Delete A Log On My Locationless Cache?

[Moun10Bike]

I am the owner of a locationless cache designed to collect the locations where famous businesses, organizations and other entities got their start (for example, the first Starbucks or the birthplace of country music). I make it very clear in the cache description that I am only interested in the original locations of these entities, not their current headquarters or replacement locations. As other locationless cache owners might attest, maintenance on this cache is sometimes more difficult than with my traditional caches.

 

That brings me to my current issue. I recently received a submission for an entity that had already been submitted. I figured that I would just have to delete the new duplicate, but as I examined the logs, I saw that the new submission is actually the correct one; it gives the original location of the item in question. The older log, which included info from a web site that seemed to indicate that the cacher had done their research, is actually just the modern location of the business.

 

The older log is now over a year old, though, which makes me a bit reluctant to delete it - sort of like it is "grandfathered in." I believe in maintaining locationless caches, so I don't tend to favor the "let all logs stay whether right or wrong just because they don't hurt anyone" argument. I guess I want to hear from those who might find themselves in the same situation with the same concerns as I do. What would you do?

[+southdeltan]

I would delete the log that didn't fulfill the locationless requirements.

 

As much as I am against logging requirements for traditionals, I'll say I'm for them for locationless caches. They're 2 different beasts.

 

southdeltan

[+cache_test_dummies]

I see the quandry. Or is it a conundrum?

 

I wouldn't delete the log. If I were the cache owner, I'd say the statute of limitations, so to speak, has run out on this one (not that there is such a thing). I would argue that as the cache owner, I had a responsibility to make an accept/reject decision within some kind of a 'reasonable' timeframe, then I have to live with that decision based on the information I had available to me at that time. Maybe I have lots of time to make this decision, but not a year.

 

If I logged a cache (locationless, or virtual), and a year later, it was deleted because the owner rethought my answer, I don't think I'd be happy about it.

[+gnbrotz]

I think it's fair to delete the earlier entry. If you had found out the next day it didn't pass muster, you would have deleted it. This one just took a while to figure out. It's not like you intentionally allowed it and now decided to change your mind about it.

 

I think it would be fair to write to the party in question and explain the situation. I wouldn't really assign blame to either you or the logger, just an unfortunate situation where doing the 'right' thing isn't the popular choice.

 

Situations like this arise every day in the 'real world'. Unfortunately, they occasionally occur during 'play time' too.

[+AuntieWeasel]

The older log, which included info from a web site that seemed to indicate that the cacher had done their research, is actually just the modern location of the business.

"Seemed to indicate"? Do you think the logger knew better, or was it a good faith attempt to research properly? If he "meant well" I'm not absolutely sure that's enough to leave the log entry, but if I thought he was putting one over on me, it would make my mind up right quick.

[+Goodguys]

If it were my cache I think i might email the cacher, explain the situation and inquire if they would change the entry from a find to a note. That way they would still have thier contribution on record.

[Moun10Bike]

"Seemed to indicate"? Do you think the logger knew better, or was it a good faith attempt to research properly?

I'm content to believe that it was a good faith attempt. The info he posted was from the company web site and indicated the city in which the enterprise started. He simply posted what was the current site of the enterprise, not the original site, a distinction that the web site does not mention.

[+SixDogTeam]

Weasel has it right. Since a year has gone by, If the original post was in good faith, i.e. an honest mistake, let it stand. If you have good reason to believe it to be a deliberate fraud, delete it.

[+welch]

I don't feel there is any sort of time limit or any 'statue of limitations'. If someone fakes a log, it doesn't matter when it comes out, it was still a fake.

 

Having said that, I wouldn't delete this log. The person apperently did some research, found and logged the location correctly. But then I tend to be lax on my only virtual. Of the two i've deleted, one was because the person didn't respond to me at all. The other was quite wrong, and when I questioned the person about it they got and ticked off and started spamming my email and the cache page....

[+cache_test_dummies]

... they got and ticked off and started spamming my email and the cache page....

[+The Leprechauns]

I like the idea of writing to the first logger and bringing the new information to his attention. In light of this, would he change to a note? I know I would.

 

If he does the right thing, send a Moun10Bike coin to him. If he refuses, come back and let us know that so that the mob can be equipped with torches.

 

Heck, just send ME the Moun10Bike coin and I'll get Keystone Approver to delete the dadgum log.

[+IV_Warrior]

I think if it was a good faith effort on the finder's part, and both he AND you believed for a year that his answer was correct and met the requirements of the cache, you should let the log stand.

 

If it was mine, I think the most I would do would be to point out the newer information to the original logger. I don't think I'd even suggest they make any change to their log. If they chose to do so on their own, fine, if not, still fine.

[+CO Admin]

I like the idea of writing to the first logger and bringing the new information to his attention. In light of this, would he change to a note? I know I would.

 

If he does the right thing, send a Moun10Bike coin to him. If he refuses, come back and let us know that so that the mob can be equipped with torches.

 

Heck, just send ME the Moun10Bike coin and I'll get Keystone Approver to delete the dadgum log.

Don't believe him. Send it to me I'm closer and better looking and beside I'm sick *cough*cough*. I deserve it more.

[+Pablo Mac]

Post a note dated the same day as their log, so it shows up immediately above theirs and tactfully state the facts as you now know them, but that you are keeping their log intact, to give them the benefit of any doubt. Seems like a good way to hit the happy medium.

 

And send Pablo Mac a Mount10Bike coin!

[+GrizzlyJohn]

I see the quandry. Or is it a conundrum?

I was going to try to add some input on the original question. But then I saw this and my mind has drifted. Boy this is quite the pickle now isn't it?

[+bigeddy]

The older log is now over a year old, though, which makes me a bit reluctant to delete it - sort of like it is "grandfathered in."  I believe in maintaining locationless caches, so I don't tend to favor the "let all logs stay whether right or wrong just because they don't hurt anyone" argument.  I guess I want to hear from those who might find themselves in the same situation with the same concerns as I do.  What would you do?

If it's a bad find, it should be deleted with an explanation to the finder. No time limit to discover errors although I can understand the reluctance to delete logs over a year old. I've had two logs deleted where the owners refused to explain what they didn't like about my logs.

 

Looking at the recent logs for your cache, I see one from 1/10/05 for Nosler Bullets which is about a mile from my house. It doesn't fit your requirements at all. It's a lone manufacturing facility that ships to independent sporting goods dealers and other customers. There's no chain or franchise or other locations. I get the feeling some finders just glance at locationless caches without reading them carefully and figure no one checks.

Edited February 12, 2005 by bigeddy

[+BlueDeuce]

The first cacher made an error, you being owner, didn't catch it. Sounds like you both are at fault.

 

I think you should forfeit the locationless.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

If you are into Locationless caching either as a owner or a finder you should use the Locationless Cache Program. As an owner, run the program to find duplicates (not a year later). As a finder, check to see if you are duplicating an earlier find. This is the only way to do it. The program is free and it works great. Here is the address:

http://factsfacts.com/geocachingsoft/locationless.htm

[+Hemlock]

As an owner, run the program to find duplicates (not a year later).

Did you even read the first post in this thread?

Your reply is totally off-topic.

[+Team Wampus]

Post a note dated the same day as their log, so it shows up immediately above theirs and tactfully state the facts as you now know them, but that you are keeping their log intact, to give them the benefit of any doubt. Seems like a good way to hit the happy medium.

Since you don't think the logger was trying to pull a fast one, I agree with this solution. He/she might get the message and change their smiley to a note, and then everybody's happy. If they don't, you seem like the type of person who'll be able to get over it.

 

In the meantime, you should contact the CEO of the offending corporation with the bad website and start sending him lots of flames. Threaten him with wide-spread boycotts if he continues to try to mislead the geocaching public.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Hemlock

Perhaps you should read the entry. What I was stating would "prevent" the problem. If you really read my reply hint "not after a year", I believe you missed the point. The program allows you to review "all" entries and then deside if one or more do not meet your set criteria. Sorry Hemlock if I offended you.

Edited February 12, 2005 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

[+D-cachers]

Howdy from OK...

 

Given the lengthy time since the log...I would just e-mail the individual and let him/her know what you have discovered. Leave it up to the individual to decide which action to take.

 

Either way, what is the "cost?" You take the high road...and the cacher has to decide which decision to make.

[+Hemlock]

Hemlock

Perhaps you should read the entry. What I was stating would "prevent" the problem.

No it would not. The two logs in question have unique coords. They would both show as being fine according to a location-based filter.

 

The problem is the first log does not meet additional criteria that have nothing to do with coordinates.

[+strikeforce1]

Hey Moun10Bike,

 

At this point, a year later, I would just let it stand.

It’s no skin off your back.

They’re the ones, that missed the point of the hunt.

 

Isn’t life Wonderful!

Every now and then , we get to do the backstroke!

SF1

Edited February 13, 2005 by strikeforce1

[+fly46]

I would say that if it had happened within a month to delete the wrong one, but since more than a year has passed, let it stand, but post a note to your cache page explaining what happened and why you have left it stand.

[Moun10Bike]

Thanks for all of the responses (well, maybe except for Lep's and CO Admin's! ). I've decided to let the log stand, and will post a note on the cache explaining what happened.

[+The Jester]

For a moment I thought the world was coming to an end! Moun10Bike needing to ask for help!

 

 

I think you came up with a good decision, it's an interesting question...

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

If it were my cache I think i might email the cacher, explain the situation and inquire if they would change the entry from a find to a note. That way they would still have thier contribution on record.

When I recently took a trip, I posted "notes" on the caches I skipped, with the same info as the ones I found, and DNF'd. On some of them the logs were deleted without any reason stated, and that was a little dissappointing, but not too bad because my main point was to let the cache owner know that their cache had been on my list. Anyway, I've had a tatal of 4 logs of mine deleted, and each time the only thing that bothered me was that the owned didn't contact me and say why. That would make all the difference in my opinion.

[+ChileHead]

Another reason not to delete a log after this amount of time is some people keep track of milestones. My 500th find is XXX, my 600th find is YYY. This would completely screw up their history! Had the error been found right away, then no big deal. Or if the log was delibereately forged, then you get what you get.

[+Renegade Knight]

Now that the fat lady has sung I'll chime in anyway.

 

There is no good way to fix it without making things more complicated and in many ways worse. For a number of reasons I agree with Moun10bikes final decision.

 

This post was longer but the harder I tried to explain a different way of looking at it, the more it looked like the chewbacka defence. (Great new word).

[+sept1c_tank]

...I've decided to let the log stand, and will post a note on the cache explaining what happened.

That's what I'd do, too.

I guess great minds think alike!

[+AtoZ]

If your delete this log and you say you take seriously maintance of the cache then YOU should validate each and every post, as YOU apparently didnt but relied up on the person posting to validate the data. This amy seem harsh but how else are YOU going to gurantee that what is submitted absoutely corrct. It is not fair to the post if he/she did the best they could to provide what he/she thought was the correct data for the cache. Now this is only fair. I mean I enjoy doing LCs as they some times take more time then a regular cache to do, and I hae seen some very blaitant violations of the requirements for the cache. I had done my home work and give a good submission when someone else just slops a picture, and I have seen some FAKE ones too. So is it fair.

Well you are the owner so it is really totally up to you and it is only really a game.

cheers