Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
funkymunkyzone

New earthcache logging rule

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, geoawareUSA1 said:

 

For the record, the following is not found anywhere in the Help Center or FAQ:

 

 

Per your original statement, this was part of the original instructions.  I'm not saying your a bad person, or that you would even carry through on such a threat, but it's likely this single sentence that got the attention of the EC Reviewer.  Since Logging Requirements are backed up by documentation in the Guidelines and Help Center, such threats of deletion are pointless, and by no means improve the chances of people actually following your instructions.

 

To clarify, I was not asked to change the wording of the line about log deletion. I only changed its wording in order for it to continue to make sense.

 

The reviewer requested this change in order for it to be published:

"Just one thing, can you amend the listing to indicate that they can log immediately, but must follow up with the answers within a reasonable period, say 7 to 10 days. We no longer say must email answers before logging find."

And that's all they said about it.

 

I'd also say, in my opinion, stating the log will/may get deleted, is not pointless - it just backs up the request for doing a before or at the same time as b.  It diesnt leave a new earthcache seeker with the question "or what?" nor leave them wondering if they really need to bother sending the answers at all.

 

I also dont really see it as a threat, although I understand that's kind of the phraseology common on the forums when talking about log deletion. In my mind a threat would be more like "or I'll take your children away and put them to work in the salt mines so they can work off your debt to me as master of all things earthcache" :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, geoawareUSA1 said:

For the record, the following is not found anywhere in the Help Center or FAQ:

 

On 9/20/2018 at 10:13 AM, funkymunkyzone said:

Logs that do not follow such an email will be deleted.

 

Per your original statement, this was part of the original instructions.  I'm not saying your a bad person, or that you would even carry through on such a threat, but it's likely this single sentence that got the attention of the EC Reviewer.  Since Logging Requirements are backed up by documentation in the Guidelines and Help Center, such threats of deletion are pointless, and by no means improve the chances of people actually following your instructions.


Apologies if this is a daft question - but are you saying that an Earthcache Owner is NOT allowed to deleted logs if they don't receive any answers to the logging tasks?


I appreciate the guidelines don't specifically say that they can..

but they do say:

People do not need to wait for permission to log your EarthCache. Requiring someone to wait is not supported by the EarthCache guidelines. People should send their logging task answers to you, then log your EarthCache.

This suggests that there is an correct procedure - send answers first.. then log - which is exactly what the OP requested in his initial submission.

The guidelines then go on to say:

When you review their logging task answers, if there is a problem, you should contact them to resolve it. If there is no problem, then their log simply stands.

Which is perfectly reasonable..

But what if there is a problem? 

I would say not receiving any answers at all IS a problem - and as a ECO I wouldn't expect to have to send more than one reminder before deleting - in reality I usually send two, but them my EC is not visited very often so I am not having to keep track of who has / hasn't sent any answers. 

Or is it simply a case of you are allowed to delete a log if no answers are received but you aren't allowed to say that on the cache page?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

From https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=51&pgid=292

 

Quote

Assume no prior knowledge of geology

 

 

From https://www.geosociety.org/GSA/fieldexp/EarthCache/guidelines/home.aspx

 

Quote

The cache page, including the description and logging tasks, must assume only a basic knowledge of geology.

 

Bold is mine.

 

More inconsistency.

 

I think anyone finding themselves confused can be forgiven.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, geoawareUSA1 said:

Since Logging Requirements are backed up by documentation in the Guidelines and Help Center, such threats of deletion are pointless, and by no means improve the chances of people actually following your instructions.

 

10 hours ago, geoawareUSA9 said:

This situation normally crops up with geocachers who are new, or at least new to earthcaches.  So the safe money may actually be on them not "having read . . . what is written," at least in the guidelines.  To counter this, many earthcache owners put the explanation of what earthcaches are and how they work in each description, and that's fine.

 

Quote

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=51&pgid=296

 

Geocachers must complete the tasks before they log the EarthCache as found.

 

Complete the tasks = provide your answers

 

I believe the OP acts in good faith and in accordance with the guidelines and seeks to inform those undertaking the Earthcache in question about the likely outcome of not complying with the guidelines assuming - as suggested by @geoawareUSA9 that there's a distinct possibility that the 'seekers' will not have read the guidelines.

 

Personally I'd rather know from the outset how to guarantee a successful outcome than than waste time, effort and money because some aspect of that information was buried somewhere on several contradictory pages across two websites that I'd never seen.

 

I'm probably not alone.

 

Disappointment requires adequate planning.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, geoawareUSA1 said:

For the record, the following is not found anywhere in the Help Center or FAQ:

 

On 20/09/2018 at 7:13 PM, funkymunkyzone said:

Logs that do not follow such an email will be deleted.

 

 

The Help Centre does however say this under a CO's maintenance expectations:

 

Quote

Here is a list of your responsibilities as a cache owner:

  • Choose an appropriate container that is watertight.
  • Replace broken or missing containers.
  • Clean out your cache if contents become wet.
  • Replace full or wet logbooks.
  • Temporarily disable your cache if it’s not accessible due to weather or seasonal changes.
  • Mark trackables as missing if they are listed in the inventory but no longer are in the cache.
  • Delete inappropriate logs.
  • Update coordinates if cache location has changed.

 

The "inappropriate logs" link ultimately lands on this for ECs:

 

Quote

4.3. EarthCache logging tasks

An EarthCache teaches an earth science lesson. The cache page must include logging tasks that help teach the same lesson. Remember that the EarthCache is based on the world around us, not on an informational sign at the EarthCache site. Geocachers must complete the tasks before they log the EarthCache as found.

 

From my reading of this, it is the responsibility of the CO to delete inappropriate logs and, for an EC, an inappropriate log is one in which the geocacher has not completed the tasks before they log the EarthCache as found. I doesn't say might or may, it says must complete the tasks before they log the EarthCache as found, and there's no might or may in the COs responsibilities either, it says simply that they need to delete inappropriate logs. Am I wrong in this interpretation?

  • Upvote 6
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

I believe the OP acts in good faith and in accordance with the guidelines and seeks to inform those undertaking the Earthcache in question about the likely outcome of not complying with the guidelines assuming - as suggested by @geoawareUSA9 that there's a distinct possibility that the 'seekers' will not have read the guidelines.

 

Well, of course you do.  Let's look at this user friendly block of BOLD ALL CAPS RED TEXT that appears on your earthcaches.

 

Quote

IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THESE LOGGING TASKS PLEASE SEND US YOUR ANSWERS USING THE Message this owner LINK AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE OR USING THE MESSAGE CENTRE OR EMAIL VIA OUR GEOCACHING PROFILE BEFORE SUBMITTING YOUR LOG. PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE ANSWERS OR SPOILERS IN YOUR ONLINE LOG. YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND LOG YOUR FIND AS SOON AS YOU HAVE SENT YOUR ANSWERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH Groundspeak GUIDELINES. LOGS WITHOUT ADEQUATE LOGGING TASK EVIDENCE MAY SUBSEQUENTLY BE DELETED.

 

So friendly!  Reminds me of the signs I see on the way to work, except those have less bold, red, and upper case text, despite the fact that they talk about the use of deadly force, not log deletion.


minuteman_3_31.jpg

 

In light of the moderator note below, let me clarify my intent.  I don't mean this as a personal affront, but as an illustration on how subjective reasonableness is at play here.  You have similar approaches to warning of deletion, so you view this as reasonable.  I do not, so from my perspective, it is not as reasonable.  But unless either of us work for appeals, then ultimately these are just our personal opinions and approaches.

Edited by hzoi
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, hzoi said:

So friendly!  

 

I realise that my Earthcache pages tend to be rather wordy and there's a lot of information on there, so properly reproducing a full, balanced context here rather than the small extract you've singled out would be impractical.

 

I fail to see though how purposely drawing attention to precise instructions on how to be successful is unfriendly. I fail to see how making them very clear and positioning them high up the page is unfriendly.

 

ETA - you will of course have noticed how the text you label unfriendly includes hyperlinks to the parts of the page / site people will need to go to in order to provide their Logging Task responses - again making it easier, I hope, for them to be successful because I understand how, especially for those who are new to all of this, information overload is a very real danger.

 

For anyone who wants to look at my Earthcache pages in full I hope that they'll speak for themselves in terms of the amount of effort I'm willing to invest, time and again, to give people the best chance of learning enough to respond well and with confidence to the logging tasks.

 

 

Edited by Team Microdot
addition

Share this post


Link to post

Let's all be sure to keep this interesting and important topic focused on the topic and not on individual people, please.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, hzoi said:

In light of the moderator note below, let me clarify my intent.  I don't mean this as a personal affront, but as an illustration on how subjective reasonableness is at play here.  You have similar approaches to warning of deletion, so you view this as reasonable.  I do not, so from my perspective, it is not as reasonable.

 

Be up front.

 

Advise that log deletion is a possibilty.

 

Explain how to easily avoid that.

 

Give people the space and grant them with the intelligence to make their own informed choices based on all the facts.

 

How could it be more reasonable?

 

Flip it on its head.

 

Hide the information somewhere. Delete their log and shrug when they protest that they weren't told about that possibility and point them at the hidden document they should have somehow found?

 

Simply put - anyone trying to convince me that's a reasonable way to behave is wasting their time.

Share this post


Link to post

I believe that others have already told you of other possibilities, so those are not the only two ways of doing things.

 

You can inform people in the cache description of what they need to do WITHOUT SHOUTING AT THEM ABOUT LOG DELETION.  Like this.

 

Quote

There is no physical cache container to find; to log this earthcache, you will need to message or email us the answers to the questions below.

 

Notice the links - I too can be helpful.

 

And again at the bottom of the page, right by the logging questions.

 

Quote

To log this earthcache, message or email us and copy and paste these questions, along with your answers. Please do not post the answers in your log, even if encrypted. There's no need to wait for confirmation from us before you log, but we will email you back if you include your email address in the message. Group answers are fine; just let us know who was with you.

 

No threats of DEADLY FORCE log deletion.  No bold.  No all caps. 

 

And if they don't do it, I warn them - individually, not as a disclaimer on the cache page itself - that I may have to delete their log if they don't send answers in. 

 

Quote

Howdy, thanks for visiting our earthcache GC2930G, Grand Caverns Earthcache.

Since earthcaches have no container to find and no paper log to sign, the rules require that you answer questions based on the earth science lesson. Please read through the description again, think about what you saw, and send me the answers to these questions.

This isn't a test, you don't need to score 100, just do the best you can. But please get back to me in the next week, or else I may have to delete your find.

 

1. The name of this earthcache: Grand Caverns Earthcache.
2. From the exhibit near the cave entrance: Name two human activities that threaten caves.
3. The tour will take you by a formation called George Washington's Ghost: 
a. What type of cave formation is "George Washington's Ghost?" Describe its appearance.
b. Is the formation still growing? If so, how fast? If not, why not?

 

If a week goes by and no response, I delete the log and send another note.

 

Quote

I've seen no response from you. Sorry, but I have to delete your log. If you can come up with some answers, please send them in and then feel free to log your find again.

 

It's like a whole third possibility exists outside your two scenarios.  But if you find that this, too, is unreasonable, then I'm leaving it at that, because debating you when you are convinced you have the only correct solution usually ends up being, as you put it, a waste of time.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, hzoi said:

It's like a whole third possibility exists outside your two scenarios.  But if you find that this, too, is unreasonable, then I'm leaving it at that, because debating you when you are convinced you have the only correct solution usually ends up being, as you put it, a waste of time.

 

There are countless possibilities - I've never claimed otherwise - despite your apparently desperate need to make it seem so.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/21/2018 at 11:06 PM, funkymunkyzone said:

In my mind a threat would be more like "or I'll take your children away and put them to work in the salt mines so they can work off your debt to me as master of all things earthcache" :)

 

Just make sure you focus on the geology of the salt mine, then you're fine, from a geocaching perspective anyway.  :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

@hzoi I appreciate what you are saying, but I would disagree that politely summing up in two lines what the guidelines are for logging an EC, and my responsibility as CO, is somehow unreasonable. I dont even think it's something that's subjective, at least from the point if view of us players who have no control over the wording of the guidelines.

 

As I mentioned earlier in this thread I believe it's actually helpful for newer players who don't know what they need to do, or why. And we both, CO and finder, get to avoid the awkward conversation where CO "tells off" the finder for not doing it right.... in this game we play, which is not life and death.

 

ETA and anyway, this topic was never about the "threat" of log deletion. It was about the instruction to send answers then log - something that exactly matches the guidelines on both Groundspeak and gsa websites.

Edited by funkymunkyzone
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Oh wow! I didn't realise you could just copy and paste images right into your posts now - without first uploading them to the interwebs somewhere - that's MUCH easier! :D

 

Anyhoo...

 

On the question of red text being unfriendly vs being used to draw attention to important information see below an extract from one of my early Earthcaches:

 

image.png.b9d4ae43a6503c3df7ea503267fa575f.png

 

I use red to draw attention to information I consider essential to a successful outcome. I see no reason not to.

Edited by Team Microdot
typo
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

I have just been made aware of this thread and do wonder how we as EC COs are supposed to deal with lack of answers with EC logs 
If it becomes generally known that you can log a find and not send any answers for, well, a long time if ever - then EC COs will archive their caches as it will be too much hassle to keep up with the 'evergrowing list of finders who haven't sent answers yet' - and cachers will not want to get ECs published due this very odd concept around being allowed to log ECs without sending the answers first - surely common sense says 'send answers to CO and then log the find' as the guidelines state is the simplest process to work with - working with the guideline that "You are not allowed to dictate the order in which the Logging a Find" will only cause many EC finders to log a find and not bother with sending answers - they will quote that guideline and will cause the CO to have to wait in the hope that they will forget and the find will stand.
Taking the guidelines
"
Once you send your answers, you may log your find online before hearing back from the cache owner." 
and "You are not allowed to dictate the order in which the Logging a Find"  the latter contradicts itself in relation to the former as the former is dictating an order 1) send your answers, then 2) you may log online - not the other way round - I don't understand how reinforcing the former in your cache description is an issue
 

I recently had an EC find claim - originally the 'finder' had posted a note saying the answers will be sent - obviously I was made aware of that with an email of said log.

However I wasn't made aware of that log being changed to a find as that doesn't generate an email - I just happened to check through my ECs and spotted this - the log still stated answers will be sent - I checked I hadn't been sent any answers - this was 7 weeks after the original log. TBH I have no idea when the log was changed but it could have been the next day.

I emailed the cacher and advised him that due to the lack of any answers the log will be deleted - but with the added comment that if the answers were sent I am more than happy for the find to be re-logged - he pleaded with me to re-consider and give him more time, I couldn't understand why as I didn't get any answers from him and it had been 7 weeks since his log - how much longer did he need ?, he either had the answers or he didn't and I reiterated that if he sent the answers he could happily log the find - the next message was the answers !!!! - the point here is I do not want to be managing my EC logs weeks / months after the initial log -
it should be as simple as -
I have received your answers - your log will stand 
or I have received your answers, it does suggest you haven't been near the EC cache site so your log will be deleted 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

I've now modified the wording in my EC description to this:

 

Quote

You may email you answers to xxxxx, or send a message via my profile page. Feel free to attach any photos you have to corroborate your answers, but they aren't a requirement for logging. I'll try to respond to your answers as soon as I can but there's no need to wait for that before logging your find.

 

Hopefully this might encourage people to provide answers without inferring that answers are required either before or after logging or that logs might be deleted if answers aren't forthcoming. But if it's still considered too strong I'll just delete the paragraph altogether and let the loggers decide if or when and how they might submit answers.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I've now modified the wording in my EC description to this:

 

 

Hopefully this might encourage people to provide answers without inferring that answers are required either before or after logging or that logs might be deleted if answers aren't forthcoming. But if it's still considered too strong I'll just delete the paragraph altogether and let the loggers decide if or when and how they might submit answers.

 

Are you expecting this to achieve anything in particular?

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Are you expecting this to achieve anything in particular?

 

Just trying to make it compliant with this new interpretation of the logging requirements. The previous version said that you could log it straight away but logs would be deleted if answers weren't forthcoming.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:
10 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Are you expecting this to achieve anything in particular?

 

Just trying to make it compliant with this new interpretation of the logging requirements. The previous version said that you could log it straight away but logs would be deleted if answers weren't forthcoming.

 

So making it compliant with an interpretation that bears no resemblance to what's written in the guidelines, by stating no requirements whatsoever?

 

Seems a rather retrograde step to take.

 

Edited by Team Microdot
typo

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

I have just been made aware of this thread and do wonder how we as EC COs are supposed to deal with lack of answers with EC logs

 

Once again, I'll add the disclaimer that my role as a volunteer reviewer is to apply the guidelines to listings, not logs, so I am not speaking for Groundspeak; but in the absence of a Groundspeak employee posting to clarify, I will sum up my understanding of how Groundspeak would like you to deal with it: patiently (but not with infinite patience). 

 

Contact the geocacher in question and ask them to send answers.  If you have no response after a reasonable time (for example, a few days to a week), you may feel free to delete the log.

 

15 hours ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

If it becomes generally known that you can log a find and not send any answers for, well, a long time if ever - then EC COs will archive their caches as it will be too much hassle to keep up with the 'evergrowing list of finders who haven't sent answers yet' - and cachers will not want to get ECs published due this very odd concept around being allowed to log ECs without sending the answers first

 

That should not become generally known, because that is not the case.

 

As has been pointed out in this thread, the logging guidelines specify for a geocacher to send their answers to the logging questions and then log their find.  For earthcache owners, a strict reading of this would mean that if a geocacher logged a find and did not send the answers right away, the cache owner could immediately delete the find.  Although the guidelines don't specify, my understanding is that speedy log deletion is not how Groundspeak would prefer earthcache COs handle the situation; rather, ask the cacher to send answers and give them some time to respond before deleting the log.

 

16 hours ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

the point here is I do not want to be managing my EC logs weeks / months after the initial log

 

That's entirely fair.  I feel the same way about my earthcaches.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I've now modified the wording in my EC description to this:

 

Quote

You may email you answers to xxxxx, or send a message via my profile page. Feel free to attach any photos you have to corroborate your answers, but they aren't a requirement for logging. I'll try to respond to your answers as soon as I can but there's no need to wait for that before logging your find.

Hopefully this might encourage people to provide answers without inferring that answers are required either before or after logging or that logs might be deleted if answers aren't forthcoming. But if it's still considered too strong I'll just delete the paragraph altogether and let the loggers decide if or when and how they might submit answers.

 

I'm not the geoaware for your area, clearly.  For what it's worth, this looks fine to me.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, geoawareUSA9 said:

 

I'm not the geoaware for your area, clearly.  For what it's worth, this looks fine to me.

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, geoawareUSA9 said:

 

As has been pointed out in this thread, the logging guidelines specify for a geocacher to send their answers to the logging questions and then log their find.  For earthcache owners, a strict reading of this would mean that if a geocacher logged a find and did not send the answers right away, the cache owner could immediately delete the find.  Although the guidelines don't specify, my understanding is that speedy log deletion is not how Groundspeak would prefer earthcache COs handle the situation; rather, ask the cacher to send answers and give them some time to respond before deleting the log.

 

 

I think we all get where you are coming from.  And I don't think any EC owner, at least any reasonable one (like those participating in this conversation) wants to do any speedy log deletion.  After all, we put caches out for people to find them, not so that we can delete people's logs whenever they try to find them.

 

I don't think any of us even care which order the emails come in - log then answers or answers then log.  To be honest, for most of my ECs, I get the log first and usually within minutes I get the answers.  Sometimes, it's a week or two later I get the answers, and I don't go hassling people about it.

 

The issue I have with all of this is that there's a statement in the Groundspeak Guidelines (that Groundspeak wrote, not us) the outlines to any geocacher how to log an earthcache:  Complete the requirements (send answers to the EC owner) and THEN log the earthcache.  But we are not allowed to re-state that guideline on our cache pages.  Instead we have to state something on our cache pages that lowers the expectation so far as to make it much more difficult for us to manage our caches.  While most finders will most likely continue to send their answers promptly as they always have done (creatures of habit, and mostly people just want to get the "admin" out of the way), those that want to push the limits (give them an inch and they will take a mile) or try to cheat the system now have so much leeway it's just too hard for us to try and manage them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, funkymunkyzone said:

The issue I have with all of this is that there's a statement in the Groundspeak Guidelines (that Groundspeak wrote, not us) the outlines to any geocacher how to log an earthcache:  Complete the requirements (send answers to the EC owner) and THEN log the earthcache.  But we are not allowed to re-state that guideline on our cache pages.  Instead we have to state something on our cache pages that lowers the expectation so far as to make it much more difficult for us to manage our caches.  While most finders will most likely continue to send their answers promptly as they always have done (creatures of habit, and mostly people just want to get the "admin" out of the way), those that want to push the limits (give them an inch and they will take a mile) or try to cheat the system now have so much leeway it's just too hard for us to try and manage them.

 

Very sad.  This needs to be fixed!  The guidelines need to be consistent!  "Complete the requirements (send answers to the EC owner) and THEN log the earthcache."  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, geoawareUSA9 said:

 

I'm not the geoaware for your area, clearly.  For what it's worth, this looks fine to me.

+1

 

I have not read the entire thread, but In today's world many cache with smart phones, and gather information to log later.  The reason this is advised is because too many cachers are put off  by Earthcaching when the cache owner deletes a cache the moment there is not an answer.   Most deletions make someone upset, it is not that hard to give someone enough time to get off vacation and respond.  What GAUSA9 mentioned is what I have heard as well.  It is not earthshattering, just common courtesy.  Yes the other can post a note, but many newer cachers, and some experienced cachers have not idea how to do that. 

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, geoawareUSA2 said:

I have not read the entire thread, but In today's world many cache with smart phones, and gather information to log later.  The reason this is advised is because too many cachers are put off  by Earthcaching when the cache owner deletes a cache the moment there is not an answer.   Most deletions make someone upset, it is not that hard to give someone enough time to get off vacation and respond.  What GAUSA9 mentioned is what I have heard as well.  It is not earthshattering, just common courtesy.  Yes the other can post a note, but many newer cachers, and some experienced cachers have not idea how to do that. 

 

Then the guidelines need to be changed to reflect this.

Share this post


Link to post

.

Edited by bflentje
wasn't worth the hot air.

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/21/2018 at 7:31 AM, funkymunkyzone said:

I get the impression that you think that just because I stated *exactly what is in the earthcache logging requirements* from the help centre on my cache page that I would not be reasonable and give latitude where necessary.

 

On the contrary, I am about the most lenient EC owner out there. The point is that the statement on the cache page that outlines the expectation is just that, the expectation of how the game should be played, according to Groundspeak.

 

Anyway, if this is how it is to be, although I'm still somewhat amazed that following the guidelines on both the GSA website and Grounddpeaks help centre is somehow wrong and unreasonable, I think I just wont bother policing logs at all. It's too much work.

 

 

Then perhaps owning 62 earthcaches isn't a task you should be undertaking.

 

In all seriousness, this is great time to mention my feature proposal that has never been taken seriously about adding a "checkbox" to the cache owner's view of virtual, webcam and earthcache listings. It's just simply on-or-off checkbox to indicate which Found It logs have been validated with the proper logging requirement. It's simple and would go a long way in managing the "too much work".

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, bflentje said:

 

Then perhaps owning 62 earthcaches isn't a task you should be undertaking.

 

Well, that's constructive...

 

12 minutes ago, bflentje said:

In all seriousness, this is great time to mention my feature proposal that has never been taken seriously about adding a "checkbox" to the cache owner's view of virtual, webcam and earthcache listings. It's just simply on-or-off checkbox to indicate which Found It logs have been validated with the proper logging requirement. It's simple and would go a long way in managing the "too much work".

 

But I agree with this.  There definitely are features, this or others, that Groundspeak could implement in order to assist the COs of any virtual type of cache undertake their responsibilities to manage their listings.

 

Referring again to your first comment above, please note that the system works just fine when we restate on our cache pages the guideline as it is.  What we are talking about is having to relax that statement of the guideline and loosen it, seemingly simply for the benefit of those who want to push the limits and/or get away with bogus logs.  This loosening is and was never required for the vast majority of normal geocachers doing their normal caching.  There's some panic apparently that there are some horrible nasty EC owners out there just waiting at their keyboards to delete peoples logs as soon as they come through.  I haven't heard of this myself, but hey, I'm not a reviewer...

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, geoawareUSA2 said:

too many cachers are put off  by Earthcaching when the cache owner deletes a cache the moment there is not an answer.   Most deletions make someone upset, it is not that hard to give someone enough time to get off vacation and respond.

 

I would challenge anyone to show me evidence that "too many cachers are put off  by Earthcaching when the cache owner deletes a cache the moment there is not an answer".

 

Also re "it is not that hard to give someone enough time to get off vacation and respond" - exactly how hard is it for a finder to finish their vacation and then log, or around about the same time as logging while on vacation, they send the answers.

 

I tend to follow a bit of an ethos when I'm caching in that I'm the one that chose to go caching, so I will try not to cause work for someone else.  Logging an earthcache and then waiting weeks to send the answers to the CO would create work for that CO so as a common courtesy to the CO, I won't make them have to do that admin.  As a rule, I only log an earthcache once I have completed the task and sent the answers (I can't remember if I've found any of yours, but if you look back through your emails you should probably see that I waited until the answers were sent before logging).  Just like I won't log a trad until I found it and signed the log, or I won't log a challenge cache until I have completed the challenge.  It really isn't that hard or outrageously complex.

 

I think you'll find the most common complaint about EC is the complexity and "homework" required to complete one.  And (while I'm sure there are some that are overly complex), as far as I'm concerned, that is just fine.  Don't want to complete the requirements in order to get your smiley -> please move along there's an LPC just over there... ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

1 minute ago, funkymunkyzone said:

 

I would challenge anyone to show me evidence that "too many cachers are put off  by Earthcaching when the cache owner deletes a cache the moment there is not an answer".

 

Not so hard if you do a little homework.  Although I'll give you a clue.  Their Profile looks like this now:

 

image.png.61e94ece7234101f9477ac90951d62c1.png

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Touchstone said:

 

 

Not so hard if you do a little homework.  Although I'll give you a clue.  Their Profile looks like this now:

 

image.png.61e94ece7234101f9477ac90951d62c1.png

 

How is that evidence that "too many cachers are put off  by Earthcaching when the cache owner deletes a cache the moment there is not an answer"?

 

You haven't explained, but I ASSUME you are showing us that there is a CO that deleted people's logs and now has had their account banned.  One CO.  That deleted a handful of logs in the global scheme of things.  Hmmm.

 

You know that idiot COs can still delete logs and upset people right?  No matter what the guidelines say and no matter what us reasonable COs put on our cache pages...

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

To add to the above...

 

Since I'm quite a fan of Earthcaches, and somewhat of a promoter and advocate for earthcaching, I often talk to people about earthcaching.  Of those who aren't into earthcaching, here are the top 3 reasons why they don't do it:

 

Number 1 - Too much work to do, too complex, hard to complete requirements, don't know what I'm looking at, don't have something to write down answers on, etc.  (Some of this is being unprepared, some of it relates to overly complex ECs they have looked at, or even poorly written up ECs that don't give enough background info)

 

Number 2 - It's virtually impossible to get an EC published, even when you jump through all the hoops, more hoops get created and there's so much inconsistency in the reviewing.  (Well, no offence to the reviewers in this thread who have been very helpful in this discussion, but I tend to agree with this one - from my experience I have wasted many many many hours, probably 100s trying to get ECs published and then given up because of sometimes outrageously stretched and pedantic interpretations of guidelines, sometimes entirely made up ones)

 

Number 3 - Oh, there isn't a number 3...

 

Nope, I have never ever heard the reason, in the hundreds of people I have talked to about earthcaching, that they don't do ECs because of COs deleting their logs too quickly and upsetting them.  Not once.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, funkymunkyzone said:

That deleted a handful of logs in the global scheme of things.  Hmmm.

We'll just consider that a take home assignment for you then.  I'll just say that you only have to hit your thumb with a hammer once to know not to do that again.  Similar life lesson to learned in that situation as well.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Touchstone said:

We'll just consider that a take home assignment for you then.  I'll just say that you only have to hit your thumb with a hammer once to know not to do that again.  Similar life lesson to learned in that situation as well.

 

I'm sorry.  Maybe I'm stupid, but I don't see how this is helping the discussion.

 

It could be that I'm not seeing what I'm supposed to take away from this.  Someone once stabbed someone with a knife - ban all knives?

 

I don't get it.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Remember to keep this thread on topic please. I think the subject is important to a lot of us and I really do not want to have to have to close the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Neos2 said:

Remember to keep this thread on topic please. I think the subject is important to a lot of us and I really do not want to have to have to close the thread.

I think we are still on topic, and I don't mean to offend Touchstone - if there really is an issue of COs (note plural) unreasonably deleting peoples logs, and continuing to do so, then let's talk about that as a reason for a change of some kind to deal with it...  But I'm not seeing it...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

Number 2 - It's virtually impossible to get an EC published, even when you jump through all the hoops, more hoops get created and there's so much inconsistency in the reviewing.  (Well, no offence to the reviewers in this thread who have been very helpful in this discussion, but I tend to agree with this one - from my experience I have wasted many many many hours, probably 100s trying to get ECs published and then given up because of sometimes outrageously stretched and pedantic interpretations of guidelines, sometimes entirely made up ones)

 

I have noticed of late that it can be much more difficult to get an Earthcache published, even when you're doing your best to comply with all the written guidelines and provide a rich ESL.

 

I spend many hours putting mine together and go to some expense too, mainly in travel.

 

These things being the case I think it's more than reasonable to expect those logging one to stick to the ridiculously simple procedure written into the guidelines:

 

1. Send your answers

2. Log the cache

 

Adding layers of complexity - written or, as in this case, unwritten, seems counter-productive for everyone involved.

Edited by Team Microdot
missed a word!
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

You haven't explained, but I ASSUME you are showing us that there is a CO that deleted people's logs and now has had their account banned.  One CO.  That deleted a handful of logs in the global scheme of things.  Hmmm.

 

If I'm reading the reference right, the player in question owned 203 earthcaches and was apparently quick to delete logs that were not immediately compliant.  I only logged one of his caches, during his initial suspension, so I don't think we ever actually got to send the answers in to him and find out how strict he was.  But I hear he was not the easiest to deal with, and I believe he deleted far more than a handful of logs.

 

I agree that it's not helpful to have the guidelines be set out in what appears to be fairly plain language and then be asked not to state that language on the cache page.  But I can also see that we're still dealing with damage control from a guy that was banned eight years ago. 

 

At the end of the day, I don't know what the right answer is.  I have developed a standard approach to the issue (I'll not clutter the thread further with it - it's here if anyone missed it), and I follow it.  I've not yet been asked to change the logging requirements part of my earthcaches, and I've not yet heard from appeals about any issues or seen any logs restored that I've deleted for not getting back to me.  Unless I hear otherwise, I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing.

Edited by hzoi
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, hzoi said:

owned 203 earthcaches

 

203 earthcaches? That's about one new earthcache (and a suitable listing!) every ten days in his cacher carreer. Wow. It seems that he lived for that and therefore I can understand if he reacts to "wrong logs" (whatever may be wrong for him) and wants to delete anything that might be bogus. I do not envy him after that what happened to him with an important part of his life breaking away which he spent about 6 years of his life!?

 

But in fact I feel that this is just a little insane. 203 earthcaches is just too much.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, frostengel said:

Wow. It seems that he lived for that....

Actually not.  If it had been about the EC's, he would probably still be playing and submitting EC's today.  Instead, it became about something else entirely, and like most of these stories, it ends at the Terms of Use of the website.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, hzoi said:

But I can also see that we're still dealing with damage control from a guy that was banned eight years ago.

 

I can't see how this guy being 'banned' eight years ago has anything to do with the OP given that the OP's experience is new - something that hasn't happened before in over ten years of Earthcache ownership.

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post

Someone with 203 earthcaches can delete all the logs he wants and it's still a tiny fraction of all the earthcache logs. And if hes been banned for 8 years then that problem was solved 8 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

Someone with 203 earthcaches can delete all the logs he wants and it's still a tiny fraction of all the earthcache logs. And if hes been banned for 8 years then that problem was solved 8 years ago.

Unfortunately not the case with the copy/paste monkey-see-monkey-do crowd out there. With the prolific EC hiders out their, the tendency is to do things the way they do them. With aggressive CO's, the tendency is for people to follow that lead, under the guise of, "that's how the game is played", until HQ steps in to deal with the mess and aftermath. My guess is the issue is never really gone, it's just that HQ is quicker to step in before it gets to that level. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

Unfortunately not the case with the copy/paste monkey-see-monkey-do crowd out there. With the prolific EC hiders out their, the tendency is to do things the way they do them. With aggressive CO's, the tendency is for people to follow that lead, under the guise of, "that's how the game is played", until HQ steps in to deal with the mess and aftermath. My guess is the issue is never really gone, it's just that HQ is quicker to step in before it gets to that level. 

I hear you, but I still go back to 2 things:  It was 8 years ago and we are only just being told to change our wording now?  (And the guidelines haven't changed)  And, my informal and limited seat of the pants anecdotal survey still tells me that the issue of COs aggressively deleting logs is not a reason for anyone I've talked to not earthcaching.  That doesn't tell me it's not a problem at all, but it tells me it's an insignificant one.

Share this post


Link to post

Better to nip it in the bud I guess, rather than letting it fester. For what it's worth, I've heard of two cache owners told to stop deleting logs in the last year, so I wouldn't characterize the issue as nonexistent but better than it used to be for sure. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

Better to nip it in the bud I guess, rather than letting it fester. For what it's worth, I've heard of two cache owners told to stop deleting logs in the last year, so I wouldn't characterize the issue as nonexistent but better than it used to be for sure. 

 

Did you suffer personally on any of the 36 Earthcaches you've found over the last 15 years?

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

Better to nip it in the bud I guess, rather than letting it fester. For what it's worth, I've heard of two cache owners told to stop deleting logs in the last year, so I wouldn't characterize the issue as nonexistent but better than it used to be for sure. 

 

We've run into two instances.  1) Two cachers walked through the park.  Claimed a find on the EarthCache without answering the questions.  They were told that their finds did not qualify.  One deleted her find.  The other logged several times.  With rather insulting e-mails.  This was referred to GS, and he was banned from logging it again.

2) The other was a log deleted for not 'being a valid geocacher'.  The other three logs were allowed.  Appealed to GS.  The log was allowed and locked.  This cacher is a valid geocacher.  That CO archived most of their caches.  

Edited by Harry Dolphin
Clarification

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

2) The other was a log deleted for not 'being a valid geocacher'.  The other three logs were allowed.  Appealed to GS.  The log was allowed and locked.  This cacher is a valid geocacher.  That CO archived most of their caches.  


How did the CO try and argue whether someone is a "valid geocacher?" Were they insinuating the account as a sock puppet? 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Touchstone said:

Better to nip it in the bud I guess, rather than letting it fester. For what it's worth, I've heard of two cache owners told to stop deleting logs in the last year, so I wouldn't characterize the issue as nonexistent but better than it used to be for sure. 

 

To be fair, I said "insignificant" rather than "nonexistent".  It's virtually impossible to prove anything is entirely nonexistent :)

 

I know that in society we have to cater for the lowest common denominator.  I've seen the comedian Jim Jefferies do a pretty funny bit on that.  But in all things there is a line.

 

As I mentioned further up the topic, just because someone stabs someone else with a knife, we don't ban all knives in order to prevent it happening again.  Rather we accept that a tiny proportion of the population choose to use knives in that way and the rest of us just chop vegetables.

 

Nothing has convinced me that the quick and unreasonable deletion of logs is such a massive problem as to require us to put softly softly wording on our cache pages (while the guidelines still spell out the logging process as they have done for years, and how we had worded such on our cache pages until being told to change)...

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×