Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
dubidubno

Cacher keeps re-logging deleted log - possible to block?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Rikitan said:

 

I agree with this, it is polite to email the log owner first. 

From discussion above I understood that Korsgat did not provided any evidence untill he posted the picture here. Pressumably, to provoke repetitive deletions.

This is what I found hilarious.

He said that he described the log book, including the order of the logs in it (which did not match the order online). How is that not additional evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, thomfre said:

I do what the guideline tell me to, I monitor the online cache page. The text before the guideline quote is:
"To keep the online cache page up-to-date, the cache owner must"

 

That's different responsibility - related to keeping the listing / cache page up to date.

Responsibility to identify and delete false logs can only be done by checking the physical logbook, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Rikitan said:

 

That's different responsibility - related to keeping the listing / cache page up to date.

Responsibility to identify and delete false logs can only be done by checking the physical logbook, I think.

Doesn't matter what you think. This is what the guidelines (that you linked to) say.

But I fully agree that you have to check the log book before deleting anything...

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, thomfre said:

He said that he described the log book, including the order of the logs in it (which did not match the order online). How is that not additional evidence?

 

It would be OK to me, I'm relaxed over this.

Still, it looks like clash of two egos.

Unecessary issue. Log by pencil, send picture if you are asked for. Easy.

Edited by Rikitan
striken what's not needed
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Rikitan said:

Log by pencil, send picture if you are asked for. Easy.

Do you take pictures of all logs you sign? PS: he was never asked to send it.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, thomfre said:

Doesn't matter what you think. This is what the guidelines (that you linked to) say.

 

You are mixing two things. CO should delete false logs - that's what guidelines say - it's not me thinking.

How would you identify false online log? Is there different way than checking the logbook?

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, thomfre said:

Do you take pictures of all logs you sign? PS: he was never asked to send it.

 

No, of course not. I log by pen or pencil, do not take pictures, it is not needed.

If I'd be dude logging by UV pen, yes - I would rather take picture for evidence. And if I would be asked to provide evidence, I would send the picture, not leaving the issue escalate.

But I'm simple person, avoiding uneccessary conflicts.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Rikitan said:

Responsibility to identify and delete false logs can only be done by checking the physical logbook, I think.

 

Some of my caches require the best part of a day to go and check on, with some pretty solid hiking that's not fun for someone my age in the middle of summer when the temperature's pushing up towards 40C day in and day out. If visiting a cache after every log is now expected, you can count me out.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Rikitan said:

Still, it looks like clash of two egos.

 

+1

 

Logger was being a dick, but has clearly found the cache.  CO knows this, and is also being a dick with the repeated log deletions.

 

With the photographic evidence (which could, of course, have been provided from the start), HQ will back the logger.

 

Move on and grow up.

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Rikitan said:

 

I agree with this, it is polite to email the log owner first. 

From discussion above I understood that Korsgat did not provided any evidence untill he posted the picture here. Pressumably, to provoke repetitive deletions.

This is what I found hilarious.

Hilarious is not the word I would use.   More like petty and vindictive.  

  • Upvote 4
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, barefootjeff said:

 

Some of my caches require the best part of a day to go and check on, with some pretty solid hiking that's not fun for someone my age in the middle of summer when the temperature's pushing up towards 40C day in and day out. If visiting a cache after every log is now expected, you can count me out.

 

Come on Jeff, who said you need to visit after every log?

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, barefootjeff said:

Some of my caches require the best part of a day to go and check on, with some pretty solid hiking that's not fun for someone my age in the middle of summer when the temperature's pushing up towards 40C day in and day out. If visiting a cache after every log is now expected, you can count me out.

 

Sure, I also own dozens of hiking caches. I check the logbook only once and then, when I'm hiking around. It's fine, don't worry.

I understand that this particular log in question was deleted just after significant time.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Hilarious is not the word I would use.   More like petty and vindictive.  

 

Agree, apologies. I'm not native speaker.

Edited by Rikitan

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Rikitan said:

 

If I'd be dude logging by UV pen, yes - I would rather take picture for evidence. And if I would be asked to provide evidence, I would send the picture, not leaving the issue escalate.

 

And in this case the logger did exactly that, he took a picture and was ready to send that if asked. But he wasn't asked! CO just deleted his log with no comments or questions. When the logger asked why he had deleted his log he provided texual description of his logs placement in the logbook as proof. But again his log was deleted.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, GorgonVaktmester said:

When the logger asked why he had deleted his log he provided texual description of his logs placement in the logbook as proof. But again his log was deleted.

 

Why didn’t he send the photo at this point?    (Or at least, explain that he had a photo.). Because he wasn’t asked?!  He’s clearly trying to the wind up the CO.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Rikitan said:

 

Sure, I also own dozens of hiking caches. I check the logbook only once and then, when I'm hiking around. It's fine, don't worry.

I understand that this particular log in question was deleted just after significant time.

 

Sorry if I'm misinterpreting something, but you seemed to be saying that it's a COs responsibility to check all online logs against the physical log, presumably within a reasonable time frame of the cache being logged, which seemed unduly onorous both for remote caches and I guess for those in tourist hotspots that get huge numbers of finds. I wouldn't think to do any crosschecking unless there was something about the online log that looked suspicious, and even then trying to correlate the two is a minefield with indecypherable scrawled signatures, skipped pages, wrong dates in either the logbook or online and some people who sign the log with a different name to their caching name. On one occasion when I was a little suspicious, comparing the two was such a hodgepodge that I gave up and just gave them the benefit of the doubt.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Sorry if I'm misinterpreting something, but you seemed to be saying that it's a COs responsibility to check all online logs against the physical log, presumably within a reasonable time frame of the cache being logged, which seemed unduly onorous both for remote caches and I guess for those in tourist hotspots that get huge numbers of finds. I wouldn't think to do any crosschecking unless there was something about the online log that looked suspicious, and even then trying to correlate the two is a minefield with indecypherable scrawled signatures, skipped pages, wrong dates in either the logbook or online and some people who sign the log with a different name to their caching name. On one occasion when I was a little suspicious, comparing the two was such a hodgepodge that I gave up and just gave them the benefit of the doubt.

 

As unrealistic as it may sound, it belongs to responsibility of cache owners - yes. It's not only me, saying something, it is one of the game guidelines.

Let's agree it is ideal standard and we, as cache owners, should respect it and act if / when logs appear to be false. 

(Wish a good L-O-L to PT owners. I'm aware reality is light years away now.)

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

One last time:  GROW....UP.

Don't grow up. It's a trap!

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Rikitan said:

As unrealistic as it may sound, it belongs to responsibility of cache owners - yes. It's not only me, saying something, it is one of the game guidelines.

You are wrong.

2019-01-22 12_44_04-Geocache hiding guidelines.png

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, thomfre said:

You are wrong.

2019-01-22 12_44_04-Geocache hiding guidelines.png

 

Again - how do you identify false log? 

By checking physical log sheet - it is expectation. It is described further to details in Help Center article: 7.4. Maintenance expectations

 

 

Quote

 

To make sure your geocache is in good health, monitor the logs and visit the cache site periodically. Unmaintained caches may be archived.

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.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, thomfre said:

Don't grow up. It's a trap!

 

Hehe, i just had to make this selfie :D Me. Right now.

 

dgu.jpg.08e4ed4595270f4875ff7135b9de9c9f.jpg

 

 

 

Edited by Rikitan
  • Funny 6

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

Just snap a photo if you don't have a plain old ink pen or pencil.  None of this ridiculous game-playing with invisible ink or muddy marks.

 Sorry, but that actually isn't good enough. Check the guidelines:

 

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=107&pgid=534

Quote

You can log caches online as "Found" after you visited the coordinates and signed the logbook.

 

Snapping a photo isn't signing the logbook.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Rikitan said:

 

Again - how do you identify false log? 

By checking physical log sheet - it is expectation. It is described further to details in Help Center article: 7.4. Maintenance expectations

 

 

 

Let's dive a bit further into this then. By following the link to "inappropriate logs", we get this:
 

Quote

Cache owners may delete geocache logs if they conflict with our Terms of Use Agreement or fail to meet the logging guidelines for their cache type. I

Neither the guidelines, nor the help center, say anything about cache owner having to regularly check their log books. It doesn't say so at all.

Regular visits and general cache maintenance is something else, I'm not disagreeing on that.

 

People write ugly. Rain and moisture can make signatures unreadable. People write on top of others. It's impossible to verify all finds. And I guess that's why HQ haven't included a physical log check in the current version of the guidelines and the help center.

Edited by thomfre
Fixed typo, probably added a new one
  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, thomfre said:

Neither the guidelines, nor the help center, say anything about cache owner having to regularly check their log books. It doesn't say so at all.

Regular visits and general cache maintenance is something else, I'm not disagreeing on that.

 

People write ugly. Rain and moisture can mage signatures unreadable. People write on top of others. It's impossible to verify all finds. And I guess that's why HQ haven't included a physical log check in the current version of the guidelines and the help center.

 

I take it. Similar debate is everywhere around, we don't need to continue. It's not realistic expectation to check all the finds, it is not even needed.

Once there is suspicion, and I don't see the match between physical logbook and online logbook - it's responsible to email log owner and ask what happened.

After that I MAY delete false log.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Rikitan said:

 

I take it. Similar debate is everywhere around, we don't need to continue. It's not realistic expectation to check all the finds, it is not even needed.

Once there is suspicion, and I don't see the match between physical logbook and online logbook - it's responsible to email log owner and ask what happened.

After that I MAY delete false log.

I fully agree on that way of handling it!

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, IceColdUK said:

2. Preferable to mud, bodily fluids, and even UV ink. ;-)

I agree on the bodily fluids and other nasty stuff!

I would rather have a photo, than a destroyed log. But if someone signed my log with UV ink, I would probably just get a chuckle, and move on. And I have to admit that I probably would have found it very cool to see a different signature light up in between other signatures that may have ended up on top of it. But I like colorful logbooks (no bodily fluids, please).

Share this post


Link to post

The last time I´ve called a person in this forum smartypants and wannabe lawyer I was reportet for insult.

So I´m gonna hold my self back, even the opportunities to use this wording again are miles high here :D

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, thomfre said:

I would never sign a log with a UV pen myself, but why is it so strange when someone does it? How is that any different from signing with mud, blood, grass whatever?

 

The only thing that is required, is to sign the log. Korsgat did exactly that. Why use so much time and energy on someone that actually signed, when there's so many that don't sign?

 

Because it causes dumb situations like this to crop up. Did you not see the image the OP posted of the log? There may have been UV ink on it but it wasn't visible without a tool and thereby ended up being covered up by a legitimate signature. 

 

Having no writing utensil when a cache is found happens to people sometimes. When it does, blood, grass, mud, even UV  may be better than nothing. If this was the reason the logger use the UV ink, then he could have stated so in his log and all would have been fine. With the evidence we have now, it doesn't seem this is the case. I can only assume that the logger was trying to cause angst.

 

Quote

And Korsgat was also prepared that there would be questions so he stated in his original log that ha had signed with an UV pen and he stated it in his blog from the trip. He also took a picture for when an eventual question came, but instead of asking a simple question CO just deleted the log without any comment. Is that good behaviour?

 

So Korsgat knew ahead of time that him signing in UV was going to cause a stink. Sheesh! -_-

Edited by Mudfrog
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, dubidubno said:

Why didn't you just attach this photo to your log or send it to me when you contacted me?

I think your plan was to provoke a deletion.

Although he's coy about it, it's clear to me his plan was to annoy you, and it worked perfectly. I don't know what you do that made him want to annoy you, and I don't know whether you know why he wants to annoy you, but you should worry more about that.

 

Sure, he's being a jerk, but he's managed to be a jerk while still being in the right. You should stop trying to fight this losing battle. Caching's a game that should be fun, but you're doing something that's making your caches un-fun. That's a shame, and I don't know why you'd want that. Maybe instead of butting heads, you should listen to why he's mad and perhaps soften some of your stances. What you've demonstrated in this thread is that you stick to your guns to the point of looking foolish even after you've been proven wrong. Maybe you could be friendlier? Unless you like butting heads, of course, but perhaps there are better games for head butting.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post

This whole situation sounds like two petulant children each determined to get their way, who will keep arguing about the situation until the cows come home.

 

The answer to  the posted question is "yes" -  is it possible to block a cacher from  repeatedly logging a find on a cache, but only Groundspeak can do it. If you are determined to refuse the log on this cache then you should use the Contact link at the bottom of the cache page and raise a "logging dispute" case; explain your point, and ask GS to block this cacher from logging your cache. But bear in mind:

 

  1. They will be able to see all past log entries on all your caches, and all past deleted logs.
  2. They will be able to see all the threads on the forums, including edited/deleted replies.
  3. They MIGHT come down on the side of the cacher, and they might reinstate that find log and LOCK it so you can't delete it.

 

So pay your money and take your chance.

 

I suspect nothing any of us on here says will make the slightest difference to the outcome, but it still makes entertaining reading.

 

 

Edited by MartyBartfast
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Hilarious is not the word I would use.   More like petty and vindictive.  

Well, I guess I find it funny that the finder's being so transparently petty and vindictive.

 

3 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

This is so ridiculous.

The finder was clearly and without any doubt intentionally trying to start something.  You don't go out and sign logs with ink that can't be seen without a special light if you aren't trying to be "cute".  Grow up.  No CO should be expected to do anything but look at the log sheet and see a signature.

Yes, no doubt the finder was trying to start something, and he succeeded beyond his wildest expectations. And while no CO should be expected to need a UV light, it seems clear that the CO didn't look at the log at all, he just deleted the log because the finder was trying to start something. It looks like it was only after the finder posted the clear evidence that he did sign the log that the CO went to the cache and took the picture showing the signature was overwritten, but even then, his argument is that the signature was invisible, not that the signature wasn't on the log. Although I can't say the CO is entirely wrong in his feelings, I don't have much sympathy for him since instead of considering taking the finder at his word, he assumed from the start that the CO was lying, and, worse, he's intent on maintaining that assumption even though it's been proven wrong.

 

4 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

This whole situation sounds like two petulant children each determined to get their way, who will keep arguing about the situation until the cows come home.

While I agree with your assessment, in this case that one of the petulant children took care to have solid ground to stand on. And it seems clear now that one side has a habit of being petulant, while the other is just acting petulant in a misguided effort to show that turn-about-is-fair-game.

 

I also agree with your summary of the appeals situation, although I think the photographic evidence in this case will make GS back the finder even though he was clearly being snotty.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, dubidubno said:


Why didn't you just attach this photo to your log or send it to me when you contacted me?

I think your plan was to provoke a deletion.
 

If you have asked me for a proof, before deleting my log, you would have got it. If you had sent me a message saying you did not have a UV-torch to verify, you would have gotten the picture. I upload pictures in my log if there are things I like all others to see. I could not see that a picture of the log was of any use for anyone. I could not at all know that you did not have access to an UV-torch. I think I own 2 or 3, because of geocaching, but yes, we all cache differently. So no, my aim was never to get the logs deleted. I would have answered any message that had been sent to me between the time I sent in the log to the time you deleted my log. And yes, as far as you deleting not only my original log, but also the other log I sent in (I could not know that the deletion of my log was not a mistake, since you did not tell me why you deleted it in the first place) I had to ask you why you deleted it. And after telling me you did not want to continue the discussion, you made a thread here instead. So who is the one trying to make this a big thing?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Mudfrog said:

 

So Korsgat knew ahead of time that him signing in UV was going to cause a stink. Sheesh! -_-

I knew it might trigger the CO to get in touch with me, yes. It is a very long way from making not only one but two threads on this forum, instead of sending me a message about the fact that the CO might not be able to see my signing because of lack of equipment. That would have (perhaps) found a solution there, at least in my part of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:
8 hours ago, GorgonVaktmester said:

In my experience most of the dedicated geocahcers has an UV light as a part of their standard equipment. There are so many field puzzles and multies with the need of UV out there...

Really! I have never come across a cache that needs one, or heard of a cache that needs one. I don't have a UV light. Why should I have something that I have never needed?

It may be regional. When there are multi-stage caches that use fluorescent ink/paint in an area, then geocachers in those areas are more likely to obtain UV flashlights. When more geocachers have UV flashlights, they are more likely to hide multi-stage caches that use fluorescent ink/paint.

 

Years ago, the local geocaching group organized a group purchase of UV flashlights. The number of caches using fluorescent ink/paint increased after that. While I don't have a UV flashlight myself, I know enough people who have them that I would have no difficulty completing a cache with the UV attribute if I wanted to.

 

6 hours ago, thomfre said:

I would never sign a log with a UV pen myself, but why is it so strange when someone does it? How is that any different from signing with mud, blood, grass whatever?

I have signed a log with a fluorescent pen, but that was a multi-stage cache that used fluorescent paint at all the stages, and that included a fluorescent pen in the final. I also recall something in regular ink on the cover of the log book that let us know that we needed to view the log book with UV light. Otherwise, we wouldn't have been able to see the signatures of previous finders.

 

But signing the log of a regular cache with fluorescent ink, or with lemon juice, or with any other form of writing that is invisible under normal light is a deliberate attempt to mess with the CO, and to mess with subsequent finders, as was demonstrated by the photos of the log in question:

2018-05-18-25.thumb.jpg.83b9321a570b8f8a1304e2fc71d137f3.jpg

logbook.thumb.jpg.b2c5a5633c6f1377de0999f2b7d15263.jpg

 

That is completely different from leaving a visible mark with something other than a store-bought ink pen/pencil.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, Korsgat said:

I could not see that a picture of the log was of any use for anyone. I could not at all know that you did not have access to an UV-torch. I think I own 2 or 3, 

 

That is right up there on the "dumbest things I read today" list I have going for January 22, 2019.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, GorgonVaktmester said:

 Sorry, but that actually isn't good enough. Check the guidelines:

 

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=107&pgid=534

 

Snapping a photo isn't signing the logbook.

 

 

For me it's perfectly acceptable.  On ANY of my caches, if it's a choice between signing in bodily fluids and snapping a photo...I'll take the latter every single time.  It's my prerogative.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, niraD said:
9 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:
10 hours ago, GorgonVaktmester said:

In my experience most of the dedicated geocahcers has an UV light as a part of their standard equipment. There are so many field puzzles and multies with the need of UV out there...

Really! I have never come across a cache that needs one, or heard of a cache that needs one. I don't have a UV light. Why should I have something that I have never needed?

It may be regional.

 

I got a UV flashlight for my geo kit for Christmas - and I've used it to find two caches in the past month, one in Arizona, one here closer to home, and just yesterday!  So yeah, it may be regional; I know there are enough caches around me that need a UV light that getting one as a Christmas gift made me quite happy!

 

And as for the rest of the back and forth in this and the other related thread, it amazes me how adults can be so childish about this game.  Just amazing.

Share this post


Link to post

I wouldn't be without my UV torch. One of the local CO's likes to dangle bison tubes on nylon fishing line in some really odd places.

 

I don't think he realises that fishing line glows very brightly in UV light, even in broad daylight!  

  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Korsgat said:

If you have asked me for a proof, before deleting my log, you would have got it.

If you're knowingly logging using non-standard methods that aren't easily verifiable, then it seems obvious that you should proactively provide the necessary proof to back it up. By not doing so and essentially challenging the CO to message you about it, it's you who started this conflict. The CO unnecessarily escalated things, so both of you are at fault here, but it started with you.

 

Please don't sign logs with UV ink in the future, and please initiate a discussion with the CO to resolve the obvious ongoing issues you have with him. Or, just don't find his caches anymore. Geocaching is supposed to be fun, not a platform for antagonizing people.

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, Aguila317 said:

I wouldn't be without my UV torch. One of the local CO's likes to dangle bison tubes on nylon fishing line in some really odd places.

I don't think he realises that fishing line glows very brightly in UV light, even in broad daylight!  

 

Odd that I didn't think of this simple fix to those miserable "bison in a pine" hides years ago.    :)

Share this post


Link to post

Both CO and finder have issues.  Unusual that one appears to be an older adult. 

What an ugly situation now, for something that could have been handled quickly (and quietly).

Easy for the finder to just ignore any future hides by this CO.

CO can start communicating better with others.  

 - If that doesn't work, contacting Geocaching HQ for guidance a logical next step.  

Share this post


Link to post

It makes me sad that some folk seem to see finding caches as a point scored against cache setters, rather than a collaboration with them.

 

Signing a log in invisible ink ( why oh why didn't I do that to all my DNFS ? :laughing: ) to entice the C.O. into a log deletion dispute does not reflect well on the logger, whatever back story may exist  That it was intended to provoke is supported by the cacher taking a U.V. light along as well, and taking an evidence photo which they only triumphantly produced after the deletion.  You've  not made yourself look clever ( which I guess is what you were aiming for ?) and have annoyed a C.O. into the bargain.

 

I'm seeing an excellent and intriguing puzzle series in my area (which has been in place for around 7 years and has earned many favourite points) being found 'by other means' with gloating triumphant logs . The series C.O. has found this an unpleasant experience, and I fear the caches will be archived, losing future puzzle cache fans the fun of struggling to solve and find them.

 

You may not care about annoying a C.O. , it may even have been your intention , but making people (not just the C.O. , but anyone who reads the logs, or sees this thread, or goes to an event where it gets talked about, or sees it on some social media ...  ) think cache setting and maintaining  is less attractive, with no reward and little appreciation,  just disputes and irritation , them why should anyone bother setting or maintaining caches for you to find ?

 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post

Time for both to man up and settle it methinks.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, hal-an-tow said:

Signing a log in invisible ink ( why oh why didn't I do that to all my DNFS ? :laughing: ) to entice the C.O. into a log deletion dispute does not reflect well on the logger, whatever back story may exist  That it was intended to provoke is supported by the cacher taking a U.V. light along as well, and taking an evidence photo which they only triumphantly produced after the deletion.  You've  not made yourself look clever ( which I guess is what you were aiming for ?) and have annoyed a C.O. into the bargain.

 

Yep

Of course, it would not annoy me, because I don't "ever" check the log books against the online logs. What a colossal waste of time!

Cheaters are only cheating themselves.

 

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, GorgonVaktmester said:

If caches that needs UV light is so rare that you make it look, why is there an attribute for caches that needs it?

https://www.geocaching.com/about/icons.aspx

The presence of an attribute doesn't mean something is not uncommon.  Wireless beacon caches are relatively rare, even though there is an attribute for it.  Same with scuba caches. As others have already mentioned, the frequency of UV caches differs between regions.  What may seem rare to a cacher in one region may not seem rare to a cacher in another region.  For example, the entire state of Washington has only 16 caches with the UV attribute, and I know that at least 2 of them don't actually need a UV light, just a regular flashlight.

 

 

13 hours ago, GorgonVaktmester said:

Did he say that hexepected CO to make a spescial trip? No, that's your assumption. He just said that he expected "the CO to check the logs". Isn't that quite normal?

To be fair, the logger did imply that he expected the check within a week.  The logger said the following (bolding mine), so it sounds like he was surprised that the CO took 5 months to check the log and see that there wasn't a visible signature on the physical log sheet:

Quote

Did I want this to be something this big? No. I was expecting the CO to check the logs, and that is also why I wrote in my online-log that I have signed with an UV-pen. So that the CO might have a chance to verify the find, as I was expecting the CO to do. For it to take nearly 5 months (since the CO started the other tread right after I submitted my online-log) was more than I counted for. Actually, I thought that I would get a message no more than a week after submitting the log. And then do the conversation in a fair matter there.

 

13 hours ago, thomfre said:

I would never sign a log with a UV pen myself, but why is it so strange when someone does it? How is that any different from signing with mud, blood, grass whatever?

It is different.  At least with mud, blood, grass or other visible (without special equipment) methods of signing, then subsequent finders can see where not to sign, to avoid signing over the previous logger.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Aguila317 said:

I wouldn't be without my UV torch. One of the local CO's likes to dangle bison tubes on nylon fishing line in some really odd places.

 

I don't think he realises that fishing line glows very brightly in UV light, even in broad daylight!  

 

At last something useful in this thread. Great tip. Thank you!!

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, The A-Team said:

If you're knowingly logging using non-standard methods that aren't easily verifiable, then it seems obvious that you should proactively provide the necessary proof to back it up.

 

Please don't sign logs with UV ink in the future, and please initiate a discussion with the CO to resolve the obvious ongoing issues you have with him. Or, just don't find his caches anymore.

 

As I said, we all caches differently. If someone had done this to one of my caches, I would not have had the need for proof. So I assumed (I know, wrong, but still) that the CO had access to the same equipment. Not knowing that for the five months between me submitting the log and the deletion did not either help me to understand. And just to clerify something here: Last night, one of my fellow cachers, who was with me when we signed the log, submitted a new log, which was deleted as well. Many hours after the CO had seen the picture on this forum. So I am not sure a picture sent to the CO would have helped.

 

I can tell you that I have no intention of finding any other caches from the CO in the future, as the cache we signed are 357 miles away from where I live. So for me to accidentally log some of those caches are not an issue here. I have tried to start a discussin with the CO prior to him starting this tread, and he did not want to continue that discussion with me (as I refered to in my first post in this thread), and therefore, the only thing left for me is to ask HQ for help on solving this matter. It is clear to me that the CO do not want to accept the logs from the four of us, despite the proof we have given (both in the conversation in private messages and here in this thread that he started).

 

As for my sentence of "I was expecting the CO to check the logs, and that is also why I wrote in my online-log that I have signed with an UV-pen." I did not expect the CO to make a check on it very fast. But I have seen caches that have UV-writing on a stage, where people have written over that UV-writing, and you may still see that UV has been used. The time-frame here are merely that I would have thought that the CO actually had those 5 months to tell me he could not verify my logging by not having the right accessory. But again, that is the way I was thinking, and we do cache differently. I had absolutely no intention of getting either the log deleted, or making this a great fuzz. I would much rather have had this solved within some short messages between the CO and me. That is the way I would have liked to solve every other problem that might occur too.

 

I hope I do not have to write in this thread any more. If HQ says that the CO are entitled to deleting the logs, the whole matter is ended. If they reinstate the logs, the whole matter is ended. For the rest of the story, I have said what I have meant, and will not change my mind either :)

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, BCandMsKitty said:

 

Cheaters are only cheating themselves.

 

 

No they are not! As a CO i would think that the cache is OK as long as I receive "Found it" logs, an no mentioning of problems in the log or in a NM log. So would also the next person that tries to find the box, and might use a long time searching for a cache that might be gone or broken because "someone found it yesterday". So the cheaters do have anegative  impact on other cachers as well!

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×