Logs

[+3generationgirls]

Why would an owner of a cache delete a log? I had one deleted and wasn't told why.

[+NanCycle]

Why would an owner of a cache delete a log? I had one deleted and wasn't told why.

 

A couple of the more frequent reasons are that you included a spoiler in the log or that you posted duplicate logs. If you posted a spoiler, you can relog without it.

[+narcissa]

Any number of reasons. What cache was it?

[+kunarion]

Why would an owner of a cache delete a log? I had one deleted and wasn't told why.

I've deleted logs when there are two or more identical in a row. If they each have different text, I'd hope the cacher would decide. But they never do. I send a note via the Message Center (which tends to be broken lately, but it at least uses both email and a permanently saved online message), wait a while, then delete duplicate logs. If I feel like it.

 

If there are spoilers posted in the logs (photos or text), the CO may opt to delete the log. And it could be accidental, trying to delete a photo, and deleting the whole shebang by mistake. So those are possibilities. If your Found log remains on that cache, there was a duplicate log.

 

You can log it again. If it's in fact a find with no spoilers, yet it still gets deleted and you wish to keep the log there, you can ask on the Geocaching.com Help Center "Email Us" form for help.

Edited August 30, 2016 by kunarion

[+3generationgirls]

Any number of reasons. What cache was it?

 

Keep It Kool and Klean (Country Wild #74)

 

All I logged was.. TFTC! I don't believe I had a pic on it. I'll relog and see what happens.

[+TriciaG]

Did you sign the log? Perhaps they did a maintenance run and didn't see your name on the physical log, so they deleted it. *shrug*

[+Touchstone]

Aside from my EC's, in which I didn't receive answers to the Logging Requirements, I've only deleted logs that violated the Terms of Use of the site. Usually involving 4 letter words.

 

Spoilers are another common situation I see for log deletions, but not something I personally worry about with my Listings.

 

Lastly, some people are just thin skinned.

 

I would recommend attempting to submit a very generic log entry. Some times these fights just aren't worth the time and energy, particularly when one or both sides have a point to make.

[+kunarion]

Any number of reasons. What cache was it?

 

Keep It Kool and Klean (Country Wild #74)

 

All I logged was.. TFTC! I don't believe I had a pic on it. I'll relog and see what happens.

Maybe it was just a leetle glitch.

[Pup Patrol]

Any number of reasons. What cache was it?

 

Keep It Kool and Klean (Country Wild #74)

 

All I logged was.. TFTC! I don't believe I had a pic on it. I'll relog and see what happens.

 

https://coord.info/GC5WZV0

 

The automated thingy that the cache owner uses to delete logs does not provide the CO with the opportunity to leave a reason for the deletion.

 

Did you receive an email telling you that your log was deleted? This email would have come from Groundspeak.

 

Help Center → Hiding a Geocache → Geocache Ownership: A Long-Term Relationship

4.12. Log Deletion

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=204

 

Logs can be deleted by the owner of the log, by the owner of the listing (the geocache owner) and by site administrators. Logs that fail to meet stated requirements (such as Found It logs by people who have never found the geocache) or logs that conflict with our Terms of Use Agreement may be deleted.

 

When a log is deleted, the owner of the log receives an email that generally looks like this:

 

Subject: Your log has been deleted

Your log for Name of Cache has been deleted by Username.

 

View this log (log is a link to the deleted log)

Visit Username's profile (Username is a link to the profile of the person who deleted the log)

 

Did you log it using an app? Are you sure the log was sent?

 

Did you see your log on the cache page?

 

B.

[+Touchstone]

Sounds like the cache owner has an agenda...

 

If your log has been deleted it is because of one of the following reasons: 1) They are duplicate logs 2) Your name was not on the log sheet 3) Your Digital log was blank or you just wrote tftc/tftf/:)/ Found it (or another acronyms or emojis but not actually writing a sentence) 4) Your Name or log was derogatory or didn't follow geocaching guidelines, 5) There were Logging requirements you failed to fulfill.

 

Specifically #3. The others are generally considered valid reasons to delete a log entry.

[+cerberus1]

Sounds like the cache owner has an agenda...

 

If your log has been deleted it is because of one of the following reasons: 1) They are duplicate logs 2) Your name was not on the log sheet 3) Your Digital log was blank or you just wrote tftc/tftf/:)/ Found it (or another acronyms or emojis but not actually writing a sentence) 4) Your Name or log was derogatory or didn't follow geocaching guidelines, 5) There were Logging requirements you failed to fulfill.

 

Specifically #3. The others are generally considered valid reasons to delete a log entry.

+1

On their profile, for those looking...

Odd that "Sweet" is considered a "complete sentence".

 

I don't tftc, but if I did and logged as you, I'd say something at the Help Center, to the effect that the CO has Additional Logging Requirements ( that it's hidden in their profile), and I'd like my smiley back thanks.

[Pup Patrol]

Sounds like the cache owner has an agenda...

 

If your log has been deleted it is because of one of the following reasons: 1) They are duplicate logs 2) Your name was not on the log sheet 3) Your Digital log was blank or you just wrote tftc/tftf/:)/ Found it (or another acronyms or emojis but not actually writing a sentence) 4) Your Name or log was derogatory or didn't follow geocaching guidelines, 5) There were Logging requirements you failed to fulfill.

 

Specifically #3. The others are generally considered valid reasons to delete a log entry.

 

Oh, my, sounds like a CO that needs schooling.

 

Definitely worth an appeal to Groundspeak to have your log reinstated.

 

Maybe GS will take the initiative to contact the CO and tell them that hiding ALR's on their profile is not a nice way to play the game.

 

B.

[+T.D.M.22]

It's clear now why the log was deleted. And some (or most) of us have wanted to do the same thing for the same, except reason. Yes, it's against the rules to do so, but we all understand the reason why it was done.

 

To the OP essentially your log was deleted because you couldn't care enough to actually think of something to write. The owner take time to pace and maintain a cache, possibly even small amount of money for the cache, and you don't even write out full words. The owners (probabke) thinking is that if the cache was so bad it doesn't deserve actual words then you won't really care about the find.

[+cerberus1]

It's clear now why the log was deleted. And some (or most) of us have wanted to do the same thing for the same, except reason. Yes, it's against the rules to do so, but we all understand the reason why it was done.

 

To the OP essentially your log was deleted because you couldn't care enough to actually think of something to write. The owner take time to pace and maintain a cache, possibly even small amount of money for the cache, and you don't even write out full words. The owners (probabke) thinking is that if the cache was so bad it doesn't deserve actual words then you won't really care about the find.

Yet one, "Tftc sl" stays.

Guess, "sl" makes it complete ?

[+kunarion]

It's clear now why the log was deleted. And some (or most) of us have wanted to do the same thing for the same, except reason. Yes, it's against the rules to do so, but we all understand the reason why it was done.

 

To the OP essentially your log was deleted because you couldn't care enough to actually think of something to write. The owner take time to pace and maintain a cache, possibly even small amount of money for the cache, and you don't even write out full words. The owners (probabke) thinking is that if the cache was so bad it doesn't deserve actual words then you won't really care about the find.

Ah. A high-maintenance Cache Owner?

 

The OP is in no way writing a flowery dissertation, but the logs I saw on other caches seemed fine. If I were using a phone App (I guess this is the case for the OP?), one short sentence would be all I could stand to type. To compose a cache log, I need a keyboard and mouse, and usually more windows open (cache page, photoshop, Word, a map, TB page, other stuff). Anyway, per Geocaching.com, there's no lower limit on a log length. The log can be reinstated.

Edited August 30, 2016 by kunarion

[+Touchstone]

Perhaps the amazing view of the water tower wasn't enough to elicit a prosaic log entry from the OP

 

Some other questionable stuff on the CO's Profile regarding non owner cache maintenance, but in general, props for the responsive maintenance runs on a number of their Listings. I'll chalk it up to over-zealousness. They appear to take cache ownership pretty seriously, which is a bit of a rarity.

[+narcissa]

Perhaps the amazing view of the water tower wasn't enough to elicit a prosaic log entry from the OP

 

Some other questionable stuff on the CO's Profile regarding non owner cache maintenance, but in general, props for the responsive maintenance runs on a number of their Listings. I'll chalk it up to over-zealousness. They appear to take cache ownership pretty seriously, which is a bit of a rarity.

 

I can definitely sympathize with the impulse to delete a log with nothing in it. I understand why the game operates the way it does, but it's understandable that cache owners occasionally feel a bit used when someone has nothing to say about a cache.

 

It's kind of interesting that a geocacher who couldn't be bothered to write more than "TFTC" was bothered enough by the deletion to start a forum topic about it. I think newer cachers just don't understand that cache owners find it hurtful.

[+Touchstone]

Perhaps the amazing view of the water tower wasn't enough to elicit a prosaic log entry from the OP

 

Some other questionable stuff on the CO's Profile regarding non owner cache maintenance, but in general, props for the responsive maintenance runs on a number of their Listings. I'll chalk it up to over-zealousness. They appear to take cache ownership pretty seriously, which is a bit of a rarity.

 

I can definitely sympathize with the impulse to delete a log with nothing in it. I understand why the game operates the way it does, but it's understandable that cache owners occasionally feel a bit used when someone has nothing to say about a cache.

 

It's kind of interesting that a geocacher who couldn't be bothered to write more than "TFTC" was bothered enough by the deletion to start a forum topic about it. I think newer cachers just don't understand that cache owners find it hurtful.

On the bright side, the OP has probably doubled their word count on the website as a result

[+Manville Possum]

Any number of reasons. What cache was it?

 

Keep It Kool and Klean (Country Wild #74)

 

All I logged was.. TFTC! I don't believe I had a pic on it. I'll relog and see what happens.

 

You are not sure if you posted a spoiler picture or not? Did you contact the cache owner and ask why your log was deleted?

 

As a cache owner I seldom delete any logs, but it happens.

[+J Grouchy]

This brings up - once again - the desire for the ability to add a "reason for deletion" field when a CO chooses to delete a log. It seems like adding a reason should even be a requirement before allowing the deletion. It would sure reduce the quantity of 'hard feelings'. Sometimes I just like to delete duplicate logs, but writing a whole separate email to explain that is something many people do not do.

[+MKFmly]

It's kind of interesting that a geocacher who couldn't be bothered to write more than "TFTC" was bothered enough by the deletion to start a forum topic about it. I think newer cachers just don't understand that cache owners find it hurtful.

It's also interesting (from the alternate perspective) that it would be nice if more caches "inspired" more than a "TFTC" log.

 

I enjoy well written logs as well as most cache owners, but if those type of logs don't come it's not necessarily the fault of the finder (Which is often the assumption in the forums). Just saying...

 

As a cache owner I don't find

"Wow what a beautiful location! Thank you so much for bringing me to such a serene part of Arkansas!"

or

"Easy find thank you for adding to my adventure today! This also closes another county in Arkansas for me"

 

much improved over TFTC...

 

(that's not to suggest say they don't write other better logs)

Edited August 30, 2016 by MKFmly

[+narcissa]

It's kind of interesting that a geocacher who couldn't be bothered to write more than "TFTC" was bothered enough by the deletion to start a forum topic about it. I think newer cachers just don't understand that cache owners find it hurtful.

It's also interesting (from the alternate perspective) that it would be nice if more caches "inspired" more than a "TFTC" log.

 

I enjoy well written logs as well as most cache owners, but if those type of logs don't come it's not necessarily the fault of the finder (Which is often the assumption in the forums). Just saying...

 

As a cache owner I don't find

"Wow what a beautiful location! Thank you so much for bringing me to such a serene part of Arkansas!"

or

"Easy find thank you for adding to my adventure today! This also closes another county in Arkansas for me"

 

much improved over TFTC...

 

(that's not to suggest say they don't write other better logs)

 

Yes, I see what you are saying, but to my thinking, if a geocache makes it into my GPS and I make a decision to go find it, then I am at least partly to blame if the cache disappoints me.

 

If the cache is merely boring, then I'll write a pretty boring log (but not TFTC because my stat thing tracks word count ). If there is something unexpectedly disappointing or bad about the cache, then it's probably worth mentioning in the log as well, if not for the benefit of the cache owner, then for the benefit of other geocachers. I recently decided to give up on a cache because a previous logger had the common decency to mention how they were disgusted by a rat trap and the stench of the dumpster the cache was hidden behind. I'm sure the cache owner would rather hear "TFTC" than a scathing indictment of their terrible cache, but as a fellow finder I appreciated the additional information.

 

To be clear, I don't think there needs to be anything silly like a minimum word count and I don't think cache owners should get away with unwarranted log deletion.

[+dprovan]

Yes, I see what you are saying, but to my thinking, if a geocache makes it into my GPS and I make a decision to go find it, then I am at least partly to blame if the cache disappoints me.

I don't know why we'd want to, but if we accept this CO's attitude that "tftc" is a statement about the cache, then if the cache disappoints you, "tftc" would be a valid expression of that fact. Who is to blame for the cache disappointing you is irrelevant to whether the log should say that the cache did, in fact, disappoint you.

 

To be clear, I don't think there needs to be anything silly like a minimum word count and I don't think cache owners should get away with unwarranted log deletion.

Yep, got it. We're debating whether the CO's attitude is valid, but we agree he shouldn't act on it even if it is.

[+narcissa]

Yes, I see what you are saying, but to my thinking, if a geocache makes it into my GPS and I make a decision to go find it, then I am at least partly to blame if the cache disappoints me.

I don't know why we'd want to, but if we accept this CO's attitude that "tftc" is a statement about the cache, then if the cache disappoints you, "tftc" would be a valid expression of that fact. Who is to blame for the cache disappointing you is irrelevant to whether the log should say that the cache did, in fact, disappoint you.

 

To be clear, I don't think there needs to be anything silly like a minimum word count and I don't think cache owners should get away with unwarranted log deletion.

Yep, got it. We're debating whether the CO's attitude is valid, but we agree he shouldn't act on it even if it is.

 

I think most of those logs are by hapless geocachers who just don't realize how badly it's perceived. For their part, cache owners should try to recognize this and moderate their own reactions to this unfortunately common log note.

 

If a cache is actually disappointing, a disdainful "tftc" can't be differentiated from any other "tftc." It's just a passive aggressive falsehood ("thanks for the cache"). It isn't productive for the cache owner and it isn't helpful to the next cacher; regardless of intent, this is the real shortcoming when people log this way.

 

Again, not to say it shouldn't be permitted, just that it is far from best practice when used for any reason and it is reasonable to be disappointed by it.

[+3generationgirls]

Perhaps the amazing view of the water tower wasn't enough to elicit a prosaic log entry from the OP

 

Some other questionable stuff on the CO's Profile regarding non owner cache maintenance, but in general, props for the responsive maintenance runs on a number of their Listings. I'll chalk it up to over-zealousness. They appear to take cache ownership pretty seriously, which is a bit of a rarity.

 

I can definitely sympathize with the impulse to delete a log with nothing in it. I understand why the game operates the way it does, but it's understandable that cache owners occasionally feel a bit used when someone has nothing to say about a cache.

 

It's kind of interesting that a geocacher who couldn't be bothered to write more than "TFTC" was bothered enough by the deletion to start a forum topic about it. I think newer cachers just don't understand that cache owners find it hurtful.

You are right. I did not realize that TFTC was insulting. Just what my daughter likes to put when using the app on her phone. I apologize and will definitely not make the mistake again.

[+WarNinjas]

Perhaps the amazing view of the water tower wasn't enough to elicit a prosaic log entry from the OP

 

Some other questionable stuff on the CO's Profile regarding non owner cache maintenance, but in general, props for the responsive maintenance runs on a number of their Listings. I'll chalk it up to over-zealousness. They appear to take cache ownership pretty seriously, which is a bit of a rarity.

 

I can definitely sympathize with the impulse to delete a log with nothing in it. I understand why the game operates the way it does, but it's understandable that cache owners occasionally feel a bit used when someone has nothing to say about a cache.

 

It's kind of interesting that a geocacher who couldn't be bothered to write more than "TFTC" was bothered enough by the deletion to start a forum topic about it. I think newer cachers just don't understand that cache owners find it hurtful.

You are right. I did not realize that TFTC was insulting. Just what my daughter likes to put when using the app on her phone. I apologize and will definitely not make the mistake again.

The CO still shouldn't have deleted your log for that. I know as a CO it is disappointing but it is not a reason to delete the log if you signed the log sheet.

[+kunarion]

I did not realize that TFTC was insulting. Just what my daughter likes to put when using the app on her phone. I apologize and will definitely not make the mistake again.

I'm glad that Cache Owners didn't delete my Finds when I started caching. Other logs were just "TFTC", there's no expectation detailed in the cache descriptions, and I only found out that people prefer more than "TFTC", by reading this Forum. Your logs (the OP's) are very nice, the ones I saw were not just "TFTC" anyway.

 

Once I found out what COs prefer, I returned to my previous cache logs and added a little more of a story of what I remembered about the cache. And sometimes I make it even more creative.

 

https://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=af746958-d4ae-4562-8d51-e567c37a0015

 

For a cache with a palindrome theme: https://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=71c23838-2a89-411f-b37e-962dabc927aa

[+dprovan]

I think most of those logs are by hapless geocachers who just don't realize how badly it's perceived.

Exactly: the perception is wrong, so we shouldn't put up with people that perceive TFTCs badly (or support their perception as a reasonable point of view).

 

If a cache is actually disappointing, a disdainful "tftc" can't be differentiated from any other "tftc."

Right again. So there's no earthly reason to assume a TFTC is disdainful. If you assume it isn't distainful, you aren't insulted regardless of whether you're right or wrong about whether the goal is to be insulting.

[+Twinklekitkat]

Once I found out what COs prefer, I returned to my previous cache logs and added a little more of a story of what I remembered about the cache. And sometimes I make it even more creative.

 

https://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=af746958-d4ae-4562-8d51-e567c37a0015

 

That is cute!

 

I hope the CO saw your new log. If not though, I'm sure anyone else reading that page got a kick out of it.

[+narcissa]

I think most of those logs are by hapless geocachers who just don't realize how badly it's perceived.

Exactly: the perception is wrong, so we shouldn't put up with people that perceive TFTCs badly (or support their perception as a reasonable point of view).

 

If a cache is actually disappointing, a disdainful "tftc" can't be differentiated from any other "tftc."

Right again. So there's no earthly reason to assume a TFTC is disdainful. If you assume it isn't distainful, you aren't insulted regardless of whether you're right or wrong about whether the goal is to be insulting.

 

And there's no earthly reason to express disappointment by writing a generic log that can't possibly convey anything meaningful either way. It's a little silly to tell people that "tftc" is an appropriate way to convey disappointment, while at the same time telling cache owners it doesn't mean anything.

[+cerberus1]

We'll watch my nephews text "complete sentences" that contain maybe five letters.

I'd bet the same kid who's won the spelling bee every year doesn't own a phone.

 

I prefer not to log tftc myself, but then I don't text either, and use complete sentences in email.

Sometimes feel guilty to write "IIRC", "AFAIK", etc (to save time) here in the forums.

Slow, but changing I guess...

 

- So I'd think it rare that it'd mean anything other than "thanks for the cache" when others log it.

[+Mudfrog]

I think most of those logs are by hapless geocachers who just don't realize how badly it's perceived.

Exactly: the perception is wrong, so we shouldn't put up with people that perceive TFTCs badly (or support their perception as a reasonable point of view).

 

If a cache is actually disappointing, a disdainful "tftc" can't be differentiated from any other "tftc."

Right again. So there's no earthly reason to assume a TFTC is disdainful. If you assume it isn't distainful, you aren't insulted regardless of whether you're right or wrong about whether the goal is to be insulting.

 

And there's no earthly reason to express disappointment by writing a generic log that can't possibly convey anything meaningful either way. It's a little silly to tell people that "tftc" is an appropriate way to convey disappointment, while at the same time telling cache owners it doesn't mean anything.

If the caching community knows a person's logging style, then yes, they can get a good idea of when that person did or didn't enjoy a cache. For instance, if you know me, you'll know if i've had fun or not with a cache by the number of words in my log. I can't remember ever logging a tftc but there have been times when something like, "found it, thanks" was used. In other words, the cache wasn't my favorite.

 

Before cellphones became the mainstay, it was a bit easier to tell by the log if a person enjoyed a cache or not. Most cachers were logging at home which therefore made it easier to log more than just a word or two or a few initials. Chances back then were that a short log may have indicated a cache was a stinker. Cache owners back then knew this. But like you say, with all the phones and all the non-guidance these days, there's no way to really tell.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Mudfrog

[Pup Patrol]

- So I'd think it rare that it'd mean anything other than "thanks for the cache" when others log it.

 

Exactly.

 

Conveying emotion onto a few letters is silly. It's what happens in forums when people read stuff into some text that just doesn't exist, except in their own minds.

 

TFTC is not a critique.

 

And it's a heck of a lot text than the "found it" logs that only contained "." or the user's name.

 

To the OP...if you haven't re-logged it already, contact Groundspeak to have your original (perfectly fine) "found it" log reinstated.

 

If the misinformed CO deletes it again, then contact Groundspeak again. They should be watching that CO, preferably contacting him/her to advise of the nonsense of deleting perfectly valid "found it" logs.

 

B.

[Pup Patrol]

Worse than "tftc":

 

--copy & paste logs for all 235 caches they found that day. All logs EXACTLY the same. ugh

 

--long logs that outline who was in the group, the travel route they took, the event they attended first, what they ate, etc. Absolutely NOTHING about the actual caches found.

 

--"needed a cache to complete a grid/challenge"

 

B.

[+narcissa]

If the caching community knows a person's logging style, then yes, they can get a good idea of when that person did or didn't enjoy a cache. For instance, if you know me, you'll know if i've had fun or not with a cache by the number of words in my log. I can't remember ever logging a tftc but there have been times when something like, "found it, thanks" was used. In other words, the cache wasn't my favorite.

 

Before cellphones became the mainstay, it was a bit easier to tell by the log if a person enjoyed a cache or not. Most cachers were logging at home which therefore made it easier to log more than just a word or two or a few initials. Chances back then were that a short log may have indicated a cache was a stinker. Cache owners back then knew this. But like you say, with all the phones and all the non-guidance these days, there's no way to really tell.

 

Yes, all bets are off when it's between geocachers who know each other well. A "tftc" from a friend would probably smart.

 

I have to admit that I have probably written "tftc" or something similarly vacuous on my husband's caches just to annoy him.

 

My logs have gotten longer over the years. I try to log within a day or two, from a computer, and some of my older logs in particular are quite brief. When the app influx happened, it made me realize that it was important to set a better example.

[+narcissa]

Worse than "tftc":

 

--copy & paste logs for all 235 caches they found that day. All logs EXACTLY the same. ugh

 

--long logs that outline who was in the group, the travel route they took, the event they attended first, what they ate, etc. Absolutely NOTHING about the actual caches found.

 

--"needed a cache to complete a grid/challenge"

 

B.

 

This reminds of something I noticed on the weekend that really irked me.

[+dprovan]

And there's no earthly reason to express disappointment by writing a generic log that can't possibly convey anything meaningful either way.

Agreed! Now let's assume we've successfully gotten the word out to every single geocacher so no one from now on will never be expressing disappointment when they log a simple TFTC. It costs you nothing to believe that.

[+dprovan]

Worse than "tftc":

 

--copy & paste logs for all 235 caches they found that day. All logs EXACTLY the same. ugh

 

--long logs that outline who was in the group, the travel route they took, the event they attended first, what they ate, etc. Absolutely NOTHING about the actual caches found.

 

--"needed a cache to complete a grid/challenge"

Yes, it makes me wonder why people bother worrying about "TFTC" when these things are more common and have a more real impact.

 

The OP was asking about deleted logs. Would anyone that understands (while not condoning, of course) the deletion of TFTC logs have similar understanding about the deletion of this kind of longer but equally vacuous logs?

[+narcissa]

And there's no earthly reason to express disappointment by writing a generic log that can't possibly convey anything meaningful either way.

Agreed! Now let's assume we've successfully gotten the word out to every single geocacher so no one from now on will never be expressing disappointment when they log a simple TFTC. It costs you nothing to believe that.

 

I don't really know why this is directed at me as I'm not personally inclined to worry too much about logs on my own caches. In fact, I've taken a lot of pretty awful forum flack in the past for telling other cache owners to stop being so offended because they haven't been thanked in enough words.

 

Ultimately, the person who writes "tftc" is just short-changing themselves. I know this from experience, because when I read my older, shorter logs I really wish I had written more about my experience at those caches.

[+hzoi]

The only time I've ever logged "TFTC" on a cache was for a cache that required it. But that's not grounds for deleting a log.

 

To the 3generationgirls, glad you asked the question so you could see things from a cache owner's end. Good logs are often the only payback a person ever gets from hiding a cache. Give them their money's worth.

[+JustFindingOurWay]

With all this discussion of TFTC (and as a CO I'm NOT a fan!) no one seemed to noticed the log entry on 5/21/2016 (https://coord.info/GLP43607)? Unless I'm missing something, it looks to me like the original poster had already logged this cache once.

[+3generationgirls]

With all this discussion of TFTC (and as a CO I'm NOT a fan!) no one seemed to noticed the log entry on 5/21/2016 (https://coord.info/GLP43607)? Unless I'm missing something, it looks to me like the original poster had already logged this cache once.

This was actually my reblogged post I did after it was suggested I do so. I have had three more deleted today with no notification so I'm giving up. lol Thank you all for your responses.

[+TriciaG]

With all this discussion of TFTC (and as a CO I'm NOT a fan!) no one seemed to noticed the log entry on 5/21/2016 (https://coord.info/GLP43607)? Unless I'm missing something, it looks to me like the original poster had already logged this cache once.

This was actually my reblogged post I did after it was suggested I do so. I have had three more deleted today with no notification so I'm giving up. lol Thank you all for your responses.

3 more on the same cache, or on different caches?

 

Either way, that CO is being a royal pain, and is in the wrong.

[+3generationgirls]

With all this discussion of TFTC (and as a CO I'm NOT a fan!) no one seemed to noticed the log entry on 5/21/2016 (https://coord.info/GLP43607)? Unless I'm missing something, it looks to me like the original poster had already logged this cache once.

This was actually my reblogged post I did after it was suggested I do so. I have had three more deleted today with no notification so I'm giving up. lol Thank you all for your responses.

3 more on the same cache, or on different caches?

 

Either way, that CO is being a royal pain, and is in the wrong.

The one I relogged is still there. Three new ones on different caches are gone. Not sure which ones as we use my daughters phone to log and don't keep a separate paper log which I'm learning now that I should.

[+narcissa]

With all this discussion of TFTC (and as a CO I'm NOT a fan!) no one seemed to noticed the log entry on 5/21/2016 (https://coord.info/GLP43607)? Unless I'm missing something, it looks to me like the original poster had already logged this cache once.

This was actually my reblogged post I did after it was suggested I do so. I have had three more deleted today with no notification so I'm giving up. lol Thank you all for your responses.

 

Use the Help Centre to appeal. The cache owner has no standing to delete your log.

[Keystone]

With all this discussion of TFTC (and as a CO I'm NOT a fan!) no one seemed to noticed the log entry on 5/21/2016 (https://coord.info/GLP43607)? Unless I'm missing something, it looks to me like the original poster had already logged this cache once.

This was actually my reblogged post I did after it was suggested I do so. I have had three more deleted today with no notification so I'm giving up. lol Thank you all for your responses.

3 more on the same cache, or on different caches?

 

Either way, that CO is being a royal pain, and is in the wrong.

The one I relogged is still there. Three new ones on different caches are gone. Not sure which ones as we use my daughters phone to log and don't keep a separate paper log which I'm learning now that I should.

I'm assuming that the "three new ones" represent recent log deletions -- that is, you thought your find count was 50 caches, but now it's 47.

 

I took advantage of the latency at Project-GC.com, where your statistics are only current as of August 8th. As of that date, Project-GC indicated that you had logged a cache four times, so that you had 50 logs on 47 unique caches. Studying the cache you logged four times, I do see that three logs have been deleted. Your Geocaching.com profile page (which is current as of today, not August 8th) shows 47 finds. Hopefully this explains your mystery.

[+3generationgirls]

With all this discussion of TFTC (and as a CO I'm NOT a fan!) no one seemed to noticed the log entry on 5/21/2016 (https://coord.info/GLP43607)? Unless I'm missing something, it looks to me like the original poster had already logged this cache once.

This was actually my reblogged post I did after it was suggested I do so. I have had three more deleted today with no notification so I'm giving up. lol Thank you all for your responses.

3 more on the same cache, or on different caches?

 

Either way, that CO is being a royal pain, and is in the wrong.

The one I relogged is still there. Three new ones on different caches are gone. Not sure which ones as we use my daughters phone to log and don't keep a separate paper log which I'm learning now that I should.

I'm assuming that the "three new ones" represent recent log deletions -- that is, you thought your find count was 50 caches, but now it's 47.

 

I took advantage of the latency at Project-GC.com, where your statistics are only current as of August 8th. As of that date, Project-GC indicated that you had logged a cache four times, so that you had 50 logs on 47 unique caches. Studying the cache you logged four times, I do see that three logs have been deleted. Your Geocaching.com profile page (which is current as of today, not August 8th) shows 47 finds. Hopefully this explains your mystery.

Thank you! I understand now.

[+dprovan]

I don't really know why this is directed at me as I'm not personally inclined to worry too much about logs on my own caches.

I'm directing this comment to you because you posted this:

 

I can definitely sympathize with the impulse to delete a log with nothing in it. I understand why the game operates the way it does, but it's understandable that cache owners occasionally feel a bit used when someone has nothing to say about a cache.

I'm encouraging you to not sympathize and not feel used for the reasons you yourself have been giving.

[+narcissa]

I don't really know why this is directed at me as I'm not personally inclined to worry too much about logs on my own caches.

I'm directing this comment to you because you posted this:

 

I can definitely sympathize with the impulse to delete a log with nothing in it. I understand why the game operates the way it does, but it's understandable that cache owners occasionally feel a bit used when someone has nothing to say about a cache.

I'm encouraging you to not sympathize and not feel used for the reasons you yourself have been giving.

 

I said I sympathize with the feelings that other geocachers have. I also sympathize with cachers who feel irritated when a log is unjustly deleted. This game is supposed to be fun and there is good reason to feel sympathetic when someone is feeling bad about an interaction they've had.

 

In my view the real solution lies between the two parties. Log better when you know better, but be forgiving of those who are still learning.

 

Having human feelings toward other geocachers makes it much easier to be forgiving about things like deleted logs and hostile forum behaviour.

 

TFTC on my own caches doesn't bother me too much, at least not in this way. I am happy when someone finds one of my caches even if they don't use many words to thank me. TFTC means "thanks for the cache" so I am being thanked, at least. I am often the only voice telling other cache owners not to feel used, and getting attacked for that, so it's funny to be accused of the opposite.

 

My main concern about tftc is that it doesn't tell me or other geocachers anything about the condition of the cache. But not everyone is the same, and I can certainly understand why some cachers feel a little slighted by it. I wish they would moderate their response to that (i.e. not go around deleting logs) and I think most do.

Edited September 1, 2016 by narcissa

[+coachstahly]

I love the great logs, when I get them, but really don't care if I receive a TFTC or some other few word log entry. Sometimes they don't know better, sometimes they have nothing to say, and sometimes it is all they want to say. I never take logs like that personally on my caches. There are so many other important things outside of geocaching. Getting upset over a log like that isn't going to allow me to enjoy what geocaching allows me to do, which is to escape from those other important things, if only for a little while.