Ed_S
-
Posts
314 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Ed_S
-
-
20 hours ago, cerberus1 said:
Caches are placed by one person, alone, singly, solo, by him/herself. I've been on site when it was done.... Sheesh...
Did you ask why he's doing it/it's being done? Now I'm curious.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, niraD said:
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?
-
.png)
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:
He told me I shouldn't trust the checker.
Wow - doesn't THAT open a big can of worms? If you can't trust the checker, why is it there?
-
12 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:
I find boy scout caches tend to be place and forget caches.
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, cerberus1 said:
No... As I wrote, a new cache appears, and names are pre-written in the log. Some of the members may never log their "find", but it's in there.
We've written the time we've found every cache with a log, since we started, and always says something if things look odd.
All future finders can see whose name is on that first line. We stopped that side-game for some time, not counting FTFs after 350.
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?
-
.png)
1
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, cerberus1 said:
Not at all... We've seen a few "Team" accounts now where all members of the "team" are already written into the log that's placed by one member, usually in the middle somewhere.
It happens often enough that I even mention something like "I don't know what happened, guess my notifications is shot. Lotsa people beat me to it, when I thought I'd be FTF. Missed the party. Congrats !
"
- My name's the first on the front page, and everyone in my area knows I don't even think about FTF anymore, so they know what I'm saying...
Confuses the heck outta new folks when there's only one or two people who remembered to log those finds online too.
"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.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:
Aren't you!
Yeah, in the 15 seconds that post appeared, you saw it. I have reconsidered and removed it. Apologies.
-
12 hours ago, The Jester said:
Sorry, you can't tell me that my feelings are wrong, it's just how I'm wired. Just like you've been complaining people are telling you that you're wrong when you can so clearly see that you're not. I was just hoping that you'd back off the hard line that fake logs never affect the cache finder and admit that some cache finders are affected by them. But go on with your life, believing your opinion is world wide truth, and I'll go on with mine where some negative things affect me more than they "should", I've learned to live with it.
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.
-
1
-
3
-
-
8 hours ago, dprovan said:
That's pitiful, both for the seekers and the CO, but I don't see why it matters to you. Sure, I'd talk to them all to try to figure out why they're wasting their effort that way instead of having fun finding caches, but there's no way to prevent it and every reason to think anything you try to do to prevent it will only have the effect of making it hard on people that are actually geocaching. Worry more about other people that are playing the same game you are and worry less about people playing some stupid game that makes no sense.
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.
-
5 hours ago, The Jester said:
I know how DNf's sometimes affect my feelings for the whole day. I've had one DNF throw a pall over the whole day of mostly successful caching.
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?
-
2
-
1
-
-
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.
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, GeoTrekker26 said:
That’s another of your “my way” arguments that isn’t true. It is always up to the person proposing an idea to provide supporting facts. The onus is never on the critic to PROVE the initial argument wrong.
I believe the rings of Saturn are evidence of a dystopian planet. Prove me wrong.
I believe 98% of the messages posted to the forums are posted by AI bots using pseudonyms. Prove me wrong.
I believe you are a troll. Prove me wrong.
I believe Keystone is a dog. Prove me wrong.
I believe this thread has outlived its usefulness. No proof needed.
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.
-
3
-
-
21 hours ago, GeoTrekker26 said:
You have it backwards: it’s your responsibility to prove your opinion is factual.Nope. I made a statement, and have been told "that's wrong." It's incumbent upon the accuser to provide the proof.
-
1
-
3
-
-
20 hours ago, The Jester said:
One example: A statement of opinion as hard fact.
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.
-
2
-
-
22 hours ago, The Jester said:
And you're not trying to tell us that your opinion/way of caching is the "proper" way to look at things? Kettle meet black, black meet kettle.
Examples, please?
-
2
-
-
17 hours ago, colleda said:
Can't accept any example that does not match your perception, eh? So you're resorting to hypothetical, "if the cache had been there but the seekers had been unable to find it" - irrelevant, the cache wasn't there but since you asked, if the fake found it had not been logged I would have replaced the cache therefore saving the next seekers from logging a DNF (it was a low D).
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.
17 hours ago, colleda said:Also, if those cachers are like me, where if I have a DNF I place a watch on it, they would see my OM and may well have been PO'd that some armchair logger had spoiled their experience of possibly grabbing the bonus(63% fav'd) - I would've.
OMG - "If those cachers are like me" - there you go telling others how they have to cache.
-
2
-
-
13 hours ago, colleda said:
On reading logs on one of my caches I see a DNF. As I'll be in the vicinity in the next day or two I make a mental note to check on it.
Next day a "Found It" is logged so I think to myself it's not missing after all and go about my normal business.
A couple of days later there are two more DNFs. I think "Hmm, that's odd".
I check on cache and it is indeed missing. I check other caches and find the person who logged the "Found It" has also logged other caches as found but has not signed logs - fake logger eh?
So if the fake logger had not logged as found the cache I was going to check on, I would have been able to replace the missing cache and prevented the next two cachers from having to log DNFs. As the cache is part of series with a bonus cache they would have had to make a return visit to find the replacement to get the clue for the bonus hence wasted time and expense for them and possible disappointment due to the area being a popular holiday spot and these cachers may not be able to return to complete the series.
Result is the fake logger has wasted my time and that of two other cachers. So, yes, a fake logger has affected my, as CO, and others', as seekers, caching experience. Certainly as per thread topic.
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
-
-
18 hours ago, niraD said:
Good luck enforcing your (ever more) restricted view of what this thread should be discussing.
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.
-
2
-
-
18 hours ago, The Jester said:
It does feel like you redefining what "fake log" you want to talk about:
A - fake find when dropping a throwdown?
B - fake find after series of DNFs?
C - fake find amongst real find logs?
D - all of the above?
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.
-
2
-
-
13 hours ago, TriciaG said:
BZZZT... off topic! Talking about cache owners. Shame, shame!
To answer your question: COs with deliberately soft coordinates are deliberately breaking the guidelines, which state that the coords should be accurate (as accurate as possible).
You're moving the goalposts. No fair changing the question when you don't like the answers you're getting.
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!!
-
3
-
-
15 hours ago, baer2006 said:
I had an experience today, which somehow reminded me of this thread.
[deletion]
So, a single fake find may not affect my caching experience too much, if at all. However, many fake finds in a row, with no "honest" DNF in between may have affected it today. As I said, it's a trail, and it gets a lot of logs. So I could imagine that the CO doesn't read find logs, but watches out for problems (i.e. DNF/NM). Given the owner's maintenance record on the series, there is a fair chance, that if at least some cachers had logged DNF instead of fake finds. the cache might have been replaced by now.
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.
-
2
-
-
16 hours ago, barefootjeff said:
touché
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, niraD said:
Sorry, but this is starting to smell like the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Someone complains, and you dismiss their complaint by narrowing the scope of the question. Lather, rinse, repeat.
I'm trying to hold this thread to the original topic. If you don't like it, why are you reading it?
-
3
-
-
22 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:
I heard of one CO deleting every log on the throw down. I think it was over a hundred logs, so that throw down, which was really a DNF, certainly affected a lot of people. Apparently when the CO checked, the original cache was still in its hidey spot and not missing. I found the correct cache (or I hope I did
) and it was very well hidden. Anyway, my log has not been deleted (yet). I thought that was hard on those who didn't know it was a throw down. The log of the person who made the throw down should have been deleted though.
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.
-
2
-
.png)
.png)
"
) and it was very well hidden. Anyway, my log has not been deleted (yet). I thought that was hard on those who didn't know it was a throw down. The log of the person who made the throw down should have been deleted though.
How can we stop/reduce cheating?
in General geocaching topics
Posted
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.