thebruce0

You two need to stop looking down on the "hypothetical" like you're spitting it whenever you say it.

Something tells me this was not a scientific study.

Bold points: 1) I could repeat again the reasons I find the hypothetical completely feasible, plausible, and believable for how someone would actually decide on which cache to hunt and whether they would consider the adventure spent searching for a later known to be missing cache a waste of time. But given my experience... well, see the last few pages =P 2) "belief" vs "experience"? No, it's "experience" vs "experience". We both have different experiences. And if the issue were saying across the board one way or the other, it would be different. But the issue is whether it can happen - and by my experience, yes it most definitely can. 3) Would you rather look for a missing cache, or just go out have an adventure? Two different things. But I do agree, I'd rather have an adventure than be here doing this -- But looking for a missing cache? No, I'd rather sit here typing in the warmth of my home than go out for a fruitless search. =P 4) I used to hate brussel sprouts. Or at least, I think I was supposed to hate them. Then I realized I didn't. And I actually like them. Peas though... I never really grew to like them. I'll eat'em though =P

This. Once again, more specifics are needed. You can't simply compare "smartphones" to "handhelds". There are vast arrays of models for both, spanning a wide range of GPS capabilities. To generalize either class of device does a disservice to both. Even "iPhone" to "handheld" isn't fair, because there are such a wide variety of iOS devices with awful to spectacular GPS capability, just as with handheld GPSs. I've never liked comments with the implication that Groundspeak only cares about money. Clearly they do not, and making a comment like that isn't productive to the discussion. Yes, more geocachers could mean more potential revenue - but the intro app is far from any guarantee that they will make any more money from new users. On the contrary, the way it is now, users who use the app and never or rarely visit the site, will be costing Groundspeak money, not making them money. Without requiring anyone to pay for a premium membership, every new user is by default a cost on the system, not a revenue. Website ads raise negligible funds in the grand scheme. I would not say Groundspeak only does things to make more money. I would say that the staff Groundspeak pays to ensure it's a financially successful business might; but everyone else? They work for Groundspeak (presumably) because they love what they do and want geocaching to remain an attractive, fun, and family friendly game for everyone who chooses to take up the hobby. The INTRO app was their way of allowing new players in a smartphone generation to make a smoother transition into the hobby. So the question is, how can the INTRO app continue to be a welcoming, educational introductory app, while not making the hobby more frustrating for those who've already taken it up regularly?

Yep. The INTRO app is an enabler - smartphone users aren't the problem - the intro app allowing potentially lazy users to be lazy is the problem. There are lazy non-smartphone users, but it's just harder for them to be lazy because they have to do all that work to actually log a find online I know you're the staunchest of the staunchest defenders of Smartphone caching. The staunchest of the staunchest?? Shall we compete? heh Nah, you'd probably win in a heartbeat. I'm too lazy. Thankfully I don't use the INTRO app.

Nope, they were always based on the same premise. Good so far. I shall add the previous point made: the owner knows the cache is missing because the cacher's description of their search reveals they WOULD HAVE found it if it were there. Therefore the CO knows the find is bogus - not just because it was admitted as such, but because the CO knows the cache is missing or not placed as it should be. Entitlement? I'm being objective, you're not. "Needed someone to blame" - wrong again. There was a clear wrong that happened. The default position is that find logs are legitimate. A bogus logger has very much caused legitimate waste for this cacher. It's not entitlement. It's a waste in this person's case, that would not have happened otherwise, if a) the bogus find had not been logged or the bogus find was rather logged as a dnf or even c) the cacher had posted a NM because they didn't actually find the cache and may have felt it wasn't there. Some people do that. If the cache owner can't find it where it's supposed to be, there is every reason to believe that it is not there. If another cacher mis-placed it so the owner can't find it, it's effectively gone, because the owner will likely replace a new one. There's no effective difference. Nope, prior DNFs only imply, presuming of course legitimate logs, that the cachers couldn't find it - not that it's not there. A bogus find log, again presuming legitimate logs, implies the cache is indeed there. No indication it's not there. Even so, most cachers evaluate past logs and decide if it's "worth" the effort to locate the cache. And there's the rub. *sigh* once again I'm just repeating everything already stated. Sarcasm does not help your position. I still don't even know what it is. Did you answer those two basic questions? Nor I. Well, other than the fact that some people think no one has any need to feel "duped" by bogus find logs if they feel a trip was in any way at all wasteful. This.

Oh Clan, you really are missing what I'm saying. First, let me stop you there. Your example is much tamer (subjectively speaking) compared to mine. Of course most people wouldn't be that upset about $25 and 3 hours - but neither you nor I can make that judgement call, because we don't know the context of why they decided to go for that cache. Second, you can't "decide the cache is not there". You can theorize, you can assume, you can make an educated guess, but in general you cannot know for sure while you're there. There are two outcomes at that point: A find or a DNF - both, possible results you were, hopefully, willing to accept when you decided to set out to attempt to find the cache. Until the CO confirms it's not there, how would you know? But let's assume you got to that point at least, for certain knowledge... Yup, not getting it. Do I need to reiterate my responses to each of your points? Because I already addressed them. No it doesn't. And I really don't want to repeat everything about why again. I think you are right to draw a line betwixt those whose goals are to geocache, (the act of getting to a cache and hunting for it), and those whose goals are only to increase their find count. In my opinion, those in the latter group are too obsessed with numbers, though, I don't doubt that those folks in that group would disagree. Is there a way for outsiders to determine if a particular cacher belongs in the latter group? Perhaps. If someone is focused on increasing their find count to the extent that they are willing to travel backward through time, just to ensure that three hours, which were enjoyable, suddenly become not enjoyable, just because there is no smilie, that person may be a numbers oriented cacher. If a cacher does not try to alter the past based on the acquisition of a smilie, then that person might not be a numbers oriented cacher. Dude. Again. It is not about the "acquisition of a smiley". It's about whether you were actually attempting to find a geocache, or whether you were just ruffling around needlessly through the wood. You know what, let's try to reduce this debate (or figure out what exactly is being debated), instead of arguing opinions. Let's just answer the OP: * Should a CO delete false find logs? My answer: Yes. * By extension, is it the CO's responsibility to determine whether every log on their cache is valid? My answer: No. You?

Do bogus logs hurt "the game" universally? Of course not. The rarity of them shows this, and my scenarios are purely related to the experience of the finders themselves. If the question is whether "geocaching" is hurt by bogus logs, then I would say no, or at least negligibly. If the question is whether individuals' geocaching experiences can be hurt by bogus logs? Yes! But if the question is whether "geocaching" as a hobby suffers a loss when its players in general have increased potential for bad experiences? Then I would say yes, and more than negligibly. (the same debate can rage on for the issue of buried caches, as elsewhere in this forum) And my scenarios all presumed trust in past logs. The solution of course isn't to doubt every single log. The solution is to promote not posting bogus logs, as well maintaining the integrity of your geocache listing =P Deleting known bogus logs, as an answer to the OP, yes I believe it's a responsibility as a cache owner to maintain the integrity of the online history of your cache listing, as many cachers use that to make decisions about their actions. Proactively assessing each and every log for validity? Only if you want to be OCD about it. Paying attention to logs? Yes. Following up on instinct or suspicions about log validity? I would say yes, as a responsibility of being a CO - for the sake of subsequent people who may want to find your cache. But until someone knows it's bogus, no one is to blame for its existent except the person who posted it. I can't blame the CO for not deleting a bogus log before they even know it's bogus, or even for not being suspicious about it, especially if the find log appears perfectly legitimate. If I have my own suspicions about a log's legitimacy, I might contact the CO to find out about it first, or even contact that logger. The call for COs to delete known bogus logs takes effects after they know it's bogus. Until then, the fault is entirely on the fake logger. Until then, one can only rely on suspicion - either in deciding whether to go find it, or deciding whether to check a log's validity. See above. Not every find on a cache. Yep. But not necessarily. The difference is the CO knows their own cache - other cachers don't. In general, the CO would have a clearer instinct if a log is potentially falisified. Nonetheless, that's not on the issue of fault, that's just about who would be first to act on a suspicion - most likely the CO. 1) Universal? Obviously not (Clan as case in point). But I'm not saying it's universal, and I never did. Universality is irrelevant. The question is - do bogus logs hurt the game? On an infrequent individual level - they can. If you feel any factor's negative impact on community hurts the game in general, then yes, bogus logs hurt the geocaching hobby to some degree. 2) You don't have to let other people's frustrations ruin your enjoyment of the game. Better you don't. I wouldn't want to either. But this thread just raised the question of whether a problem is or can be hurtful to the game. And yep, it can be. So, CO's are better to be proactive with their caches (as a standard part of the added responsibility of owning a geocache for other people to find) - follow up on suspicious logs, and delete bogus logs.That's all I'm saying (while apparently needing many examples and many words to support that position ) At least we agree - sometimes these forums can feel like a waste of time ;P

Hyotheticals are not a Bad Thing. Their feasibility is the question - and I'm providing examples I know can and do happen even though I can't (recall and) say "I have experienced this myself first hand". My two examples are as close to first hand as I can possibly imagine - and they are simply demonstrating legitimate possible reasons as to why a cacher may consider a bogus find log on a non-existent cache a BAD THING. *sigh* Ah, hyperbole. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. We're talking about the effect of bogus find logs on the hobby of geocaching, not gullibility of accepting internet truths. Some might. My very feasible two examples did not resort to blaming the CO in any way. For simple caches, sure that would be negligable. In the context of what a cacher might consider a 'waste' - who is anyone to make that call but the cacher themselves? My examples were, from my experience, what I would consider a 'waste' were the recent find logs bogus and the cache was not there. I wouldn't care as a finder about a bogus find on an LPC around the corner. But I would on a day long generally extreme cache trip with costs involved. I would expect the cache to actually be there, even if I had to resort to a DNF. If it weren't, I wouldn't blame the CO if it were due to a bogus find log. I wouldn't necessarily take on those expenses if I didn't think I had a decent chance at finding the cache. My evaluation of that chance depends on the cache and recent logs. Bunch of DNFs? Unlikely to take the risk - might contact the CO if they can check on it. Just found? Much more likely I'll go for it. If I find out later the find was false, better believe I'd be angry at the bogus logger. My decisions would have been different without the bogus log. I know plenty of people in my region who would feel the same way. Are you two trying to argue that if anyone is upset because of a bogus find log, causing them to feel a trip was a waste - even if they had fun - then they are "numbers cachers" only in it "for the smiley" and their concern is really their problem... because it wouldn't bother you? I hope not. Bogus logs are hurtful to the game. I'll reiterate - Rules of thumb regarding the OP: * As a finder, don't post bogus logs. * As a CO, if a log is known to be bogus, deal with it. You don't know who it might 'hurt', whatever their decisions, caching habits, preferences, goals, or search parameters are. Heck, even an LPC might be super important to a cacher who's completing a challenge, and has to travel a long distance for it. A DNF on that important LPC for them could be hard to take; but a DNF on the LPC after finding out it wasn't findable contrary to a bogus find log? Yes, even if you consider challenge caching "for the numbers", that doesn't change the fact that the bogus find log can cause that trip to be considered a waste.

I've covered that. Yes, while finding, you have no way of knowing. But after the fact, if the cache was never there in the first place, the time and/or money spent can definitely be considered by some a waste, even if they 'had a good time' at the time. Then you find out there was no cache - the search was pointless. You're completely missing the point I'm making. Nope. It can be retroactive. I might have fun while searching, and even be willing to log a DNF without issue. If I find out I needn't have even had to search, or could have waited a week and searched, then that time and money could retroactively be considered a waste! "Man, instead of searching for nothing, I could have saved that money and gone this week instead, and maybe actually have found the cache! It was fun, but what a waste of a trip!" Stop saying that. There are those people, but that's irrelevant to my point. Had fun prior to discovering it wasn't there? No - if they had fun, they had fun. If they didn't, they didn't. How about rephrasing it to "how much importance they place on being able to find the cache they're looking for" -- instead of constantly reducing the "fun of geocaching" to a "smiley". Is your goal to search for a cache (geocaching)? Or is your goal to go on an adventure (go outdoors)? OR is your goal to boost your find count (about the numbers)? Nor did I say they were inextricably linked. For you.

No cache has topped that one, in 4 years of caching (and that was within the first 3 months) IMO, if you can call it an adventure, then the adventure was not a waste. Not arguing that point. But there are people whose experiences will be soured by needlessly wasted time and money. That's a pretty good working definition. But I'll suggest why it might not fit. For me, ... My job ... This hobby is how I ... for me to drive 2 hours, then paddle 6 hours, for one cache, (something I'm planning on doing this Sunday), is most definitely not a needless expense. I'll be engaged in something I love doing. Hopefully, I'll find the cache. If I don't, sure, there will be some disappointment. As I mentioned, a smilie is better than a frownie. But that adventure will not be a waste. As it stands, I'm pretty sure the cache is there. The owner has a good history of cache maintenance, fixing reported problems promptly. But it is a multi. You just never know. The last "Found It" could have been entirely bogus. An utter fabrication. Personally, I'll still have a good time trying. It's great that you're able to do that - it really is. But other people's priorities may be different, and 'waste' comes into play when other more desirable or optimal options would have presented themselves had the parameters been different. It's great that you wouldn't be bothered by finding out the trip you took which ended in a DNF was thanks to a bogus find log. For some though, the reason for the trip isn't just "the adventure", but also the joy of making an attempt to find a geocache (otherwise they'd just go on adventures, right?), even if realizing the search may end in a DNF - the expectation is you could find the cache; and if they find out it never would have been found anyway, then even though a memorable adventure was had, other options - which may have still provided that adventure - would have been more appropriate, and this trip would not have, effectively, wasted resources. Not sure how many other ways I can explain that Finally, I recommend Tomb Raider. Very much. I did it with an iPhone 3GS. No one else had a GPS, it really was in the desert, and me friends weren't geocachers. (one of my best examples in debates against "smartphone" haters nyuk)

I didn't say they were evenly spread across the globe

Ok... another big-worded reply-rant You missed the point: I'm not saying a simple DNF hurts the game. I'm saying a DNF that needn't be a DNF, or a bogus log implying the cache was there when it wasn't and the DNF would have been a find if the cache were there, or a bogus log falsely assuages the concern that a cache may not be there letting the listing stand as findable when it's not - those can hurt the game. Agreed, that doesn't happen often, but it happens, and I've seen it happen. Disagree. As I said, the owner can contact suspect loggers and have them describe the cache or their search - whether as a 'test' or to legitimately inquire about about the state of the cache as last found. I've done this on mine. There are two outcomes: The logger does not answer at all (why?) or they answer, either admitting to not finding it or not being able to describe it (I don't know anyone who would refuse to describe their legitimate find). In either case, if the description is not correct (or not provided) it's almost guaranteed to be a bogus log. Given that revelation, if a sibling DNFer describes their search and it's clear they would have found the cache, then yes it most definitely is possible to know for sure bogus logs, and even whether a cache is missing. I know this first hand. Rare? Perhaps. But that's not the point. Is it impossible to know? No. Is there a guaranteed way for the CO to know? No. However, it most definitely is possible for the cache owner to find out, and at the least gain some insight. Then you've been very fortunate Likewise. I may contact the owner if I have a suspicion it may be missing, and describe my search to find out if I would have found it. And yes, if they confirm it's missing, and I expended a significant amount of time and/or money for the search based on the recent find log (even if I'd found other caches while on this trip) - I may be a little bothered; and moreso if the CO determines that the last find is bogus. If I really want to find that cache (which does not mean it's about the numbers), then I'll have to take another trip to find it once it's maintained. Still a choice, but clearly one can understand how someone can consider this a 'waste' or very frustrating. It's happened to me. It happens to others. It happens. But just a DNF? Of course that in and of itself is not 'hurtful'. That's part of the game. That only hurts if you are playing for the numbers. Because it's a 0, not a +1. I used to do that, when DNFs were more significant to me. Now I just log it locally, and online (if I'm not in a group, or no one else in the group has, or I really want it recorded online). I only set up notifications/watches on caches I really really want (or are really interested in). I'll check back occasionally on a cache I DNFd to see if the next visitor found it or also DNF'd. I'm not really bothered if my DNF was legitimate because a cache was missing - my log helped alert the CO that maintenance may be required. The context of the issue at hand here is searching for a cache under the false pretense that it's available, due to a bogus find log. That's the point of a hypothetical. As long as it's feasible, it's a valid example; a demonstration of a possible situation. Have I been the victim of a bogus find log causing a needless DNF? I think so, but not recently and if I did it wasn't significant enough (to me) to burn into my memory or prompt me to go searching. But that's just me. It's much easier to provide hypotheticals (that are feasible) composed of experiences and likely alternate outcomes. I agree, bogus find logs on a good cache are more common. And ultimately those don't 'hurt' players who are searching for said cache. In those cases I'm fully on board with whatever degree to which owners deal with the logs on caches that are known to be in good standing (ie, cache has been confirmed ok, and a find log is known to be invalid). But in the cases when the find log is determined to be invalid and the cache is determined to be missing, there's a much bigger problem - the CO won't necessarily know, and followup searchers may then be deceived. In the former case, the CO has the ability to decide how to treat the logs, and to a finder they essentially become irrelevant. In the latter case, they are inherently hurtful to the game. As a finder, they can be frustrating and lead to wastes of time and money. What's the solution? Practically, I dunno. The only proactive action that can be taken really is by the CO (choosing if to delete a log), and only in the case of a cache existing and the log being known as bogus. The reactive action that can be taken is only after the hurt has happened, when the needless search has occurred if the CO can verify the cache and authenticity of recent Find/DNF logs. So, overall, just teach people not to post bogus logs The 'idea that someone has wasted time and money' is not bogus. Here's a more tangible example, in 'what if' form. Example 1 In my first year caching, I had a trip to San Diego. There's a 5/5 cache placed there called Tomb Raider. Not having a vehicle, and being a social trip, I gained the interest of a number of other locals who were in for the adventure of finding this special cache. The posted coordinates are in San Diego. I solved the puzzle without problem. The final coordinates however are 80 miles east, out of the city in the desert. BIG drive on a somewhat tight schedule for one day. Gas. Time. Physical risk - it's in a desert. We found the cache, and got home in good standing. The cache had been found 6 months prior, following a maintenance run another 2 months prior in response to a find, following a DNF 6 months prior, following a find another 4 months prior, and so on. Rarely found, let alone attempted. It was a risky endeavour. We chose to take that risk. We found a couple of other caches en route, yes, but our goal was that one, and we didn't have much time for anything else. The trip itself was awesome, sure. Definitely worth the experience. But what if... What if the last find was bogus and the cache was actually missing? What if we had to resort to (what would certainly have been) a painful DNF, only to find out that the previous find was fake? In this case I think we were lucky that there was a maintenance fix-up before that. But if there wasn't, and the earlier DNF had been true - that the cache had been missing - and subsequence find(s) were bogus, then the entire trip, and the cost and time would have been a significant waste. Glad for the experience? Sure, still. But the time could have been better spent elsewhere, especially being on vacation with friends. The risk of a DNF would have been greater, without the existence of a recent find, and we could used the time (and money) for something else. I would rather have posted a DNF due to legitimately being unable to locate the cache, than have posted a DNF only to find that there was no way we would have found the cache, especially if we would have found the cache in our search if it were there. Being angry over a bogus find log for a missing cache doesn't mean one feels the experience was a waste. It just means that other options would have been more feasible, acceptable, desirable, especially if financial priorities would have been vastly different and a large cost was eaten needlessly due to this problem. Second example (not as long) There's a 5/5 in Ontario called Bushwacker. Out in the wilderness. Full day hike in and out. Series of caches all along the way, paving the way to the big 'finale' cache. Takes time, money, effort to get to. Say previous hikers do the hike, but failed to find the final. Being the 'type' they are, they opt to log it found anyway (hey, no one would be able to confirm if it went missing after they 'found' it, right?). We head in. Boy what an awesome hike and adventure! Loads of caches (still not about the numbers), beautiful weather, feels great. Get to the final - where is it? It's not hard to find, according to past logs, but it was just logged as found. *Hmph*. I guess we'll have to log DNF and come back later (as much as it hurts to resign to that). At that point - yeah the DNF hurts; but if the CO is able to confirm that the previous finders did not find the cache (this can be done easily), and instead knew that it was missing but didn't tell the CO, hooo boy...! Different finders have different 'ethics' for logging finds. The previous hikers were loose - they didn't care. Perhaps they thought the CO would let them log it anyway, so they just logged it found (I've seen it happen, and I know people who may do that). The CO might decide to delete their bogus find log; that's his choice. But if we're 'good' cachers, even if the CO does allow us to log it found because we should have found it, we may opt to take the high road and keep it a DNF. We may have had a great day, a great hike, and enjoyable experience, but that bogus find log caused problems. If they'd logged a DNF instead, we'd have had the choice to wait until the CO confirmed it was there, instead of expending that time and money that date for the attempt. We'd have waited, and reduced the risk for requiring multiple trips to find the target cache. So... Point #1: The CO can verify bogus logs for missing caches - the recent 'finder(s)' can (attempt to) describe the hide, or how they searched. Point #2: "Wasted time" doesn't necessarily mean "bad experience". Waste simply means needless expense of something. That can most definitely be hurtful. Bogus find logs, inherently, can hurt the game by allowing wastefulness, which depending on the cachers, can promote a 'bad experience'. Point #3: Bogus logs on missing caches may be rare. But they may well be less rare than you think, based on your own personal experience. Everyone's experiences are different though, so arguing rarity from personal experience is pointless. Point #4: Yes, examples are hypothetical, but they're not necessarily a stretch. I know people who do this (large trips for target caches), and I know people who would be upset by bogus finds for this very reason. The point is whether bogus logs can be a harm to the game, for the finder (not just 'numbers' cachers) and the CO. Most definitely they can. TL;DR Rules of thumb: * As a CO, is it better to shrug off bogus logs if you know they're bogus? Of course not! (a little bit of effort can provide a quick indication of bogus logs) * As a finder, do not post bogus logs! Simple. They're misleading, and if you didn't actually find it, you may very well be falsely leading subsequent finders into bad, wasteful, or angering situations. * As a victim of a bogus find, yes you have the choice to be angered or not, but you don't have a choice not to be wasteful after the fact. Time and money can't be regained once used. You can have a great experience, and still have wasted time and money - whether that upsets you is, of course, up to you. Keep the game's potential good for everyone; fight bogus logs. Ok done.

There are bad players with GPSs. There are bad players with smartphones. Smartphones have been a double edged sword - it has brought in a whole lot of new players, and a vast majority of these are 'good' players, but it has also opened the door for more 'bad' players; these are the exception to the rule. The problem is not smartphones, the problem is simply that there is a much larger swath of the population now able to quickly pick up the game. I would guess the ratio of idiots to not-idiots hasn't changed. But the quantity of both has increased proportionately.

Clan, you're approaching this from the perspective that one can never know if a cache is there or not based on logs. It may be true, but you can't be against bogus logs and yet use that argument about determining if a cache is or isn't there, or claim that only fanatical 'numbers cachers' will care about bogus logs when they search. We're talking about the "bogus log" - that implies the situation necessarily means a cache is not there. So, let's work with that in mind. First, this isn't only an issue for the religious "about the numbers" cachers What briansnat said is very true. It can very well be harmful. Very common and likely situation: Cachers looking for a good, enjoyable cache to find on the weekend. The fun of the hunt. (not just the hike). That doesn't imply it's about the numbers - that implies they like to geocache; you know, to search for a cache. They find one and decide it's worth driving a significant distance for the cache because hey, it was found yesterday. It has a history of DNFs and finds, and the last few logs follow that pattern (couple DNFs over the last month followed by a find). But it was found, so they're willing to eat the expense of travel to locate it. High favorites, a challenge, lots of good word about it. And it was just found. After an exhaustive search, alas, no they can't find it. Oh well, the hunt was fun, but they log the DNF and head home. Sometime in the near future (perhaps after a couple of other DNFs) the CO checks on it and finds that it's missing. Out of curiosity the CO contacts the last finder to check on the state they left it. Based on their interaction, the CO becomes aware that it was not, in fact, a find. The CO deletes the find log, posts a maintenance and replaces the cache and log. Previous DNFers see this update, and become angry because they expended gas to hunt for a cache they could not have found, based on the premise that the cache was there because it was just found, when it may not have been there even back to the previous find, posted prior to those previous DNFs. They can rightly say that their priorities would not have encouraged them to take that road trip to find the cache, and needlessly expend that money, to find a cache they didn't believe they had a good chance at finding. Perhaps they would have contacted the owner first if the last couple of logs were DNFs, letting them know they were going to take a road trip to find it, asking if they could verify it is there. They realize that if the cache was in fact there, they may well have found it. So they contact the CO and ask, recounting their search, if they would have found it. The CO confirms they would have found it if it were there. BOTH the CO and the DNFers were mislead because of that bogus find log. Sure, the location was nice, the drive was nice, they had a good time in general. But there's a difference between failing to find a cache that was there (taunting a return trip to try again), and being unable to find a cache they would have found had it actually been there (requiring another unnecessary trip to 'properly' sign the log). If it was known the cache was missing, or they felt the cost of the trip was not worth it given the risk of a DNF knowing the last few logs were DNFs (no finds), they would not have gone that day. They would have waited until a Find log was posted. Or until the owner verified it. Money was needlessly wasted for the trip - based on their own geocaching and financial priorities (which may not be yours, but it was theirs) You said you agree with deleting bogus find logs. Great! This is just an example to show that bogus find logs can be and are indeed a harm to the game, for both owners and finders. And that it's not a concern that is, inherently, "about the numbers"

Ah, anonymity. If an unvalidated member has your TB, there's a slim chance of ever seeing it unless they pass it to someone or place it in a cache. You could try asking other people who appear to cache in generally in the same areas, and see if anyone might know said anon user. Otherwise, they're really just a random profile on a website. Another reason why account messaging between geocaching profiles would be a nice feature - regardless of email validation (or at least for accounts that do not have a validated email address). You could look for an event nearby either the general location of the anon cacher, or near where you last saw your TB, then ask the coordinator if they know the person, or if they can even announce at the event for attendees to watch out for your trackable as they go caching. *shrug* I don't think there's any easy solution.

I did test for myself using Groundspeak's app. You can create an account via the app, supply a dummy (even non-existent) email, and begin seeking caches. The profile is created and the contact option does not exist (as the email was not validated). Within the app, I tested on a cache of my own, ARCHIVED even, and posted a find log with only 'test' as the text. It was successful. Glitch? I'd call that a gaping hole.

touche Aside from the fact that yes, mobile phones also have an outgoing signal, the general feel is you're receiving data... *shrug* whatevs. My preference is the (neutral) signal strength indicator (and I don't mean frog strength ) icon...

That feels more like an outgoing signal, or radio...

Only findable at sunrise/sunset? haha I was gonig to reply the same yesterday but held back. It was that or Rainbow Warning

heh, well don't let it die completely If I'm out all day, I have my AA pack, and use battery conservatively - turn off the GPS when not used (I'm not staring at the screen the entire day, let alone between caches when I know where to go already). When my battery gets to ~10% or a little above, I plug it in with fresh rechargeables. I had a pack that could provide 2 full charges off 4 AA's. Unfortunately last I checked that product doesn't seem to be available any more (owner went awol it seemed ). But I have another one that does a full charge on 4AA. If necessary, that gives me enough for a full day caching on my 5S, if I'm not also doing other non-geocaching stuff (email checking, tweeting, games, etc ) I don't know what your phone's battery use is like, but if you can turn off gps when not needed, that saves a LOT of battery. Remember your phone is a multi-purpose device, not just a gps, so by default its battery will generally deplete faster. Some people don't like that; others plan around it

Ok wow. That comment prompted a whole lot of replies. First, I completely forgot that gc.com already provides a way to highlight 'beginner caches' in search results. However, note that the search results option highlights listings, it doesn't exclude all caches except beginner caches (which is what is being proposed for the intro app). So... Seems reasonable to me. Likewise - as a highlighting parameter set; as recommendations. But it feels that providing only those caches as visible in the intro app will deter some people in certain regions/environments from playing thinking that there aren't really any caches around. And if there's an option of opening up the search to show them all, that sort of defeats the purpose of the discussion in this thread (they can just turn off the beginner filter and get access to all the caches anyway without needing to 'upgrade') As for my "unfair" comment - admittedly that's a loaded word to use couldn't decide on a better one. It conjurs images of someone upset that their cache can't be considered beginner friendly even though they really really really wanted it to be one. Not what I was going for... I just meant unfair in an objective sense (if it's possible) Compared to other possible exclusions, I think cutting out micros isn't the best blanket parameter (for exclusive lists, as opposed to highlights). In the context of the Intro App, where an exclusive list of nearby 'beginner-friendly' caches is displayed - there should be a feasible method for determining what is displayed. Secondly, most of the replies to mine echo what I'd already said - sure, there are some micros that are good (ie, there's a better chance of finding non-micro beginner friendly caches). And yes, limiting any property in a cache search will cut out a swath of caches that are indeed beginner-friendly. Generally, beginner-friendly caches do exist across the entirety of possible cache listings! I just think that restricting all micro caches can have a much more limiting effect than some of the other proposed ideas presented here (even though they'd be more work to implement). And again, I agree and think the current parameters for highlighting beginner caches (even not including micros) is a good set of parameters. Well, there isn't a way to identify "quality" caches automatically either - which is why there's the favorite point system. Would a beginner-friendly point system do the trick for an exclusive list of nearby beginner-friendly caches for any new user of the intro app? *shrug* Maybe the intro app could search for an exclusive list of caches based on the existing parameters (including no micros), but "tease" about how many other caches are nearby that they could see if they upgraded their app. 3rd party apps would obviously still have to implement their own methods of introducing users to the game - so there's still no guarantee that frustrating new player habits would be removed from the hobby... I'm all for improving the intro app, but whatever standard there is for determining 'beginner caches' should be made available as data for 3rd party apps as well. It's not (shouldn't be) just an app UI thing.

On coordinates... I'll echo what Chief301 said. You can trust later smartphone models (eg iPhone 4S/5/5S), but I think everyone would recommend finding a few more caches first, if only so get a better feel for your device's accuracy, and for what may constitute a trustworthy, good hide. GPS devices can be more accurate and faster, but that is certainly no guarantee of accurate coordinates. Regardless of the device you use (phone or dedicated gps) it's always good practice to test and re-test your coordinates, or even have a friend verify your readings. I've come across a number of hides from people I know are GPS users yet still had inaccurate coordinates. Even after it's published, someone may find the cache but provide alternate coordinates in their log. Take those into consideration (but don't blindly accept them as they may also not be completely accurate ;P) Coordinates can be a tough thing to work with. But I don't think anyone will agree that it's good to jump into cache hiding having just begun caching, let alone with a "smartphone" (that's a bad word to some people, and may get you blacklisted in your area if your coordinates aren't accurate and they find out you're a new cacher using a phone ) That said, it's great that you want to get into hiding though! Whatever you use, just do your best to make sure the coordinates are as accurate as possible.

Oh I know of the "hatred" of micros. The rest of my comment you left out addressed that. Again: Not all micros are bad, or beginner-unfriendly. Even though there's a better chance of friendly caches larger than micros. It's region- and opinion-dependent. Excluding micros has collateral effect: reduces greatly the number of urban caches (regardless of your opinion about those), and areas that may actually have good hiders of micro caches. Thus, it's presumptuous and unfair to "exclude all micros". It's a vague blanket bandaid that may benefit some areas and do exactly the opposite as intended in others. That was the point I was making above. eg, new player boots the intro app in the downtown core, finds the nearest "beginner" cache 20km away, outside the city - not knowing that there are actually 10 available within a couple of blocks of where they're standing that are easy and quick finds. Regardless of your opinion of cache types, that's not very beginner friendly (unless you're trying to further the agenda that "good" geocaches are only outside the city in woods and somewhat large containers). Today there are many regional geocaching styles (worldwide, even) to address in an 'intro' app that could ideally be booted up anywhere in the world - from urban cores to wilderness, from dense areas to sparse, from traditional-heavy regions to puzzle or challenge-heavy regions. The bigger problem here is finding a universal way to determine what could be considered a "beginner-friendly" cache, and ideally to have at least a couple within a feasible distance of a new player to pique curiosity and go for the hunt. Cache type/size can't really be used as a universal indicator.

Can you define "way too fast"? Minutes? Hours? Hours while actively using GPS to navigate on screen? Just shorter than your GPSr's life? Try some of the tips I mentioned above for conserving battery. Or invest in an external AA battery pack (they can be cheap ~$20) for the smartphone and use rechargables.