HopsMaltYeast
-
Posts
138 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by HopsMaltYeast
-
-
....People can die if you fake aircraft designs. Subtle difference from GeoCaching fake logs.
DUH.
Forgive me while I LMAO.
A&P Mechanics maintain aircraft. They help keep the plane's log. Truth in logging is not a hard concept to comprehend. The principal is the same be it a trucker, mechanic, or cacher.
It's good to know where you stand.
We were not limited to A&P mechanics, but that is OK
A&P mechanics - sign on to specific laws and regulations - deviations can cost lives.
Truckers - sign on to specific laws and regulations - deviations can cost lives.
Cachers - just a hobby, no laws rules or regulations - deviations can cause someone to go to a spot and not find a worthless box of trinkets.
DUH
You think the first 2 are even remotely connected to the third?
Are you DAFT?
Do you think ...
Oh never mind.
-
....People can die if you fake aircraft designs. Subtle difference from GeoCaching fake logs.
DUH.
Forgive me while I LMAO.
A&P Mechanics maintain aircraft. They help keep the plane's log. Truth in logging is not a hard concept to comprehend. The principal is the same be it a trucker, mechanic, or cacher.
It's good to know where you stand.
What?
From the "Princess Bride" "You have a dizzying intellect".
Where do I stand?
-
If some knucklehead wants to cheat on his/her count. Why is it any of my buisness. I have 22 caches. I don't check every online entry against the logbook. Who are they cheating? Me, you, No they are cheating themselves. It must get them aroused in some way. Yes, I suppose it bothers me a little too but why don't we focus our attention to something we can make a difference in, like eliminating cheating at chess,checkers, or hopskotch.
When a person logs a "Found it" he is essentially telling the geocaching community that the cache is there. That can entice people into wasting their time searching for a cache that is missing. I know of one geocacher who was lured into a fruitless 100 mile round trip because someone logged a false find on a cache. I wasted my gas and nearly an hour of my time searching for a cache that was gone. Had I seen recent DNFs I would have chosen to hunt a different cache, but the cache had recent "found its" that turned out to be bogus.
It also affects cache owners. If the cache is missing, a bogus find can delay needed maintenance. A cache of mine had several DNFs and I was about to head out there and check on it when a "found it" log appeared. Great! No problem, so I don't have to worry about it. Well something about the log was fishy to me, so I checked into it and it turned out to be a phony find. There actually was a problem with the cache that I nearly ignored thanks to some liar who gets his jollies by logging fake finds.
So by logging phony finds uou are screwing with your fellow geocachers. This game isn't solitaire. Our actions do not occur in a vacuum. What we do can and does affect other geocachers.
What did you do about the fishy phony logger?
What happened to the 2 false loggers as a result of their false logs?
(If the cache and logs were gone, how do you know the logs were false?)
By the bye, I am new and I have found at least one cache that had several DNF's as the last logs. Two of the DNF's stated that the cache was MIA and had been muggled. They were wrong. If I had believed them and failed to give it a look I would have been denied the opportunity to find a cache.
What happened to the fishy phony logger?
Did I miss the post?
-
I can assure you that your numbers, even if all of them are false, would ever degrade the hobby for me.
Who is talking about numbers? Why is it that the pro phony log brigade are the ones who are always bringing up numbers. It has nothing whatsoever to do with numbers. It's a practical issue.
I already posted a post of yours from many years ago where you condemned the numbers chasers, so take care. This is the Internet. You were talking about numbers way back.
Does that make you a pro phony log brigade member?
I think not.
I am certainly not a pro phony log brigade member and I trust that you do not place me there, sir!
-
I can assure you that your numbers, even if all of them are false, would ever degrade the hobby for me.
Who is talking about numbers? Why is it that the pro phony log brigade are the ones who are always bringing up numbers. It has nothing whatsoever to do with numbers. It's a practical issue.
Who is the pro phony brigade?
partial list will be OK.
Answering the other posted question will be better.
-
The actions of others degrade the hobby for me only if I allow it to. I don't waste my time worrying about the legitimacy of someone else's entries. If I was aware of someone using substandard components while they were building aircraft, then my panties would be in the requisite bunch.
Put it in perspective people. Go ahead, run to Mommy and cry because Billy isn't playing fair.
Cheating at caching, cheating on aircraft. The thought process is similar. There may be some irony in that the FAA relies on logs and records to help ensure the integrity of the aircraft.
People can die if you fake aircraft designs. Subtle difference from GeoCaching fake logs.
DUH.
Forgive me while I LMAO.
-
The actions of others degrade the hobby for me only if I allow it to. I don't waste my time worrying about the legitimacy of someone else's entries. If I was aware of someone using substandard components while they were building aircraft, then my panties would be in the requisite bunch.
Put it in perspective people. Go ahead, run to Mommy and cry because Billy isn't playing fair.
Hear hear.
And for the competitive ones, none of the posters on this thread have ever claimed to have found a cache I have claimed to have found, so my numbers should mean nothing to you.
I can assure you that your numbers, even if all of them are false, would ever degrade the hobby for me.
I have no idea how tough your finds were compared to mine. The numbers do not matter to me.
Hops
-
By the bye, I am new and I have found at least one cache that had several DNF's as the last logs. Two of the DNF's stated that the cache was MIA and had been muggled. They were wrong. If I had believed them and failed to give it a look I would have been denied the opportunity to find a cache.
If those DNFs were logged even though the searchers actually found the cache, then that would be as wrong as
logging bogus finds.
True, but I'm not saying they are good or bad. I just don't put a ton weight on the comments of strangers on the Internet. (I was born at night, but I was not born last night.)
In my area, in a short time I have come to recognize the names of a few frequent cachers and have developed an opinion about their reports, regardless of the number of their claimed finds, after I have found caches with their names on the logs. For most of them I respect their reports. Most of them are members of the local GeoCaching Group and that carries extra weight for me.
For others I do not place much weight on their online logs.
I put almost zero weight on the reports of cachers I do not recognize regardless of their numbers.
-
What reasons would those be?
After about page 12 I started considering the possibility that you've been trolling. Now I know it. You reeled me in big time, but now I'm spitting the hook.
Brian – as a moderator you must be pretty Internet savvy. I mean no offense to you or KBI.
I understand taking a bait the first time, even for a moderator.
I do not understand about spitting it out and then wheeling on your fish tail and taking it back in a few posts later.
That is some effective lure KBI is trolling, if he be a troll.
(This is not intended as trolling - half joke, half tit for tat for the touche over my "I wish my life was so serene that I could worry..." comment.
-
If some knucklehead wants to cheat on his/her count. Why is it any of my buisness. I have 22 caches. I don't check every online entry against the logbook. Who are they cheating? Me, you, No they are cheating themselves. It must get them aroused in some way. Yes, I suppose it bothers me a little too but why don't we focus our attention to something we can make a difference in, like eliminating cheating at chess,checkers, or hopskotch.
When a person logs a "Found it" he is essentially telling the geocaching community that the cache is there. That can entice people into wasting their time searching for a cache that is missing. I know of one geocacher who was lured into a fruitless 100 mile round trip because someone logged a false find on a cache. I wasted my gas and nearly an hour of my time searching for a cache that was gone. Had I seen recent DNFs I would have chosen to hunt a different cache, but the cache had recent "found its" that turned out to be bogus.
It also affects cache owners. If the cache is missing, a bogus find can delay needed maintenance. A cache of mine had several DNFs and I was about to head out there and check on it when a "found it" log appeared. Great! No problem, so I don't have to worry about it. Well something about the log was fishy to me, so I checked into it and it turned out to be a phony find. There actually was a problem with the cache that I nearly ignored thanks to some liar who gets his jollies by logging fake finds.
So by logging phony finds uou are screwing with your fellow geocachers. This game isn't solitaire. Our actions do not occur in a vacuum. What we do can and does affect other geocachers.
What did you do about the fishy phony logger?
What happened to the 2 false loggers as a result of their false logs?
(If the cache and logs were gone, how do you know the logs were false?)
By the bye, I am new and I have found at least one cache that had several DNF's as the last logs. Two of the DNF's stated that the cache was MIA and had been muggled. They were wrong. If I had believed them and failed to give it a look I would have been denied the opportunity to find a cache.
-
Maybe one or all of the folks that are so put out with bogus loggers and finders who fail to log finds and DNF's online, should start sending letters or emails to the folks that offend them with bogus logs and tell them they are breaking the rules? You know the folks that think they and/or the hobby is degraded should do something to stop it?
Maybe they would stop if they knew it was wrong and that it upset you.
I say that because someone posted statistics here that said only a small percentage of GeoCachers post or read the forums. I have no reason to believe they were posting bogus stats.
-
The bottom line remains; the owner entered into an agreement to maintain the cache. If things changed or events were other than what the owner expected, the owner still is responsible for either maintaining the commitment or for bailing.In this case, the owner chose to bail. And he would have had to do several things even if people were not abusing his cache. He needed to review logs. At least monthly he needed to show activity. He needed to visit the site whether it was a virtual or a physical cache to assure the integrity of the cache.
I beg to differ. The very FIRST line of the geocaching guidelines states "These are listing guidelines only." so there is no "agreement" nor is there any "requirements" to do a dang thing! And if someone choses to do nothing then the reviewer can archive the cache. Each person has freedom to choose what to do or not to do and no one is mandated or required to do anything.
As far as deleting log listsing the guidelines state "Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements." and you may notice the word APPEAR in there. Even as it's just guidelines it states to delete the logs that APPEAR to be bogus, which can also be interpretted to mean "you can leave fake logs that look real". No where can I find it states to investigate logs, do handwriting analysis, validiate visits or anything like that. No, no one CONDONES fake logs, no one agrees with fake logs, no one would allow a fake log to exist on their cache page if they knew about it. The whole debate is about what extent each of us will go to in order to validate the log is real.
As far as needing to visit cache sites to validate integrity, the guidelines state "As the cache owner, you are also responsible for physically checking your cache periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.)." and there is no reference to what that "periodic" period needs to be other then checking on caches that have reported issues. Some people may choose their period of time is a week, for others it may be every decade, it's up to the owner if there's no reported issues.
A responsible cache owner will check their caches regular enough to be sure they're all good and functional, they will replace full or wet logs, they will defend their caches from muggles, irrisponsible cachers, and mother nature, they will resolve reported issues as soon as they can, they will try to keep the game fun for everyone playing, and they will delete logs that are detrimental to their caches and the game including ones that devuldge everything about a hide, use inappropriate language, are off color or off topic, or bogus but it is up to each cache owner to make that determination.
>>>iMPG steps down off soapbox and walks away in a huff
Point well taken, there is not legally binding agreement with penalties.
The cache owner does say that they have read the guidelines and will follow them in order to get the cache listed (I am speaking generally - not quoting exact terms from the guidelines.).
The guidelines say a virtual cache owner should make an appearance (show activity) at least monthly.
If a cache owner is determined to not be following the guidelines then GC may archive the cache.
Of course, this is GC's site and they can archive any cache for any reason or on a whim not matter how carefully an owner maintains a cache.
They banned new virtuals just because the didn't like them, essentially.
-
You could put it next to this one:
That is a good looking fake cucumber.
-
...There are MANY things he would have done to perform cache maintenance if people weren't abusing his cache. If he had only done the second thing on the list, he wouldn't have had any further fake logs and he could have been a happy cacher.
In this case, the owner chose to bail.
Time wasted dealing with bogus logs before the cache was archived could have been better spent improving the virtual, maintaining other caches, or reading their kids bedtime stories. Even when they were maintaining their cache the logs are a deteriment to that cacher and in turn his ability to do good things for geoching as a whole, or maybe just having more time with the family.
The loss of what appears to be a good virtual was a detriment to all the cachers who would have enjoyed finding it.
There is a ripple effect. None of it good from those logs.
Tic Toc, waiting for the evidence or apology.
No Knights honor?
-
...The bottom line remains; the owner entered into an agreement to maintain the cache. If things changed or events were other than what the owner expected, the owner still is responsible for either maintaining the commitment or for bailing.
In this case, the owner chose to bail.
Every word you said is true yet utterly the wrong path for finding the real reason the cache is gone. You have to look at all factors to see the truth. Refusing just makes you culpable for not doing your job as you sit as judge and jury blaming the owner to better make your case about what? The reasonableness of the logs? Oh wait, you did say the logs were bogus. What exactly is the point of all your posts?
Thank you for saying every word I say is true.
My points are simple:
I do not think the sky is falling
False logs are not degrading GeoCaching.
There is no evidence presented in this thread that false logs are increasing or are getting ridiculous.
My Geocaching experience is not degraded by false logs or by your opinions.
False logs have been around since online logging has been around (or there about)
I think that the OP is false on the face of it and the Op’r and no one else has supported the claim.
I think that making vague and unsubstantiated claims about wrongdoing are harmful, even more harmful than the false claims would be.
What I did not claim:
I am judge or jury.
Lying and cheating are good universally.
Sir, I am still awaiting either your apology or proof for your baseless allegation that I said that bogus logs are in general or without restrictions a good thing.
Knights still have honor do they not?
-
I never posted that, not in this thread or any other thread on this topic in the last half dozen years.So those people who were logging this virtual without actually finding it bear NO responsibility THEIR actions? It's all the cache owners fault? Nice.
No, you just heaped all of your negative comments on the owner while totally ignoring any culpability the fake loggers had in the ultimate demise of the cache.
That's fine. The owner DOES bear some of the responsibility. He could have designed the cache better. He could have just continued to delete fake logs. He could have ignored the logs until someone turned him in and Groundspeak shut it down, but he wouldn't have had to do anything if people weren't abusing his cache.
That is totally untrue. That poster and almost every poster to this thread have said that lying and cheating are bad.
The bottom line remains; the owner entered into an agreement to maintain the cache. If things changed or events were other than what the owner expected, the owner still is responsible for either maintaining the commitment or for bailing.
In this case, the owner chose to bail.
And he would have had to do several things even if people were not abusing his cache. He needed to review logs. At least monthly he needed to show activity. He needed to visit the site whether it was a virtual or a physical cache to assure the integrity of the cache.
-
He can blame liars and cheeters for the archival, but really it was due to the cache being poorly designed which resulted in a heavy maintenance burden that he was unwilling to perform.I don't see how a false log causes a cache to disappear."Regrettably, this cache is now archived and I will not reactivate it. You can blame liars and cheaters for the fact that you will no longer be allowed to log this virtual cache."So those people who were logging this virtual without actually finding it bear NO responsibility THEIR actions? It's all the cache owners fault? Nice.
If people weren't abusing the cache it may still be active. Yes the owner could have done many things besides archiving it, but placing the blame for the archival totally on the owner seems ludicrous to me.
The people lying by logging a virtual cache bear 100% responsibility for their actions. (Unless the cache page instructions were unclear).
The cache owner bears 100% responsibility for his/her actions.
A cacher who thinks he is degraded because someone filed a false log bears 100% responsibility for her/his feelings.
It is simple.
I am still having fun finding clever caches - regardless of how many folks lie about finding caches.
It is all about the fun going to new places and attempting the challenge of a well place cache.
If someone lies about finding a cache it might degrade them. It does not degrade me or GeoCaching.
-
Everything old is new again.
At least two posters to the current thread posted opinions to this 2002 thread.
Who says y'all ain't plowing the same old ground again and again?
Greetings friends,
I found two virtual caches today without even leaving my computer.
Should we allow virtual caches that are so easy you can find the answers just by conducting a search at <A HREF="http://www.google.com?" TARGET=_blank>www.google.com?</A>
<BR><BR>I thought virtual caches had to be places that you actually had to go to, but that you could log a find by retrieving some information that could only be found at the location.
<BR><BR>Just asking,<BR><BR>- Peanuthead
WoW - false logs ain't so new, so maybe GeoCaching ain't going to hell in a hand basket in the recent years as the OP suggests?
(Chicken Little: well maybe I exaggerated a little about the sky is falling and that false logs are getting ridiculous.)
Forgive me if I do not cry along with your pity tears over the aviation virtual cache being archived because the owner did not have the gumption to place a real cache or the gumption to maintain a poorly planned virtual from folks that posters here have called morons. What does it say about the owner if he couldn't defeat morons?
The originators and some charter members of GC thought virtual caches were not supportive of the hobby, so one might argue that anything that helped eliminate a virtual cache actually elevated GeoCaching or at least eliminated something that had the potential to degrade it.
-
Everything old is new again - a virtual multi -
The GC.com view of multi's - exactly a good reason to archive the aviation virt - not because of the false logs, but because the original cache owner did not meet responsibilities, either in the conception or in the maintenance.
I didn't want to continue bogging down the virutal cache topic.
Here's the deal. I submitted a virtual, multi-stage cache. I set it up like a spy thriller....with the first stage requiring answers to questions. Once those questions were obtained, the cacher would e-mail me the answer, and I would send back a new chapter, with a new location requiring answers to another question. It was fairly clever. All "caches" were permanent, specific clues.
The concept was rejected due to not having a physical cache at the end.
Fine.
I offered to add a final stage with a physical cache/logbook.
This was shot down because the reviewer required an automated e-mail response to those who responded. I pointed out that was not doable, as there has to be a correct answer to get the next chapter.
Now, I understand that rules are rules...but under the guidelines for a virtual cache, there is nothing listed about automated responses. In fact, here are the guidelines:
1. A virtual cache must be a unique physical object that can be referenced through latitude and longitude coordinates. That object should be semi-permanent to permanent. If I post the cache today, someone else should be able to find it tomorrow and the next day.A trail is a trail, a beach is a beach, a view is a view; but a trail, beach, or view is NOT a virtual cache. A cache has to be a specific distinct GPS target - not something large like a mountain top or a park, however special those locations are.
2. A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should “WOW” the prospective finder. Signs, memorials, tombstones, statues or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches. Unusual landmarks or items that would be in a coffee table book are good examples. If you don't know if it is appropriate, contact your local reviewer first, or post a question to the forums about your idea.
3. There should be one or more questions about an item at a location, something seen at that location, etc., that only the visitor to that physical location will be able to answer. The questions should be difficult enough that it cannot be answered through library or web research. The use of a "certificate of achievement" or similar item is not a substitute for the find verification requirement.
4. An original photo posted to the cache log can be an acceptable way to verify a find, or an email to the owner with valid answers for the question or questions. In NO cases should answers be posted in the logs, even if encrypted.
I feel my offer to include a physical cache at the end makes this cache meet all the guidelines. And, in fact, the reason it is being shot down now is due to the e-mail requirement....which is literally set out as allowed in rule 4.
I have been through the appropriate appeals process, and am now throwing this out for comments. Remember, the issue is not whether or not YOU would want to do this....the issue is should this be approved. Let me add that I did a lot of work researching, writing, and marking this. Also, all points are within my home town.
Also, I do appreciate the volunteers' time and efforts, and the reviewer has been nothing but cordial and helpful to me. I just think this deserved discussion, because I feel I have complied with all requirements and can see no reason this should not be approved.
Repeated for emphasis.
Virtual caches have been on the hit list to be removed since like 2002? Exactly for the the problems exampled in the aviation cache exploited by the German cachers (possibly due to languge problems, not because they are liars or cheats.)
-
Good question. The reason I am making the stink I am now is that I am hoping that the policy will be revisited before the new solution is presented to us as a fait accompli.
If we waited this long to address these kinds of issues we'd be screwed. But you don't know anything about the solution so it makes sense you can have some concerns about what you think the solution is. Actually, in all honestly, finding out what you think the solution could be would be a much more interesting topic than this one. I'd love to know.
So, the "no virts on vacation rule" was decided by me, unilaterally. My justifications are flawed inasmuch as I am flawed. I did not base the decision on statistical analysis, quantum mechanics or string theory. It was a gut feeling to stem the flood of virtuals - which by the way are not really geocaches. If a virtual is so important to show to others it made sense that a local would "own" and "maintain" that listing. Which, by the way, isn't really a geocache, which happens to be the basis of this activity.
So where does that leave us? Well, at the tip I suppose we're in disagreement, so tough. However, it can be assumed that we could take the 4+ years experience in creating the geocaching.com site and apply it to the new solution. Obviously it won't make everyone happy but it will certainly address this issue. And since you don't know what the solution is you'll just have to be patient and wait to see it, after the fact. fait accompli indeed.
-
Everything old is new again - keep plowing the same old ground.
Y'all couldn't come up with anything new so I came up with something old that seems new.
I wish I would have known about the changes in virtual cache rules prior to this, but that's not my real issue.The issue I have, I guess, is why the rules got changed.
The rules were changed some time in 2003, so this isn't a new thing.
One reason for the change was because people were marking every roadside marker, no matter how mundane, as well as fence posts, manhole covers, debris in the woods and even a rotting animal carcass and submitting them as virtuals. It basically was getting out of hand
Another and more important reaso was that when negotiating with land managers about allowing geocaches, they often pointed to virtuals as an acceptable alternative. This threatened the future of traditional geocaching in many areas. By taking virtuals off the table, negotations could center on getting real caches into these parks.
How many times was that used?
(edit - changed "could" to "couldn't")
-
Everything old is new again - when it comes to virtual caches at least.
Unless they are asking for specific info to verify your visit, then I don't see a big deal about logging a find. With all the people who log visits to their own caches, or log finds on caches that have been missing for months, because they "know" they were in the right spot, I wouldn't lose any sleep over logging a virtual that you've visited before. If the cache owner doesn't like your log, he'll delete it.
There is one virt that I logged as a find because I had visited the site several dozen times before it became a virtual cache. The cache owner didn't ask for specific verification info, so I logged it as a find. I've since visited it 5 or 6, so I didn't have a qualm about logging the cache as a find.
It would seem silly to me to go there with my GPS, just so I can log the find.
<BR><BR>"Life is a daring adventure, or it is nothing" - Helen Keller
Added bold to brian's words from Sep. 2002.
-
Everything old is new again.
Bunches of these.
"Regrettably, this cache is now archived and I will not reactivate it. You can blame liars and cheaters for the fact that you will no longer be allowed to log this virtual cache.
"Two hundred people have now logged the Portal of The Folded Wings as a find. Many of them actually visited the site and were inspired by these courageous pioneers of aviation. Some, however, never actually visited the site. Instead, they chose to abuse the system and cheat. This goes against my ethics as well as the standards of Geocaching, and I will not be a party to it.
For those of you who came to The Portal with respect and admiration: thank you.
For those morally corrupt people who choose to lie and cheat: I suggest you find some other site on the internet to do your dirty deeds. Geocaching is a wholesome, family-friendly activity and those of us who get that do not want to associate with those of you who don't."
The owner of your example decided he'd rather not maintain the cache by deleting all the "greetings from Germany" logs, so he archived it. Lack of maintenance gets another one!
I'd say we've allowed degradation to the point where a cache owner can't even keep up with the false logs.
I tried to start an honest discussion of why Waymarking is not an acceptable replacement for those types.We know why. Its about the smileys. Through Waymarking, you still get to use your GPS to find interesting places and some not so interesting places. Through Waymarking.com you can discover, learn, blah blah blah - all the things that were so "great" about virutals. Nothing has changed as far as that's concerned. What has changed is that you don't get a smiley for finding a waymark.
The day (if it ever happens) that GC.COM starts counting waymark finds as cache finds is the day that Waymarking.com becomes as popular as a shopping mall micro.
Its not about the learning, the hunt, the history, the discovery or the fun, its about the numbers. End of story.
-
...I would go further and say that all of them have as the root cause of the problem - "Lack of Maintenance" or missing caches....
I know you would. But you are busying trying to prove the bogus logs were a good thing. Why don't you take the next step in your logic and request that this site issue random bogus logs and that if owners don't catch them their cache be archived for lack of maintaince? That is the case you are making. That the archived cache had a maintaince problem and the bogus logs were ok? Because if they were not ok then that would mean they are a problem.
Sir, you are completely baseless in the claim that that I am trying to prove or have ever even claimed that bogus logs are a good thing.
I challenge you to show that I ever said that bogus logs are in general or without restrictions a good thing.
Please note the plural - not that a single bogus log might have incidentally resulted in a good result.
(I did make the facetious joke that a false log might have led to to the archiving of an abandoned virtual cache - because that helped support the GC policy of archiving abandoned caches.)
Sir, I await your apology or evidence.
HMY
Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?
in General geocaching topics
Posted
Well, you are wrong.