Deleting photo logs

[+kunarion]

15 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Maybe the simplest solution is to provide a pen or pencil with the cache.

 

That's not so simple.

 

On one of my caches recently, an accomplished cacher logged a Find while having no pen. Couldn't sign. That container had no fewer than three working pens inside, provided by me. I came and added more.  They didn't sign due to forgetting the pen, maybe they remembered their camera and took a picture, but they forgot to include the picture.

 

My concern is what exactly they're up to. That is, when they Find, Sign, Log it online, I get the impression that all is in order. When instead they're acting strange, just being random and free of the shackles of “doing things that stupid petty people want”, and are keeping Geocaching exciting and unpredictable, I become concerned about what game they're playing. Because it's the game of geocaching without any caches, that I've heard so much about.

 

I think I'll go check that cache again.

 

Edited September 23, 2018 by kunarion

[+arisoft]

6 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

Signing the log is just proof of find. If a photo achieves that - proof of find, not just visiting the location - then that's what it is.

 

You are correct only if photo is valid evidence, but generally it is not. It will not proof who took the photo and the worse part is that in many cases a photo is a spoiler. Photo of the logbook may give many hints about the hide and many times the photolog contains the whole setup.

[+arisoft]

6 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

The will learn geocaching is a stupid hobby fully of stupid petty people.

 

I am proud to be a stupid petty person. There is already too many players, it does not matter if we decimate some of them for a good reason.

[+frostengel]

8 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

I am proud to be a stupid petty person. There is already too many players, it does not matter if we decimate some of them for a good reason.

 

And why them and why not you? (Or me, if you want to. ;-)) Why not decimate those who are harsh to others?

And who decides who is allowed to play? Only that strong that survive the thread opener and you?

 

Sorry, I cannot believe that I have really read what I have read...........

[+arisoft]

3 minutes ago, frostengel said:

And why them and why not you? (Or me, if you want to. ;-)) Why not decimate those who are harsh to others?

And who decides who is allowed to play? Only that strong that survive the thread opener and you?

 

It depends on who you ask, but in this case, it is voluntary if someone stops playing because there are some stupid petty players. We do not play to please others but to ourselves.

[+frostengel]

16 minutes ago, arisoft said:

It depends on who you ask, but in this case, it is voluntary if someone stops playing because there are some stupid petty players. We do not play to please others but to ourselves.

 

Sure. But can you imagine a family with little children playing a game where others behave like that? Of course they can - but will they do? Shouldn't you be a little less egoistic in such a situation?

 

(Mostly!?) Anything you - and the thread opener do - is protected by the guidelines so everything is correct here.

But isn't there something like "good manner" which should work next to the rules? Doesn't that count anything, things like helpfulness, kindlyness (and others)? It's only about written laws but humanity?

[+arisoft]

16 minutes ago, frostengel said:

But isn't there something like "good manner" which should work next to the rules? Doesn't that count anything, things like helpfulness, kindlyness (and others)? It's only about written laws but humanity?

 

I just got some laughs when I remembered how some people react here when I suggested to take care of other people's caches. Helpfulness and kindness was not an important factor at all if we listen to them.

 

I think that it is important to play correctly. Every time any player differs from the customary practice they causes some trouble to conscientious cache owners. They are breaking good manners themselves when playing wrong way and some cache owners just do not tolerate that.

[+funkymunkyzone]

3 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

You are correct only if photo is valid evidence, but generally it is not. It will not proof who took the photo and the worse part is that in many cases a photo is a spoiler. Photo of the logbook may give many hints about the hide and many times the photolog contains the whole setup.

 

Who signed the log? I've seen ppl didn others in who weren't there.

 

Ppl who sign logs also take photos and sometimes those photos are spoilers.

 

I know someone who signs the log and photographs it. Do you want to run her out of town with pitchforks too?

 

[+funkymunkyzone]

2 hours ago, arisoft said:

We do not play to please others but to ourselves.

 

Don't hide caches then.

[+funkymunkyzone]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

 

I just got some laughs when I remembered how some people react here when I suggested to take care of other people's caches. Helpfulness and kindness was not an important factor at all if we listen to them.

 

So if you cant beat them join them right? How sad.

 

[+niraD]

4 hours ago, frostengel said:

Sorry, I cannot believe that I have really read what I have read...........

The best thing about geocaching is that anyone can play.

The worst thing about geocaching is that anyone can play.

[+Team Microdot]

Just now, niraD said:

The best thing about geocaching is that anyone can play.

The worst thing about geocaching is that anyone can play.

 

Now where've I heard that before?

[+MartyBartfast]

23 hours ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

 

the log today just shows how the arm chair loggers enjoy disrespecting a CO

Respect has to be earned, from what I've seen you haven't earned it.

 

On the other track, I've often walked past caches if I was on a mission to get a particular cache for some reason (D/T combo, cache type, pubnlication date, something that qualifies for a particular challenge based on names/owners etc.) so that's not exactly hard evidence.

 

[+colleda]

If they walk past one cache to grab another could it be they are Basic members with a three per day limit and the cache skipped was not one of the three? I've never been caching as a Basic member so I'm not totally sure if that's how it works.

[+barefootjeff]

8 hours ago, kunarion said:

18 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Maybe the simplest solution is to provide a pen or pencil with the cache.

 

That's not so simple.

 

On one of my caches recently, an accomplished cacher logged a Find while having no pen. Couldn't sign. That container had no fewer than three working pens inside, provided by me. I came and added more.  They didn't sign due to forgetting the pen, maybe they remembered their camera and took a picture, but they forgot to include the picture.

 

Ha ha, that reminds me of the FTF race on my very first hide (back when there were enough active cachers around here to actually have FTF races). I'd put a pencil in the container, but the first to arrive somehow didn't see it even though it was visible in the photo he took, and returned home to grab a pen. In the meantime someone else arrived, signed the blank logbook and claimed FTF. This is what the eventual 2TF wrote:

Quote

Ok I don't feel stupid at all !
I went home to get a pen and returned to find it already signed - and a pencil in the plastic bag with the log book
Checked the pictures I took before and yep. There is the pencil staring at me 8•|
Gutted

 

[+kunarion]

47 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

       Quote

Ok I don't feel stupid at all !
I went home to get a pen and returned to find it already signed - and a pencil in the plastic bag with the log book
Checked the pictures I took before and yep. There is the pencil staring at me 8•|
Gutted

 

Wow!  I guess that part of the fun of Geocaching is trying to find a pencil.

[+Harry Dolphin]

5 hours ago, frostengel said:

 

Sure. But can you imagine a family with little children playing a game where others behave like that? Of course they can - but will they do? Shouldn't you be a little less egoistic in such a situation?

 

(Mostly!?) Anything you - and the thread opener do - is protected by the guidelines so everything is correct here.

But isn't there something like "good manner" which should work next to the rules? Doesn't that count anything, things like helpfulness, kindlyness (and others)? It's only about written laws but humanity?

 

If they are not going to play by the guidelines, why are they playing?  And why would anyone say "You can ignore the guidelines.  It's only a game.  Anyone can play.  And do whatever they want."

[+frostengel]

11 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

And why would anyone say "You can ignore the guidelines.  It's only a game.  Anyone can play.  And do whatever they want."

 

Is there only black and white?

White: "Do what you want, I don't care!"

Black: "You cheater, I delete your log!"

Grey: "Hey, you should know the guidelines. You see, there is this point about signing the logbook. This time it is okay but perhaps next time you should ... I know, that sounds a little harsh but "rules are rules" and I find it important that ... Of course it is just a game but playing a game without rules .... Thank you for your understanding. If you have any questions, please feel free to ..."

 

That is what I mean with "good manner". That does not mean that you have to make anybody else feel more comfortable than you are. You have rights, so one of them is that they sign your logbook before their online log. And you can say so - but can't you say that in a good tone and sometimes make an exception, especially for beginners?

 

[+J Grouchy]

On 9/22/2018 at 11:58 AM, arisoft said:

 

Please, be logical. I do not require the photo, so there is no additional requirement. There is always some delay between signing the logbook and verifying that it is signed. If, for any reason, I do not see the signature when verifying the logbook, I will delete the bogus on-line log as I have promised. I have no other options or otherwise there is no meaning to verify signatures from the logbook at all if real signatures are as good as imaginary ones.

 

I think this is the best example I can find of how to destroy all joy in this game.  Congratulations on being the prime example of a Geocaching Scrooge.

[+J Grouchy]

21 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

I am proud to be a stupid petty person. There is already too many players, it does not matter if we decimate some of them for a good reason.

 

Hmmm...

Reminds me of a famous exchange:

 

Quote

"At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge, ... it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."
"Are there no prisons?"
"Plenty of prisons..."
"And the Union workhouses." demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"Both very busy, sir..."
"Those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

 

[+Max and 99]

17 hours ago, colleda said:

If they walk past one cache to grab another could it be they are Basic members with a three per day limit and the cache skipped was not one of the three? I've never been caching as a Basic member so I'm not totally sure if that's how it works.

There's a three per day limit?

[+niraD]

9 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

There's a three per day limit?

For basic members using Groundspeak's Geocaching app, yes. And actually, I think API-based apps have the same limit for basic members.

Edited September 24, 2018 by niraD

[+coachstahly]

On 9/22/2018 at 6:16 PM, CHEZRASCALS said:

I will let the community decide

 

the log today just shows how the arm chair loggers enjoy disrespecting a CO

 

to log this cache, you will have to walk past at least 3 or more caches until you get to this one, no matter what direction you take

but none have been logged,

 

it's in a woodland area, the nearest parking is at least half a mile

 

 

 

Your very first sentence posits the idea that you'll wait to see what the community thinks about this particular log, yet your next three sentences show you've already made your decision and that this is a more rhetorical statement than anything else.

 

They're not disrespecting you if they don't have a pen.  If they continually do so, then you might have a case, but to claim that they're not properly respecting you is, IMO, going a bit too far.  

 

And to claim they enjoyed it?  How do you know what they were thinking?  They're at the computer, rubbing their hands together with a sinister little grin and laugh, talking to themselves, "Who can we disrespect today by logging another armchair find?  Let's do it to this CO.  This is SO much more fun doing it this way than the way it's supposed to be done." 

 

I walk past caches I'm not interested in all the time along the multitude of rails to trails we have here in the midwest.  That alone does NOT mean you have proof they armchair logged this particular hide.

 

Does it seem a bit questionable?  I'd agree with you on that, but I'd send an email and/or message asking them to describe the hide before I assumed they logged it via the comfort of their home.  New cachers don't always understand what they're supposed to do, even though it seems rather simple at its core.  I've run into someone new who thought they were to take the cache and hide it somewhere else.  I've come across a couple other new cachers who were out without pens because this was their first day and they didn't know exactly what to do.  I lent them my pen to sign the cache we found.

[+dprovan]

16 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

If they are not going to play by the guidelines, why are they playing?  And why would anyone say "You can ignore the guidelines.  It's only a game.  Anyone can play.  And do whatever they want."

Lots of people enjoy playing golf but don't bother to keep score.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

For basic members using Groundspeak's Geocaching app, yes. And actually, I think API-based apps have the same limit for basic members.

 

As a point of clarification, the official Groundspeak apps only allow downloading 3 caches per day (that's over 1000 a year) but, as far as I know, there isn't anything that prevents a basic member from finding  or logging more than 3 a day.  Apps from authorized partners, which use the API area subject to the same limitation.

[+rapotek]

2 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

As a point of clarification, the official Groundspeak apps only allow downloading 3 caches per day (that's over 1000 a year) but, as far as I know, there isn't anything that prevents a basic member from finding  or logging more than 3 a day.  Apps from authorized partners, which use the API area subject to the same limitation.

I am surprised. I use c:geo from the very start of my active geocaching and never ever had a limit on non-premium caches viewing, saving offline, navigating to etc. I do not see premium caches at all, of course. Maybe it is the latest change, I did not use the app for over a month?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

38 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Lots of people enjoy playing golf but don't bother to keep score.

 

Many years ago I worked at a company that had several in-company softball leagues.  I was the equipment and stats manager for a couple of the leagues.   There were about a dozen divisions within the company in the the  "bay area" (aka Silicon Valley) and two "leagues" for coed softball teams were available:  a competitive league, which had league standings, playoffs at the end of the season involving the top four team,  and trophies were awarded to the 1st and 2nd place teams at the end of the season.  There was also a "fun" league, generally comprised of less skilled players but also had some that just want to play some softball for fun.   For the fun league, I didn't collect any stats (who won/loss) and there were no league standings.   We organized a schedule so that teams could play other teams, just for fun.  If they wanted to keep score, that was up to them but we didn't keep track of who won or loss.  At the end of the season, the fun league had no playoffs and just did it for the fun of playing the game.  I played on a team in the competitive league and one in the "fun" league and enjoyed both of them.   

[+arisoft]

Just now, rapotek said:

I am surprised. I use c:geo from the very start of my active geocaching and never ever had a limit on non-premium caches viewing, saving offline, navigating to etc. I do not see premium caches at all, of course. Maybe it is the latest change, I did not use the app for over a month?

 

There is a good reason for that. The app is breaking the Terms of Use you have accepted and should respect.

[+rapotek]

10 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

There is a good reason for that. The app is breaking the Terms of Use you have accepted and should respect.

Just tell me more: in what point exactly the app is breaking the Terms of Use, where and when did GS announce a warning or a ban for using this app and why GS did not revoke API access for this app in that case? I am curious cause I did not know about it.

[+arisoft]

2 minutes ago, rapotek said:

Just tell me more: in what point exactly the app is breaking the Terms of Use, where and when did GS announce a warning or a ban for using this app and why GS did not revoke API access for this app in that case? I am curious cause I did not know about it.

 

I don't know if this topic allowed at all to discuss freely. If we do not mention the name of the app it may be safe, but only in some other thread because this topic does not belong here. Anyway, you have been informed.

[+rapotek]

6 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

I don't know if this topic allowed at all to discuss freely. If we do not mention the name of the app it may be safe, but only in some other thread because this topic does not belong here. Anyway, you have been informed.

OK, I found the answer somewhere else. Just to finish this offtopic: can you confirm that the official GS app and any other legal API-using third-party apps are made to allow basic members to search in the field only 3 caches per day for?

[+niraD]

27 minutes ago, rapotek said:

Just to finish this offtopic: can you confirm that the official GS app and any other legal API-using third-party apps are made to allow basic members to search in the field only 3 caches per day for?

It isn't a limit on how many caches basic members can search for. It's a limit on how many caches basic members can download the full cache data for.

 

Basic members can search for more caches using only the basic info (name, GC code, coordinates, etc., but no description or hint). Basic members can search for more caches by downloading and saving three cache listings a day for multiple days, and then using the saved data to go geocaching.

[+rapotek]

1 minute ago, niraD said:

It isn't a limit on how many caches basic members can search for. It's a limit on how many caches basic members can download the full cache data for.

 

Basic members can search for more caches using only the basic info (name, GC code, coordinates, etc., but no description or hint). Basic members can search for more caches by downloading and saving three cache listings a day for multiple days, and then using the saved data to go geocaching.

Thank you for the answer, it gave me something to think about deeply...

[+K13]

34 minutes ago, rapotek said:

Thank you for the answer, it gave me something to think about deeply...

Basic members can view, print and find as many caches per day as they wish using the website. The various API approved apps are limited to 3 downloads per day.  If you use a GPS or an app which you manually add waypoints, you have no limits.

[+The A-Team]

On ‎9‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 12:44 AM, arisoft said:

I am using this approach. I ask something about the cache in message center and delete the log if there is no answer. Newcomers will learn quite fast to log properly to avoid extra trouble.

Ah, so your policy is, "I require that the logbook always be signed... except when I don't," just like CHEZRASCALS. What happens when you go to check the physical logbook? Do you still delete that finder's log because their signature isn't in the logbook, even though they've already satisfactorily proved that they found it?

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, The A-Team said:

Ah, so your policy is, "I require that the logbook always be signed... except when I don't," just like CHEZRASCALS. What happens when you go to check the physical logbook? Do you still delete that finder's log because their signature isn't in the logbook, even though they've already satisfactorily proved that they found it?

 

I have only one cache where I demand the real logbook to be signed verifiable way. With other caches I do not care so much. And this is just because it is written in the decription. During these three years the cache has been available every finder succeeded to write their names in the logbook, even mugglers did so and the ones who broke the lid.

[+justintim1999]

On ‎9‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 4:29 PM, The A-Team said:

It's fine to be strict and require that finders sign the logbook of your caches, but please don't mislead people by quoting things as rules when they aren't. It is not a general rule that the logbook must be signed. I wish people would stop trying to say this is the case.

Telling someone that signing the log isn't a general rule when it's the only requirement actually listed in the help center just rubbed me the wrong way.   If the CO is willing to accept a photo as fulfilling the requirement to log the cache online,  I applaud them for that.   If the CO wants to enforce the guideline and physically match the signatures with the online logs and delete those that are missing, I'd be saddened but I'd uphold their right to do so because it is the only stated requirement for logging a find online.

 

An owner shouldn't have to put "you must sign the log book" on the cache page because It's already an established and accepted practice.   If it wasn't then why dose just about everyone get bent out of shape about armchair loggers?

 

If your serious about deleting logs then you better be prepared to run out periodically and start checking log books.   In 8 years I've deleted -0- logs.  Not because I haven't had my doubts about a few of them,  but because 99 % of the logs are from good honest people who are just trying to have a little fun.   All that effort to catch the 1 or 2 that think they're getting away with something isn't worth my time.    More than that,  I hate myself if I deleted a find by a person who was trying to play the game right but made some innocent mistake like forgetting to bring a pen along. 

 

[+justintim1999]

On ‎9‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 9:00 AM, J Grouchy said:

 

Here we go again.

 

It is 100% up to the CO.  If someone writes a log that says they couldn't or didn't sign the log sheet, GS will not step in and delete the log, precisely because of what I just said...it is 100% up to the CO whether they want to let it stand.  

 

To CR:

If you want to be a complete stickler for rules and regulations, dashing the joy of an 8 year old kid and making his family decide they'd rather not geocache because of the rude people who delete their finds....well, that's 100% up to you as well.  You and only you are making the choice to delete the log and don't try to claim that your hands are tied and you are "just following the rules".  You totally could have written that you hope they enjoyed themselves and would prefer it if they sign the log sheet in the future.  No, instead you pulled out your rule book and robot voice and potentially gave them reason to wonder if all folks in this game are joyless.

Hey I would have allowed the find but I'm not going to berate the cache owner for following the rules.

 

I'd only hope they would re-consider before deleting the next one.  

[+J Grouchy]

4 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Telling someone that signing the log isn't a general rule when it's the only requirement actually listed in the help center just rubbed me the wrong way.   If the CO is willing to accept a photo as fulfilling the requirement to log the cache online,  I applaud them for that.   If the CO wants to enforce the guideline and physically match the signatures with the online logs and delete those that are missing, I'd be saddened but I'd uphold their right to do so because it is the only stated requirement for logging a find online.

 

An owner shouldn't have to put "you must sign the log book" on the cache page because It's already an established and accepted practice.   If it wasn't then why dose just about everyone get bent out of shape about armchair loggers?

 

If your serious about deleting logs then you better be prepared to run out periodically and start checking log books.   In 8 years I've deleted -0- logs.  Not because I haven't had my doubts about a few of them,  but because 99 % of the logs are from good honest people who are just trying to have a little fun.   All that effort to catch the 1 or 2 that think they're getting away with something isn't worth my time.    More than that,  I hate myself if I deleted a find by a person who was trying to play the game right but made some innocent mistake like forgetting to bring a pen along. 

 

 

 

^^ Pretty much this.

It's always good and proper to encourage signing log sheets.  My biggest complaint about this matter is folks who take the guidelines to the extreme and are inflexible to the point of turning people off the game.

 

I've deleted a handful of logs...but I'm pretty sure almost every single one was a duplicate log, a DNF that was posted incorrectly as a find, or a spoiler log that the person refused to edit.   The only times I've ever actually checked a log sheet was for suspicious finds on tough puzzle caches I own.

[+J Grouchy]

3 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Hey I would have allowed the find but I'm not going to berate the cache owner for following the rules.

 

I'd only hope they would re-consider before deleting the next one.  

 

No...I think for what they did and how they did it, they actually earned an even harsher response than I gave.  They took it too far, in my opinion.

[+justintim1999]

41 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

 

No...I think for what they did and how they did it, they actually earned an even harsher response than I gave.  They took it too far, in my opinion.

Your right.   We need to take this to another level.   I say we start with a few garden variety threats to see what we're dealing with first.    If it's true that sticks and stones may break your bones but words do permanent damage,  we may be able to get them to crack and see the error of their ways without having to go to phase 2.   

 

Or maybe,  just maybe, they may regret what they did and, with all sincerity , contact the other party and insist they re-log the cache as a find. 

 

 I kind of hope they don't though. I was kind of looking forward to initiating phase 2.

[+noncentric]

On 9/24/2018 at 10:43 AM, rapotek said:

OK, I found the answer somewhere else. Just to finish this offtopic: can you confirm that the official GS app and any other legal API-using third-party apps are made to allow basic members to search in the field only 3 caches per day for?

FYI - There is no 3 caches per day limit for Basic Members using the Official app.  Posts that imply that are incorrect.  Basic Members, using the official app, are restricted by cache type (Trad & Event only) and D/T ratings (2/2 and below), but there is no limit to how many caches.

 

Basic Members, using API-Partner apps, are limited to full cache details for 3 caches per day.