Jump to content

deleting logs


bones1
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

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..

Yes, it's easy to see: some people feel like if there's enough of a delay, they should be entitled to the find even if they failed to meet the requirements.

 

Although the cases people are bringing up tend to feature a delayed deletion, the fundamental argument is that a find filed in good faith must be accepted even if the conditions are not met. Asking "how long?" is an attempt to help people notice that the arguments being presented don't support any time limit larger than zero.

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..

Yes, it's easy to see: some people feel like if there's enough of a delay, they should be entitled to the find even if they failed to meet the requirements.

 

Although the cases people are bringing up tend to feature a delayed deletion, the fundamental argument is that a find filed in good faith must be accepted even if the conditions are not met. Asking "how long?" is an attempt to help people notice that the arguments being presented don't support any time limit larger than zero.

Because it is used so excessively these days, "entitled" has become one of my most despised words. I don't agree that i or anyone else is automatically entitled to a find just because a year has passed without any reaction from a cache owner.

 

Imo, this falls under geocaching etiquette. We don't need any more rules or guidelines but we do need to think about how our actions or non actions affect others. As both an owner and finder of geocaches, it's easy for me to see that waiting to respond/react can cause problems for many people. If something comes up that doesn't look right, then i try to start the process of taking care of it as soon as i can. Sure, life gets in the way at times, this can't be helped. But i also know that many of these problems are caused by inattentive and lazy cache owners.

Link to comment

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:

 

And the problem is?

1. You logged without actually finding/signing the log/sending answers. > Your fault, should not have logged it.

2. It's a valid log > go to appeals and have your log reinstated.

Link to comment
Even the IRS has a time limit during which they can audit your tax return.
So maybe geocaching logs should be subject to audit for three (3) years. And if there is a substantial omission, then the logs should be subject to audit for six (6) years. And in the case of false/fraudulent logs, there would be no limit.
Link to comment

2. It's a valid log > go to appeals and have your log reinstated.

 

I'm sure the lackey's would love the newly created work load. :laughing: Best reason yet why it will never happen. B)

 

Newly created? It's been like that for as long as I remember. CO deletes valid log and refuses to re-instate? > Appeals...

Link to comment

2. It's a valid log > go to appeals and have your log reinstated.

 

I'm sure the lackey's would love the newly created work load. :laughing: Best reason yet why it will never happen. B)

 

Newly created? It's been like that for as long as I remember. CO deletes valid log and refuses to re-instate? > Appeals...

 

Sorry, I confused how CO's would be able to remove fake logs. We as cache owners would have to appeal to get them removed.

 

I have a head cold, so I may not be making good sense now. :(

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..

Yes, it's easy to see: some people feel like if there's enough of a delay, they should be entitled to the find even if they failed to meet the requirements.

 

Although the cases people are bringing up tend to feature a delayed deletion, the fundamental argument is that a find filed in good faith must be accepted even if the conditions are not met. Asking "how long?" is an attempt to help people notice that the arguments being presented don't support any time limit larger than zero.

Because it is used so excessively these days, "entitled" has become one of my most despised words. I don't agree that i or anyone else is automatically entitled to a find just because a year has passed without any reaction from a cache owner.

 

Imo, this falls under geocaching etiquette. We don't need any more rules or guidelines but we do need to think about how our actions or non actions affect others. As both an owner and finder of geocaches, it's easy for me to see that waiting to respond/react can cause problems for many people. If something comes up that doesn't look right, then i try to start the process of taking care of it as soon as i can. Sure, life gets in the way at times, this can't be helped. But i also know that many of these problems are caused by inattentive and lazy cache owners.

 

Here's some etiquette for you:

 

1. Don't log finds that aren't legitimate.

 

2. Don't sit around waiting for the cache owner if you legitimately completed virtual or Earthcache tasks. You're permitted to log them as soon as you send the answers. If you're "unsure," be honest and just admit you didn't fulfill the requirements.

 

3. Don't expect anyone else to accommodate preferences, side games, and personal bookkeeping.

 

4. Don't insult cache owners just because they don't adhere to arbitrary time lines and invented rules. If cache owners are often ignoring your missives, it's probably not because they're all "lazy."

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..

Yes, it's easy to see: some people feel like if there's enough of a delay, they should be entitled to the find even if they failed to meet the requirements.

 

Although the cases people are bringing up tend to feature a delayed deletion, the fundamental argument is that a find filed in good faith must be accepted even if the conditions are not met. Asking "how long?" is an attempt to help people notice that the arguments being presented don't support any time limit larger than zero.

Because it is used so excessively these days, "entitled" has become one of my most despised words. I don't agree that i or anyone else is automatically entitled to a find just because a year has passed without any reaction from a cache owner.

 

Imo, this falls under geocaching etiquette. We don't need any more rules or guidelines but we do need to think about how our actions or non actions affect others. As both an owner and finder of geocaches, it's easy for me to see that waiting to respond/react can cause problems for many people. If something comes up that doesn't look right, then i try to start the process of taking care of it as soon as i can. Sure, life gets in the way at times, this can't be helped. But i also know that many of these problems are caused by inattentive and lazy cache owners.

 

Here's some etiquette for you:

 

1. Don't log finds that aren't legitimate.

 

2. Don't sit around waiting for the cache owner if you legitimately completed virtual or Earthcache tasks. You're permitted to log them as soon as you send the answers. If you're "unsure," be honest and just admit you didn't fulfill the requirements.

 

3. Don't expect anyone else to accommodate preferences, side games, and personal bookkeeping.

 

4. Don't insult cache owners just because they don't adhere to arbitrary time lines and invented rules. If cache owners are often ignoring your missives, it's probably not because they're all "lazy."

 

1. You got it.

 

2. I don't wait around. But, and i'm not the only one, have come across virtuals and earthcaches that were hard to understand exactly what the CO wanted. Tried contacting them and to this day, some have never replied. Again, if i knowingly don't fulfill requirements, then i don't even attempt to log a find.

 

3. No one has to bend over backwards to accommodate my preferences. But i do expect people to think about how their actions may or may not affect others playing the same game. To maybe even, gasp, put themselves in other players shoes. To be respectful of others. Yeahh, i know this is a lot to ask but,,, oh well.

 

4. Here again, you're trying to put words in my mouth. I didn't say all cache owners were lazy. You know exactly what i'm talking about but as usual, you just want to argue. I guess i'm on your hit list today. :lol:

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..

Yes, it's easy to see: some people feel like if there's enough of a delay, they should be entitled to the find even if they failed to meet the requirements.

 

Although the cases people are bringing up tend to feature a delayed deletion, the fundamental argument is that a find filed in good faith must be accepted even if the conditions are not met. Asking "how long?" is an attempt to help people notice that the arguments being presented don't support any time limit larger than zero.

Because it is used so excessively these days, "entitled" has become one of my most despised words. I don't agree that i or anyone else is automatically entitled to a find just because a year has passed without any reaction from a cache owner.

 

Imo, this falls under geocaching etiquette. We don't need any more rules or guidelines but we do need to think about how our actions or non actions affect others. As both an owner and finder of geocaches, it's easy for me to see that waiting to respond/react can cause problems for many people. If something comes up that doesn't look right, then i try to start the process of taking care of it as soon as i can. Sure, life gets in the way at times, this can't be helped. But i also know that many of these problems are caused by inattentive and lazy cache owners.

 

Here's some etiquette for you:

 

1. Don't log finds that aren't legitimate.

 

2. Don't sit around waiting for the cache owner if you legitimately completed virtual or Earthcache tasks. You're permitted to log them as soon as you send the answers. If you're "unsure," be honest and just admit you didn't fulfill the requirements.

 

3. Don't expect anyone else to accommodate preferences, side games, and personal bookkeeping.

 

4. Don't insult cache owners just because they don't adhere to arbitrary time lines and invented rules. If cache owners are often ignoring your missives, it's probably not because they're all "lazy."

 

1. You got it.

 

2. I don't wait around. But, and i'm not the only one, have come across virtuals and earthcaches that were hard to understand exactly what the CO wanted. Tried contacting them and to this day, some have never replied. Again, if i knowingly don't fulfill requirements, then i don't even attempt to log a find.

 

3. No one has to bend over backwards to accommodate my preferences. But i do expect people to think about how their actions may or may not affect others playing the same game. To maybe even, gasp, put themselves in other players shoes. To be respectful of others. Yeahh, i know this is a lot to ask but,,, oh well.

 

4. Here again, you're trying to put words in my mouth. I didn't say all cache owners were lazy. You know exactly what i'm talking about but as usual, you just want to argue. I guess i'm on your hit list today. :lol:

 

This comment drastically overestimates my interest in any individual forum user.

 

It's fascinating that the forum seems to have zero capacity for insight into the long-term consequences of its arbitrary personal rules and its disgraceful treatment of cache owners.

 

It is simply impossible for any cache owner to know or accommodate all of the personal quirks and qualms of every cache finder. There is an established set of game parameters that we can all refer to. The only proper etiquette for this game is to follow those parameters and not expect other cachers to accommodate personal preferences outside of them.

Link to comment
It's fascinating that the forum seems to have zero capacity for insight into the long-term consequences of its arbitrary personal rules and its disgraceful treatment of cache owners.

 

You know, I often disagree with Narcissa, but I wholeheartedly endorse this comment. I am frequently astonished by the lack of gratitude towards cache hiders that is shown in the forums. I don't know what it is about caching culture that makes cache seekers expect so much from other people who have placed caches at no cost to the finder.

 

If geocaching.com were in the business of placing and maintaining caches, it would (maybe) be understandable, but that's not how the activity works. I understand that geocaching can engage some powerful OCD-like tendencies in all of us, and that it can be painful to have things like the "find number" of a cache violated, but it is far from the end of the world.

 

As I have said before, if there are details of your cache finds that matter a lot to you, then take responsibility for them and keep your own records. Life doesn't came with database guarantees!

Link to comment

Wow, I don't see anywhere a "lack of gratitude" towards cache owners. I think most everyone IN this discussion owns a cache. No one has ever advocated removal of the ability to delete logs altogether. Dramatic overstatement? There definitely is, of various points. Desire to argue? Undoubtedly. Man...This overstating (on whatever 'side' of a debate) is why things get so enraged. Keep it real, people.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

Wow, I don't see anywhere a "lack of gratitude" towards cache owners. I think most everyone IN this discussion owns a cache. No one has ever advocated removal of the ability to delete logs altogether. Dramatic overstatement? There definitely is, of various points. Desire to argue? Undoubtedly. Man...This overstating (on whatever 'side' of a debate) is why things get so enraged. Keep it real, people.

 

Yeah, i have no idea where it this is coming from either. Narcissa's last comment that i, and i suppose a few more of us, are being disgraceful to cache owners was over the top. Then to inaccurately state that we want to impose arbitrary rules is is completely wrong. The OP had a legitimate concern and asked a simple question. It was quickly addressed with reasons why his idea might not work out too well.

 

My wish, that people might try to be more respectful, maybe put their feet in others shoes, is in no way trying to impose nasty and disgraceful treatment to cache owners. This may be shocking to some but as a cache owner, i do try to think about how i can help finders of my caches. One of the things i realize is that dragging my feet can cause problems for finders.

Link to comment

Wow, I don't see anywhere a "lack of gratitude" towards cache owners. I think most everyone IN this discussion owns a cache. No one has ever advocated removal of the ability to delete logs altogether. Dramatic overstatement? There definitely is, of various points. Desire to argue? Undoubtedly. Man...This overstating (on whatever 'side' of a debate) is why things get so enraged. Keep it real, people.

 

Yeah, i have no idea where it this is coming from either. Narcissa's last comment that i, and i suppose a few more of us, are being disgraceful to cache owners was over the top. Then to inaccurately state that we want to impose arbitrary rules is is completely wrong. The OP had a legitimate concern and asked a simple question. It was quickly addressed with reasons why his idea might not work out too well.

 

My wish, that people might try to be more respectful, maybe put their feet in others shoes, is in no way trying to impose nasty and disgraceful treatment to cache owners. This may be shocking to some but as a cache owner, i do try to think about how i can help finders of my caches. One of the things i realize is that dragging my feet can cause problems for finders.

 

Any number of things can cause "problems" for cache finders, especially when cache finders expect cache owners to cater to their personal preferences. This "dragging my feet" thing is just another way to say that a cache owner isn't adhering to an arbitrary time limit. For some cache finders, a response time longer than 3 minutes is foot dragging. For someone else, a month or more is fine. How are cache owners supposed to know and adhere to everyone's expectations when each person is different?

 

So often, it seems the forum wants to set this impossible standard for cache owners, and anyone who doesn't keep up with the moving goal posts is lazy, irresponsible, or discourteous.

 

I think most cache owners try to "help" finders within reason, but when finders are incapable of reason, what's the point?

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.

 

That is so weird. People can be so... odd.

Link to comment

Just today someone posted a Note log on one of my puzzle caches. The log consisted of the final coordinates --the solution to the puzzle. Imagine if I didn't have the ability to delete that post. I did follow up with a message saying please don't post the final coordinates of a puzzle and suggesting that they use the Personal Cache Note instead.

Link to comment

A very disconcerting event occurred this morning: a log of mine from 10/22/2010 was deleted without any explanation from the CO. 

An attempt to open a dialog with the CO failed. Is there any recourse in an event like this?

Caroline

IMG_1101.PNG

IMG_1102.PNG

IMG_1103.PNG

Edited by tolmaus
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, tolmaus said:

Is there any recourse in an event like this?

Yes, use the contact us link at the bottom of almost every page.

 

It that happened to me I would relog it, explaining that it was deleted without explanation after 7 years, and contact Groundspeak asking them to intervene on your behalf.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Looking at the Archived log entry, it appears that you logged the Listing in questions twice.  I can't tell if you deleted one previously or not, but it may have something to do with that.  I would attempt to relog it and see what happens.

 

There were two additional log deletions from the CO as well.  One for providing answers  to the ALR in the log and the other for a spoiler photo. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

I just did as you suggested, but opted not to relog until I hear back from GS. I also probably really overstepped and sent a personal email to a friend at GS.

This type of stuff is really odd and quite frustrating. A simple explanation from the CO would really have been nice...

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Nomex said:

Looking at the Archived log entry, it appears that you logged the Listing in questions twice.  I can't tell if you deleted one previously or not, but it may have something to do with that.  I would attempt to relog it and see what happens.

 
Ah! I went back and looked. The cache shows that I have no logs or notes on it at all. No longer a smilie on this one! 
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...