Jump to content

Ed_S

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    314
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ed_S

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Many of us don't log fake finds. Are you just looking for something to argue about?
  4. 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?
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. "Part of cache maintenance is ..." BZZZT! We're not talking about the cache owner.
  8. 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.
  9. 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."
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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?
  13. 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?
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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?
  18. In what way, exactly, have you been affected by someone falsely claiming a find on a cache? Did you go search for a cache that wasn't there because one Found log appeared after a dozen DNFs and no indication of Owner Maintenance? Even if you did that, isn't searching for caches what you planned to do anyway? Whose experience is more important? Please don't make this a "tinkling contest" - to me, MY experience is the most important. To you, YOURS is. It's the cache owner's responsibility to "ensure the integrity of their listing" is it? Do you run right out after every single logging of all your caches, to make sure all online logs have a corresponding signature in the log book? Please. Bottom line here - you cache your way, and I'll cache mine. Blah blah blah, "Integrity of the cache" blah blah blah. When I started caching, approvers would question you if you wanted to hide a micro where they thought a larger cache might fit. They wouldn't let you place a cache under any roadway bridge.. They wouldn't let you create what they considered a power trail. Now, the new and improved caching experience allows micros - nanos even - in the woods where you could hide a city bus. They approve caches that are just a piece of litter tossed along a road, along with all the other litter there. Power trails are encouraged, so much so that they've been created by people simply tossing a 35mm film can out the car window every 528 feet. Those things affect how I cache. Someone claiming a find from their recliner doesn't affect me in the least. Let me set the record straight here. I said what I said about a fake "Found" not affecting my caching day, from the standpoint of finding caches. NOT being a cache owner. I'll say it again - if someone claims a find from the comfort of their recliner in their living room, it has no bearing whatever on my caching experience. I'm still going to look for it, yes, even with a bunch of DNFs, if I think I might be able to find it. I have made such finds in the past, after the locals all DNFed the cache. Am I that good? That lucky? I'd go with lucky, but if it twists your tighty whities, then yes, I'm that good. I'm also done responding to attacks that are off on a tangent from what I actually said. This has been beaten to death. You're (the Royal You, not you personally) not going to make me change how I cache. Save your noise.
  19. I agree, hence my assertion that whether someone else fakes a find has no bearing on my enjoyment of the activity. You are a cacher after my own heart. Quality over quantity.
  20. It all started when I commented that if someone chose to sit in their living room and just log a hundred caches online as "found" that in no way affected my experience searching for caches. It ties to "longevity" when you also know I started caching in 2001 and have seen a lot of things happen, and a lot of things change, over the years. But "cheating" has been going on ever since people for whom caching is all about the numbers discovered Geocaching. Possibly even before that. There's no way to stop them. My apologies for allowing myself to be dragged off on a tangent.
  21. Along those lines, there has been the occasional cache in the past that I would have given more than one Favorite point if I could have.
  22. I agree it's frustrating when someone runs right out and fills an area with caches, especially if they're lame, uninspired "micro in the woods" type caches. But as others have said, it's pretty much "first come, first served." Before we had instant notification of new caches, for the FTF-hogs to grab up, a lot of people enjoyed the very real possibility that they might snag a FTF. I see the day coming when we can reserve cache locations where new trails or parks or other cache locations are slated to become available in the future. So I'm putting in my reservation for the entirety of Olympus Mons, on Mars, so I can put out caches there once it's open for Geocaching!
  23. Because you're insisting that I do my geocaching according to your rules, not my rules. You're presenting your way of caching as the one and only "right" way to do it. You're insisting that my way is "wrong."
  24. In what way have you personally been affected? If a cache has 37 Found logs and one of them is by a cheater who didn't actually find it, how did that affect you? If a cache has a dozen DNFs, including some by people with thousands of finds, and one person with three finds to their name logs it as Found, how does that affect you? Again - so what? Did you see that there were multiple DNFs, no indication of owner maintenance, and one newbie claims to have found it? Then you knew what you were getting into when you chose to look for that cache. Is there any one of us who hasn't failed to find a cache that actually is there? You're acting like one Found log in the midst of several DNFs guarantees that it's there and is able to be found. I own a cache or two that are not considered appropriate for newbies, and I see DNFs on them. I don't run right out and check on it with every DNF. I intended the caches to be hard to find, and they are. As for resetting the cache health score - oh, come on! You're really grasping at straws trying to prove I"m wrong. Or at least that's how it appears to me.
×
×
  • Create New...