Jump to content

Log deleted 5 years after a find!!


Geokashers

Recommended Posts

I woke up to a log deletion email today for GC5E2Y2. I logged this as a find 1/1/2015!!! Yes....a couple weeks shy of 5 years ago! The CO is saying that I don't qualify for the challenge. I have to look at that....but I was looking at the cache logs and the cache had been disabled after I signed the log because the requirements had to be changed. So I have no idea if the current cache page requirements are the same as the day I signed the log. But should a log be allowed to be deleted after FIVE years like this? Seems COs should be doing their checking a lot closer to when a log is first submitted. This messes up stats for the year, milestones, and is very aggravating. I'd like to bring this up with someone that can restore my log and prevent it from being deleted again. Anyone know who I should be contacting to dispute this log deletion?  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

Seems strange to change the requirement for a challenge, as then suddenly lots of people might not qualify, but who qualified before.

Yeah, I've heard of changing requirements to make a now-impossible challenge be possible again. But I haven't heard of changing requirements to make an existing challenge harder to complete.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Plus as a CO I mean, c'mon. If you change the requirements you can't suddenly delete all the past logs of people who did qualify because they don't now... I've never seen anyone actually do that (until now, if that's actually what happened here).

I agree, though I am not interested in challenges in general (maybe one or two some day). Maybe the challenge requirements change was forced from outside. But anyway, consider this: you placed a cache under the tree, it had a lot of finds but it was missing so frequently that you decided to place it high on the tree and a geocacher has to climb to put her/his signature in the logbook. Now, do you delete all previous "Found It " logs because they did not climb the tree? I don't think so.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, rapotek said:

I agree, though I am not interested in challenges in general (maybe one or two some day). Maybe the challenge requirements change was forced from outside. But anyway, consider this: you placed a cache under the tree, it had a lot of finds but it was missing so frequently that you decided to place it high on the tree and a geocacher has to climb to put her/his signature in the logbook. Now, do you delete all previous "Found It " logs because they did not climb the tree? I don't think so.

 

That cache should be archived and a new listing made. Or should previous finders now get credit for a T4/5 instead of T1/1.5? It's a different cache.

Maybe the same could have been done for the challenge cache the TS found before the change.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, on4bam said:

That cache should be archived and a new listing made. Or should previous finders now get credit for a T4/5 instead of T1/1.5? It's a different cache.

Maybe the same could have been done for the challenge cache the TS found before the change.

 

Depends if the DT changed or just the challenge qualification. And no, prior logs aren't intended to be required to be perpetually qualified. Many things can change over time even if the log, statistics, and challenge listing don't change, which can cause someone to become unqualified.  The Find log, technically, should be verified by the CO to determine it's valid as close to the logging date as possible. And that's why it's a good idea to copy and paste qualifications into the log text so it remains a static evidence into the future.  If something changes (regardless of why) the record remains that the Find is (was) valid when posted.

 

17 minutes ago, rapotek said:

anyway, consider this: you placed a cache under the tree, it had a lot of finds but it was missing so frequently that you decided to place it high on the tree and a geocacher has to climb to put her/his signature in the logbook. Now, do you delete all previous "Found It " logs because they did not climb the tree? I don't think so.

 

I'm not sure if you were offering a counterpoint, but I agree.  Although I would say the CO would have to make some drastic changes to the listing with that much of a chance, and thus it would be a new geocache.  That example isn't quite the same as, say, swapping out a PB jar for a mid-sized Lock'n'lock. The latter doesn't really change anything about the listing necessarily.

 

Moving it up a tree without changing the DT would be like changing the challenge to something completely different. Past finds aren't invalidated regardless.

Updating the DT because of moving the cache is like change the D along with the challenge qualification - past finds aren't invalidated but if it's a significant enough change it should be a new listing; in my mind it's a very different and new intended experience that past finders did not have. Since past finds aren't invalidated, that warrants a new listing.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

And that's why it's a good idea to copy and paste qualifications into the log text so it remains a static evidence into the future.  If something changes (regardless of why) the record remains that the Find is (was) valid when posted.

 

I keep my finds in GSAK in 2 databases. One is populated and updated by the Myfinds PQ, the other is my archive where I move caches after I logged them. That way all info remains as it was at the time I found it. After I noticed my D/T grid was down 1 cell I was able to find what happend. A T1/D5 mystery was archived because the coordinates were on a cheating site and the CO changed the cache to D1/T1 before archiving. I wouldn't have cared about this if there were plenty of T1/D5 caches but at that moment there were not many.

 

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, on4bam said:

 

I keep my finds in GSAK in 2 databases. One is populated and updated by the Myfinds PQ, the other is my archive where I move caches after I logged them. That way all info remains as it was at the time I found it. After I noticed my D/T grid was down 1 cell I was able to find what happend. A T1/D5 mystery was archived because the coordinates were on a cheating site and the CO changed the cache to D1/T1 before archiving. I wouldn't have cared about this if there were plenty of T1/D5 caches but at that moment there were not many.

 

Thanks for the great idea! I keep one found database that gets refreshed every few weeks so I can look back at the cache's current state, never thought about keeping it "as found" or a D/T change. Apologies for the thread drift.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, on4bam said:

 

I keep my finds in GSAK in 2 databases. One is populated and updated by the Myfinds PQ, the other is my archive where I move caches after I logged them. That way all info remains as it was at the time I found it. After I noticed my D/T grid was down 1 cell I was able to find what happend. A T1/D5 mystery was archived because the coordinates were on a cheating site and the CO changed the cache to D1/T1 before archiving. I wouldn't have cared about this if there were plenty of T1/D5 caches but at that moment there were not many.

 

You can also 'lock' caches in GSAK so updates don't change them - I did it for one cache (way back in 2001 when this was possible) that I found as a Trad but was changed to a Virt.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, lee737 said:

I think logs should 'cement in place' after a defined period, after which only HQ should be able to delete, same for D/T ratings.

I disagree. If logs are bogus, then the CO should be able to delete them, no matter how old they are. And the CO should always be able to adjust the cache description in response to changes to the cache and its location.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
6 hours ago, lee737 said:

I think logs should 'cement in place' after a defined period, after which only HQ should be able to delete, same for D/T ratings.

 

Okay ... I'm sure most have seen examples of older children "Posting my find when found with xxxxx.  I have my own account now ! " .

 That post was entered today, but found six years ago with mom and dad.  

 - Wouldn't a "defined time" have to block those logs , since that time-frame's "cemented in place" ?  

This is supposed to be a family-friendly hobby ... 

 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, niraD said:

If logs are bogus, then the CO should be able to delete them, no matter how old they are.

And the CO should always be able to adjust the cache description in response to changes to the cache and its location.

 

Agreed.  The main reason we joined and still remain PM is for notifications, and we act on that stuff. 

 - There is some who believe they can back-date and no one will notice...

We know a couple that do a "cleansing" of their caches during the winter, or when they finally have time.

A friend of mine was shipped out to another country, and while we handled basic maintenance (easy caches too :-) , I don't believe he had the time to wonder about a fake log while there.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, niraD said:

I disagree. If logs are bogus, then the CO should be able to delete them, no matter how old they are. And the CO should always be able to adjust the cache description in response to changes to the cache and its location.

 

I also disagree.  The D/T rating of a cache should reflect the difficulty and terrain effort required at the time someone finds the cache.  If a cache requires a swim across a river, then an easily navigable foot bridge is built, the effort required before and after the bridge may be significantly different, but the cache and the hiding spot may be unchanged.  

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:
11 hours ago, niraD said:

I disagree. If logs are bogus, then the CO should be able to delete them, no matter how old they are. And the CO should always be able to adjust the cache description in response to changes to the cache and its location.

 

I also disagree.  The D/T rating of a cache should reflect the difficulty and terrain effort required at the time someone finds the cache.  If a cache requires a swim across a river, then an easily navigable foot bridge is built, the effort required before and after the bridge may be significantly different, but the cache and the hiding spot may be unchanged.  

 

I hope you're just agreeing with the disagreement about the CO being allowed to edit a cache listing, and not whether the CO should be allowed to delete past logs after the listing changes :P  Context was challenge caches and changing of qualifications, but there would absolutely be an uproar if someone who found the 5.0 terrain island cache had their log deleted because now there's a bridge and the CO made it 1.0 terrain and the cacher didn't find it the 'new' way. :mmraspberry:

 

Link to comment
On 12/16/2019 at 9:20 AM, niraD said:

If logs are bogus, then the CO should be able to delete them, no matter how old they are.

 

I agree here.  The equitable doctrine of laches does not have to apply to geocaching.

 

On 12/16/2019 at 9:20 AM, niraD said:

And the CO should always be able to adjust the cache description in response to changes to the cache and its location.

 

I don't entirely agree here. 

 

If the new cache is substantially similar (it was hidden in one tree, and now it's hidden in another tree 50' away), I don't have an issue with the CO just adjusting the description and driving on. 

 

On the other hand, if the nature of the hide changes enough, the original cache listing should be archived and a new listing submitted in its place.  That holds whether it's gone from a large bucket to a micro, or from a tree climb hide to a guardrail hide, or if the nature of the challenge changes enough that folks who originally qualified for the find no longer do.

 

There's no forcing function to require cache owners to comply with this, other than the inability to move a cache more than 161m / 528' without help from a lackey or reviewer.  But I strongly believe it's a best practice.

Edited by hzoi
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
5 hours ago, hzoi said:

On the other hand, if the nature of the hide changes enough, the original cache listing should be archived and a new listing submitted in its place.  That holds whether it's gone from a large bucket to a micro, or from a tree climb hide to a guardrail hide, or if the nature of the challenge changes enough that folks who originally qualified for the find no longer do.

 

I agree that cache owners should archive and relist if the cache is changed in a way that substantially changes the experience. But I also think the CO is the one who should make that call. If the point of the cache isn't the container, but the view or the historic location or whatever, then the CO may consider changes to the container to be entirely irrelevant.

 

Those who keep track of such stats will just have to live with changes to the cache description.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
17 hours ago, niraD said:
22 hours ago, hzoi said:

On the other hand, if the nature of the hide changes enough, the original cache listing should be archived and a new listing submitted in its place.  That holds whether it's gone from a large bucket to a micro, or from a tree climb hide to a guardrail hide, or if the nature of the challenge changes enough that folks who originally qualified for the find no longer do.

 

I agree that cache owners should archive and relist if the cache is changed in a way that substantially changes the experience. But I also think the CO is the one who should make that call. If the point of the cache isn't the container, but the view or the historic location or whatever, then the CO may consider changes to the container to be entirely irrelevant.

 

Those who keep track of such stats will just have to live with changes to the cache description.

 

OK.  Overall, I agree in principle, but at the end of the day, there's a specific cache in question here: a challenge cache, for which the criteria changed in mid-stream.  It's not in a historic location, it's in an evergreen in a business park.  It looks like a nice business park, one that I would have no problem visiting for a cache, but one that would otherwise not invite a hide to showcase the location.  The point of the cache is the challenge.  And it was not a question of statistics, it was a question of whether it's OK for a cache owner to change the criteria for a challenge cache, such that previous finders no longer would be qualified, and then delete their finds.

 

Here, the CO changed their mind and stopped deleting finds that were perfectly cromulent when they were logged, and at the end of the day, I suppose that's good enough.  I still think that, in a similar situation where the challenge is the only distinguishing feature of the cache, the more advisable way forward would be for a CO to archive the old challenge cache listing and create a new one, rather than creating an issue such as this. 

 

I fully recognize that this decision is ultimately left to the cache owner, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with that decision.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

Another thing to keep in mind, if the challenge changes to the point that past geocachers no longer qualify, what if they see it as a new challenge they also want to qualify for? A new cache is the best for them as well. Certainly not deleting the old log and removing the record that they qualified and found the previous challenge cache.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, hzoi said:

Overall, I agree in principle, but at the end of the day, there's a specific cache in question here: a challenge cache, for which the criteria changed in mid-stream.

Yeah, in the case of a challenge cache, I think the change to the challenge would probably be a reason to archive and submit a new listing.

 

Although I'll offer the caveat that I haven't looked at this particular challenge cache, either before or after, so I'm not sure what the changes were. Maybe their was a loophole that the CO wanted to close. But in general, I think changing an existing challenge to make it harder is a bad idea.

 

Although part of me wonders whether the new challenge (or for that matter, the old challenge) would have been allowed under the current rules for challenge caches. There may be a grandfathering issue here too.

Link to comment

In general, challenge cache owners are not supposed to be changing the challenge. The challenge was reviewed and published. If those requirements change, that is circumventing what was reviewed. This is like changing the location of a cache that was reviewed and published. Except for minor adjustments, it's not allowed. With larger changes, the new location needs to be reviewed. This is, last I knew, the same for challenges. I've been aware of reviewers coming back and disabling challenges that the CO modified, even archiving them.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...