Jump to content

Deleting Legit Finds


Followers 0

Recommended Posts

quote:
Originally posted by georgeandmary:

quote:
Originally posted by Rygel:

That's another thing that bothers me, people who think just because they have more finds they are somehow better then others.

 

Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.


 

I don't hink I've ever seen a cacher say they're better than some with fewer finds.... more experineced maybe but not better.

 

george

 

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/39570_500.jpg

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.


 

Nobody says it. It's implied. "Oh, he only has 10 finds" and things like that.

 

Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.

Link to comment

In my opinion, it was not inappropriate to bring up find counts in this instance. Sock Puppet remarked that BrianSnat should spend more time caching and less time posting. In reality, Brian has plenty of finds and Sock Puppet has just a few virts. This is not an issue of trashing a guy just because he has few finds. He opened the door to the comment.

Link to comment

I've seen that happen, but not a whole lot. I think most people here do not have any sort of superiority or inferiority issues.

 

I think it happened in this thread because one person made a comment about how someone else needed to get out caching. The effect of the response was something about how it was surprising a person with few finds would say that to someone with many more finds. That led to a little more back and forth on the matter.

 

Seems to me it was people taking shots at each other it whatever way they could think of.

 

pokeanim3.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Why can't we all just get along?

 

That's my point.


 

I certainly agree with you. Unfortunately, sometimes it doesn't happen. I think this particular issue has some personal dislike between some people involved that can't be fixed. Regardless, I think the question of whether an owner should be able to delete logs for any reason is interesting.

 

pokeanim3.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Sock Puppet:

...the find still belongs to the cache owner.


 

Huh? I see no lists of owners' finds. Finds aren't even listed on the cache page, logs are. It belongs to the finder, hence the name "finder." Also, the type of log, "Found It!"--the "I" is assumed, meaning "I found it"--thus the find belongs to the finder. That's not to mention finds are listed in a person's stats. Hides are listed, but not how many people have found those caches. A find is something the Finder did, not the owner. Other than the hide, the owner has nothing to do with the find. The owner owns the hide, but the finder owns find.

 

The way it's set up, with all of the power with the owner, it gives a misconception of the cache owner controlling everything. I can understand your confusion. They hide it, but the finder finds it.

 

The hider shouldn't have the ability to simply deny that someone found their cache. They should have control over their own cache, but not the ability to control "facts."

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Rygel:

<>

And you would also see that there are some who seem to think they are more qualified to post here and pass judgement because they have more finds.

<>


 

I have to admit that when I see someone telling the world that they are right about a Geocaching issue I look at their hide/find count. If a person with 4 finds and no hides is arguing with a person that has a high find and or hide count I tend to take what they say with a grain of salt.

 

In the time I've been reading this forum most of the big flame wars have started because a (I hate to use this term) newbie didn't like being told he was wrong.

 

A few months ago a new cacher was furious because his "Yardsale' couldn't be posted as a cache. He felt that by adding some Geocaching information it should be allowed.

 

This was one of the more silly examples. But because of the anonymity of the internet people feel they can say whatever they want.

 

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Harrald:

I have to admit that when I see someone telling the world that they are right about a Geocaching issue I look at their hide/find count. If a person with 4 finds and no hides is arguing with a person that has a high find and or hide count I tend to take what they say with a grain of salt.

 

In the time I've been reading this forum most of the big flame wars have started because a (I hate to use this term) newbie didn't like being told he was wrong.

 

A few months ago a new cacher was furious because his "Yardsale' couldn't be posted as a cache. He felt that by adding some Geocaching information it should be allowed.

 

This was one of the more silly examples. But because of the anonymity of the internet people feel they can say whatever they want.


Very well put, Harrald!

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by SE7EN:

The hider shouldn't have the ability to simply deny that someone found their cache. They should have control over their own cache, but not the ability to control "facts."


There is a difference between locating a cache, and "finding" it.

I think this runs back to a question Ive asked before (and never got a straight answer to), What can a cache owner require someone to do to claim a find?

I was under the impression it was whatever they wanted, but a another recent thread seems to indicate you need to have a log book... icon_confused.gif

 

waypoint_link.gif22008_1700.gif37_gp_logo88x31.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by welch:

There is a difference between locating a cache, and "finding" it.


 

I agree, but IMHO it's more like there's a difference between successfully locating a cache and successfully logging it as a find on GC.com.

 

quote:
I think this runs back to a question Ive asked before (and never got a straight answer to), What can a cache owner require someone to do to claim a find?

I was under the impression it was whatever they wanted, but a another recent thread seems to indicate you need to have a log book...


 

With the power that an owner wields, yes, they can dictate what a finder has to do to claim the find. Basically, to answer your query, "anything they want." You can do everything they want and still they can delete your log. At this point there is nothing we can do about it except ask TPTB to change the way it's handled. If we're lucky, Jeremy is working on a solution as we speak.

 

AFAIC, it's not up to the cache owner to deny a find, but the community at large. We're supposed to be a self-policing community, not a group of little dictators.

Link to comment

It seems as though most people agree that the "finds" are for the finders. So, I ask why are find counts available for others to view? If you must trust that a finder is truthful about finding the cache in his log, why then can you not simply ask him how many find he has, and expect an honest answer? The obvious response would be "I want to know how many finds this guy has so I'll know to take him seriously". I say, lets do away with the find count all together, and if you tell me you have 1,500 finds, I'll belive you. If you're lying, shame on you. You know what you've found, I know what I've found.

 

(I'm not referring to anyone in particular)

 

In addition, (and I realize this website isn't intended to be a democracy) I like the ability to delete logs. I never have, but suppose a cacher left a log that was a complete spoiler? I would delete the find, and email the cacher so that they may re-log with (hopefully) a bit more discretion. I'm assuming that is the reason the ability to delete logs exists anyway. I think it would be a bad idea to tie up the admins time with quarrels about cache logs, and further restrict the options on our cache pages.

 

Don't even think about putting those muddy boots in my car.

 

[This message was edited by BloenCustoms on March 05, 2003 at 03:55 PM.]

Link to comment

quote:
All I want to know is what on Earth BrianSnat is talking about - 58 posts in this thread thus far, and he only posted the first. Perhaps he just likes to throw out a fireball, sit back, and laugh at all of us commenting.


 

Actually, I was in a class all day and didn't have access to a computer (well not one with Internet access). I placed the original post because it's an issue that's annoyed me for some time and something came up recently that reminded me of it.

 

BTW, what happened to those Sock Puppet posts that I saw quoted several times? I didn't see them in the thread. What happened? I'd like to have been able to defend myself, but thanks to those who went to bat for me.

 

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. -Barry Goldwater

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by SE7EN:

Where'd Sock Puppet's posts go?

 

You can't just delete your posts. What gives?

 

Oooo... Maybe Sock Puppet is an admin?


Or an admin removed them.......

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Link to comment

Personally, I think this whole thing is childish and overblown and these rehashings don't help.

 

If somebody decided to delete all my logs from their caches, I'd probably be irritated, but rather than persist in the pursuit, I'd go hunt other caches. If you don't want me to hunt your cache, say so in the description and I won't hunt it.

 

But I guess some people find perverse pleasure in fueling an argument.

 

And no, I don't think the geocaching.com rules should be changed to prevent deleting finds.

 

AprJhn

Link to comment

I practice geocaching to get distance from common day problems, while out in the nature I can sometimes forget and relax. So, personally I think that it's a great pitty to mix up personal problems with geocaching and use the "cache-owner-power" to delete ones logs.

Please try to separate both things... there's enough trouble in the world ... icon_frown.gif

 

hello

Link to comment

I did not delete my logs and I don't know who did. It just goes to show that if you disagree with the powers that be your oppinion will not be allowed to be expressed.

How ever they, as the does the cache owner, have the power to delete and I still support that. I will not wage a private war now because I was deleted. If they don't want to play with me, I will take my ball and play somewhere else.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Sock Puppet:

I did not delete my logs and I don't know who did..... If they don't want to play with me, I will take my ball and play somewhere else.


 

Sock Puppet, I think that's the best thing you've said in this thread.... icon_biggrin.gif

 

I'm lost. I've gone to find myself. If I should happen to get back before I return, please ask me to wait.

Link to comment

i might as well too. i promised myself i wasn't going to comment because the last time i commented on this issue i got weirdo email from a cacher i had never heard of about another cacher i barely could recall.

 

yes, the owner has the right to delete finds. this allows the owner to be certain that rules are adhered to.

 

it is not right or fair to delete a find because you're in a snit or because you don't like the cacher or because you feel you're owed an apology or because your underwear is too tight or because, because, because because because...

 

because of the wonderful things he does.

 

and don't anybody send me weirdo partisan emails. it just makes me afraid to cache in some states...

 

it doesn't matter if you get to camp at one or at six. dinner is still at six.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by flask:

yes, the owner has the right to delete finds. this allows the owner to be certain that rules are adhered to.


 

The cache owner has the ability to delete finds. This allows the owner to abuse the system.

 

I think it is pretty much a given, and the popular opinion here, that the owner doesn't have the right to delete legitimate finder's logs. Now, the power is a different story. We have to make it perfectly clear there is a difference.

 

Loose analogy: a police office certainly has the power to arrest people, but that certainly doesn't give him the right to arrest anyone without legal cause. The same applies here.

Link to comment

Whenever a police offer arrests me (in drag) I always INSIST that they frisk me, and sometimes I even request a body cavity search (implying that I may have some drugs or hidden weapons somewhere where the sun never shines...)

 

Uhhmmm, I just love a good frisking...

icon_biggrin.gificon_wink.gif

 

--majicman

Link to comment

Did someone delete posts by sock puppet (or anyone else?)

 

If so, I have a real problem with that, since we aren't even permitted to delete our own posts.

 

Much of the content of (at least one of) the deleted post(s) is quoted in subsequent responses, so what purpose did removing the original(s) serve?

 

Your thoughts? If there is a need to remove posts, should the header remain with the body of the post changed to read "content removed by the site administrator"? I do.

 

I once had a post of mine edited by Elias when two threads were combined ... that bugged me, but since the edit didn't alter the point of the post much, I didn't make an issue of it.

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on March 06, 2003 at 02:05 PM.]

Link to comment

i'm sorta thinking that we do not always see the reasons for things. if a post needs to be removed, chances are very good that the admins don't 'splain the material in question. i'm not sure i'm entirely coherent here, but i think what i'm trying to say is that a signpost about inappropriate material is kind of like leaving inappropriate material.

 

like a thread yesterday about a chain letter scheme that disappeared as soon as it appeared. suddenly, and with no notice.

 

it doesn't matter if you get to camp at one or at six. dinner is still at six.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by flask:

... i'm sorta thinking that we do not always see the reasons for things. if a post needs to be removed, chances are very good that the admins don't 'splain the material in question.


 

Of course ... but much of the removed content was quoted in subsequent responses, so it remains visible. If material is inappropriate or offensive in its original presentation, why would it be appropriate or acceptable in a quote?

 

It must be an administrator's prank.

Link to comment

They might have been removed because the first few posts appeared to be from a troll just looking to cause trouble. Then, sock puppet stated that he or she was posting under a sock puppet account to avoid receiving email from people who disagree with his or her view.

 

Maybe the admins missed that sock puppet turned out not to be a troll after all?

 

Or, maybe they don't like the idea of using a sock puppet account for posting? I could see that because if everyone started setting up fake accounts to be more anonymous when posting, there would surely be more bitterness and flame wars on the boards. Personally, I avoid boards where posting becomes truly anonymous because they tend to start turning into nasty bickering.

 

Anyway, I'm not a fan of censorship, but it is a private site and the admins are free to delete posts.

 

pokeanim3.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by VentureForth:

I read Sock Puppet's posts, and there wasn't anything inflammatory in them. It was good reading. Maybe the admins just playing a joke in the forums, but I don't like it...

 

---------------

http://www.scubaboard.com/images/smilies/burnout.gif Go! And don't be afraid to get a little wet!


I dunno VF, maybe you missed some. I think the ones that were deleted WERE inflammatory, and totally off topic. Sock Puppet really isn't a sockpuppet, he/she is an admitted troll. They admit they use the "sock puppet" account to say things they are afraid to say here with their true geocaching name. thats bs in my book, if you feel strongly enough about something to post it here, then you should at least be man/woman enough to admit who you are. Most everyone else here does. Plenty of times people like BrianSnat, Criminal, dboggny, myself, even Mr.Snazz and Majicman and just about every other forum member says something that may not be the most popular thing in that thread. Big deal! No way everyone is always gonna agree with everyone else, and if they did, this place would get boring really fast. If Sock Puppet truly believes in what they post, why not do it from their "real" account? The real reason they do it is to stir the pot, to start trouble, thinking they are hiding behind a fake name. Someone like that is a troll, and one of the lowest forms of life on the internet, imho. TPTB have the ability to see IP addresses and such, and on at least one occassion have publicly "outed" someone in the forums for doing the same type of thing as sockpuppet. Personally, I hope "sock puppet" is next one outted.

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by carleenp:

 

Anyway, I'm not a fan of censorship, but it is a private site and the admins are free to delete posts.


 

Well, we're returning closer to the original topic ... yes, the site administrators have the right and the power to delete posts, but should they (delete posts without leaving a placeholder that states the post was removed?)

 

I must say, however, that responses that (formerly) appeared directly after (removed) offensive/inflammatory posts but didn't quote them are often hilarious to read, because one can't make heads-or-tails of the situation.

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on March 06, 2003 at 02:36 PM.]

Link to comment

In the UK forum, I started a thread called 'off topic' to ask if any of my UK Geocaching bretheren could locate a magazine for me.

 

The topic was deleted without giving me any info. Later, one of the mods told me that threads weren't allowed to get off topic, so since my topic was named 'off topic', by default it was inappropriate.

 

Later a Brittish uprising defended me, and all rejoiced.

 

Interesting that you use the term "TPTB", Mopar. That seems to be the problem here. Not moderators, not administrators, but POWERs. Power power power.

 

---------------

burnout.gif Go! And don't be afraid to get a little wet!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

quote:
Originally posted by carleenp:

 

Anyway, I'm not a fan of censorship, but it is a private site and the admins are free to delete posts.


 

Well, we're returning closer to the original topic ... yes, the site administrators have the right and the power to delete posts, but _should_ they (delete posts without leaving a placeholder that states the post was removed?)


 

I think this may have been the purpose of the deletions. It was the sockpuppet who spoke out about owners being able to delete logs. Well, the forum owners deleted his forum logs.

 

Sockpuppet has nothing to complain about.

 

Irony at its best.

 

george

 

39570_500.jpg

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

Link to comment

I made an entry in the PA South Hills cache and was contacted three days later by the cache originator that the entry was too long in their opinion. They threatened to remove my find if I didn't shorten my entry. I was shocked at their rudeness, and confused by their threat (why would they be able to "remove" a find I've logged and left at their cache for the whole world to verify?). None-the-less, I was determined to be cordial and accommodating. I went to edit my entry to find it missing. The message arrived while I was at work, and they removed it before I arrived home??? I received no notice from geocaching.com of this occurrence, and can find no mention of this ability in the rules - or any player conflict resolution for that matter. Now that reposted my find in "shorted form" and met their request, what stops them from deleting my find again?

Devin Ross (drossdross)

Link to comment

I think the cache and travel bug owner should have the right to delete posts and pictures that they do not approve. Post length tho is a bit much, but if they give to much spoiler info or show a TB tag number (I've remove one from a TB). If you work hard to set up a cache, then it should not be up to a finder to spoil the work or surprise for others. I do not think we need more controls, the admins are quick to respond to problems, we need not add more to there jobs. I've seen some long posts and they usually tell an interesting story, same with pictures. Owners cannot edit posts and I thought we should be able to, but that would be worse now that I thought about it. Maybe selective editing where we could remove offending portions but not change or add. Its the owners cache, how long was the log, what was to long??

 

Car37 & Shnde

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...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...