Jump to content

Logging a virtual that isn't the thing?


Recommended Posts

I have a cache dadgum the Torpedoes which is supposed to be for torpedoes. Now the text of the description has been refined a little to be more specific. But I had a cacher with a ton of finds post a pic of a missile and claim this as a find, when even the original cache description said torpedo or torpedoes at least 12 times. I can't think that it was implied that I wanted anything other than torpedoes. Should I ask this person to remove their log? Am I being too picky here?

 

"Seek and ye shall find." - God, ????, BC

Link to comment

It's your choice to leave it or not...

I would thank them for their log, but explain to them that there is a difference between what they found, and what you require people to find.

 

I've found that if you just be polite, there's usualy no problems.. We're a pretty understanding bunch of folks on here icon_wink.gif

 

-fractal

 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

N 45 30.ish

W 122 58.ish

Link to comment

We don't have the benefit of reading your original description. Do you still have it available so that you could post the text for us to read? Perhaps it was an honest misunderstanding. But either way, it's your cache. If you intended for it to be for torpedoes only, you certainly have the right to enforce it, even if your original wording was less-than-perfect.

 

BTW, your signature quote (by Jesus) is from circa A.D. 27-30.

 

Worldtraveler

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by worldtraveler:

We don't have the benefit of reading your original description. Do you still have it available so that you could post the text for us to read? Perhaps it was an honest misunderstanding. But either way, it's your cache. If you intended for it to be for torpedoes only, you certainly have the right to enforce it, even if your original wording was less-than-perfect.

 

Worldtraveler


 

About the only thing I changed in the cache description was that I added a section in the rules of the cache that used bold on the

quote:
torpedoes
and said no missiles, artillery shells, etc. Other than that, the cache description is the same.

 

I guess my question should have been a poll. I just think a person with 1400+ finds ought to be held to a higher standard than someone with 14 finds. Kinda like a 14-yr old ought to be held more responsible for cleaning his room than a 4-yr old.

 

I probably am being too picky, just kinda rubbed me the wrong way that I asked for one thing and got another.

 

"Seek and ye shall find." - God, ????, BC

Link to comment

Delete it. Don’t ask the user to remove the log. Don’t exchange emails about the log. Just delete it. You could send an email to the user explaining that their find did not meet the criteria and that you have removed their log. I read your cache page a couple of days ago right after it was approved. It was very clear that you wanted a torpedo to claim a find. I am planning my first locationless cache right now (might even be submitted today) and will have a zero tolerance for illegitimate logs. Would people allow log entries for physical caches when the person didn’t actually find the cache?

quote:
From fictitious log entry:

icon_smile.gifWhat a find! I didn’t find the ammo can with the cache logbook, but I did find a metal coke can near a bush in the same park as the cache. Didn’t see the waterfall everyone else mentioned in their log entries. They must have all been seeing things.


If locationless cache creators don’t enforce the intent of the cache then we might as well just have one blank cache page where everyone can just repeatedly log finds of whatever they want. We could call it the generic locationless cache. I know I sound a bit harsh, but if we are going to have locationless caches we have a responsibility as creators and loggers to ensure their integrity.

 

I don't think you're being to picky.

 

I'm right here.....no I'm over here.....wait I'm definatly here.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Clan Ferguson:

Is that a Locationless not a virtual?

 

at least by the guidelines I mean??

 

Cache On!!

 

James

"Big Dog"

-Clan Ferguson


 

Actually I just went in to edit it, and it already shows it as a locationless cache under "Cache Type". But the cache description page shows it as a virtual cache. Any ideas?

 

"Seek and ye shall find." - God, ????, BC

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Shane the Evil Twin:Actually I just went in to edit it, and it already shows it as a locationless cache under "Cache Type". But the cache description page shows it as a virtual cache. Any ideas?


 

All locationless caches show that way. My 'For the Love of the Game' is the same way.

Link to comment

I have a locationless cache for markers or memorials about the Pony Express (GC78D0). I got one log for a building alledgely used by Wells Fargo. It was about 350 miles south of the well-documented route of the Pony Express. I wrote to the loggers and explained the difference, and they deleted their log.

I want to believe that some people don't read the cache pages very carefully, as I have similar problems with the descriptions of virtual caches, where the request to e-mail first, for verification purposes, is ignored.

I'm probably guilty of it to some degree, not reading the cache page before blundering off to look under bushes, the wrong bushes...

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by TeamMoehrke:

...

I want to believe that some people don't read the cache pages very carefully, as I have similar problems with the descriptions of virtual caches, where the request to e-mail first, for verification purposes, is ignored.

I'm probably guilty of it to some degree, not reading the cache page before blundering off to look under bushes, the wrong bushes...


 

I'm certainly guilty of not waiting until my verification email is answered before I log my find. However, as such I must realize that I may have to delete my log (or change to a not-found) if my answer is determined to be incorrect.

 

Certainly most people would be cool with a request to change their log from a 'find'. Unfortunately, there are those few that will give you a ton of grief if you ask...

 

[This message was edited by sbell111 on October 15, 2002 at 10:52 AM.]

Link to comment

After 1400 finds you would think they knew how to read. And that picture is not a "Torpedo", I should know spent time in the Silent Service. And my eldest son been in the Navy for 9 years as a "Torpedo Man" Wish I had a digital camera, because I could log this one. The find needs to be deleted, the requirements were not meet. Just do it, it's your cache. You asked for certain specifics and someone went a little astray!!

 

Tahosa - Dweller of the moutain tops.

Link to comment

If you decide to follow the advice of those who have recommended that you delete the log, I would suggest doing one of two things: Either 1) e-mail the logger that you've deleted their find since it didn't meet the specifications, or 2) post a note on the cache page, mentioning that you deleted it.

 

It's simple common courtesy to let the person know that they haven't met the requirements, in case they want to go back and log this cache at a later date.

 

It was only after I decided to create a personal travel bug to track my own caching travels, that I noticed that a couple of my Find logs had mysteriously disappeared (without a word to me). I have no idea if they were deliberately deleted by the owners, or if it was due to some kind of a glitch. icon_confused.gif

 

A little communication can go a long way. icon_smile.gif

 

-------

"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!" 196939_800.jpg

Link to comment

I think it is fine to delete the logs if they are not acceptable. But, to be fair, I wouldn't have known the difference between a torpedo and a missile before this. I mean, I guess they are different things, but unless that is your area of interest, they are close enough. As a beer maker, I am shocked when people don't realize the difference between top fermented ales and bottom fermented lagers, or if people don't know the distinction between stouts and ales. (All stouts are ales, but not all ales are stouts) My point is, for the average person who is not into military weaponry, torpedo and missile are the same thing. I understand they are completely different, but I am just offering a perspective on what the loggers were thinking. I would be happy that they thought enough of my virtual to attempt it and send a gentle message explaining the distinction.

 

stealyourcache.gif "Why is it OK to use the F-word in the office, but not the J-word?"

Link to comment

Since I don't want to be just an average beer drinker, please sign me up for your course entitled "ALE AND LAGERS 101 - the difference between top fermented ales and bottom fermented lagers" and the follow up course "Stouts and Ales 102" Labs only please! mmm sounds yummy already.

 

****************************************************

Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted.

Link to comment

Of course, there's the difference between Farragut's "dadgum the torpedoes!" torpedo and the kind this cache is about. The torpedoes in Mobile Bay in 1864 were stationary - we would call them mines, now - while the cache is about self-propelled underwater craft. Technically, all modern torpedoes are missiles, since they are projected to destroy a distant object (a dictionary definition of missile, courtesy of m-w.com) but not all missiles are torpedoes, since they don't go underwater.

BTW, the orignal use of the word 'torpedo' was for a fish, a kind of ray with an electric organ - (family Torpedinidae)

And I'm one of those who knows about missiles and torpedoes, but beer - it's just beer... icon_smile.gif

Link to comment

Last time I saw a "torpedo" launched, it was from a ship and I never saw it touch the water. Looked kinda like a "missile". Then there's those missiles launched from submerged submarines that for a short momment are propelled underwater. Hmmm, maybe we shouldn't be so picky. It's just a game.

Link to comment

Not up to being GeoCop. But GeoDetective, sure. I've viewed several of this cachers' virtual finds, and he/she has made a habit of bending the rules and logging finds that may have been valid on some kind of technicality, but certainly didn't fit the spirit of the cache. I might have thought this person was an attorney because of this, but he/she seems to log way too many caches to work that much. Going to be one less log in the stats.

 

"Seek and ye shall find." - God, ????, BC

Link to comment

They won't miss one out of 1400 anyway.

 

I was amazed when they logged this one a while back.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=21203

 

The idea was to find a statue of Atlas with the world on his shoulders. They posted a photo of a poster. I guess they didn't see the bit that said "it must be a statue."

 

http://img.Groundspeak.com/cache/log/340032_300.JPG

 

I was astounded at the time. Still am.

 

TH

Link to comment

I wouldn't know a torpedo from a missile, unless there was a plaque or something at the site.

 

If you feel it's not qualified as a find, go ahead and either ask for the log to be deleted, or else delete it yourself, but send a polite email explaining why the log was deleted. The cachers in question will probably have a correct photo logged about 30 minutes later. icon_wink.gif

 

25021_1200.gif

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...