Webcam logs and ALRs

[+Pork King]

I own a webcam listing.  There is the occasional geocacher who will log the cache with a snap from the webcam without doing the required pose listed on the cache page to identify oneself as a geocacher.  In these snaps, it is impossible to tell if the person onscreen is a geocacher, or simply a pedestrian on the sidewalk.  

I am to understand that ALRs can still be enforced on webcam caches.  Do I have a leg to stand on should someone continually log the cache after I explained to them why I deleted their log?  What steps can I take?

 

[+niraD]

First of all, the rule about ALRs is part of the guidelines for logging physical caches. Since a webcam cache is not a physical cache, the rule about ALRs does not apply.

Second, the guidelines about webcam caches link to the Help Center page Webcam Caches. On that page, it says:

"Follow the instructions on the cache page. Sometimes the cache owner will require you to pose in a specific location or in a specific way."

It looks like requiring a particular pose is perfectly acceptable.

[+Manville Possum]

Sorry, but I would not poon to log your web cam.  I would gladly submit my photo, even a close up, but not pooning. 

[+Pork King]

"Phoon"... big distincion.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I see a reviewer response on your cache page now. I'd say you're fine.

Phoon was the done thing for a while, back when people submitted cams that took very long range shots. Phoon, hold your gps over head, or a sign, something to make it clear that the photo was of a geocacher, and not some random person in front of the camera.  I  owned phoon cam at one time. People did okay by it, even with a particularly bad user interface.  

Edited November 21, 2017 by Isonzo Karst

[+Pork King]

So there is a cacher that continually logs the cache while posting an incorrect photo. I've explained why I delete the log, but no matter how many time I delete, they log it right back.  Who do I contact to have them stop doing that?

[+Isonzo Karst]

You can contact staff through the Help Center, this would be 16. Geocacher Disagreement. Someone from staff can explain to this user that a webcam has a Logging Requirement, which is NOT the same thing as an additional logging requirement on a physical cache, where a signature is the requirement. 

 It's possible that now the logger can see the reviewer response on the cache page they'll abandoned the idea of continuing to log, and relog... I'd tend to wait a few days, let them calm down. 

 

[+Manville Possum]

12 minutes ago, Pork King said:

So there is a cacher that continually logs the cache while posting an incorrect photo. I've explained why I delete the log, but no matter how many time I delete, they log it right back.  Who do I contact to have them stop doing that?

 

They actually visit but you want to force them to phoon in their visit photo so you delete their log?

[+Isonzo Karst]

There's really no way to know that, "They actually visit".  Unless they actually phoon (or whatever the logging pose is). OP has done a nice job through the years of owning  of keeping the logging to requirement. A pleasant change from the many no pic, selfie webcams around.

[+Pork King]

23 minutes ago, Isonzo Karst said:

...

 It's possible that now the logger can see the reviewer response on the cache page they'll abandoned the idea of continuing to log, and relog... 

 

According to the messages I'm receiving,  that's not likely. 

[+Pork King]

25 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

They actually visit but you want to force them to phoon in their visit photo so you delete their log?

There is no indication that they actually visited.  The picture appears to be someone walking along a sidewalk with their head down.  This is a very busy area, and it wouldn't take long to find a picture like that on the webcam if viewing remotely. 

[+dprovan]

28 minutes ago, Pork King said:

So there is a cacher that continually logs the cache while posting an incorrect photo. I've explained why I delete the log, but no matter how many time I delete, they log it right back.  Who do I contact to have them stop doing that?

As a seeker, I'd appreciate it if you could be gracious if I screwed up and missed the requirement but still appear sincere about my visit. But since in this case you think they're trying to pull a fast one, go ahead and report them to Groundspeak.

[+Manville Possum]

4 minutes ago, Pork King said:

There is no indication that they actually visited.  The picture appears to be someone walking along a sidewalk with their head down.  This is a very busy area, and it wouldn't take long to find a picture like that on the webcam if viewing remotely. 

 

I would want proof of visit as well if it were my web cam. I did see where you have allowed others to log a visit without phooning, but they posted a close up.

[+Harry Dolphin]

9 minutes ago, Pork King said:

According to the messages I'm receiving,  that's not likely. 

We did have a cacher warned not to log another log on an Earthcache without presenting the necessary information.  The nasty email from the cacher did not help.   

[+Harry Dolphin]

12 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

I would want proof of visit as well if it were my web cam. I did see where you have allowed others to log a visit without phooning, but they posted a close up.

Still trying to decide whether to take it up with GS on the cacher who logged with a selfie several times.  I deleted those.  Last, he posted a webcam photo, which is obviously not him.  Doesn't match the clothing in the selfie.  Trying to decide if it's worth the effort.

[+Manville Possum]

5 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

Still trying to decide whether to take it up with GS on the cacher who logged with a selfie several times.  I deleted those.  Last, he posted a webcam photo, which is obviously not him.  Doesn't match the clothing in the selfie.  Trying to decide if it's worth the effort.

 

Isn't problems like this why GS grandfathered web cams and moved them to the Waymarking site so the owners can police them without involving GS?

[+Harry Dolphin]

5 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

Isn't problems like this why GS grandfathered web cams and moved them to the Waymarking site so the owners can police them without involving GS?

Ah.  I thought it was because they didn't want any new caches without containers.

I had some logs of mine deleted because the CO did not like my log.  GS locked my log so the CO could not delete it again/

[+Manville Possum]

7 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

I had some logs of mine deleted because the CO did not like my log.  GS locked my log so the CO could not delete it again/

 

I've had GS reinstate my logs as well, once cause I was not impressed with a gadget cache because it's log is a tiny little nano. 

I do believe that web cams and virtuals were too problematic for GS to constantly have to mediate, thus the Waymarking site was created.  GS seldom gets involved there.

[+Pork King]

30 minutes ago, dprovan said:

As a seeker, I'd appreciate it if you could be gracious if I screwed up and missed the requirement but still appear sincere about my visit. But since in this case you think they're trying to pull a fast one, go ahead and report them to Groundspeak.

I try hard to be under standing.  There are many logs where things aren't exactly 100% correct, but I let the log stand.  The problem arises when I delete a spurious log, almost every one of them are rude, and they all bring up "what about x log? It wasn't correct".

In this instance, the picture looks like a random screencap of a pedestrian.  

[+cerberus1]

Realized how dated I am when had to google phoon...

I'd be okay with that.   "Mustache poses", no way. 

[+Pork King]

17 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Realized how dated I am when had to google phoon...

I'd be okay with that.   "Mustache poses", no way. 

I had to Google mustache poses... still not sure what that is.

[+cerberus1]

12 minutes ago, Pork King said:

I had to Google mustache poses... still not sure what that is.

Sorry, wasn't clear.  We've seen some (usually passing through folks) South of us.  Had a family do one of ours.   I'd rather have a TFTC...

it's that silly drawing of a mustache on your finger (or not...) ,  a finger across your top lip.  Finger mustache

[+hzoi]

Phooning isn't so hard.  Even a lawyer can do it.

(I know my right arm isn't in proper position, but when I'm trying to get the photo on my phone, I gotta see the phone.)

[+Rebore]

If webcams still could be published, I would require this pose:

[+Twinklekitkat]

13 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Realized how dated I am when had to google phoon...

 

Glad to see I wasn't the only one. 

[+niraD]

8 minutes ago, Twinklekitkat said:

13 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Realized how dated I am when had to google phoon...

Glad to see I wasn't the only one. 

So if that's a phoon, then what is it called when you pose for a photo by lying on top of something with your body horizontal? (That's what I thought "phoon" referred to.)

[+thebruce0]

<== See thumbnail. ;P

 

Lying horizontal on things is planking.

Edited November 22, 2017 by thebruce0

[+bflentje]

I'll always do what I can to identify myself in a webcam image but I won't be standing on my head or any crazy crud like that. If my valid webcam snapshot gets deleted I'll probably do what I can to help get your webcam archived.  

[+bflentje]

4 minutes ago, bflentje said:

I'll always do what I can to identify myself in a webcam image but I won't be standing on my head or any crazy crud like that. If my valid webcam snapshot gets deleted I'll probably do what I can to help get your webcam archived.  

In all reality, some of us don't have the physical ability to phoon. Give me other options.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I *quite* like  thebruceO phoon. Well done.

 RE "give me another option" I'm reasonably confident that phoon cam owners are fine with any sort of sidewise, slightly open pose. It's making the effort to distinguish yourself from the random captured image of some person that matters (as in the cacher mentioned in the opening post)(whose logs are no longer on the webcam page). 

I see plenty of  weak phoons on Pork King's phoon cam gallery, and there were some on mine.  Just make a bit of an effort.  Or you can skip it. I routinely skip tree climbing caches, myself.

[+arisoft]

23 minutes ago, bflentje said:

In all reality, some of us don't have the physical ability to phoon. Give me other options.

Log a DNF.

[+thebruce0]

11 minutes ago, arisoft said:

31 minutes ago, bflentje said:

In all reality, some of us don't have the physical ability to phoon. Give me other options.

Log a DNF.

This. Or a note. It's a logging requirement. If you can't do the logging requirement, then you'd better hope for a benevolent CO.  Just like being unable to sign the logsheet because you forgot a pen.

[+niraD]

6 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

14 minutes ago, arisoft said:

34 minutes ago, bflentje said:

In all reality, some of us don't have the physical ability to phoon. Give me other options.

Log a DNF.

This. Or a note. It's a logging requirement. If you can't do the logging requirement, then you'd better hope for a benevolent CO.  Just like being unable to sign the logsheet because you forgot a pen.

Or bring a friend who can phoon. That works for tree-climbing caches. It should work for webcam caches with required poses.

[+thebruce0]

Technically no; anyone can write names in a logsheet, then whoever claims the name(s) claims the find. But in a photo, you are you; there's no proxy phoon/pose. The person who poses IS the signature; the one who then owns the find log.  Perhaps it's more like the CO allowing the person who captures the webcam photo to log the find as well as the poser. =P #noanalogyisperfect

And actually, if you were in the photo with your friend and your friend posed but you didn't, the CO might be more enticed to delete your find log.

[+bflentje]

22 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

This. Or a note. It's a logging requirement. If you can't do the logging requirement, then you'd better hope for a benevolent CO.  Just like being unable to sign the logsheet because you forgot a pen.

 

Thanks but I don't need your advice.

[+niraD]

25 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

And actually, if you were in the photo with your friend and your friend posed but you didn't, the CO might be more enticed to delete your find log.

Sure, if I were standing next to my phooning friend, staring at the camera defiantly, then I imagine some webcam cache owners might be more inclined to delete my Find log.

But if I were next to my phooning friend, sitting in my wheelchair or leaning on my cane/walker in a way that made it obvious why I physically could not phoon, then I imagine that most webcam cache owners would accept my Find.

After all, the purpose of the required pose in a webcam cache is to make it clear that this webcam photo is of someone doing the webcam cache, and not just a random capture of a random passerby.

[+hzoi]

1 hour ago, bflentje said:

Give me other options.

(other options given)

1 hour ago, bflentje said:

Thanks but I don't need your advice.

Well, which is it?

[+Rebore]

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Technically no; anyone can write names in a logsheet, then whoever claims the name(s) claims the find. But in a photo, you are you; there's no proxy phoon/pose. The person who poses IS the signature; the one who then owns the find log. 

I often cache with my daughters, and when there is a photo requirement mostly only they will be on the picture. If that would be deleted because it's not me and the owner is a hardhead, I would ask Groundspeak to reinstate my log.

[+cerberus1]

18 minutes ago, Rebore said:

I often cache with my daughters, and when there is a photo requirement mostly only they will be on the picture. If that would be deleted because it's not me and the owner is a hardhead, I would ask Groundspeak to reinstate my log.

It seems if your daughters were in the webcam pic "phooning", that would be fine.   

The OP simply uses that requirement only to show it's a cacher, and not someone just posting a fake pic of "someone" in front of the camera.  

[+Rebore]

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

It seems if your daughters were in the webcam pic "phooning", that would be fine.   

The OP simply uses that requirement only to show it's a cacher, and not someone just posting a fake pic of "someone" in front of the camera.  

Ok, that's fine by me.They do strange things for selfies, anyway.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Rebore

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, bflentje said:

Thanks but I don't need your advice.

Then don't take it.  No skin off my back.

2 hours ago, bflentje said:

Give me other options.

No, then.  And, you'll have to deal with having no other options which you just asked for but apparently don't want.

 

53 minutes ago, Rebore said:

I often cache with my daughters, and when there is a photo requirement mostly only they will be on the picture. If that would be deleted because it's not me and the owner is a hardhead, I would ask Groundspeak to reinstate my log.

I'd be interested to hear how that turns out, if it happens that the webcam owner is not benevolent and deletes your log

What about Earthcache owners, dealing with people who don't answer questions appropriately?  They can't delete logs for "incorrect answers", but they'd have to show that the requirement isn't being met.  I'd think that a webcam "take a photo this way" would be as much a logging requirement as an EC "do this task at the waypoint and describe the result".  "Well, CO, I was at the waypoint but I didn't want to get my hands wet so I didn't do the task."  Would that be sufficient grounds for the CO to delete the Earthcache log?  (honestly, don't know how Groundspeak would rule on that, but I'm thinking they'd side with the CO; or else encourage the CO to be a bit more lenient if it seems the finder was actually there and at least made an effort for other logging tasks)

 

21 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

The OP simply uses that requirement only to show it's a cacher, and not someone just posting a fake pic of "someone" in front of the camera.  

Another good point

Edited November 22, 2017 by thebruce0

[+Rebore]

47 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

I'd be interested to hear how that turns out, if it happens that the webcam owner is not benevolent and deletes your log

What about Earthcache owners, dealing with people who don't answer questions appropriately?  They can't delete logs for "incorrect answers", but they'd have to show that the requirement isn't being met.

I'm pretty sure that Groundspeak would be on my side. Only once (so far) one of my logs was deleted, and that was an Earthcache (https://coord.info/GC2YJTZ). I forgot to post a picture and was very annoyed that the owner didn't remind me before deleting my log. Yes, my fault, but I thought we are all friends sharing a somehow strange hobby and can settle conflicts without TPTB. But I was not the only one who got his log deleted, and a few days later there was a note from the local reviewer, taking the side of the cachers with deleted finds. I relogged fulfilling the requirement and I'm quite sure it was not a pleasant experience for the owner, too.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Rebore
wording

[+niraD]

52 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

"Well, CO, I was at the waypoint but I didn't want to get my hands wet so I didn't do the task."  Would that be sufficient grounds for the CO to delete the Earthcache log?

Speaking only as an owner of an EarthCache, I can say that I'm generally pretty flexible when people submit incorrect answers, as long as it's clear that they were there and that they sincerely considered the questions.

But "I was there but I couldn't be bothered" answers do not fall into that category.

If you're interested in more discussion, there are threads in the EarthCache section of these forums that address this topic.

[+thebruce0]

49 minutes ago, Rebore said:

I'm pretty sure that Groundspeak would be on my side. Only once (so far) one of my logs was deleted, and that was an Earthcache (https://coord.info/GC2YJTZ). I forgot to post a picture and was very annoyed that the owner didn't remind me before deleting my log. Yes, my fault, but I thought we are all friends sharing a somehow strange hobby and can settle conflicts without TPTB. But I was not the only one who got his log deleted, and a few days later there was a note from the local reviewer, taking the side of the cachers with deleted finds. I relogged fulfilling the requirement and I'm quite sure it was not a pleasant experience for the owner, too.

Interesting, though for Earthcaches photos are no longer allowed as a logging requirement, which may have influenced GS's decision to side with you in that case.

[+Rebore]

10 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Interesting, though for Earthcaches photos are no longer allowed as a logging requirement, which may have influenced GS's decision to side with you in that case.

I didnt't contact GS, I just relogged. Others did, as it seems.

BTT: I've just found one webcam cache, and no pose was required. It was fun to look for the place where I'm visible through the webcam and to call a friend telling him "I'm there right now, take a screenshot!".

[+bflentje]

On 11/22/2017 at 2:54 PM, hzoi said:

(other options given)

Well, which is it?

It was a rhetorical statement to webcam cache owners. Last I checked you are not one.

And I realize you're a defacto geocaching expert because you're here in the forums 24 hours a day. But that doesn't mean every post where you find some weak spot needs to be responded to. Sometimes the hardest thing one can do is to know when not to respond.