Ed_S

Or at least unethical. The "FTF-hoes" are just playing the game their way. They aren't bothering anyone else, unless someone else wants to grab a few FTFs. If that's the case, they should sit in their car and be ready to race to the scene as soon as a new cache becomes live. If you create rules, you'll create people who cheat the rules.

Did you ask why he's doing it/it's being done? Now I'm curious.

OK, then tell me, O Knower Of All Things, what do you call the person who approves new caches? AND, for extra credit, were you able to discern, with your mastery of the English Language, what I meant?

Wow - doesn't THAT open a big can of worms? If you can't trust the checker, why is it there?

FWIW, if I suspect a cache has been "placed and forgotten" because of coordinates not being updated and so on, I look at the CO's profile to see when the last time they logged in was. Caches will continue along on "autopilot" until there's a problem. I DNF'd a puzzle cache earlier this year that was last found in 2018. The checker-bot said the coords were right, but the cache was clearly not there. There just weren't many places to hide one, and the rating was low. I checked, and the CO hadn't been around since 2009. I emailed the CO with no response, emailed the approver, then other area approvers, and learned approvers around here don't answer emails. So I logged a NA, and someone temporarily shut it down pending owner action (of course there was none) and after 30 days archived it.

OK, thanks for the clarification. The cache owner pre-writes other cachers' names in the log, when he puts the cache out? Wow. Is there some reason behind it? Maybe a little private game among just their group?

"Teams" where one member finds caches and another team member finds other caches, and everyone claims all finds, has been going on for a long time. I guess it's cheating to those for whom it's all about the numbers. What you're describing is different, though, and not something I've seen or even heard of. You're saying a new cache appears and people immediately claim the find, without signing the log? I think my log would note that mine is the first signature in the entire log. I've amassed a hundred or so FTFs, mostly back before we had the instant notification of new caches, and apparently people sitting in their cars waiting for said notification. I'm not a "numbers guy" in any way, shape, or form - more power to them, if that's how they want to play. In your case, I'm sure the regulars know who the "team" people are, and treat them accordingly.

Yeah, in the 15 seconds that post appeared, you saw it. I have reconsidered and removed it. Apologies.

You're wired like you're wired. I get it. Will you agree that most people aren't wired like that? Actually, a way one single fake found log CAN affect anyone's day is when a new cache is placed by a new cacher. Nobody has ever found the cache, and nobody knows how the hider does things - are the coords accurate? Does he favor certain methods or camouflage? You get the idea. So if the cache is not there, or the coords are wildly off and the first log is "Easy find, coords right on!" or similar, a cacher might spend more time than he ordinarily would, in the belief that the cache is there where it's supposed to be. But all the instances of a fake log affecting a cacher's entire day require a specific set of circumstances. And, if someone spends 2 hours looking for one cache, that's their choice, and they can't blame anyone but themselves for spending 2 hours on a cache and not coming up with the find.

As a rule, the caching community figures out pretty quickly who the fakers are. As you say, there's no way to prevent them from logging fake finds. To me, the story about someone "logging hundreds/thousands of cache without ever been at GZ because you are chummy with the CO." sounds sort of like a conspiracy theory.

Dude, let it go. Unclench a little. Caching is an amusing pastime. It's not a stain upon your honor if you don't find a cache someone else says they found. And if you didn't actually find the cache, you don't know if their name is in the log or not, do you?

After reading all the replies I've gotten to this topic, I've come to the realization that some people cache for a different reason than I do. I always knew people have different reasons for caching, of course - for some, it's all about the numbers, while for others, such as myself, it's about the experience. The hike and/or the search for a quality cache. I've realized there are people who seek caches so they can check up on others. They consider themselves the Cache Police - and they consider it a crime to cache in ways they don't approve of. "Live and let live" is not their way. Violating the rules, no matter how minor the infraction, is intolerable to them. They don't know the history of caching, so "the way it used to be" is of no interest to them. You all can have your last word, if you want, but I think this thread has gone beyond any useful purpose. Maybe I'll reply further, maybe I won't.

First, you're wrong about Keystone. I know him - he started caching about when I did, and in the same general area. Back then, we all knew each other, because there weren't very many of us. I can assure you, he's not a dog. Now, as for the rest of it, see my following post.

Nope. I made a statement, and have been told "that's wrong." It's incumbent upon the accuser to provide the proof.

Without all the "what-ifs" and contrived scenarios, a cacher spending some time finding caches is not affected by one fake found log. The cacher is still going caching, and will either elect to search for the cache based on the one (fake) found log, or he will note the DNFs and decide to look or not look for it. If he decides to look for the cache, he will spend time searching for it, whether it's there or not. Prove me wrong.

Examples, please?

What's irrelevant is that (boy, I'm getting tired of saying this) we aren't talking about the cache owner and the actions YOU THINK he should take. You're also sure those couple of cachers would have found it, because it's a low D. Ever have to DNF a 1/1 that others found easily? I have, and so has every other cacher I know. Sometimes you just don't see what's in front of you. It happens to all of us. OMG - "If those cachers are like me" - there you go telling others how they have to cache.

I have to observe that your experience and your comments are from the standpoint of the cache owner, not the finder. I was remiss in not titling this thread accurately, but there have been several accusations of my supposed "narrowing" of the topic, so I don't dare edit it or modify it. Let me ask you, though, if the cache had been there but the seekers had been unable to find it, what would have changed for the seekers? Would their coming away with a DNF and with the cache actually there been less of a waste of time? Further, do you KNOW they considered it a waste of time, or are you merely projecting your own thoughts on them?

I started the thread, so I think I'm qualified to say what its topic is. Have I remained consistent? How many times have I said "from the standpoint of the finder, ..." only to have multiple replies insisting that the cache owner should do this or that? I love how one "negative Nellie" picks an out-of-context point and quibbles over it, and a half dozen others jump on the same point.

So let me get this straight - I harp on the same thing over and over, and I'm criticized for it. I change up my argument with different examples, and I'm criticized for it. I mention things in part of a reply to a specific post, and I'm criticized for it. Perhaps some soul searching with regard to your (the royal "you" not just you personally) motives is in order.

I disagree - I'm not moving the goalposts, I'm trying to rephrase my arguments so that my fellow arguers might understand what I'm saying. Also, the topic at hand is whether a fake found log can have an effect on someone's caching trip, not critiquing other posts. So, razzberries!!

True, a whole string of fake found logs can do that. But isn't that a commentary on the honesty, or (I'll be charitable) the inexperience of some cachers? I also recognize that a lot of people create a "shell" log for power trail caches, using the same log over and over for all 30 (or however many) logs. They have to make an effort to remember which cache was defective. Some don't.

touché

I'm trying to hold this thread to the original topic. If you don't like it, why are you reading it?

Throwdowns are worse than fake found logs, because when you find the throwdown, you presume you've found the cache, so you stop looking for it.