User deletes my log after four years as a revenge.

[+JoLTeam]

I have a virtual cache which has rather strict conditions for logging. One of the conditions is that the log photo must be taken in a certain location, and that something personal must be visible in the photo. That is stated several times on the listing. User logs the cache, uploads several pictures of which none fulfill the conditions. All are at the wrong location and none of the photos show anything more than just surroundings. I delete the log, user logs again, I delete the log again.

Four years ago I logged an EarthCache by that same user. I received log permission at the time(of which I have proof) , so all was well. Log even includes a photo with gps at the correct location. Today user says my answers for the first question is wrong, and threatens to delete my (four year old) log. I reply with the correct answer (it's a very easy question with an easily findable answer). User deletes my log stating that that is not the answer which is on the info board.

In my book this is an obvious retalation, and very childish behaviour. I will ask HQ to reinstate my log.

Edited September 24, 2023 by JoLTeam

[+niraD]

5 hours ago, JoLTeam said:

I will ask HQ to reinstate my log.

Hopefully, Groundspeak will reinstate and lock your log.

[+Max and 99]

5 hours ago, JoLTeam said:

I have a virtual cache which has rather strict conditions for logging. One of the conditions is that the log photo must be taken in a certain location, and that something personal must be visible in the photo. That is stated several times on the listing. User logs the cache, uploads several pictures of which none fulfill the conditions. All are at the wrong location and none of the photos show anything more than just surroundings. I delete the log, user logs again, I delete the log again.

Four years ago I logged an EarthCache by that same user. I received log permission at the time(of which I have proof) , so all was well. Log even includes a photo with gps at the correct location. Today user says my answers for the first question is wrong, and threatens to delete my (four year old) log. I reply with the correct answer (it's a very easy question with an easily findable answer). User deletes my log stating that that is not the answer which is on the info board.

In my book this is an obvious retalation, and very childish behaviour. I will ask HQ to reinstate my log.

Dude, you can't do this.

 

Do not contact me via the message center about the cache "Gravensteen Virtual Reward" unless you have a very good reason to do so (technical problems or a problem with the cache). Read the listing: your answers have to be sent to a specific e-mail address!

[+JoLTeam]

3 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

Dude, you can't do this.

 

Do not contact me via the message center about the cache "Gravensteen Virtual Reward" unless you have a very good reason to do so (technical problems or a problem with the cache). Read the listing: your answers have to be sent to a specific e-mail address!

 

Dude, what's the problem? If a users sends the answers via the message center, I accept the log, although I prefer the other way. Lots of owners of virtuals use a similar kind of automated mail system.

Moreover, the reason I deleted their log was not the answers, but the log photo.

[+Max and 99]

5 minutes ago, JoLTeam said:

 

Dude, what's the problem? If a users sends the answers via the message center, I accept the log, although I prefer the other way. Lots of owners of virtuals use a similar kind of automated mail system.

Moreover, the reason I deleted their log was not the answers, but the log photo.

That's not what you say on the cache listing:

11 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

"Read the listing: your answers have to be sent to a specific e-mail address!"

 

Edited September 24, 2023 by Max and 99

[+JoLTeam]

11 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

That's not what you say on the cache listing:

 

 

You're still missing the point. This is not about the way which answers are provided, this is about the log photo.

What guideline says I can't have an automated e-mail system? Like I said, a small percentage of the loggers doesn't read the listing and sends a message. If their log photo is fine, that's ok for me.

[+Max and 99]

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=127&pgid=936

 

If it's okay with you they use the message center, then why do you tell them not to do it except in rare circumstances? Telling geocachers to not use the message center, and that they must use a specific email is where you violate the guidelines for virtual rewards. You don't get to choose which method they use.

 

Here's what the help center says on virtual rewards which is in the link above:

Keep in mind that answers may be submitted by Geocaching.com email or Message Center. So if you require answers to you directly, you’ll have to check both places (or update your settings to receive an email notification for Messages).

 

Edit: also note this, which is somewhat in conflict with your statement about giving permission to log:

Once you send your answers, you may log your find online before hearing back from the cache owner.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Max and 99

[+JoLTeam]

1 minute ago, Max and 99 said:

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=127&pgid=936

 

If it's okay with you they use the message center, then why do you tell them not to do it except in rare circumstances? Telling geocachers to not use the message center, and that they must use a specific email is where you violate the guidelines for virtual rewards. You don't get to choose which method they use.

Okay, I will change my listing, but it has been like that when it was published, and I never got a remark about it, neither at the time of publishing nor later. 

[Keystone]

The guidance for logging virtual caches also supports what Max and 99 has explained to you.

 

Quote

Send your answers by email or Message Center directly to the cache owner. (Note: cache owners cannot require information to be sent through one particular tool.) Once you send your answers, you may log your find online before hearing back from the cache owner.

 

As for the logging dispute, HQ will sort it out.  It is possible that they'll say to let both logs stand.

[+JoLTeam]

3 minutes ago, Keystone said:

As for the logging dispute, HQ will sort it out.  It is possible that they'll say to let both logs stand.

 

In my opinion that would be unfair.

- My log is 4 years old and has been validated by the CO 4 years ago. Which means my log is valid, and shouldn't be suddenly invalidated years after logging.

- Other users' log does not fulfill the logging conditions of my virtual, hence is invalid, and has been invalidated by the CO. Actually, this would cut my wings as a CO: CO's should be allowed to delete bogus logs. This IS a bogus log, since the evidence does not support the user actually visited the place.

 

[+fizzymagic]

6 hours ago, JoLTeam said:

In my opinion that would be unfair.

What the other cacher did is indeed unfair.  However, your virtual cache requirements do not meet the guidelines and your, well, aggressive enforcement of them is inappropriate as well.

 

Two wrongs do not make a right.

[+JoLTeam]

11 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

What the other cacher did is indeed unfair.  However, your virtual cache requirements do not meet the guidelines and your, well, aggressive enforcement of them is inappropriate as well.

 

Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

Hi,

What is aggressive about requiring a photo at a certain WP with the additional requirement that something personal must be shown to prove they actually visited the location? If that's aggressive, then 95% of the virtuals are aggressive.

The thing about the e-mail address has never been enforced "aggressively" and has been dealt with by changing the listing. I invite you to read the listing now and tell me what on it is against the guidelines.

I have visited several virtuals in the past, not read the listing fully and thus missed one or two logging requirements. I have logged and have gotten several of these logs deleted. In my opinion, this is normal. Moreover, every CO should check the logs of his/her cache for validity. I don't see what's aggressive here.

[+Goldenwattle]

12 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

aggressive

I don't read anything "aggressive"; only precise instructions.

[+thebruce0]

I think the point of the OP was missed and the focus was shifted to an element that, while not permitted now, is not the reason for the dispute nor seemed to have caused any issue nor is relevant to the issue at hand.

 

One log was 4 years old, verified, and valid [reportedly]. The other log was not [reportedly], and not due to the method required per above.  The 4 year old log was deleted after it was determined that the new log was not valid and deleted, thus can easily be seen as retaliatory.  I don't think that both logs should stand, if the information we know is accurate.

[+GeoElmo6000]

The four year old log that was accepted being deleted as revenge would be unfair, I agree.

 

I have two virtual caches that require a photo at GZ.  I do everything I can to help the cacher if they log without a photo, including sending them a link to the log, coaching them through uploading a photo, etc.  My caches say that I'll delete a log if no photo after 24 hours but I usually wait a week or so and give the cacher every chance I can.  Ultimately I just delete the log if they don't communicate back to me.  I work to be very communicative with each cacher, even asking one cacher to change a "found it" to a "write note" because they arrived when the park was closed and never made it to GZ, which they did very understandingly.

 

I'll use messenger to communicate with a cacher, I won't write an email to their personal email address.  I like the messenger because it keeps the history and I can find it easily.  I don't think the OP exclusively requires an email to their email address even though the wording does sound like that, but I would take that wording out personally.

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

I have two virtual caches that require a photo at GZ.  I do everything I can to help the cacher if they log without a photo, including sending them a link to the log, coaching them through uploading a photo, etc.  My caches say that I'll delete a log if no photo after 24 hours but I usually wait a week or so and give the cacher every chance I can.  Ultimately I just delete the log if they don't communicate back to me.  I work to be very communicative with each cacher, even asking one cacher to change a "found it" to a "write note" because they arrived when the park was closed and never made it to GZ, which they did very understandingly.

Exactly my process as well. And I go by 1 week, then mark it on my calendar when to come back and deal with the log if necessary

[+JoLTeam]

1 hour ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

The four year old log that was accepted being deleted as revenge would be unfair, I agree.

 

I have two virtual caches that require a photo at GZ.  I do everything I can to help the cacher if they log without a photo, including sending them a link to the log, coaching them through uploading a photo, etc.  My caches say that I'll delete a log if no photo after 24 hours but I usually wait a week or so and give the cacher every chance I can.  Ultimately I just delete the log if they don't communicate back to me.  I work to be very communicative with each cacher, even asking one cacher to change a "found it" to a "write note" because they arrived when the park was closed and never made it to GZ, which they did very understandingly.

 

I'll use messenger to communicate with a cacher, I won't write an email to their personal email address.  I like the messenger because it keeps the history and I can find it easily.  I don't think the OP exclusively requires an email to their email address even though the wording does sound like that, but I would take that wording out personally.

I'll gladly help out beginning cachers, but the user I'm talking about has 45,000 finds. It's always the "high volume" cachers who complain and get bitchy  after their log gets deleted. They are so focused on getting the numbers up that they don't even read the listing. Cacher in question has logged a multitude other caches on the same day (in different areas), including two other virtuals which were logged, of course, without a photo. I'm even wondering if these aren't armchair logs. I'm sure answers of virtuals and Earthcaches (and final coordinates of unknowns and multis) are shared among "high volume" cachers... 

[+Goldenwattle]

9 hours ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

even asking one cacher to change a "found it" to a "write note" because they arrived when the park was closed and never made it to GZ, which they did very understandingly.

Hopefully they won't after awhile change that back to a found, because it is my understanding that no new email to you will be generated. Which it should do, if a note or DNF is changed to a find. The other way doesn't matter.

9 hours ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

I'll use messenger to communicate with a cacher, I won't write an email to their personal email address.  I like the messenger because it keeps the history and I can find it easily. 

Same reason I prefer that. I can see for instance if this person regularly doesn't sign logs, or is a 'difficult' person to deal with.

[hsiale]

On 9/24/2023 at 8:11 PM, JoLTeam said:

 

Actually, this would cut my wings as a CO

 

You are free to archive any cache you own if you no longer feel like owning it.

[+thebruce0]

7 hours ago, hsiale said:

You are free to archive any cache you own if you no longer feel like owning it.

Everyone should just do as they please, and if all the COs don't like it they can all feel free to archive all their caches.

 

... oh wait...

[+JL_HSTRE]

Looking at the listing the Virtual specifies the selfie must be at a specific waypoint with the castle in the background. That doesn't seem remarkable. 

 

The requirements go on to specify:

"Your face doesn't have to be on the photo, but please make sure I can distinguish you clearly from a regular tourist. Use a signature item, a piece of paper with your nickname on or something else."

 

I wonder how stringent the distinguishing requirement is and how much that causes disagreements?

 

My face appears in all my selfies. Is that enough to prove it's really me for this cache or do I also need my name on a notepad to prove it's not an old vacation selfie?

[+thebruce0]

35 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

That doesn't seem remarkable. 

Irrelevant. Subjective 'wow' factor. The listing has instructions. Regardless of 'remarkability', if the reviewer allowed it to be published then those are the requirements to fulfill to log it as found, if sufficient for the CO.

[+JL_HSTRE]

7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Irrelevant. Subjective 'wow' factor. The listing has instructions. Regardless of 'remarkability', if the reviewer allowed it to be published then those are the requirements to fulfill to log it as found, if sufficient for the CO.

 

You seem to have misunderstood my comment.

 

I meant that asking visitors to take a photo at a specific location with a specific building in the background is not anything out of the ordinary as far as Virtual requirements go.

 

Though since you brought up Wow Factor: I'd certainly think a castle us a guaranteed a Wow Factor even though Germany still has...25,000 of them?! Huh. Still, it's a castle.

[+thebruce0]

Ok I see what you mean. In other words, like "That doesn't seem too difficult", or "too much to ask".  Agreed

[+MNTA]

Maybe make the waypoint the location of the virtual. Then there is no dispute where the picture is to be taken from.