+ibycus Posted April 6, 2005 Share Posted April 6, 2005 Recently one of the more popular caches in the area hit 1000 logs. Today the owner of the cache went through the logs to clean them up a bit, and deleted all the notes. I had two of my logs deleted as a result. (it is a cache that offers multiple opportunities to log it). Not finds (or DNFs) or anything, but they provided some history which I thought should be preserved. I'm sure it wasn't meant maliciously or anything, so I'm a bit hesitant to approach the cache owner. He's a really great guy so I'm sure he wouldn't have a problem with it, but I'm not sure if I'm being petty or not. For the record the logs in question concerned my first attempt at this cache (I found what I was looking for, but it was too dark to get the proof that I was there), and a trip I took with some other cachers that had a couple of pictures associated with it. So would you be bothered? Would you bother the cache owner? Link to comment
+ibycus Posted April 6, 2005 Author Share Posted April 6, 2005 Oh I should add that this also is an argument for the 'hide a log' feature I requested in another thread. Link to comment
+Anonymous' Posted April 6, 2005 Share Posted April 6, 2005 I don't really see a reason for why the owner deleted all those logs, it seems stupid. They don't clog up anything and I think that it would be somewhat of a bother to do that. Link to comment
+cache_test_dummies Posted April 6, 2005 Share Posted April 6, 2005 Maybe the owner was just trying to help out with the disk space problem. Not sure why the owner felt it was necessary (or desireable) to remove the logs, but I can see why doing so might upset some people. Link to comment
+Camo-crazed Posted April 6, 2005 Share Posted April 6, 2005 Maybe the owner was just trying to help out with the disk space problem. ohyeahthatidbettertypelikethisforawhileincasetheservergetsoverloadedcuzifyouonlytypeinlowercasewithoutspacesorpunctuationittakesuplessspace iprobablyshouldntusesmileyseither Link to comment
+carleenp Posted April 6, 2005 Share Posted April 6, 2005 (edited) I would be annoyed and would likely email and nicely ask about it and explain why it might bother some people. A local here recently moved a cache and deleted all the previous finds and notes thinking that it was like a new cache. He did not realize that it would mess with find counts and cache history. After some locals explained the problem to him, he agreed that he should not have done it. He didn't know it would cause issues and was very nice and apologetic about it. At his request, a reviewer put the archived logs back in for him. All ended up happy and fine. Edited April 6, 2005 by carleenp Link to comment
+XRN95 Posted April 6, 2005 Share Posted April 6, 2005 Another cache was archived once it hit either 1200 logs or finds (not sure which one it was). He deleted them to hopefully extend the life of the cache! I hope it does....its one of my favorites! Link to comment
+ibycus Posted April 6, 2005 Author Share Posted April 6, 2005 Another cache was archived once it hit either 1200 logs or finds (not sure which one it was). He deleted them to hopefully extend the life of the cache! I hope it does....its one of my favorites! Oh that explains it. Wonder if they'd still do that, as there are plenty of caches nowadays with well over a thousand logs. (surprised he didn't mention it in the note on the page). Although if that is the case, I'd go ahead and delete all the DNF logs too . Link to comment
+ibycus Posted April 6, 2005 Author Share Posted April 6, 2005 Hey wonder if that was the Yellow Jeep cache that was pulled for that reason? I read in another thread that it was playing heck with the PQ server. I wonder at that because I know you only get the last 5 logs in a PQ + any of your own logs. Unless of course its the going through all of the logs that takes the time... Link to comment
+PDOP's Posted April 6, 2005 Share Posted April 6, 2005 (surprised he didn't mention it in the note on the page).Although if that is the case, I'd go ahead and delete all the DNF logs too . He did post the reason in the CAC forum. Link to comment
+ibycus Posted April 6, 2005 Author Share Posted April 6, 2005 Haven't been there today yet. Guess I missed it . Link to comment
outforthehunt Posted April 6, 2005 Share Posted April 6, 2005 No found logs were deleted only notes. I did post a note on the cache page and to the CAC forum. I also deleted a found log by mistake...... got a trigger happy finger! The owner of the log I deleted sent me an email and I told him I was sorry and to repost the log. If there are any other found logs that I did deleted feel free to repost them. Link to comment
+ibycus Posted April 6, 2005 Author Share Posted April 6, 2005 I was a little quick I think checking the CAC forums. I got there just after PDOPs note, but just before your note. As I said if its a matter of extending the life of the cache, by all means, delete away. I just wonder if it is still necessary (I've posted in the Geocaching Website forum to ask TPTB). I was just confused, and didn't understand the motivation behind it, and wondered if I was being overly sensitive. I hope no offence was taken. I avoided using your name, or the cache name to try to distance this as much as possible from the actual cache involved. Now that you've put your word in, just wanted to say what a great cache it is, here. If TPTB ever did archive this one out from under us due to too many logs, I'd hope that they could approve a 'version 2' of the cache to continue in its place. Link to comment
Keystone Posted April 6, 2005 Share Posted April 6, 2005 Ahhh, I see now that it's a moving cache. I was wondering how a cache in Alberta could attract so many logs! Indeed, popular moving caches -- like locationless caches -- are a drain on the PQ generator because the entire log history needs to be searched in order to pull up and include any logs entered by the member requesting the PQ. Each search of the database is, therefore, customized to the requestor. Link to comment
+ibycus Posted April 6, 2005 Author Share Posted April 6, 2005 So would it be archived for that reason? Kind of a neat one, and it would be a real shame to see it go. The cache is actually very similar to benchmark hunting as I understand it, but specific to Alberta. Last I checked there are about 190 locations at which the cache can be logged in Alberta. Link to comment
Keystone Posted April 6, 2005 Share Posted April 6, 2005 So would it be archived for that reason? Kind of a neat one, and it would be a real shame to see it go. Nope, I never said that. I have no knowledge about whether caches besides Yellow Jeep would ever be archived. That will have to be addressed in the separate thread over in the GC.com forum. I posted simply to clarify why it can be an issue. Link to comment
+ibycus Posted April 6, 2005 Author Share Posted April 6, 2005 Thanks, I wasn't trying to extrapolate from what you said, as I seemed to have your attention, I thought I'd ask. Just got a reply from Jeremy over in the other thread. It seems that Not for genuine caches it isn't an issue. We're also working on ways to make it less of an issue. The locationless caches are the biggest problem since they go into the 4,000+ logs area. Link to comment
+ibycus Posted April 6, 2005 Author Share Posted April 6, 2005 Now that I think about it, it probably would be best if I closed this thread, as it seems to have run in to that other thread. So that we don't duplicate things here, here is a link to the other thread. link Link to comment
Recommended Posts