Jump to content

Webcam Log Deleted 2 1/2 Years Later for Standing In the Wrong Place

Réd

By Réd
in General geocaching topics

Followers 5

Recommended Posts

justintim1999

+justintim1999

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Only if you really desperately want a useless answer to an irrelevant question with no basis in reality.

Apart from anything else it ruins an otherwise perfectly useful thread.

I was only asking what someone else would do in that situation.   I wanted to know if the position they were taking is how they would handle the situation if they were in the spotlight.   A simple "yes that's exactly what I would have done" would have surfaced.   Dancing around the question leaves me to wonder if they believe what they're saying.

Link to comment
Team Microdot

+Team Microdot

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I was only asking what someone else would do in that situation.   I wanted to know if the position they were taking is how they would handle the situation if they were in the spotlight.   A simple "yes that's exactly what I would have done" would have surfaced.   Dancing around the question leaves me to wonder if they believe what they're saying.

Spiralling pointlessly.

Link to comment
MartyBartfast

+MartyBartfast

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

because I see nothing whatsoever to be ashamed of.

Perhaps not maintaining their cache listing properly for ~2.5 years?

If they'd done that properly in the first place, in a reasonable timeframe (weeks rather than months, certainly not years) for every unacceptable log then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
niraD

+niraD

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

If they'd done that properly in the first place, in a reasonable timeframe (weeks rather than months, certainly not years) for every unacceptable log then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Absolutely.

But from what I've read here, the CO has been generally vigilant in deleting logs that don't meet the stated requirements. There was a period of a few months where invalid logs were not being deleted, then the CO resumed maintaining the cache as required by the guidelines. Apparently, one or more invalid logs escaped the CO's attention, and then 2.5 years after one of those logs was posted, it was finally brought to the CO's attention and deleted, and we got this brouhaha.

Have I missed anything?

So, what should an otherwise diligent CO do upon discovering that an invalid log has slipped by, and that it has been months (or even years) since the log was posted?

Edited by niraD
clarity
Link to comment
Team Microdot

+Team Microdot

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

Perhaps not maintaining their cache listing properly for ~2.5 years?

If they'd done that properly in the first place, in a reasonable timeframe (weeks rather than months, certainly not years) for every unacceptable log then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

If we were talking about a physical cache left to rot I'd almost certainly agree - but we aren't.

As far as I know this cache was in working order the entire time and didn't waste the time/effort of any legitimate loggers.

Link to comment
Mudfrog

+Mudfrog

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, niraD said:

Absolutely.

But from what I've read here, the CO has been generally vigilant in deleting logs that don't meet the stated requirements. There was a period of a few months where invalid logs were not being deleted, then the CO resumed maintaining the cache as required by the guidelines. Apparently, one or more invalid logs escaped the CO's attention, and then 2.5 years after one of those logs was posted, it was finally brought to the CO's attention and deleted, and we got this brouhaha.

Have I missed anything?

So, what should an otherwise diligent CO do upon discovering that an invalid log has slipped by, and that it has been months (or even years) since the log was posted?

Are you kidding me? Vigilant, diligent,,,c'mom. This thread wouldn't have been started if the CO had been either of these. 

Link to comment
cerberus1

+cerberus1

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

Perhaps not maintaining their cache listing properly for ~2.5 years?

If they'd done that properly in the first place, in a reasonable timeframe (weeks rather than months, certainly not years) for every unacceptable log then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I don't believe I'd do differently, if one "reminded" me that I erred ( probably maybe caught in a fib themselves and messaged just me in spite).

A helpful post was made HERE, by one who has paid attention to that one particular cache for some time.  Before and after that around nine-month timeframe, they stated that the CO maintained his cache "ruthlessly", I believe was the word.

Lets just say I'm heading to wherever for cancer treatment.  I come back nine months or so later, feeling like carp (been there...), and the last thing I'm thinking about right now is whether someone was sneaky enough to fib on one of my geocaches.  "Ruthless" in my corrections for fibbers earlier, I now think just like dealing with children, since I was gone, they got over this time.  I don't need the drama right now.  I now continue with my "ruthless" corrections on fibbers from this time forward as I've always done.

One fibber caught recently whined, screamed and cried reminded me in an email, "but...but...what about them !..." .   Like dealing with most children, if I don't take charge of this immediately. life will be miserable again.  I realize a lesson now must be made though really I erred as well,  I remove the fibbers names from when I was sick.  Now they're upset.   The end.   :)

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
MartyBartfast

+MartyBartfast

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

You reckon?

I reckon the OP, notable by their absence now, would have stirred up this hornet's nest at any point in time.

Firstly the OP had their log reinstated so no need for them to carry on the discussion, not everybody want's to spend their life on the forums arguing the toss over every little nuance.

Secondly, I'm pretty sure if someone came on here with :-

Quote

My webcam find from last week has been deleted because it doesn't meet the requirements on the webcam page, what do you think?

Then there would be a resounding response of :-

Quote

It's your own fault, move on.

and it wouldn't have turned into the "hornet's nest" this thread has become.

 

Link to comment
fuzziebear3

+fuzziebear3

Posted
Posted

 

The guidelines say:

"Delete logs that appear to be false or inappropriate."

To me, "false" means armchair logs, those that were not actually therer and in good faith trying to get the webcam.  "Inappropriate" means those that have bad language in them, or are spam.

So if the cacher, in good faith, was at the site and nabbed a picture with themselves on the webcam, I would consider that to be a good log, and let it stand.

I have attempted to do webcams, and then went home to log and see that I might not have had exactly the right background or something, but I would still consider it a good faith effort.  Similarly I have done earthcaches and misunderstood the question, gathered the wrong data, or come to the wrong conclusion.  The point for me on both is that you were at the location, you observed the concept that was presented, and you made a good faith attempt at the picture, measurements, or answers.

 

Link to comment
MartyBartfast

+MartyBartfast

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

A helpful post was made HERE, by one who has paid attention to that one particular cache for some time.  Before and after that around nine-month timeframe, they stated that the CO maintained his cache "ruthlessly", I believe was the word.

Lets just say I'm heading to wherever for cancer treatment.  I come back nine months or so later, feeling like carp (been there...), ...

From what I can see the CO was logging caches  in the second half of 2015, and the start of 2016 (the 9 month period mentioned in the post you linked to) so can't have been that bad... but I do accept that sometimes life gets in the way.

 

Link to comment
Team Microdot

+Team Microdot

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

Firstly the OP had their log reinstated so no need for them to carry on the discussion, not everybody want's to spend their life on the forums arguing the toss over every little nuance.

 

Well why would they? They got what they wanted - the oh so important smiley so there was no need for them to come back after tossing their grenade in here which is a shame really as it would be nice for them to see just how much support the CO has.

Arguing nuances? I don't think we're taking part in the same thread.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
thebruce0

+thebruce0

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

With everything that's been said your going to continue to focus word "petty" instead of telling me and the rest who are following this:
...
I think deleting those logs at this point is trivial as well as spiteful and serves no purpose but to alienate those who, in good faith, tried to complete the requirements and for what ever reason failed.

Petty, spiteful? It's hard to present an objective argument when using heated words that denigrate.  The CO showed absolutely no spite against the finders who did not do what was required to log the find - for whatever reason.  If a finder had asked "Hey can you let me keep the find?" to which he replied "No because I don't like you" that would be spiteful.

Like I said, the CO could be considered irresponsible for shirking his responsibilities for 2.5 years, but not petty, nor spiteful. So yes, I'm focusing on those words because those are the words you continue to attempt to label such a CO in this situation.

 

3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

First I would have changed the cache page to reflect the fact that starting today all find logs must meet the requirements,  no exceptions.   I'd e-mail the disgruntled cacher  back explaining the requirement and suggest they give it another shot.   My answer to deleting any other logs they've pointed out would be..... I've been in a coma for 2 1/2 years so all finds previous to now will be honored as I was incapable of checking the requirements at the time.

That's great for you. Whatever you can do to make it better for everyone, great, showing grace and kindness above what you are required to do - perhaps even despite what you are required to do and taking on risk of consequence from tptb - is honourable. Not doing that is not petty.

 

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

So in this case the owner decided to delete a bunch of old logs for the sake of what..... posterity?

For the sake of responsibility.  Doesn't matter if it follows irresponsibility.

 

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

I was only asking what someone else would do in that situation.   I wanted to know if the position they were taking is how they would handle the situation if they were in the spotlight.   A simple "yes that's exactly what I would have done" would have surfaced.   Dancing around the question leaves me to wonder if they believe what they're saying.

You were asking me what I would do in a ridiculously extreme extraordinary circumstance that attempts to narrow me into a corner for an answer that serves no purpose to the points I'm making regarding what is petty and what is proper.  There was no dancing, there was only discerning relevant discussion.  I answered other points later related to less-specific scenarios, which if you really want you could infer an answer for any scenario you want to concoct.

 

23 minutes ago, fuzziebear3 said:

I have attempted to do webcams, and then went home to log and see that I might not have had exactly the right background or something, but I would still consider it a good faith effort.  Similarly I have done earthcaches and misunderstood the question, gathered the wrong data, or come to the wrong conclusion.  The point for me on both is that you were at the location, you observed the concept that was presented, and you made a good faith attempt at the picture, measurements, or answers.

I spotted the cache, but I didn't want to climb the 6 feet in the tree just to sign the little piece of paper. I found the cache, I made a good faith attempt to find it, I should be able to log it found.

No, "good faith attempts" for any cache type aren't the requirement for the relevant Find log. Each type has a required task to fulfill to give your log the right to remain in place (disallow the owner to delete it for being a "false find").  Webcams, like Virtuals and Earthcaches allow(ed, at least) the CO to require completing a specific task in order to 'qualify' and log it found online. It may be overly stringent and annoyingly precise to require standing a very specific way for a picture, but that is the required instruction, and the CO therefore has the right to delete logs that don't follow instruction.

 

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

I don't think you're an idiot.

In fact you'd be surprised how many of your upvotes came from me.

I've thrown a few your way as well.   Some times it takes two hard headed people with different opinions to get to the truth.

Likewise me for both of you. It's amazing how variant people's opinions can be on the forum; polar opposites one day and complete synchronicity on another.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
niraD

+niraD

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, fuzziebear3 said:

 

The guidelines say:

"Delete logs that appear to be false or inappropriate."

To me, "false" means armchair logs, those that were not actually therer and in good faith trying to get the webcam.  "Inappropriate" means those that have bad language in them, or are spam.

So if the cacher, in good faith, was at the site and nabbed a picture with themselves on the webcam, I would consider that to be a good log, and let it stand.

I have attempted to do webcams, and then went home to log and see that I might not have had exactly the right background or something, but I would still consider it a good faith effort.  Similarly I have done earthcaches and misunderstood the question, gathered the wrong data, or come to the wrong conclusion.  The point for me on both is that you were at the location, you observed the concept that was presented, and you made a good faith attempt at the picture, measurements, or answers.

The words "Delete logs" link to a supporting document that starts with "Cache owners may delete geocache logs if they [...] fail to meet the logging guidelines for their cache type." Following the links to the Webcam Caches page yields this juicy tidbit:

"3. 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 seems the CO is allowed to "require you to pose in a specific location" for a webcam cache.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Team Microdot

+Team Microdot

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, niraD said:

The words "Delete logs" link to a supporting document that starts with "Cache owners may delete geocache logs if they [...] fail to meet the logging guidelines for their cache type." Following the links to the Webcam Caches page yields this juicy tidbit:

"3. 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 seems the CO is allowed to "require you to pose in a specific location" for a webcam cache.

Good catch sir!

Link to comment
justintim1999

+justintim1999

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Petty, spiteful? It's hard to present an objective argument when using heated words that denigrate.  The CO showed absolutely no spite against the finders who did not do what was required to log the find - for whatever reason.  If a finder had asked "Hey can you let me keep the find?" to which he replied "No because I don't like you" that would be spiteful.

Like I said, the CO could be considered irresponsible for shirking his responsibilities for 2.5 years, but not petty, nor spiteful. So yes, I'm focusing on those words because those are the words you continue to attempt to label such a CO in this situation.

 

That's great for you. Whatever you can do to make it better for everyone, great, showing grace and kindness above what you are required to do - perhaps even despite what you are required to do and taking on risk of consequence from tptb - is honourable. Not doing that is not petty.

 

For the sake of responsibility.  Doesn't matter if it follow irresponsibility.

 

You were asking me what I would do in a ridiculously extreme extraordinary circumstance that attempts to narrow me into a corner for an answer that serves no purpose to the points I'm making regarding what is petty and what is proper.  There was no dancing, there was only discerning relevant discussion.  I answered other points later related to less-specific scenarios, which if you really want yo ucould infer an answer for any scenario you want to concoct.

 

I spotted the cache, but I didn't want to climb the 6 feet in the tree just to sign the little piece of paper. I found the cache, I made a good faith attempt to find it, I should be able to log it found.  No, "good faith attempts" for any cache types aren't the requirement for the relevant Find log. Each type has a required task to fulfill to give your log the right to remain in place (disallow the owner to delete it for being a "false find").  Webcams, like Virtuals and Earthcaches allow(ed, at least) the CO to require completing a specific task in order to 'qualify' and log it found online. It may be overly stringent and annoyingly precise to require standing a very specific way for a picture, but that is the required instruction, and the CO therefore has the right to delete logs that don't follow instruction.

 

Likewise me for both of you. It's amazing how variant people's opinions can be on the forum; polar opposites one day and complete synchronicity on another.

I asked you what you'd do if it we're your cache.   Your response didn't answer the question.  The hypothetical scenario was an attempt to give you a reason why you were unable to respond to the situation at the time.  This was an attempt to put you in a position to deny any lack of attention to your cache when these logs were being posted.  I hoped that this would allow you to answer the question honestly.     If you would have deleted the logs as well that's fine.  If that's what you believe and that's what you'd do than I'm good with that.   Just wanted to know where you stood on the subject.        

Link to comment
fuzziebear3

+fuzziebear3

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

38 minutes ago, fuzziebear3 said:

I have attempted to do webcams, and then went home to log and see that I might not have had exactly the right background or something, but I would still consider it a good faith effort.  Similarly I have done earthcaches and misunderstood the question, gathered the wrong data, or come to the wrong conclusion.  The point for me on both is that you were at the location, you observed the concept that was presented, and you made a good faith attempt at the picture, measurements, or answers.

I spotted the cache, but I didn't want to climb the 6 feet in the tree just to sign the little piece of paper. I found the cache, I made a good faith attempt to find it, I should be able to log it found.

No, "good faith attempts" for any cache type aren't the requirement for the relevant Find log. Each type has a required task to fulfill to give your log the right to remain in place (disallow the owner to delete it for being a "false find").  Webcams, like Virtuals and Earthcaches allow(ed, at least) the CO to require completing a specific task in order to 'qualify' and log it found online. It may be overly stringent and annoyingly precise to require standing a very specific way for a picture, but that is the required instruction, and the CO therefore has the right to delete logs that don't follow instruction.

Seeing the cache and not climbing to retrieve it is not good faith.  Retrieving the cache and getting a pile of wet pulp that can't be unrolled and my pen can't mark on is good faith.

26 minutes ago, niraD said:
41 minutes ago, fuzziebear3 said:

 

The guidelines say:

"Delete logs that appear to be false or inappropriate."

To me, "false" means armchair logs, those that were not actually therer and in good faith trying to get the webcam.  "Inappropriate" means those that have bad language in them, or are spam.

So if the cacher, in good faith, was at the site and nabbed a picture with themselves on the webcam, I would consider that to be a good log, and let it stand.

I have attempted to do webcams, and then went home to log and see that I might not have had exactly the right background or something, but I would still consider it a good faith effort.  Similarly I have done earthcaches and misunderstood the question, gathered the wrong data, or come to the wrong conclusion.  The point for me on both is that you were at the location, you observed the concept that was presented, and you made a good faith attempt at the picture, measurements, or answers.

The words "Delete logs" link to a supporting document that starts with "Cache owners may delete geocache logs if they [...] fail to meet the logging guidelines for their cache type." Following the links to the Webcam Caches page yields this juicy tidbit:

"3. 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 seems the CO is allowed to "require you to pose in a specific location" for a webcam cache.

Fair point.  So if the instructions were not followed, the CO can delete a log.  Hopefully in a timely manner.

Link to comment
thebruce0

+thebruce0

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, fuzziebear3 said:

Seeing the cache and not climbing to retrieve it is not good faith.  Retrieving the cache and getting a pile of wet pulp that can't be unrolled and my pen can't mark on is good faith.

Reading the webcam page and seeing the instructions but not following through with them and expecting a Find log to stand is not good faith.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
bflentje

+bflentje

Posted
Posted
On 2/20/2018 at 0:43 PM, thebruce0 said:

You're drawing a line for what is "nice" and "petty". If you want to think that it's petty for a CO to delete logs they are reasonably allowed to and should do because they are objectively invalid, then, well, I'm gonna say that's petty. Am I wrong to do so? You set your own line, so I'm going to too, so stop being petty.

I'm just going to reiterate what I said above:

-It's not petty if the CO deletes invalid logs, regardless of how long they've been posted.
-It could be considered irresponsible if the CO waits that long to carry out their responsibility as a CO.
-It's gracious if the CO doesn't delete the invalid logs after that long (and also risky in the long run if TPTB consider it shirking responsibility).
-It's petty if the CO is insulted for doing what they're supposed to do, regardless of time passed. They can be criticized for being irresponsible. But petty? As if they shouldn't have deleted them? No

Even if we don't like the result of the situation.  The first error was not the CO - it was the finders who didn't post valid logs.

If EC, virtual and webcam owners must be relatively reasonable in allowing finders to post requirements, perhaps the same reasonable factor, whatever that is, should be applied to the enforcement of the requirement.. just a lame idea from an experienced cache finder and owner.

Link to comment
Team Microdot

+Team Microdot

Posted
Posted
On 22/02/2018 at 2:13 AM, bflentje said:

If EC, virtual and webcam owners must be relatively reasonable in allowing finders to post requirements, perhaps the same reasonable factor, whatever that is, should be applied to the enforcement of the requirement.. just a lame idea from an experienced cache finder and owner.

I've read and re-read this several times and I still can't grasp what it's saying. It seems to be saying the same thing twice, in two slightly different ways and thus I'm missing the point.

Link to comment
justintim1999

+justintim1999

Posted
Posted
On ‎2‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 9:03 AM, thebruce0 said:

Simply put, yes, for a log that didn't meet the requirements, the owner has the right either delete it or to let it stand. But arguing that they should let it stand just in good faith - in general - isn't right. I'm sure you understand the more nuanced position the CO is in, because owner responsibility over the listing and log integrity is in play. Even the simplest almost-qualification may be problematic if it's let stand, whereas in some cases a log most people would delete may be entirely harmless if the CO lets stand.  "Good will" is nice, but in the context of serving the community (ie, maintaining the listing), good will applies towards more people than just the one who posts the logs.

So, the CO has the right to delete it or let it stand, but the CO has to weigh the situation and decide one way or another, not purely on "it doesn't really matter so it's better to be nice". It does matter, so being nice to one person could end up being less nice elsewhere.

But all things being equal, kindness is certainly the better choice than legalism.

That's pretty much what I was advocating for.  Since it's a mess to begin with, both CO and Finders sharing some of the responsibility for the current situation, why open up a can of worms by deleting logs?   Make it clear that as of this date the requirements must be met to claim the find and enforce them.   If the CO decided to do this I doubt TPTB would even have questioned the decision.   

If deleting all the questionable logs meant I had to delete just one who, in good faith, thought they were fulfilling the requirements then I'd personally let all the other finds up to this point stand regardless of how bogus they were.    To me not punishing that one person out weighs all the other finders who didn't even try and think they're getting away with something. 

   

Link to comment
thebruce0

+thebruce0

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

That's pretty much what I was advocating for.  Since it's a mess to begin with, both CO and Finders sharing some of the responsibility for the current situation, why open up a can of worms by deleting logs?

Nope, only the finder has responsibility for posting an invalid log.  None of it would become an issue if they didn't post an invalid log in the first place.

The CO for whatever reason was unable to delete it in a timely manner. That doesn't give the invalid log a free pass to exist.  It would be nice if the CO did let it exist knowingly, but they have ZERO obligation to do so.

Maybe GS will create a threshold of time that the CO has to respond to potentially invalid logs before they no can no longer delete them themselves. But that is not the case today. So as long as the CO can do so, they are in the right to do so. Even if it's 5 years later. That would suck as a finder, but an invalid log is an invalid log, and if it happened to me, I should never forget that one invalid log that I posted 5 years ago that could at any time be deleted if discovered. You know, if you lie, you have to maintain that lie.

 

19 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Make it clear that as of this date the requirements must be met to claim the find and enforce them.

It was clear that as of the publishing of the webcam listing (or at least as of the date the finder wanted to log the find) that the requirements must be met to claim the find and enforce them.

What's the age allowed before an invalid log should be let stand, immune from CO deletion? 2 1/2 years? 1 year? 3 months? 1 week?  No, an invalid log is still an invalid log.

 

21 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

If deleting all the questionable logs meant I had to delete just one who, in good faith, thought they were fulfilling the requirements then I'd personally let all the other finds up to this point stand regardless of how bogus they were.    To me not punishing that one person out weighs all the other finders who didn't even try and think they're getting away with something.

This is a slippery slope, and the ethic applies to any geocache type. A CO takes on risk by allowing invalid logs to stand - regardless of how long they've existed. Yes, an invalid find on a physical cache 2 years ago is essentially harmless when it comes to trustworthiness of the log history for finding it today, but the CO is now also known to have let invalid logs stand, and invites criticism by a cacher who wants their to stand when the CO won't allow it "but you let that one stand" (and a possible red flags from tptb as a maintenance shirker if the ethic keeps up).  This is also why reviewers follow the rule of 'no precedent' - there's no knowing why something occurred in the past, all that matter is what happens now. So yep, even though a CO let a log stand long ago (intentionally or not) that doesn't mean one today can be let stand, nor can it be used as a reason to let that old log remain standing. It's still invalid. (though, I'd wager that if the CO explicitly told the finder it was okay, and the finder kept evidence of that exchange, then hq would reinstate a deleted log if the CO deleted it 2 1/2 years later)

It's a game of integrity, and it's also a game of judging when it's worthwhile to show grace and bend rules - but that is a call that the cache owner makes, not the finder on their behalf. The finder should know the rules and abide within them - not pressure a CO to bend rules to the finder's desires.

I've had cachers who "didn't know" about certain aspects to geocaching like how ratings work ("all caches should be findable by everyone!") and wanted to claim a find on a cache they didn't actually get to because they thought it was unfair to them. To their mind, they were geocaching "in good faith" and I was being unfair. But they didn't do what was required to log the find. I could be nice and let them log it anyway. Or I could decline the log and also help them for the future by letting them know more about how the hobby works; some COs may have zero tolerance; some may not be as friendly - so here's what you should know to improve your chances of having an enjoyable time in this hobby, including knowing what to do (and whether you can/should) to log a valid find on any cache you may come across.

...including following instructions as requested by the CO (for webcams, earthcaches, virtuals, challenge caches), and not betting on the owner's good graces if not completing them as explained (nor blasting the CO for not being lax in their responsibilities as a cache owner).

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Mudfrog

+Mudfrog

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

That's pretty much what I was advocating for.  Since it's a mess to begin with, both CO and Finders sharing some of the responsibility for the current situation, why open up a can of worms by deleting logs?   Make it clear that as of this date the requirements must be met to claim the find and enforce them.   If the CO decided to do this I doubt TPTB would even have questioned the decision.   

If deleting all the questionable logs meant I had to delete just one who, in good faith, thought they were fulfilling the requirements then I'd personally let all the other finds up to this point stand regardless of how bogus they were.    To me not punishing that one person out weighs all the other finders who didn't even try and think they're getting away with something. 

   

I know that i would not have deleted any logs if i somehow found myself in the position this webcam's owner was in. However, i'd probably post a note or maybe even an owner maintenance log stating something like,

Quote

I realize there have been logs posted that don't meet the requirements I put in place for logging found on this cache. Because i fell short on maintaining my cache properly, i'm letting those logs stand. Make note though, from here on out, cachers that fail to fulfill my stated and easy to meet logging requirements will have their logs deleted. Thank you for your understanding.

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
thebruce0

+thebruce0

Posted
Posted

In a similar situation, that's likely what I'd doas a CO. ie, Own the mistake, make sure people understand why incorrect logs exist, correct my behaviour, and move on.

As a finder, I'd be thankful; I might even make another attempt to get back to the webcam and do it properly :P

If the CO decided to delete my log, I might be upset, but I would call them petty. Because my find log was invalid. :mmraspberry:

Link to comment
bflentje

+bflentje

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

I've read and re-read this several times and I still can't grasp what it's saying. It seems to be saying the same thing twice, in two slightly different ways and thus I'm missing the point.

Read through it several times and you still don't get my point? Jeez, perhaps you need to drop out of the forums for a while to get some fresh air while finding a cache.

Link to comment
Team Microdot

+Team Microdot

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, bflentje said:

Read through it several times and you still don't get my point? Jeez, perhaps you need to drop out of the forums for a while to get some fresh air while finding a cache.

I'm not the only one who can't make sense of what you've written but given its potential value I've probably wasted enough time by now anyway.

Link to comment
bflentje

+bflentje

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I'm not the only one who can't make sense of what you've written but given its potential value I've probably wasted enough time by now anyway.

Your passive aggressive reply suggests you think you got a one-up, but it's not true. LOL.

Edited by bflentje
Link to comment
Mudfrog

+Mudfrog

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, bflentje said:

Read through it several times and you still don't get my point? Jeez, perhaps you need to drop out of the forums for a while to get some fresh air while finding a cache.

Certainly not taking sides but, i read it twice and still didn't understand what you were trying to convey so forgot about it and moved on down to the next post.

Link to comment
bflentje

+bflentje

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I'd say the fact that I managed to communicate clearly and effectively probably does though - if we're point scoring.

Then if that's the case, after three pages just in this thread alone, you must just like to hear yourself talk. If you communicate clearly and effectively, a single post is all that's needed.

Link to comment
hzoi

+hzoi

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Nope, only the finder has responsibility for posting an invalid log.  None of it would become an issue if they didn't post an invalid log in the first place.

The CO for whatever reason was unable to delete it in a timely manner. That doesn't give the invalid log a free pass to exist.

 

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

What's the age allowed before an invalid log should be let stand, immune from CO deletion? 2 1/2 years? 1 year? 3 months? 1 week?  No, an invalid log is still an invalid log.

True that an invalid log is still an invalid log.  But at some point there is an equitable argument.  In law, it's called the doctrine of laches.  "Equity aids the vigilant and not one who slumbers on his rights."

It's a geocacher's obligation to fulfill the conditions for a log.  But it's the owner's obligation to police their own caches for invalid logs and take appropriate action. 

There are plenty of examples of virtual and webcam caches that have been archived as a result of a CO's failure to uphold the standard and delete noncompliant logs.  But what happens to those logs?  A lackey or reviewer might archive the cache, but I have so far failed to find a case where a reviewer or lackey has also gone through the finds and deleted the noncompliant logs that triggered archival.

At some point, yes, I believe there is a time past which where the CO has taken too long to take action and lost their right to delete a log.  The question isn't so much what you or I believe that point might be, although Groundspeak could consider such opinions as proof of what the objective standard, or the expectations of the "reasonable geocacher," might be when they are called to resolve the dispute between the cache owner and the cache finder.  The question is whether Groundspeak thinks there's a limit and, if so, what it is. 

This is one of those areas that isn't really discussed openly by Groundspeak.  If any of the logs on this webcam are restored by Groundspeak following an appeal, then perhaps we'll get an idea.

Link to comment
bflentje

+bflentje

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

Certainly not taking sides but, i read it twice and still didn't understand what you were trying to convey so forgot about it and moved on down to the next post.

My quote below was really that difficult to understand? Jeez, I know written and verbal communications are one of my weaker points but I didn't think this one was that hard to decipher. For those that are confused, let me elaborate using bullet points instead..

Quote

If EC, virtual and webcam owners must be relatively reasonable in allowing finders to post requirements, perhaps the same reasonable factor, whatever that is, should be applied to the enforcement of the requirement.. just a lame idea from an experienced cache finder and owner.

  • Generally speaking, it is widely accepted that virtual, EC, and webcam cache owners when at all possible, provide a "reasonable amount of time" for finders to post any qualifying requirements.
  • Perhaps that same concept of "reasonable amount of time" should be applied to the enforcement of posting the qualifiers.

There, did that help?

I'll even add that the "reasonable amount of time" could even have a multiplication factor added to it. So if one week is considered reasonable for posting qualifiers, perhaps that one week, times one month or one-half year or even one year, should be the limit in enforcing the qualifier.. so doing cache log maintenance two years after the fact would be a lame move.

 

Link to comment
hzoi

+hzoi

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Team Microdot said:
On 2/21/2018 at 9:13 PM, bflentje said:

If EC, virtual and webcam owners must be relatively reasonable in allowing finders to post requirements, perhaps the same reasonable factor, whatever that is, should be applied to the enforcement of the requirement.. just a lame idea from an experienced cache finder and owner.

I've read and re-read this several times and I still can't grasp what it's saying. It seems to be saying the same thing twice, in two slightly different ways and thus I'm missing the point.

Far be it from me to put words in Bert's mouth, but I didn't have a problem understanding it.

Cache owners are required to allow those who log finds on earthcaches, virtuals, and webcam caches a reasonable amount of time to send in answers, upload photos, or otherwise comply with logging requirements.

Therefore, that same reasonable amount of time should apply to the cache owner in policing the log.

edit: based on the post above, looks like I got it right.

Edited by hzoi
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 5
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...