words.

Believe what you want. I really don't care what your opinion of my shirt is. Depending on the shirt, you'd either be stating the obvious, demonstrating bad taste, or intentionally trying to upset me, and none of those cases make me feel bad.

 

You're fabricating the situation to suit your argument.

No, I'm explaining the situation to you.

 

You have no way of knowing if the poster knew the CO so the "friends" argument doesn't hold water.

The point is you should treat all geocachers as your friends. There's no downside, and it encourages to recognize the fact that there's a local community in which you have a stake and play a role, whether you appreciate that or not.

 

Even if I buy your argument that he was standing up for the little guy, which I don't...

Let's stop right there. What else could you possibly imagine he was doing? Are you thinking he sent you a message with no other purpose than to annoy you? No, he obviously was sticking up for the CO. There's really absolutely no doubt about that, so you really need to clean your glasses and try to look at this situation without your original misconceptions about how terribly you've been wronged.

 

...the method used was such that the message was lost in the delivery. He could have been 100% right (which he was not given that my post had no ill intent) but because of how he addressed things what he said meant nothing.

If you mean because his composition was crud, we've already agreed on that. If you mean because he stood up and said something, you're dead wrong.

 

Finally, much as I love to have the last word I can tell that is a trait you and I share. This will continue w/o adding any benefit so I will close and leave the final word to you.

Well, that's too bad, because you seem like a nice guy, well brought up with proper values, so I was really hoping you'd listen to me.

[+DubbleG]

So, you are totally okay with receiving the same message by email through the site, but not in the message centre? Why?

 

To me, messaging is something that needs an instant/urgent response. I've no problem trying to help out a friend in the field who may need a nudge quickly but don't want to deal with that level of urgency from the general public. Getting an email from someone I don't know is something that I can deal with on my own schedule. I think there is a distinction between the two and would prefer to block one but not the other. It has nothing to do with the content.

[+Touchstone]

So, you are totally okay with receiving the same message by email through the site, but not in the message centre? Why?

 

To me, messaging is something that needs an instant/urgent response. I've no problem trying to help out a friend in the field who may need a nudge quickly but don't want to deal with that level of urgency from the general public. Getting an email from someone I don't know is something that I can deal with on my own schedule. I think there is a distinction between the two and would prefer to block one but not the other. It has nothing to do with the content.

I like to think of the Message Center as my secondary/backup Spam Folder.

[+narcissa]

So, you are totally okay with receiving the same message by email through the site, but not in the message centre? Why?

 

To me, messaging is something that needs an instant/urgent response. I've no problem trying to help out a friend in the field who may need a nudge quickly but don't want to deal with that level of urgency from the general public. Getting an email from someone I don't know is something that I can deal with on my own schedule. I think there is a distinction between the two and would prefer to block one but not the other. It has nothing to do with the content.

 

If I'm on "instant help" sort of terms with someone, I give them my number or my personal email address so they can actually reach me instantly.

 

Website --> message centre --> email notification --> recipient... not exactly an "instant" sort of function even if the site's working well.

[+dprovan]

To me, messaging is something that needs an instant/urgent response. I've no problem trying to help out a friend in the field who may need a nudge quickly but don't want to deal with that level of urgency from the general public. Getting an email from someone I don't know is something that I can deal with on my own schedule. I think there is a distinction between the two and would prefer to block one but not the other. It has nothing to do with the content.

I don't care for the message center, either, and your points are valid, but, for sending, geocaching.com treats them as two versions of the same thing, with the message center being the preferred version, so when I get a message, I assume the person sending it was just thinking -- incorrectly -- that it's just a form of e-mail.

 

I rarely noticed the message "light" on the site, so most of the time I end up reading the message as e-mail, anyway, since I checked the box to get messages via e-mail.

[+niraD]

I like to think of the Message Center as my secondary/backup Spam Folder.

For me, it's something of an ugly stepchild to my normal geocaching email folders. The email notifications go to my normal geocaching email folders, so I read MC messages there. Except that I can't just reply to the email notifications (because my email replies bounce), so I have to connect to the MC when I need to reply (hence, the "ugly stepchild" comment).

[+narcissa]

I like to think of the Message Center as my secondary/backup Spam Folder.

For me, it's something of an ugly stepchild to my normal geocaching email folders. The email notifications go to my normal geocaching email folders, so I read MC messages there. Except that I can't just reply to the email notifications (because my email replies bounce), so I have to connect to the MC when I need to reply (hence, the "ugly stepchild" comment).

 

That's why I disabled it from emailing me at all.

 

The only time I look at the message centre is when someone logs one of my Earthcaches. If I don't get a proper email, I'll look to see if they used the message centre to send me their answers. I rarely respond from there because I don't want to encourage it.

 

If there are other messages piled up in there, I might see them when I'm really bored or if I happen to notice them while I'm looking for an Earthcache response. Otherwise, they just sit there indefinitely.

[+niraD]

I like to think of the Message Center as my secondary/backup Spam Folder.

For me, it's something of an ugly stepchild to my normal geocaching email folders. The email notifications go to my normal geocaching email folders, so I read MC messages there. Except that I can't just reply to the email notifications (because my email replies bounce), so I have to connect to the MC when I need to reply (hence, the "ugly stepchild" comment).

That's why I disabled it from emailing me at all.

 

The only time I look at the message centre is when someone logs one of my Earthcaches. If I don't get a proper email, I'll look to see if they used the message centre to send me their answers. I rarely respond from there because I don't want to encourage it.

I keep the notifications on because I want to get notifications from people sending me answers for my EarthCache. Most of the time, the answers are all fine and I don't need to do anything else.

 

When the answers aren't all correct, I go to the user's profile page and reply via email. It's easier to do that than to reply via the MC, plus it encourages them to contact me via email rather than via the MC. But sometimes they reply back to me via the MC anyway. You can't win them all.

[+J Grouchy]

Somehow this has turned into another gripe session about the message center's functionality as opposed to the etiquette involved in using it. I get it, you're all so awesome that you will not deign to use it (although plenty of us actually DO use it and find it, at times, to be far more useful than email...but whatever). Perhaps, though, that actually has nothing to do with the content and (implied) tone of the messages sent through it?

[+MartyBartfast]

Somehow this has turned into another gripe session about the message center's functionality as opposed to the etiquette involved in using it. I get it, you're all so awesome that you will not deign to use it (although plenty of us actually DO use it and find it, at times, to be far more useful than email...but whatever). Perhaps, though, that actually has nothing to do with the content and (implied) tone of the messages sent through it?

 

Well as we've taken this diversion I will say that I was one of those who was (mildly) opposed to the message centre and thought I'd stick with Email, but the more I've used it the more I've realised it's rather quite good and I quite like it now

Edited June 7, 2016 by MartyBartfast

[+hzoi]

My two cents based on the log in question:

 

Spent 15 minutes searching in vain before realizing that this was disabled a day after I'd loaded it into my GPSr. From the logs it appears that this wasn't rated correctly either for size or difficulty so I may not bother returning.

 

Perhaps the second sentence could have been part of a private message or email to the cache owner and not left in the log, but I'll admit that I have left DNF finds that were as blunt. Sometimes the response is emotional. I guess I'm just not as sensitive to such things as others.

 

But I don't find the PM to you that rude. It was a private message from someone that took umbrage with your log -- possibly a friend of the cache owner's who is sticking up for them. They could just as easily have posted a note to the cache page and called you out, and I'd consider that rude.

 

You've blocked them from messaging you further. I think at this point, just move on.

[+L0ne.R]

My two cents based on the log in question:

 

Spent 15 minutes searching in vain before realizing that this was disabled a day after I'd loaded it into my GPSr. From the logs it appears that this wasn't rated correctly either for size or difficulty so I may not bother returning.

 

Perhaps the second sentence could have been part of a private message or email to the cache owner and not left in the log, but I'll admit that I have left DNF finds that were as blunt. Sometimes the response is emotional. I guess I'm just not as sensitive to such things as others.

 

 

As a finder I'd be grateful for the 2nd sentence. If I'm looking for a small I want to find a 100ml-1L cache, not a micro. I'd also like to know the correct difficulty level. That sentence made me look into the cache logs in more detail. If I was in the area I'd be grateful for the heads up and skip this owner's caches.

 

Both of the CO's hides are listed as small and finders have remarked that it's a micro not a small. The other small cache is described by a finder as "a micro and not a very big micro at that". He hasn't changed the cache size on either cache.

And he rated this cache a D1 yet most people are writing that it was "tricky"' "not a slam dunk" "looked around a bit decided to check another spot and there it was", "Eventually I stepped back and spotted a possible spot which turned out to be the correct one."

[+dprovan]

Perhaps the second sentence could have been part of a private message or email to the cache owner and not left in the log, but I'll admit that I have left DNF finds that were as blunt. Sometimes the response is emotional. I guess I'm just not as sensitive to such things as others.

As a finder I'd be grateful for the 2nd sentence. If I'm looking for a small I want to find a 100ml-1L cache, not a micro. I'd also like to know the correct difficulty level. That sentence made me look into the cache logs in more detail. If I was in the area I'd be grateful for the heads up and skip this owner's caches.

Yes, I agree, I think in the DNF log was the appropriate place to make these comments, and I'd also appreciate them if I were looking at the cache. In addition to these points, let's remember that the CO has already seen the comments reiterated in the DNF, so sending them privately is kinda redundant.