Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Réd

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

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, hzoi said:

Far be it from me to put words in Bert's mouth

Maybe you should. At least we wouldn't have to wrestle with the ambiguity and tendency to resort to insults rather than simply conversing normally in order to help others understand our meaning,

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Maybe you should. At least we wouldn't have to wrestle with the ambiguity and tendency to resort to insults rather than simply conversing normally in order to help others understand our meaning,

You mean like taking a perfectly viable opinion, claiming not to understand it, but instead of moving on post passive aggressive comments? Then asserting that any reply to passive aggressive comments is resorting to insults?

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, bflentje said:

You mean like taking a perfectly viable opinion, claiming not to understand it, but instead of moving on post passive aggressive comments? Then asserting that any reply to passive aggressive comments is resorting to insults?

Jeez this is going on for an awfully long time Bert.

Now that hzoi has clarified things I understand the opinion you were trying to convey.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, bflentje said:

And previous threads will prove you know my name isn't Bert. So let's talk about insults a bit longer...

Let's not.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Jeez this is going on for an awfully long time Bert.

Now that hzoi has clarified things I understand the opinion you were trying to convey.

And previous threads will prove you know my name isn't Bert. So let's talk about insults a bit longer...

Share this post


Link to post
3 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.  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.

 

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.

 

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).

According the OP the requirements were changed some time after the cache was found so we don't know if the requirements were met on this particular deleted find.  When it comes to cache ownership I agree it comes down to judgement.   We disagree on how this situation should have been handled. 

 

3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

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:

 I certainly wouldn't berate them for deleting my log but I'd defiantly be shaking my head and wondering why. 

You bring up a good point.   What if some of these people don't have the chance to get back to the cache and do it properly?    It's sad that,  because of the length of time that's passed,  some of these people may never get another chance to claim that find.   And on a webcam cache to boot.   Heck, I don't even have a webcam find.

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, bflentje said:

my name isn't Bert

Whoops.  Sorry.  I thought I recalled knowschad calling you Bert  I got it wrong.  Beg your pardon.

Edited by hzoi

Share this post


Link to post

 

20 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

 

You bring up a good point.   What if some of these people don't have the chance to get back to the cache and do it properly?  

Another guilt trip excuse.

I once relented when faced with this one and the following weekend the guy was back in the area. He could easily visited again and logged properly but clearly CBA.

Edited by Team Microdot
Remove accidentally included quote

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎2‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 7:20 PM, Réd said:

“I respectfully ask you undelete my and Kelsoboom's logs. Or, I will escalate to boards and Groundspeak.”

In all honesty It's this comment that probably got the rest of the so-so finds deleted.    The asking to undelete the find is fine.   The escalate to boards and Groundspeak probably lead to the CO combing through every find (and there's quite a few) and delete all the ones that didn't meet the requirements to the letter.   I wouldn't have threatened GS involvement over a find.  Legit or not.  

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Another guilt trip excuse.

I once relented when faced with this one and the following weekend the guy was back in the area. He could easily visited again and logged properly but clearly CBA.

If I did or was doing something that made me feel guilty than I'd have to question why I was doing it in the first place.    

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

If I did or was doing something that made me feel guilty than I'd have to question why I was doing it in the first place.    

If I was desperate enough to claim a smiley I had zero entitlement to that I'd guilt trip the CO with a complete lie I'd wonder why I was doing it in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

If I was desperate enough to claim a smiley I had zero entitlement to that I'd guilt trip the CO with a complete lie I'd wonder why I was doing it in the first place.

But your basing that on the owner not being at all flexible with their own requirements.  I'd consider someone who logged it from their living room as having zero entitlement to the find.   Someone who was there in good faith but didn't fulfil the requirement to the letter is a different circumstance to me.    I take people at face value unless I personaly learn otherwise.  I have no idea if any of the OP's post is a lie or not so I'll judge what was written at face value.   I'm not questioning the owners right to delete the logs.  I'm questioning the wisdom in doing so.    

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, hzoi said:

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.

And i got it now! ;) 

You would think it would be fairly easy to define what constitutes a reasonable amount of time but as we all know,, it's not. For people like me, a week or less would be reasonable. For others, 6 months might be reasonable. I would think that we would all be in agreement, 2 1/2 years is not reasonable. But then again, at least one CO thinks it is..

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

If I was desperate enough to claim a smiley I had zero entitlement to that I'd guilt trip the CO with a complete lie I'd wonder why I was doing it in the first place.

But your basing that on the owner not being at all flexible with their own requirements.  I'd consider someone who logged it from their living room as having zero entitlement to the find.   Someone who was there in good faith but didn't fulfil the requirement to the letter is a different circumstance to me.    I take people at face value unless I personaly learn otherwise.  I have no idea if any of the OP's post is a lie or not so I'll judge what was written at face value.   I'm not questioning the owners right to delete the logs.  I'm questioning the wisdom in doing so.  

That crystal ball of yours needs new batteries.

You either qualify or you don't. This wishy-washy in good faith malarky isn't fact based and is open to abuse and creep and leads to more problems than it is worth - as has already been pointed out earlier in the thread.

The wisdom in treating people equally is that nobody feels that anybody else had special treatment and nobody need feel short-changed because the amount of leeway they need in order to qualify is a gnats whisker more than the amount of leeway given to someone else.

It's pretty clear to me that in the position the CO was in WHICHEVER option he chose was bound to lead to someone getting bent out of shape and there are clearly people involved in this scenario who are so eye-wateringly desperate for the smiley that they'll threaten and then start a shaming campagin to get what they want.

I notice the OP is still conspicuous by their absence.  I doubt they even care enough to come back and see the outcome of their thread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, hzoi said:

I thought I recalled knowschad calling you Bert  I got it wrong.

I miss that guy on here. Talked a lot of sense.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, hzoi said:

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. 

Yes, but there's no rule in play that says after a certain amount of time the CO does not remove it, it has gained the right to remain. So yes, as I keep saying, a CO may be arguably irresponsible by not policing the logs (because the line and reason are subjective), but no period of time makes the CO "petty" for deleting invalid logs as they should.

9 hours ago, hzoi said:

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.

That's a different discussion which isn't relevant to this one, about an inactive CO returning to police an active cache of theirs with invalid logs.

 

9 hours ago, hzoi said:

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.

Not according to the guidelines, unless you can point to the line that shows I'm wrong.

That of course is not to say that GS will always side with the CO. Extenuating circumstances may change the judgement - as an example I provided above, if the logger has evidence that the CO told them they'd let the log stand, then returns 2 years later and deletes it. GS may likely side with the finder. Again, different situation than the OP.

9 hours ago, hzoi said:

The question is whether Groundspeak thinks there's a limit and, if so, what it is. 

Who knows. It ain't in the guidelines. So we go by the guidelines.  If there's an argument to be made against that standard, then that's what Appeals is for.

9 hours ago, hzoi said:

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.

Indeed. But I doubt it, because the CO has reportedly decided to show good grace.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

But your basing that on the owner not being at all flexible with their own requirements.

I would use that as the starting point, yes. Because otherwise I'd be assuming a cache owner is not following through with their responsibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Someone who was there in good faith but didn't fulfil the requirement to the letter is a different circumstance to me.

If they didn't fulfill the requirement to log the find, then they complete it in good faith.  If they didn't know, they were mistaken and didn't complete the requirements. If they did know, they were intentionally cheating the logging requirement.

It's up to the CO to judge whether they'll let the invalid log slip by. It's not their obligation merely because of "good faith".

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

According the OP the requirements were changed some time after the cache was found so we don't know if the requirements were met on this particular deleted find.  

I have posted on this already - I have a print out of this cache from July 10, 2014 at 11:15 AM.   The OP was flat out wrong on this point.   The requirements in the description were in place when the OP logged this cache.   

The CO changed the name of cache after the OP logged the cache to highlight the requirement but the requirement itself was clear in the description.   

(Edit - the cache name change was on a few month later time frame after the OP's log.   I don't want to give the impression that it was directly because of the OP's log).   

Edited by schmittfamily
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/23/2018 at 2:18 PM, Team Microdot said:

I miss that guy on here. Talked a lot of sense.

He's running around Minnesota metal detecting now. ok, maybe not exactly now because there's four feet of snow on the ground. But you get the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, bflentje said:
On 23/02/2018 at 8:18 PM, Team Microdot said:

I miss that guy on here. Talked a lot of sense.

He's running around Minnesota metal detecting now. ok, maybe not exactly now because there's four feet of snow on the ground. But you get the idea.

For fun or profit?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:
10 hours ago, bflentje said:
On 2/23/2018 at 3:18 PM, Team Microdot said:

I miss that guy on here. Talked a lot of sense.

He's running around Minnesota metal detecting now. ok, maybe not exactly now because there's four feet of snow on the ground. But you get the idea.

For fun or profit?

For fun, although I know that he's found a few things that have rather significant value.  BTW, he also just had a "new" virtual published.  Yes, he was one of the Top %1 of finders that was awarded the ability to submit a new virtual...after he was banned from the forums.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

For fun, although I know that he's found a few things that have rather significant value.  BTW, he also just had a "new" virtual published.  Yes, he was one of the Top %1 of finders that was awarded the ability to submit a new virtual...after he was banned from the forums.

I always thought that his banination from the forums was hideously unfair and a backwards step on the part of whoever it was that banned him. I'd appreciate you passing on my regards next time you see / speak to him - if you would be so kind :)

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

For fun, although I know that he's found a few things that have rather significant value.  BTW, he also just had a "new" virtual published.  Yes, he was one of the Top %1 of finders that was awarded the ability to submit a new virtual...after he was banned from the forums.

LOL. Just noticed his virtual.. in Wisconsin. He has to get the needle for that... LOL.

Share this post


Link to post

I have carefully read and considered all the logs as the OP.

I appreciate the support of many, but have decided to delete my found log of the webcam.

I strongly believe a log deletion after 2 1/2 years is wrong (which is the point of the original post.)

However, I will defer to the CO's requirement that the mandatory pic at the shoulder of the road and NOT ACROSS of the road -- regardless of when the rule was instituted.

Final thought. It was not my intent to bully and shame the CO, and I apologize to him and to those who think that this was my motivation.

It certainly was not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Réd said:

I have carefully read and considered all the logs as the OP.

I appreciate the support of many, but have decided to delete my found log of the webcam.

I strongly believe a log deletion after 2 1/2 years is wrong (which is the point of the original post.)

However, I will defer to the CO's requirement that the mandatory pic at the shoulder of the road and NOT ACROSS of the road -- regardless of when the rule was instituted.

Final thought. It was not my intent to bully and shame the CO, and I apologize to him and to those who think that this was my motivation.

It certainly was not.

 

Your entire approach and that of those who jumped on the bandwagon with notes on the cache page very strongly suggested otherwise.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

As long you are in the web cam. Doesnt manner where you are standing. This CO shouldnt be a CO.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, SwineFlew said:

As long you are in the web cam. Doesnt manner where you are standing. This CO shouldnt be a CO.

Looks like our porcine friend found his wooden spoon again :lol:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, SwineFlew said:

As long you are in the web cam. Doesnt manner where you are standing.

It seems that Groundspeak disagrees. 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."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, niraD said:

It seems that Groundspeak disagrees. 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."

I don't think anyone is questioning the Webcam cache owner's right to dictate what requirements are necessary to log a find.    I'm asking owners to think before deleting someone's find just because they haven't met the requirements to the T.   I you think the finders intent was genuine why not consider letting the find stand.   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, SwineFlew said:

As long you are in the web cam. Doesnt manner where you are standing. This CO shouldnt be a CO.

What part of the guidelines didn't you understand.  :)

In the guidelines for Web Cam caches it reads...  "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".

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, SwineFlew said:

As long you are in the web cam. Doesnt manner where you are standing. This CO shouldnt be a CO.

39 minutes ago, niraD said:

It seems that Groundspeak disagrees. 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."

28 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I don't think anyone is questioning the Webcam cache owner's right to dictate what requirements are necessary to log a find.  

Really?    ;)

 

 

Edited by cerberus1

Share this post


Link to post

Yellow card shown, a warning that things are moving off topic and personal.   I removed much of the comments that strayed and were leading to arguments.  Stay on topic please, or stay out of the thread lest further penalties descend from above. 

Edited by BlueRajah
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, BlueRajah said:

Yellow card shown, a warning that things are moving off topic and personal.   I removed much of the comments that strayed and were leading to arguments.  Stay on topic please, or stay out of the thread lest further penalties descend from above. 

Got it.   My apologies. 

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×