Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ed_S

  1. 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?
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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!!
  5. 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.
  6. I'm trying to hold this thread to the original topic. If you don't like it, why are you reading it?
  7. 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.
  8. I haven't encountered this sort of thing in at least the past couple of years, but in the past I've heard of approvers contacting the cache owner and telling them to correct their coordinates, after notes from cache finders asked them to make the corrections.
  9. I agree - throwdowns are cheating, and worse than a fake found log, because they DO affect subsequent cachers' experience. Throwdowns are not, however, the subject of this thread.
  10. Many of us don't log fake finds. Are you just looking for something to argue about?
  11. I was hoping for a calm discussion on how you believe fake logs effect your cache-finding trip, but others can't let go of their obsession with the responsibilities (as they want them to be) of the cache owner. Frankly, I'm surprised this thread is still going on. I keep saying "from the standpoint of seeking caches ..." and most of my replies tell me what the cache owner should do. I fully agree the cache owner who allows fake logs to exist is negligent, but that has little bearing on someone who simply wants to go spend the day finding caches. If a fake log appears in the midst of other found logs, as many of them do, there's no effect whatsoever - other than someone else claimed a find they didn't earn. How does that affect you? It doesn't, other than if you know they do that sort of thing, you should also know not to trust them anywhere else. If someone claims a find after a string of DNFs, and you don't recognize them as a liar, do you go look for that cache despite the DNFs and the lack of indication of owner maintenance? And if you do that, how do you know whether it's not really there or if it's just a tough hide?
  12. What about cache owners who deliberately use inaccurate GPS readings in their cache pages? When I lived in Ohio, there were at least two in my caching area who would purposefully use coordinates that would bring you near, but not too near, the cache. They'd bump up the difficulty points, as if that offset their inaccurate coordinates. There are all sorts of things people looking for caches have to deal with. You either learn to deal with them, and learn which cachers can be believed, or you'll quit in frustration. Forget about the widely-held assumption that a fake log is only found after a string of DNFs. Right smack in the middle of a bunch of found logs, how does a fake found log interfere with your caching day? The cache is there, others before and after have found it, but the cheater logged it from his La-Z-Boy. I'd be willing to bet that happens much more often than the cheater who claims a find at a cache that isn't there any more.
  13. People drop throwdowns all the time. Can you, just this once, forget about the cache owner and approach this from the standpoint of my OP, which I've repeated endlessly to figurative deaf ears, evidently? If you want to talk about what the cache owner should do (in your opinion) then start your own thread.
  14. "Part of cache maintenance is ..." BZZZT! We're not talking about the cache owner.
  15. The barrier the cache had been hidden under has been removed, and the road extended. Nobody noted this in any DNF or note, prior to the fake found log? Did you check that the cache wasn't simply relocated to a side of the road? It's possible someone left a throwdown cache because they couldn't find the original. Did you check? "A cache owner ..." BZZZT! We're not talking about the cache owner.
  16. I ask for the same courtesy. Yes, there are isolated instances where someone hay have had their caching day interrupted by their belief that a cache might be there when it is not. But how is that different than looking for a cache that is there, which you cannot find? Can you sense my frustration with trying to discuss caching from the standpoint of the seeker, and being inundated with blather from those who insist everyone cache the way they think we should all cache, especially that cache owners should do this or that, as if nobody has anything going on in their life other than "preserving the integrity of the cache."
  17. For what seems like the eleven millionth time: FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE CACHE FINDER, ONE FAKE FOUND LOG HAS NO EFFECT ON ONE'S CACHING EXPERIENCE. Why the heck do you and others insist on bringing up what you want the cache owners to do? Are you deliberately trolling? I don't know how I can be more plain - this isn't about the cache owner - it's about the cache seeker.
  18. That's true. My original thought when starting this thread was the possibility that out of a day's planned caches, maybe one of them had a fake found log. The many directions the discussion has taken since that point, while that point itself was ignored, has been at times interesting, amusing, and perhaps some other things as well. But if you start out with "What if ..." you can go anywhere. On either side of the discussion. I'd rather deal with facts. If a tough hide is there, but the newbie cacher can't find it, it's still there. If that same newbie cacher files a fake found log, the cache is still there. If the next cacher to seek that cache also can't find it, the cache is still there, regardless of the fake found log being a fake. It's a fact that most of the cachers out there do not cheat, and do not file fake found logs. Those who do are relatively rare. Most classes have a "class clown" but very few have more than one. That's a personal threshold. Judging by some of the responses I've gotten here, apparently one fake found log is enough to send some into OCD spasms. Others have said that any time a cacher suspects any log on any cache is a fake, the cache owner must immediately rush out and validate the find or remove the fake log, lest the cacher waste his time searching fruitlessly for a cache that isn't there, as opposed to searching fruitlessly for a cache that is there, but well hidden. I agree, fake logs can be a detriment, but I recognize that anywhere I've ever cached, fake found logs are a rarity. And I'd be pretty confident in stating that all of us, at one time or another, have found a cache that had a fake found log, and didn't even realize the fake lot was there.
  19. But just because you didn't find it doesn't mean it isn't there. Is every search a waste if it ends in a DNF?
  20. That's a fair point, and one I hadn't considered. I wasn't reading that much into it - I was just picturing compiling a list of a dozen or two caches I wanted to hit, and one of them had a fake find log among the other logs. In your example, yes, you couldn't justify doing nothing. But a lot of people just write the tersest of logs - a simple "TN, LN" or maybe "Found it" or similar. May I suggest that a note on the cache page in in order, clarifying that it's a multi and the hike to the final is tough?
  21. That's a reasonable point, and to avoid that myself I try to limit my searches to 10 minutes or so. If I haven't found it by then, and I'm on a schedule, I move on. But I look at previous logs when deciding whether to include a cache in my itinerary, so I know there's been several DNFs, and I can extrapolate that it's either a very tough hide, or it's missing. One find among the DNFs might be a fake log, or the cacher might have just lucked out and stumbled across it. I have no way of knowing. But the DNFs tell me to set myself a time limit.
  22. I was going to say something about sanctimony but didn't want to get the sensitive types all worked up. I'll just stop there.
  23. Back on topic - I recently moved to Amarillo TX, and a 10-mile radius search yields 414 caches. The vast, overwhelming majority of them are urban micros. In other words, caches I don't enjoy doing. So I search out the cemetery caches, caches in parks, and so on, and even some of those on the outskirts of town, although they are generally similar to their urban cousins. To be fair, it's the high plains - there are no forests or areas where larger caches might be hidden. "Regular" and "Large" are rare. I'm looking forward to cooler weather, because the Palo Duro Canyon is close, and there are a couple hundred caches in that area, although again many/most are tiny.
  24. I hope this discussion can remain civil. Rather than pollute another thread with this different topic, I decided to start a discussion just to address this question. So, if you're going caching, and one of the caches you plan on searching for has a false "found" log, in what way (if any) does that affect your day? To me, as I've said over and over, it matters not at all, because if I'm going to look for caches, the challenge is between the cache owner and his/her hiding ability, and me, the seeker. What others do has no bearing upon my caching experience. The responsibilities of cache ownership have no bearing on this discussion - it's purely about you, the seeker, and whether a cheater's false log has any effect on your caching trip. Others have said they are affected by a false "found" log. How, as someone planning to search for the cache, are you affected?
  • Create New...