Jump to content

deleting logs


bones1
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

What do folks think about taking away the allowance for cache owners to be able to delete a log? as when you leave feedback on an ebay purchase it has to stand and cannot be deleted. just like a log you have written against a cache find should stand,i have just had a log deleted from last february,i just did not think this could happen, it is all sorted now as it was not my log that the owner wanted to delete,but after all that amount of time? it meant i had to renumber 1179 caches as i keep the front page printed out for all my cache finds with dates times and notes etc,the possible deletion could have caused me hours of work,especially as i had found the cache. a great caching merry christmas to you all. jeff=bones1.

Link to comment

Not in favour.....

I've deleted a few logs, a couple due to bad language (my son reads our logs) and one when the finder claimed he found the cache a month before we hid it. What else are we supposed to do? Ask a Lackey to delete it? I think they have enough to do. If a finder feels hard done by from a deletion, they can approach a Lackey to restore their log. My opinion.....

Link to comment

Against the idea.

 

You have a tricky Mystery or Multi cache, and someone gives an out-and-out spoiler as to where the cache is/how it's hidden...

 

How many other cachers are going to see the log, if you can't delete it?

How long to contact GS and get them to delete it?

 

At least if you can delete it, it can go as soon as you are aware it's a spoiler log.

Link to comment

Also, there's another option here since the CO apparently deleted the OP's log in error.

 

Repost the log using the original found date. That should preserve the numbering. Also it's less effort than the appeal, which can be used when the CO deletes the log because it's not favorable but true.

Link to comment

I agree with wmpastor - re-logging is easiest if the CO acknowledged their mistake.

 

For more about dealing with logging disputes, see the Help Center Articles on log deletion and Geocacher Disagreements.

 

As a Reviewer, I can see logs that have been deleted from cache listings. If the ability to delete were taken away, there would be a LOT more bad logs cluttering up cache listing. In general, geocachers do a good job cleaning up mistakes and bogus logs. The appeals system is there for the minority of cases where hider and finder are unable to resolve the matter between themselves.

Link to comment

I think that taking away the ability to delete logs would be fine within a time frame. Perhaps 1 month would be too short, but what about logs are set after 3 months? Certainly logs should be set after a year. Currently, everyone lives with the knowledge that there's nothing to stop someone deleting their first cache find 5 years ago, if they so desire.

 

On second thought--that wouldn't work. You'd have jokers logging caches 5 years after the fact just for fun...

 

Maybe the system is fine as-is. Fixes only bring new troubles in cases like this.

Edited by Dame Deco
Link to comment

Not in favour.....

I've deleted a few logs, a couple due to bad language (my son reads our logs) and one when the finder claimed he found the cache a month before we hid it. What else are we supposed to do? Ask a Lackey to delete it? I think they have enough to do. If a finder feels hard done by from a deletion, they can approach a Lackey to restore their log. My opinion.....

 

Against the idea.

 

You have a tricky Mystery or Multi cache, and someone gives an out-and-out spoiler as to where the cache is/how it's hidden...

 

How many other cachers are going to see the log, if you can't delete it?

How long to contact GS and get them to delete it?

 

At least if you can delete it, it can go as soon as you are aware it's a spoiler log.

 

I agree with wmpastor - re-logging is easiest if the CO acknowledged their mistake.

 

For more about dealing with logging disputes, see the Help Center Articles on log deletion and Geocacher Disagreements.

 

As a Reviewer, I can see logs that have been deleted from cache listings. If the ability to delete were taken away, there would be a LOT more bad logs cluttering up cache listing. In general, geocachers do a good job cleaning up mistakes and bogus logs. The appeals system is there for the minority of cases where hider and finder are unable to resolve the matter between themselves.

 

I'm 100% opposed to the idea, for all the reasons mentioned above.

Link to comment

I think that taking away the ability to delete logs would be fine within a time frame. Perhaps 1 month would be too short, but what about logs are set after 3 months? Certainly logs should be set after a year. Currently, everyone lives with the knowledge that there's nothing to stop someone deleting their first cache find 5 years ago, if they so desire.

 

On second thought--that wouldn't work. You'd have jokers logging caches 5 years after the fact just for fun...

 

Maybe the system is fine as-is. Fixes only bring new troubles in cases like this.

Yep.

I'm pretty sure I have a couple fake logs.

Noticed when cold set, a lengthy paddle-to's kinda outta the question to check now, and my last knee arthroscopy won't let me climb rope at least 'til Spring, when I can check both. :)

Link to comment

I'm 100% opposed to the idea, for all the reasons mentioned above.

 

I have a webcam cache. Over 25% of the logs are bogus. "My cell phone didn't work, so I'm claiming a find anyway." Delete. One cacher asked why I was deleting her finds. She logged it nine times! Her cell phone wasn't showing that the log went through. So she kept logging it.

Most of the rest of my caches, I don't pay that much attention to. I have deleted some that were obviously fake.

"Drove my truck here." Trucks not permitted, and the area was closed due to the major snowfall.

Another cacher who logged all the drive-bys. My two caches are only two miles apart, but probably close to two hours driving. Wow! No signature on either cache! Didn't surprise me. No one had ever logged bothon the same day.

So, I agree. We need the ability to delete bogus cache finds.

Link to comment

I recently deleted 4 logs on a multi I own. The same person logged the cache 5 times, apparently thinking they should log once per stage. They never even asked why their logs were deleted.

 

I own several Earthcaches and have deleted logs several times for failure to submit answers. I give them a few days then a reminder message, but usually never hear anything from them.

 

One guy logged again after deletion. I sent an explanatory message, gave a few days, deleted again. He logged again, still no message. He gave up after his log was deleted for the third time. Never responded to my messages explaining the deletion, much less submitted answers.

Link to comment

What do folks think about taking away the allowance for cache owners to be able to delete a log? as when you leave feedback on an ebay purchase it has to stand and cannot be deleted. just like a log you have written against a cache find should stand,i have just had a log deleted from last february,i just did not think this could happen, it is all sorted now as it was not my log that the owner wanted to delete,but after all that amount of time? it meant i had to renumber 1179 caches as i keep the front page printed out for all my cache finds with dates times and notes etc,the possible deletion could have caused me hours of work,especially as i had found the cache. a great caching merry christmas to you all. jeff=bones1.

 

It would be a very bad idea to take log deletion from the hands of the cache owner.

 

One would have to involve Groundspeak or a Reviewer to delete bogus logs, duplicate logs, etc. That is why Groundspeak has put the responsiblity of log deletions in the hands of the cache owners.

 

It's part of the cache owner's responsibility to maintain the listing, as well as the physical cache.

 

Guidelines:

https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

Owner is responsible for geocache listing maintenance.

 

As the owner of your cache listing, your responsibility includes quality control of all posts to the cache listing. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate.

 

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

 

It is one of your maintenance duties as the geocache owner to monitor quality control of posts to the geocache page. To this end, you have the power to delete logs.

 

B.

Link to comment

Agree with everyone that cache owner power to delete logs is needed. Removing this power would create more admin needed to delete the logs, and/or mean more "bogus" logs remaining.

 

As someone who has had a valid log deleted without explanation, I know this power can be abused. There is an excellent Help Center article which gives good advice. When you delete a log, there is an "are you sure" question. I'd like this to be enhanced to add a note like: "Please ensure that log deletion is only used for logs which are invalid or do not meet hte guidelines... see Help Center article".

Link to comment

I have an old webcam cache, requirement to log is a photo taken by the webcam must be included. Every now and then I go through and delete all the logs without photos or notations that they are in someone else’s photo from the same date. The next morning I’ll have a handful of emails from upset cachers regarding their numbers etc. One has put his log back each time.

Link to comment

I rather like the option to put a time limit on the owner's ability to delete logs. It should be based on the date that the log was written, not the date in the log.

 

For virtuals and earthcaches a week should be enough for the CO to decide the answers aren't right and a reply stating this would need to be made within that time. Then the CO could have a further 3 weeks to decide the finder isnt playing fair and delete the log. Any log still alive after 4 weeks is alive forever.

 

Where a paper log is involved, the CO should be able to delete within 3 months, or not at all.

Link to comment

I rather like the option to put a time limit on the owner's ability to delete logs. It should be based on the date that the log was written, not the date in the log.

 

For virtuals and earthcaches a week should be enough for the CO to decide the answers aren't right and a reply stating this would need to be made within that time. Then the CO could have a further 3 weeks to decide the finder isnt playing fair and delete the log. Any log still alive after 4 weeks is alive forever.

 

Where a paper log is involved, the CO should be able to delete within 3 months, or not at all.

 

Why? What problem does this solve?

Link to comment

I rather like the option to put a time limit on the owner's ability to delete logs. It should be based on the date that the log was written, not the date in the log.

 

For virtuals and earthcaches a week should be enough for the CO to decide the answers aren't right and a reply stating this would need to be made within that time. Then the CO could have a further 3 weeks to decide the finder isnt playing fair and delete the log. Any log still alive after 4 weeks is alive forever.

 

Where a paper log is involved, the CO should be able to delete within 3 months, or not at all.

 

Why? What problem does this solve?

Like the OP, and several other people I know, I number my finds sequentially. When I submit answers for an earthcache or virtual, the CO often doesn't reply. It would be good to know that my find is valid if there is no response within 1 week. It would be really annoying to find out several months down the track that my answers were wrong and I have to renumber several months worth of caches.

Edited by Gill & Tony
Link to comment

Like the OP, and several other people I know, I number my finds sequentially. When I submit answers for an earthcache or virtual, the CO often doesn't reply. It would be good to know that my find is valid if there is no response within 1 week. It would be really annoying to find out several months down the track that my answers were wrong and I have to renumber several months worth of caches.

 

If you want your caches in order, keep an offline database with them in order. Renumbering is trivial. It's what I do, and it is not difficult.

 

Geocaching.com has never made any guarantees about your cache finds for a particular day being presented in any particular order.

 

Your desire to have gc.com do all your db maintenance for you does not justify depriving cache owners of an important capability.

Link to comment

Like the OP, and several other people I know, I number my finds sequentially. When I submit answers for an earthcache or virtual, the CO often doesn't reply. It would be good to know that my find is valid if there is no response within 1 week. It would be really annoying to find out several months down the track that my answers were wrong and I have to renumber several months worth of caches.

 

If you want your caches in order, keep an offline database with them in order. Renumbering is trivial. It's what I do, and it is not difficult.

 

Geocaching.com has never made any guarantees about your cache finds for a particular day being presented in any particular order.

 

Your desire to have gc.com do all your db maintenance for you does not justify depriving cache owners of an important capability.

 

You're missing the point. I think that most agree, being able to delete bogus logs is an important part of basic owner maintenance. It's when an owner, for whatever reason, waits months to decide to do this maintenance that causes problems for some people.

 

I had this happen to me a few years back. I signed a physical log inside a cache and logged the cache as found online. Everything was hunky dory until about a year later when i got a notice that my log had been deleted. Turned out a previous "finder" took it upon himself to add his own logbook to the inside of the cache. Of course, i and other unsuspecting finders signed it thinking we had completed the cache properly. Needless to say, the deletions caused a pretty good stink for a number of people. The owner shouldn't have waited that long to check on and perform log maintenance on his cache.

 

Thankfully this kind of stuff doesn't happen too often.

 

As far as guarantees from geocaching.com go,,, maybe not. But the company does provide statistics (find count, milestones, dates, etc,,). The company does do some database keeping for us.

Edited by Mudfrog
Link to comment

I rather like the option to put a time limit on the owner's ability to delete logs. It should be based on the date that the log was written, not the date in the log.

 

For virtuals and earthcaches a week should be enough for the CO to decide the answers aren't right and a reply stating this would need to be made within that time. Then the CO could have a further 3 weeks to decide the finder isnt playing fair and delete the log. Any log still alive after 4 weeks is alive forever.

 

Where a paper log is involved, the CO should be able to delete within 3 months, or not at all.

 

Why? What problem does this solve?

Like the OP, and several other people I know, I number my finds sequentially. When I submit answers for an earthcache or virtual, the CO often doesn't reply. It would be good to know that my find is valid if there is no response within 1 week. It would be really annoying to find out several months down the track that my answers were wrong and I have to renumber several months worth of caches.

 

So Groundspeak should remove a cache owner's ability to perform basic cache page maintenance because some cachers are needlessly fussy about inconsequential numbering?

 

The severity of the solution far exceeds the seriousness of the alleged problem.

Link to comment

For virtuals and earthcaches a week should be enough for the CO to decide the answers aren't right and a reply stating this would need to be made within that time.

 

A week? No CO's who go on holiday and don't have/want internet access longer than a a week?

 

Where a paper log is involved, the CO should be able to delete within 3 months, or not at all.

 

What about hard to get to caches with seasonal access only?

 

Besides, if a cache is willfully logged in error (no answers send, no paper log) should a CO care about the fake logger's finds sequence?

 

What about CO's who don't reply to answers given for virtuals/ECs (only 1 in 3 answered my logged ECs/virtuals in New Zealand). One CO claimed 4 weeks after I logged his virtual I didn't send answers (I did and have the "copy to self" from GC to prove it).

Link to comment

I do not and never will advocate the removal of the ability of a CO to delete logs. This is a vital part of cache ownership.

 

All I am suggesting is that owners be required to respond in a timely manner when there is a problem. I always try to reply to logs on my earthcaches within 24 hours of receiving the log email. Even while I am on holiday. Even if there is no problem.

 

The actual time periods are open for discussion, but I think that cache ownership should come with a requirement to respond to problems as soon as they become apparent.

Link to comment

For virtuals and earthcaches a week should be enough for the CO to decide the answers aren't right and a reply stating this would need to be made within that time.

 

A week? No CO's who go on holiday and don't have/want internet access longer than a a week?

 

Where a paper log is involved, the CO should be able to delete within 3 months, or not at all.

 

What about hard to get to caches with seasonal access only?

 

Besides, if a cache is willfully logged in error (no answers send, no paper log) should a CO care about the fake logger's finds sequence?

 

What about CO's who don't reply to answers given for virtuals/ECs (only 1 in 3 answered my logged ECs/virtuals in New Zealand). One CO claimed 4 weeks after I logged his virtual I didn't send answers (I did and have the "copy to self" from GC to prove it).

 

These arbitrary time limits are always predicated on a very narrow view of the game that leaves no space for people who play it casually, people who play it seasonally, people without constant internet access, and people who don't have the capacity to rush out to a cache every time there's a new log on it.

 

I don't understand why some cachers are so intent on treating cache owners so badly. I don't think I have ever had a find deleted. There is no way that this problem is so grave that it requires such severe and unprecedented restrictions on cache owners.

Link to comment

I do not and never will advocate the removal of the ability of a CO to delete logs. This is a vital part of cache ownership.

 

All I am suggesting is that owners be required to respond in a timely manner when there is a problem. I always try to reply to logs on my earthcaches within 24 hours of receiving the log email. Even while I am on holiday. Even if there is no problem.

 

The actual time periods are open for discussion, but I think that cache ownership should come with a requirement to respond to problems as soon as they become apparent.

 

Virtual and earthcache owners ask me to take extra steps to log their caches so i expect them to be responsible and take care of their side of the transaction in a timely manner. I really expect to hear back from them within a day or two but when i don't, then i assume i did everything right and my find is good. They shouldn't come back after a couple of weeks, a month, or a year later trying to tell me i did something wrong.

Link to comment

I do not and never will advocate the removal of the ability of a CO to delete logs. This is a vital part of cache ownership.

 

All I am suggesting is that owners be required to respond in a timely manner when there is a problem. I always try to reply to logs on my earthcaches within 24 hours of receiving the log email. Even while I am on holiday. Even if there is no problem.

 

The actual time periods are open for discussion, but I think that cache ownership should come with a requirement to respond to problems as soon as they become apparent.

 

Virtual and earthcache owners ask me to take extra steps to log their caches so i expect them to be responsible and take care of their side of the transaction in a timely manner. I really expect to hear back from them within a day or two but when i don't, then i assume i did everything right and my find is good. They shouldn't come back after a couple of weeks, a month, or a year later trying to tell me i did something wrong.

 

Virtual and Earthcache owners set up caching experiences in accordance with game parameters.

 

Visiting those sites is entirely voluntary. This is a game.

 

It is not rational to expect all cache owners to be glued to internet devices constantly in order to appease your desire for an instant response.

 

If you conduct yourself responsibly and complete voluntary tasks properly, there should be no reason for concern.

Link to comment

I do not and never will advocate the removal of the ability of a CO to delete logs. This is a vital part of cache ownership.

 

All I am suggesting is that owners be required to respond in a timely manner when there is a problem. I always try to reply to logs on my earthcaches within 24 hours of receiving the log email. Even while I am on holiday. Even if there is no problem.

 

The actual time periods are open for discussion, but I think that cache ownership should come with a requirement to respond to problems as soon as they become apparent.

 

Virtual and earthcache owners ask me to take extra steps to log their caches so i expect them to be responsible and take care of their side of the transaction in a timely manner. I really expect to hear back from them within a day or two but when i don't, then i assume i did everything right and my find is good. They shouldn't come back after a couple of weeks, a month, or a year later trying to tell me i did something wrong.

 

Virtual and Earthcache owners set up caching experiences in accordance with game parameters.

 

Visiting those sites is entirely voluntary. This is a game.

 

It is not rational to expect all cache owners to be glued to internet devices constantly in order to appease your desire for an instant response.

 

If you conduct yourself responsibly and complete voluntary tasks properly, there should be no reason for concern.

 

Has anyone posting in this thread stated that they expect cache owners to be glued to their devices in order to appease them? No, no one has. You'll probably buck this to be contrary but i'll ask anyway. Wouldn't you agree, a month(s), certainly a year is normally too long for a cache owner to react?

 

And boy are you right, visiting caches is voluntary. This thread right here brings up one of the reasons i dislike logging virtuals and earthcaches. I usually enjoy the locations and the learning experience but the jumping through hoops only to have a cache owner not follow up, makes me not want to fool with them.

Link to comment

I do not and never will advocate the removal of the ability of a CO to delete logs. This is a vital part of cache ownership.

 

All I am suggesting is that owners be required to respond in a timely manner when there is a problem. I always try to reply to logs on my earthcaches within 24 hours of receiving the log email. Even while I am on holiday. Even if there is no problem.

 

The actual time periods are open for discussion, but I think that cache ownership should come with a requirement to respond to problems as soon as they become apparent.

 

Virtual and earthcache owners ask me to take extra steps to log their caches so i expect them to be responsible and take care of their side of the transaction in a timely manner. I really expect to hear back from them within a day or two but when i don't, then i assume i did everything right and my find is good. They shouldn't come back after a couple of weeks, a month, or a year later trying to tell me i did something wrong.

 

Virtual and Earthcache owners set up caching experiences in accordance with game parameters.

 

Visiting those sites is entirely voluntary. This is a game.

 

It is not rational to expect all cache owners to be glued to internet devices constantly in order to appease your desire for an instant response.

 

If you conduct yourself responsibly and complete voluntary tasks properly, there should be no reason for concern.

 

Has anyone posting in this thread stated that they expect cache owners to be glued to their devices in order to appease them? No, no one has. You'll probably buck this to be contrary but i'll ask anyway. Wouldn't you agree, a month(s), certainly a year is normally too long for a cache owner to react?

 

And boy are you right, visiting caches is voluntary. This thread right here brings up one of the reasons i dislike logging virtuals and earthcaches. I usually enjoy the locations and the learning experience but the jumping through hoops only to have a cache owner not follow up, makes me not want to fool with them.

 

It would be total overkill to prevent cache owners from performing basic cache maintenance because some cache owners don't respond within an arbitrary time frame.

 

If certain caches are not to your taste for any reason, avoiding those caches is the prudent course of action. Everyone has personal preferences. The game won't work if we invent awful new rules for every irrational pet peeve.

Link to comment

I rather like the option to put a time limit on the owner's ability to delete logs. It should be based on the date that the log was written, not the date in the log.

 

For virtuals and earthcaches a week should be enough for the CO to decide the answers aren't right and a reply stating this would need to be made within that time. Then the CO could have a further 3 weeks to decide the finder isnt playing fair and delete the log. Any log still alive after 4 weeks is alive forever.

 

Where a paper log is involved, the CO should be able to delete within 3 months, or not at all.

 

Why? What problem does this solve?

 

Wouldn't it be shocking to you to have a find of yours from, say, three years ago suddenly deleted?

 

The personal numbering is meaningful to many, including finding a special cache for find #1,000, etc. Now it's, "Oh, gee, I visited the undersea vent cache for find #999."

:signalviolin:

 

Even the IRS has a time limit during which they can audit your tax return.

Link to comment

Wouldn't you agree, a month(s), certainly a year is normally too long for a cache owner to react?

Nope, I wouldn't agree. I see no reason for a statute of limitation: if the find is invalid, there should be no limit to the amount of time it takes the CO to discover that.

 

The way to avoid a problem with your order is to only log a find if you're 100% positive the CO will accept it. If you're not willing to do a thorough job on an earthcache or double check that you're meeting the requirements for a virtual, then just don't bother logging finds on them.

 

Also, "What problem does this solve?" smacks of "It's not a problem for me, therefore the problem is with you by the fact that you value things which I consider unimportant and trivial."

The problem here is being expressed, as subjective as it may be. Simply dismissing it is just as unhelpful.

Asking for a clear statement of the problem being solved is nothing like dismissing the complaint. Complaining when someone asks for a clear problem statement suggests an attitude that you don't need to justify adding restrictions.

 

I'm sorry you run into situations where you're find order gets messed up, but that, in itself, isn't reason enough to add more rules and implement more software to enforce them.

Link to comment

Wouldn't you agree, a month(s), certainly a year is normally too long for a cache owner to react?

Nope, don't agree. This last summer I was on vacation for over 6 weeks, with very limited access to the internet and limited time to deal with things not directly related to our travels, so a month would have been too short a time frame to deal with a 'problem log'.

Link to comment

Also, "What problem does this solve?" smacks of "It's not a problem for me, therefore the problem is with you by the fact that you value things which I consider unimportant and trivial."

The problem here is being expressed, as subjective as it may be. Simply dismissing it is just as unhelpful.

Asking for a clear statement of the problem being solved is nothing like dismissing the complaint. Complaining when someone asks for a clear problem statement suggests an attitude that you don't need to justify adding restrictions.

 

I'm sorry you run into situations where you're find order gets messed up, but that, in itself, isn't reason enough to add more rules and implement more software to enforce them.

The question was asked after the problem was described, clearly not an honest request to describe the problem, but to just dismiss it as as a problem. That's what I was getting at. I'm not advocating one way or another, but clearly there is a problem, well described here, and there is a clear disagreement that it even is a problem. Dismissing it is not conducive to coming to a solution. I have not seen anyone advocate completely denying the CO ability to delete logs, which seems to be the extreme some people are interpreting the time limit suggestion. I don't know if I personally agree with the idea of a time limit before find logs become "locked" in place. But the problem is clear: A CO can greatly cause anger and frustration by, for whatever reason (legit or otherwise), deleting very very old logs.

 

Perhaps the only solution is to point to the fact that the cacher whose log was deleted can go to appeals and have it reinstated if they feel it was unjustly deleted, rather than advocating for an arbitrary grace period before they're locked from CO deletion.

On the other hand, if the CO finds an invalid log that's 3 years old, and it's been locked in place, they too could go to appeals and ask that it be deleted on behalf of the CO.

Either way, the ultimate existence or non-existence of the log in place well beyond subjectively acceptable time periods would be determined by TPTB.

So the question is, who gets the benefit of the doubt? The cacher? (implement a grace period) Or the CO? (unlimited period for log deletion).

 

That line of response, I think, would have been more helpful than the sentiment "It's not a problem for me, therefore it's not a problem" which is what's implied by feigning ignorance with "What problem does this solve?"

I've got no steak in this either way :P as a cacher, I'd love to know my old logs are safe; as a CO, I'd love to know I have the right to judge what logs on my listings are valid or not regardless of when I look at them. As a forum goer, I like reading productive discussions bad_boy_animated.gif (and I'm sure other forum goers don't like reading some of my comments, heh, but we're all entitled to our opinions!) ph34r.gif

Link to comment

Wouldn't you agree, a month(s), certainly a year is normally too long for a cache owner to react?

 

The only time I've had to delete a log it was a duplicate that the finder didn't realise they had left. I was doing them a favour if they were ever interested in their numbers.

 

If this were ever put in place then finders would also have to have a limit on the time they could edit (and, perhaps, delete) their logs in as well. And that's just another can of worms that doesn't need opening up. It's fine as it is - there's no need to change it.

Link to comment

The way to avoid a problem with your order is to only log a find if you're 100% positive the CO will accept it. If you're not willing to do a thorough job on an earthcache or double check that you're meeting the requirements for a virtual, then just don't bother logging finds on them.

When I visited the Vatican on 1st December, the Obelisk was surrounded by barriers and I could not approach close enough to inspect the surface properly. I took some high zoom pictures of the surface, based my reply on the content of the pictures and specifically asked the owner to let me know whether or not my answers were acceptable.

 

I have not heard anything yet. How much longer do you suggest is a reasonable amount of time for me to wait before I assume that the answers were OK?

Link to comment

Also, "What problem does this solve?" smacks of "It's not a problem for me, therefore the problem is with you by the fact that you value things which I consider unimportant and trivial."

The problem here is being expressed, as subjective as it may be. Simply dismissing it is just as unhelpful.

 

The actual purpose is to get people to describe in their own words the trivial personal preferences that inspire these harsh rule suggestions. There is no systemic problem that necessitates arbitrary time limits and restrictions on cache owner log deletions. The "problem" and the unreasonable solution absolutely deserve to be entirely dismissed.

Link to comment

Wouldn't it be shocking to you to have a find of yours from, say, three years ago suddenly deleted?

 

Nope. I keep my own DB of my finds, so it would not screw up my entire life. If the find deletion did not seem appropriate to me, I would contact Groundspeak and then enter a new log for the cache in question. Since my personal DB has the date and time for all my finds, no ordering information would be lost.

 

Once again, I suggest that if the details of your finds are extremely important to you, it is probably best not to leave them in the hands of Groundspeak. Nothing against GS in particular; it's just how the world is. There are tons of easy-to-use database apps out there. Keep your own.

Link to comment
The "problem" and the unreasonable solution absolutely deserve to be entirely dismissed.

Well, apparently it's just not that simple.

If you want to dismiss it, that's fine, but the fact the issue is still being raised clearly means it's not been dismissed by others. If I were to dismiss it as a problem, I'd simply ignore the thread. But I can't make others dismiss it as a problem by simply telling them their concerns are not worth discussing. Convince them.

Link to comment
But I can't make others dismiss it as a problem by simply telling them their concerns are not worth discussing. Convince them.

 

Their concerns are fine for discussing. Note that I have tried to helpfully point to possible solutions for them.

 

Their concerns are not worth instituting draconian, hard-to-administer interference with the rights of cache owners.

 

You may have a hangnail, and want to talk about it. Fine, but when you insist that all traffic in your city come to a stop while an ambulance takes you to the hospital for it, don't be surprised when people react negatively to your proposed solution.

Link to comment
The "problem" and the unreasonable solution absolutely deserve to be entirely dismissed.

Well, apparently it's just not that simple.

If you want to dismiss it, that's fine, but the fact the issue is still being raised clearly means it's not been dismissed by others. If I were to dismiss it as a problem, I'd simply ignore the thread. But I can't make others dismiss it as a problem by simply telling them their concerns are not worth discussing.

 

Their preferences may or may not be worth discussing in an appropriate thread. We all have preferences. Preferences are valid, within reason.

 

It does not follow that their preferences should translate into an excessive, harsh solution that will alienate cache owners for no good reason. It is worth pointing out, even if repetitively, that these "solutions" are a detriment to the game.

 

Whether or not the forum is actually capable of understanding why it's a bad idea to villify cache owners is an issue beyond my control or concern. Some individuals do get it.

Link to comment

For the record, i have not asked for there to be a time limit of any sort. Because it is part of cache maintenance, cache owners need to be able to delete logs when they think it's required. As has been stated, there are situations where COs just aren't able to do this within a reasonable time frame. I understand this completely. But because it can be frustrating when something like this happens, it's easy to see why this thread was started and the question about a time limit was asked..

Link to comment

When I visited the Vatican on 1st December, the Obelisk was surrounded by barriers and I could not approach close enough to inspect the surface properly. I took some high zoom pictures of the surface, based my reply on the content of the pictures and specifically asked the owner to let me know whether or not my answers were acceptable.

 

I have not heard anything yet. How much longer do you suggest is a reasonable amount of time for me to wait before I assume that the answers were OK?

It's a bummer that the information wasn't available when you were there. It sounds like you won't be able to claim the find. Oh, well.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...