Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?

[+ArcherDragoon]

I do believe that the bulk of these 24 hour record runs use this practice.

I recall reading about some of the pactices used in the record run at GW in Texas, including singing the outside of the cache container, well I am going to have some caches in place very close to geowoodstock 6, and I will be check each and every log the day after. An I will delete logs that are bogus. This includes one person signing for each person in a group.

Hey,

 

I see your point...as a cache owner you have the right to do that...

 

...But, I don't know how many times my brother or I have signed for eachother. I found the cache last, so I am the "lucky" one that gets to sign our names...or the other way around. Heck, sometimes, it is just being polite...I have the log book and pen in my hand...why not sign his name...even doing it so the other person can continue to fiddle with the contents of the cache.

 

In groups (at least the ones I have been with)...we all stick together...no one leaves until the cache is placed back as found. I find I am usually the one signing the logbook...mainly becuase I really don't trade for items in a cache (I usually leave swag for others)...I like the hunt and the find...so, others explore what is in the cache and I sign the log for them (using their names)...we have never done anything wrong. No one splits into groups and goes two different directions...no one signs for someone not present...we find all the caches together.

 

Oh, well...that's life and you are entitled to your opinion...and I most likely will not change that. I just thought you should...

 

Later,

ArcherDragoon

[Mushtang]

That's why the hand-carved stamps evolved in letterboxing in 1907. After 50 years of letterboxing, people decided to create a new system to ensure people really HAD found a box. There is absolutely no way to fake it. The only way to get the stamp in your logbook is to find the box. When the goal is to accumulate stamps in your logbook, the incentive to cheat is gone.

 

I wish caches had hand-carved stamps - and I don't mean hybrid letterboxes per se, but just regular caches that happen to have a cache stamp unique to that cache. It's a very good system.

But if there were stamps couldn't I still log a find and claim I'd found it since I'd have the lack of proof in my stamp book? Even the owner couldn't check it then, only I'd know.

 

The way it is now at least the owner can check if he wants to.

 

Each boxer has a unique signature stamp that gets stamped into the letterbox logbook, like signing your name in a cache log. You're stamping the box stamp into your personal log, and stamping your stamp into the box log.

So yes, the owner can check.

Sbell beat me to it, but I don't think changing our caches into Letterboxes as a means to protect our game makes sense.

 

We can't protect geocaching by changing it into letterboxing. It needs to stay geocaching.

 

However, in my opinion, geocaching doesn't need protecting. The issues discussed in this thread (fake logs, fake finds, etc) are so rare that they can be dismissed. These are not issues that will degrade the game we play at all.

[+infiniteMPG]

However, in my opinion, geocaching doesn't need protecting. The issues discussed in this thread (fake logs, fake finds, etc) are so rare that they can be dismissed. These are not issues that will degrade the game we play at all.

If people have the free time on their hands and somehow find pleasure analyzing and investigating if others are faking logs, then go for it. But if someone deleted my log entry because I signed for my GF with her standing right beside me, or we used caching stickers on the log sheet, it would be the last time I sought one of their hides. I'd rather spend my time working on my next piece of camo.... <deja-vu as I think I said that at least once before>

[+ChiefWings]

I started playing this game about a year ago and quickly learned that there are several different groups participating.

 

A few months into the game, I attended GW5 and was able to observe many cachers from many locations. I watched the documentary (sorry, can’t remember the name) about 3 very different cachers. Not as much about caching, more about human behavior.

 

So far, I’ve seen the frantic number hunters, the family on an outing to entertain and teach their kids (GPS, CITO, fair trading), the family that take the kids along but don’t supervise (kids take what they want/leave nothing then kick leaves over open cache container), the cachers who just enjoy a walk in a park/forest or to discover something neat at an urban cache or a reason to break up a long drive, and the cachers who love to solve puzzles. There are more I’m sure.

 

I guess the liars/cheats fall mainly in the number hunting group. I don’t understand lying about finding a cache. Is there some prize I don’t know about? Do we get a free tee shirt after X number of smileys? Free air miles?

 

I haven’t put out any Geocaches yet but when I do, I’ll check the log books against the “found it” post if something looks fishy.

 

I’m a very competitive person but I save that for the “other” site.

[+geomann1]

Do we really want to turn geocaching into letterboxing?

Letterboxers say have come up with a system that works as follows.

1. you find the letterbox
   
2. you stamp the log book in the letterbox with your custom personal stamp
   
3. you stamp your personal log with the custom stamp in the letterbox
   

Now say you meet another letterboxer. You can show each other your personal logs. They probably will accept you found as many letterboxes as you have stamps. Perhaps you could make some fake stamps and put these in your log to inflate your numbers, but given the time and effort to make a custom stamp you're not likely to do this more than once or twice They can also recognize the stamps that they have in common and know that they found some of the same letterboxes.

 

A letterbox owner can look in their letterbox and see the stamps in the log book. They may recognize the stamps of other letterboxers they have seen in other letterboxes. They may see Trailhead Tessie's boot and know she has visited their box. If they don't see her boot, they probably figure Trailhead Tessie didn't find there box. But maybe Trailhead Tessie did find the box and didn't have her stamp with her. If she had a pen, she might have signed the log. If she had some paper she might also be able to make an image of the stamp in the box. But what if she could not do this? Would she go on AtlasQuest.com and log that she found the box? She might, but I bet if she did someone would start a thread in the Atlasquest message board about bogus logs degrading letterboxing.

 

I sort of agree that we don't need to turn geocaching into letterboxing. Cache owners who wish to take the time can use the cache logbook to confirm finds. They will have to make a personal choice as whether to let stand logs where the person has given an excuse for not signing the log. They will have to make judgments on what to do if the log or the cache goes missing. Other cache owners will resort to the honor system and let logs stand that aren't obviously bogus stand. Still other owners may be intentionally allowing some bogus logs. They may be using a definition of a find that includes armchair logging or "since you looked in the right place you can claim a find" or they may simply be ignoring their responsibility to maintain their cache page. This is the system we currently have and as far as I'm concerned it works satisfactorily since I can use it to keep track of my finds.

 

I don't believe that the letterbox system was designed as a way of verification of finds, but rather is a creative way to personalize the activity. I.e., it is nice to collect in your book the individualized stamps of different people.

 

The much worse degradation to the sport is to introduce cyncism of others actions and motives. I would rather live with (ignore) the fact that some people will cheat, then deal wth the negativism of insisting that people need to prove their honesty.

 

Actually, all these posts on letterboxing have convinced me that I should have a stamp made. More finds to go after!!!

Edited February 1, 2008 by geomann1

[+Bad_CRC]

Are you kidding me? When I'm caching with my girlfriend and she signs the log for both of us, you consider this a deletable violation?!? Wow...

 

I'm the same way. When I cached with littlecat, she liked to read the logbooks to see the stories of others who found the cache, and she would always sign for both of us, cause I could care less about reading or signing the log.

 

was a good system, and I think anyone who has a problem with it is a poopoo head. Sorry to be so harsh, but that's my feeling.

[+infiniteMPG]

I guess the liars/cheats fall mainly in the number hunting group. I don’t understand lying about finding a cache. Is there some prize I don’t know about? Do we get a free tee shirt after X number of smileys? Free air miles?

What???? You didn't get your Signal toaster when you hit 100 finds?

 

I haven’t put out any Geocaches yet but when I do, I’ll check the log books against the “found it” post if something looks fishy.

You may rethink that statement when you pass 100 hides (I think I hit 235 recently). Checking "found it" posts against signatures would be a 3 shifts a day, 5 days a week non-paying career....

[+MountainMudbug]

Each boxer has a unique signature stamp that gets stamped into the letterbox logbook, like signing your name in a cache log. You're stamping the box stamp into your personal log, and stamping your stamp into the box log.

So yes, the owner can check.

Sbell beat me to it, but I don't think changing our caches into Letterboxes as a means to protect our game makes sense.

 

We can't protect geocaching by changing it into letterboxing. It needs to stay geocaching.

 

However, in my opinion, geocaching doesn't need protecting. The issues discussed in this thread (fake logs, fake finds, etc) are so rare that they can be dismissed. These are not issues that will degrade the game we play at all.

 

I don't think you guys actually read my posts. I wasn't advocating turning geocaching into letterboxing.

I was simply (and apparently wildly unsuccessfully) trying to explain how letterboxing works to somebody who didn't appear to understand that there are TWO stamps involved.

As a result I am now assumed to be trying to change apples into oranges. Which I'm not.

 

I disagree that fake logs are so rare that they will not degrade the game. There have already been enough of them, otherwise we wouldn't have 7 pages of discussion in this thread alone.

Edited February 1, 2008 by MountainMudbug

[+infiniteMPG]

I disagree that fake logs are so rare that they will not degrade the game. There have already been enough of them, otherwise we wouldn't have 7 pages of discussion in this thread alone.

A- Unless you're competing for more finds then someone else, how does a fake log degrade the game? Guess I'm still a little unclear on this as it just seems like someone is only robbing themselves of the fun of the adventure. Recreational golf is notorious for people falsifying score cards but I never hear anyone saying it has degraded the game.

 

B- By what means do you determine something in a log listing looks like it needs investigating without checking every posted log against the log book?

[+ChiefWings]

I guess the liars/cheats fall mainly in the number hunting group. I don’t understand lying about finding a cache. Is there some prize I don’t know about? Do we get a free tee shirt after X number of smileys? Free air miles?

What???? You didn't get your Signal toaster when you hit 100 finds?

 

I haven’t put out any Geocaches yet but when I do, I’ll check the log books against the “found it” post if something looks fishy.

You may rethink that statement when you pass 100 hides (I think I hit 235 recently). Checking "found it" posts against signatures would be a 3 shifts a day, 5 days a week non-paying career....

 

Toaster! Cool! I don't have 100 yet. Guess now I have a reason for my first numbers run.

235!! Holy Cow, how do ya keep up with that many?

I wouldn't check all the logs all the time ... just when something looked fishy.

[+infiniteMPG]

Toaster! Cool! I don't have 100 yet. Guess now I have a reason for my first numbers run.

Yeah! And 250 finds get you a red Swingline stapler!

 

235!! Holy Cow, how do ya keep up with that many?

It's not easy but people love the camo and the locations and I love reading the logs. Makes it worth the effort!

 

I wouldn't check all the logs all the time ... just when something looked fishy.

My question is what would look fishy? Some people simply enter "TFTH!" and that's it. Other's write a book. People's personalities come out in the log entires and everyone's different so not sure what would constitute "fishy". My nephew went out and in one weekend they logged +200 finds. Valid finds. I went out the same weekend and logged 1. Not sure what would raise the flag a log is fishy.

 

As far as I'm concerned unless I'm doing maintenance, replaced a log book/sheet and happen to have it in my hand when I'm at my computer, I won't even have the opportunity to validate finds. You gonna print out all the logs, hike a dozen miles to your cache, pull the log book and sit in the woods validating signatures? PUH-lease....

[+sbell111]

B- By what means do you determine something in a log listing looks like it needs investigating without checking every posted log against the log book?

• If the person's log doesn't make sense for the cache
  
• If someone tips you that the person made bogus logs on other caches
  
• If your spidey sense tingles
  
• Out-of-the-blue late logs on archived caches without explanation
  

Edited February 1, 2008 by sbell111

[+MountainMudbug]

B- By what means do you determine something in a log listing looks like it needs investigating without checking every posted log against the log book?

• If the person's log doesn't make sense for the cache
  
• If someone tips you that the person made bogus logs on other caches
  
• If your spidey sense tingles
  
  
• Out-of-the-blue late logs on archived caches without explanation
  

 

This has happened to my own archived caches, I know it to be a fact.

I have the old logsheets from my archived caches, so when somebody "late logs" a find dated 2005 now in 2008, I actually will go back and look.

It does happen. Why should I turn a blind eye? I'm not trying to police everybody else's caches, but I will enforce my own as I see fit. That doesn't make me a stick in the mud or a busybody or a jerk.

False logs are something of an insult to my intelligence and also reflect on the logger's lack of integrity.

We are on the honor system here, but some people have much less honor than others.

Edited February 1, 2008 by MountainMudbug

[+sbell111]

B- By what means do you determine something in a log listing looks like it needs investigating without checking every posted log against the log book?

• If the person's log doesn't make sense for the cache
  
• If someone tips you that the person made bogus logs on other caches
  
• If your spidey sense tingles
  
  
• Out-of-the-blue late logs on archived caches without explanation
  

 

This has happened to my own archived caches, I know it to be a fact.

I have the old logsheets from my archived caches, so when somebody "late logs" a find dated 2005 now in 2008, I actually will go back and look.

It does happen. Why should I turn a blind eye? I'm not trying to police everybody else's caches, but I will enforce my own as I see fit. That doesn't make me a stick in the mud or a busybody or a jerk.

False logs are something of an insult to my intelligence and also reflect on the logger's lack of integrity.

We are on the honor system here, but some people have much less honor than others.

I agree with you.

[+infiniteMPG]

I agree with you.

I would agree with that, too, but with several thousand logs on my caches I have had only a couple that would fall into those categories and they were typ-O's by the cachers and fixed. Like a date wrong or logged under the wrong cache which I could tell by their text (and I have been guilty of that one myself). Unless a faker is a total bumbling fool they could post logs and not hit one of those flags. And I'd rather not cut back on fighting crime just so I can turn my spidey senses to validating fake geocaching logs

 

And what do you do if someone just posts "TFTH!" or "Thanks for the tour" in the log? You check on all those? If it slams me in the face I'd question it, but I don't see myself digging thru logs looking for it.

[+sbell111]

I agree with you.

I would agree with that, too, but with several thousand logs on my caches I have had only a couple that would fall into those categories and they were typ-O's by the cachers and fixed. Like a date wrong or logged under the wrong cache which I could tell by their text (and I have been guilty of that one myself). Unless a faker is a total bumbling fool they could post logs and not hit one of those flags. And I'd rather not cut back on fighting crime just so I can turn my spidey senses to validating fake geocaching logs

 

And what do you do if someone just posts "TFTH!" or "Thanks for the tour" in the log? You check on all those? If it slams me in the face I'd question it, but I don't see myself digging thru logs looking for it.

If I understand your post, you agree with me more than you know.

 

Something made your spidey sense tingle, so you contacted the logger, who straightened it out. Every question does not have to result in your checking the logbook or deleting a 'find'.

[+briansnat]

I disagree that fake logs are so rare that they will not degrade the game. There have already been enough of them, otherwise we wouldn't have 7 pages of discussion in this thread alone.

A- Unless you're competing for more finds then someone else, how does a fake log degrade the game? Guess I'm still a little unclear on this as it just seems like someone is only robbing themselves of the fun of the adventure. Recreational golf is notorious for people falsifying score cards but I never hear anyone saying it has degraded the game.

 

B- By what means do you determine something in a log listing looks like it needs investigating without checking every posted log against the log book?

 

A- Linkie (I'm tired of retyping this)

 

B-Logs that sound fishy will get my attention. For example if my cache is a park n grab and the logger mentions the great hike, or there is a 2 mile bushwack and the "finder" says, "thanks for the quick find". Also someone who has numerous finds in the area on the same day in a pattern that doesn't make any sense.

 

Sometimes it's quite easy to pick out the phonies. You aren't gonna get them all and sometimes you will be wrong, but most of the time when an online log sets off certain alarm bells there is a good reason.

[+infiniteMPG]

If I understand your post, you agree with me more than you know.

I think you understand the implied meaning in the subliminal remarks that were leading you to the conclusion that I was insinuating.

 

Something made your spidey sense tingle, so you contacted the logger, who straightened it out. Every question does not have to result in your checking the logbook or deleting a 'find'.

Sounds like all in day's work in responsibly maintaining your hides, repair leaking containers, moving when needed, replacing wet or full logs, updating coords, tweaking camo, adding waypoints, checking that logs don't give the hide away, and all that jazz. I think a bigger problem is people who either don't close a container properly (especially decon's!!!), don't re-hide/cover properly (if at all), or just don't grasp the method of logging trackable items.... but that's kinda off topic.

[+ecanderson]

Could be I'm just lucky. Could be I'm just too new to this at a couple of weeks to give a rip -- I don't have the time to even consider playing "catch up" to those with thousands of logs under their belts. I'm logging the finds and signing the logs.

 

As long as those placing caches use decent coordinates and tend to them, and those who are looking for them are having fun finding them, it's enough already. Only the things that detract from one of those two activities really matters to me. People making false claims of finds doesn't impact either one. I try not to even look at the online log entries until I've already returned from the hunt. As they say, "spoilers" can occur.

 

OTOH: If a bogus online entry causes a cache owner unnecessary grief -- and I can see how that could happen, that's not good.

 

Apart from that ... some people taking the numbers game all too seriously.

[+infiniteMPG]

A- Linkie (I'm tired of retyping this)

As far as seeking a missing cache because of a bogus find, if the cache was missing and active prior to your visit, you couldn't really prove it didn't go missing after the person in question logged it. If the cache was missing there's no log book to check. And if it was known to be missing prior to that and the owner didn't disable it then it's bad on the owner.

 

B-Logs that sound fishy will get my attention. For example if my cache is a park n grab and the logger mentions the great hike, or there is a 2 mile bushwack and the "finder" says, "thanks for the quick find". Also someone who has numerous finds in the area on the same day in a pattern that doesn't make any sense. Sometimes it's quite easy to pick out the phonies. You aren't gonna get them all and sometimes you will be wrong, but most of the time when an online log sets off certain alarm bells there is a good reason.

Once again, those could fall into the "Sorry, I entered that log for the wrong cache" category, which I myself have done on several occasions. I would hope that the owner finds out if that's what happened before they just smite the log from the records. But I agree that looking into things that set off alarms is a good thing as I can see where bogus logs could confuse others seeking the hide. Just don't see myself probing much to look for the fake. I would think if someone was too lazy to actually seek the cache, they'd probably just cut-and-paste TFTH into every log entry. Edited February 1, 2008 by infiniteMPG

[+infiniteMPG]

As long as those placing caches use decent coordinates and tend to them, and those who are looking for them are having fun finding them, it's enough already. Only the things that detract from one of those two activities really matters to me. People making false claims of finds doesn't impact either one. Apart from that ... some people taking the numbers game all too seriously.

Double bullseye, well said! If geocaching got all serious and hard lined many people would take up another activity... this is one activity where cheaters are basically just cheating themselves out of the fun of the game.

[+MountainMudbug]

I'm a bit tired of reading the inference that because one thinks false logs are lame, they therefore have no life and are also obsessed with numbers.

 

Looks like striving for honesty is now a character flaw.

[+cache_test_dummies]

A balanced approach to the phony log issue seems to me to be the right way to go. Even though I only have a few caches and could do so fairly easily, I don't go out of my way to compare the physical logs with the on-line logs. But on the few occasions where I've had to delete bogus logs (spidey-sense suspicion cases involving out-of-town loggers), I did so without hesitation after confirming the paper logs hadn't been signed, and after I emailed the offenders asking politely for an explanation. No responses, and I deleted the logs. But I didn't pull the fire alarm, didn't make a big deal out of these cases in the local community, nor did I go looking for other local caches that might have been similarly affected.

 

So does that mean that by my simple actions I'm helping to prevent this alleged 'degradation of geocaching' mentioned in the OP? Or would a stronger approach have been more appropriate? Fill in your own answer, but I think I did enough, and it felt right.

 

In any case, despite the fact that there are obviously those who would log bogus-ly, I just don't see evidence that this phenomena represents any sort of overall degradation or systemic break down of geocaching in general.

[+infiniteMPG]

Looks like striving for honesty is now a character flaw.

Striving for honesty is never a character flaw, but it's a pretty futile task trying to mandate it. We all migrate towards what we like, and our hides and how we maintain them are reflections of ourselves. We each do what we think is right, but no one should expect everyone to have the same definition of what that is. Edited February 1, 2008 by infiniteMPG

[+Renegade Knight]

...As long as those placing caches use decent coordinates and tend to them, and those who are looking for them are having fun finding them, it's enough already. Only the things that detract from one of those two activities really matters to me. People making false claims of finds doesn't impact either one. I try not to even look at the online log entries until I've already returned from the hunt. As they say, "spoilers" can occur.

 

OTOH: If a bogus online entry causes a cache owner unnecessary grief -- and I can see how that could happen, that's not good....

 

Bogus logs contain bogus info.

A find log tells you that the cache is there, it's more or less in one piece. Each log is confimation that the cache is still doing well. A bogus log doesn't tell you that. While you don't rely on the logs to see what's what before you hunt a lot do. Bogus logs can make it seem like a MIA cache is back in action for example causing you to waste your time looking and the owner to drop the maintance trip they had planned to check on it.

[+MountainMudbug]

Looks like striving for honesty is now a character flaw.

Striving for honesty is never a character flaw, but it's a pretty futile task trying to mandate it. We all migrate towards what we like, and our hides and how we maintain them are reflections of ourselves. We each do what we think is right, but no one should expect everyone to have the same definition of what that is.

 

Are you saying it is too much to expect that when somebody logs online that they found "HappyMountain Cache", that they actually showed up at the coordinates of "HappyMountain Cache", found that cache container, signed the logbook, replaced the cache, and continued on?

That is the feeling I'm getting, perhaps I've misunderstood. Or maybe I'm confused as to the point of geocaching, although I think I should understand it after this amount of time.

 

If it is true that I'm expecting too much based on that, then geocaching has in fact degraded already.

[+tozainamboku]

I'm a bit tired of reading the inference that because one thinks false logs are lame, they therefore have no life and are also obsessed with numbers.

 

Looks like striving for honesty is now a character flaw.

I used to think this, until fizzymagic once posted why he felt that lying about finds is bad for the game. It is now clear to me that most puritans could care less that the cheaters have inflated their numbers. Their concern is that anything based on the honor system requires most people to be honest.

 

Out and out lying in the log is bad, and in some case may cause briansnat's friend to waste gas and time looking for a cache that's not there. I agree that these logs should be deleted. But it may be too much to expect the cache owner to check the cache log every time the cache cache is found. When a person logs that they found a cache but didn't sign the log because there was no pen, or that their buddy found the cache for them, or its obvious that they are armchair logging a virtual, or that they left a replacement cache, they are not lying IMO. Sure puritans can claim that they used a Found It log where they didn't find a cache by puritan standards. But while most people might personally agree with the sign the log to get a find mantra, they will also accept that alternative definitions of find are acceptable if the cache owner agrees. So my stance is that lying is bad, but there are very few true lies (I always wanted to use true lies in a sentence ) . Most of what we are talking about is alternative game play that doesn't affect me (and shouldn't affect any puritan). This doesn't mean that puritans should give up trying to convince people that their definition of find is the correct one.

[+MountainMudbug]

This doesn't mean that puritans should give up trying to convince people that their definition of find is the correct one.

 

Now I've got to make a Puritan Power t-shirt to wear while caching

[+HopsMaltYeast]

I think I have the answer to satisfy everyone on this issue.

 

A simple proposal of Hops Rules:

 

No GeoCache find shall be valid unless the following requirements are met:

 

Each GeoCache shall be equipped with a patented and certified HopsMaltYeast GeoCacheBioMetricRetinaScanner™® and a HopsMaltYeast GeoCacheDNA’cordersheet®.

 

Retina scans, as individual as finger prints, will prevent rabid number grabbing cachers from severing a thumb for another cacher to carry to a cache to place a thumb print on a log. If they pluck out an eye it will soon collapse and be unreadable by the patented HopsMaltYeast GeoCacheBioMetricRetinaScanner™®

 

Before registration to GeoCaching is completed and before any logging of cache finds are allowed, each GeoCacher shall submit a DNA and retina scan sample to a HopsMaltYeast Validation Center™.

 

In order for a cache find to be validated the finder must successfully use the HopsMaltYeast GeoCacheBioMetricRetinaScanner®™ to record an image of his/her retina at the cache site and use a lancet to extract a drop of blood to leave a DNA sample on the HopsMaltYeast GeoCacheDNA’cordersheet®©™

 

Each GeoCache owner shall permanently attach a HopsMaltYeastSat-lite tracker™ device to each Cache container to prevent scurrilous and illegal movement of said cache containers to a group logging area. This devise can detect if a cache is moved from its designated spot – monitored by HopsMaltYeast GeoCache Monitoring Systems ™® for a nominal annual maintenance fee to keep the cache valid and certified.

 

Each GeoCache owner shall at least weekly visit each cache and submit the retina and DNA data to a HopsMaltYeast Data center subject to the nominal maintenance fee.

 

Pricing schedule:

 

HopsMaltYeast GeoCacheBioMetricRetinaScanner™® $10,000.00

HopsMaltYeast GeoCacheDNA’cordersheet®. $10,000.00

HopsMaltYeastSat-lite tracker™ $10,000.00

 

Processing fee for samples to

HopsMaltYeast Validation Center™. $ 500.00

 

Best regards,

 

HopsMaltYeast

Future first commissioner of Olympic GeoCaching International

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I think I have the answer to satisfy everyone on this issue.

 

A simple proposal of Hops Rules:

 

No GeoCache find shall be valid unless the following requirements are met:

 

Each GeoCache shall be equipped with a patented and certified HopsMaltYeast GeoCacheBioMetricRetinaScanner™® and a HopsMaltYeast GeoCacheDNA’cordersheet®.

 

Retina scans, as individual as finger prints, will prevent rabid number grabbing cachers from severing a thumb for another cacher to carry to a cache to place a thumb print on a log. If they pluck out an eye it will soon collapse and be unreadable by the patented HopsMaltYeast GeoCacheBioMetricRetinaScanner™®

 

Before registration to GeoCaching is completed and before any logging of cache finds are allowed, each GeoCacher shall submit a DNA and retina scan sample to a HopsMaltYeast Validation Center™.

 

In order for a cache find to be validated the finder must successfully use the HopsMaltYeast GeoCacheBioMetricRetinaScanner®™ to record an image of his/her retina at the cache site and use a lancet to extract a drop of blood to leave a DNA sample on the HopsMaltYeast GeoCacheDNA’cordersheet®©™

 

Each GeoCache owner shall permanently attach a HopsMaltYeastSat-lite tracker™ device to each Cache container to prevent scurrilous and illegal movement of said cache containers to a group logging area. This devise can detect if a cache is moved from its designated spot – monitored by HopsMaltYeast GeoCache Monitoring Systems ™® for a nominal annual maintenance fee to keep the cache valid and certified.

 

Each GeoCache owner shall at least weekly visit each cache and submit the retina and DNA data to a HopsMaltYeast Data center subject to the nominal maintenance fee.

 

Pricing schedule:

 

HopsMaltYeast GeoCacheBioMetricRetinaScanner™® $10,000.00

HopsMaltYeast GeoCacheDNA’cordersheet®. $10,000.00

HopsMaltYeastSat-lite tracker™ $10,000.00

 

Processing fee for samples to

HopsMaltYeast Validation Center™. $ 500.00

 

Best regards,

 

HopsMaltYeast

Future first commissioner of Olympic GeoCaching International

This is of the very of good idea. Please to direct me to the appropriate Ebay page so that I may purchase the needful for each of my caches. It is of immense gratitude that I say thank you for this wonderful innovations.

[+JohnnyVegas]

B- By what means do you determine something in a log listing looks like it needs investigating without checking every posted log against the log book?

• If the person's log doesn't make sense for the cache
  
• If someone tips you that the person made bogus logs on other caches
  
• If your spidey sense tingles
  
• Out-of-the-blue late logs on archived caches without explanation
  

I forgot all about Out-of-the-blue late logs on archived caches without explanation

You gave me such an idea, I will place a cache that I know this one person will never do, then after about 6 months archive it as missing. Then I will just wait for him to take the bait.

Thanks for the idea It's happy dance time Ha!

[+Mudfrog]

Looks like striving for honesty is now a character flaw.

Striving for honesty is never a character flaw, but it's a pretty futile task trying to mandate it. We all migrate towards what we like, and our hides and how we maintain them are reflections of ourselves. We each do what we think is right, but no one should expect everyone to have the same definition of what that is.

This is true for many things in life but it doesn't fly here. Those few out there who falsely log caches know darn well that they are doing wrong.

[+egami]

Apart from that ... some people taking the numbers game all too seriously.

 

As the great prophet Ming Ming said: This is sewious!

[+BlueDeuce]

New rule: 'Out of the Blue' means you found the cache and you signed the log. Signing a cache log you didn't find will now be called 'Out of the Gurk'

 

 

Edited February 2, 2008 by BlueDeuce

[+briansnat]

Most of what we are talking about is alternative game play that doesn't affect me (and shouldn't affect any puritan).

 

At what point does this alternative game play take geocaching to where it's unrecognizable. If I use a baseball bat to hit a soccer ball on a golf course am I still playing golf?

[+Jeepergeo]

Hmmmm....when I've been out caching on my own, I've signed cache logs with the moniker, "Jeepergeo"....when I had the wonderful assistance and presence of my crew, I signed the cache logs with the moniker, "Jeepergeo and Crew". When the caches are logged on line, they go under Jeepergeo and the notes indicate assistance of the crew. Has this some how violated a Geocahcing Code of Ethics?

 

This question is not meant to be sarcastic, but a real attempt to get some clarity on accepted procedures.

 

And more to the logging question...it would seem to me that the logging cheaters will soon loose interest and find another place to garner false laurels.

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

If I use a baseball bat to hit a soccer ball on a golf course am I still playing golf?

I'm sure some people in the forums would say you are just playing your own version of geocaching.

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

Hmmmm....when I've been out caching on my own, I've signed cache logs with the moniker, "Jeepergeo"....when I had the wonderful assistance and presence of my crew, I signed the cache logs with the moniker, "Jeepergeo and Crew". When the caches are logged on line, they go under Jeepergeo and the notes indicate assistance of the crew. Has this some how violated a Geocahcing Code of Ethics?

 

This question is not meant to be sarcastic, but a real attempt to get some clarity on accepted procedures.

I'd say you're fine.

 

And more to the logging question...it would seem to me that the logging cheaters will soon loose interest and find another place to garner false laurels.

Let's hope.

[+paleolith]

As long as those placing caches use decent coordinates and tend to them, and those who are looking for them are having fun finding them, it's enough already. Only the things that detract from one of those two activities really matters to me. People making false claims of finds doesn't impact either one.

Impacts me, because I don't like hanging out with jerks, and I consider intentional liars to be jerks.

 

No, I'm not talking about mistakes or all the other reasons toz listed that the cache log might not match the online log or that perceptions may vary of what constitutes a find. And I haven't personally run into intentional lying about finds other than armchair logging of virtuals. But when there are liars in the game, that directly affects me.

I try not to even look at the online log entries until I've already returned from the hunt. As they say, "spoilers" can occur.

Personally I need all the spoilers I can find.

 

Edward

[+tozainamboku]

Most of what we are talking about is alternative game play that doesn't affect me (and shouldn't affect any puritan).

 

At what point does this alternative game play take geocaching to where it's unrecognizable. If I use a baseball bat to hit a soccer ball on a golf course am I still playing golf?

No matter how many people hit a soccer ball with a baseball bat or play frisbee on the golf course, golfers can still golf. There might be a minor inconvenience waiting for the alternative game to get out of the way. No one is being forced to log bogus logs. You are able to look for caches and log only those cache which you find according to the puritan definition of geocaching. You are able to hide caches and delete logs of people who don't meet your requirements for finding your cache. You are confusing the use of Geocaching.com online logs with geocaching.

 

TPTB have already made it harder to create certain kinds of caches that led to some of the alternatives. Issues with verification of virtuals and armchair logging of them certainly was a contributing factor in their no longer being published. I believe that when some geocachers insist that the main point of hiding a geocache is to bring others to a cool place they are encouraging some of the other alternatives. Hiders hear this argument over and over, so they decide that so long as the finder went to the cool place it isn't important whether or not the cache was found. If cache owners understood that the purpose of the game is to hide caches to find and not to play tour guide, maybe they would delete more bogus find logs.

[+Bad_CRC]

If I use a baseball bat to hit a soccer ball on a golf course am I still playing golf?

No matter how many people hit a soccer ball with a baseball bat or play frisbee on the golf course, golfers can still golf.

 

ding.

 

if you were having a grand old time hitting a soccer ball on the golf course, and someone ran up, knocked you over, took your soccerball, then yelled at you for "not doing it right"... who wins? what was the point?

[Mushtang]

Most of what we are talking about is alternative game play that doesn't affect me (and shouldn't affect any puritan).

 

At what point does this alternative game play take geocaching to where it's unrecognizable. If I use a baseball bat to hit a soccer ball on a golf course am I still playing golf?

It doesn't matter what it's called. Instead of wondering if you're still playing golf, it's more on topic to wonder how you'd react if someone told you that you're not having fun and you should stop.

[+briansnat]

Most of what we are talking about is alternative game play that doesn't affect me (and shouldn't affect any puritan).

 

At what point does this alternative game play take geocaching to where it's unrecognizable. If I use a baseball bat to hit a soccer ball on a golf course am I still playing golf?

It doesn't matter what it's called. Instead of wondering if you're still playing golf, it's more on topic to wonder how you'd react if someone told you that you're not having fun and you should stop.

 

It might well be fun. I wouldn't want to tell the person to stop. But I think golfers would be right to point out that he isn't really golfing. He is free to call it golf all he wants, but it just makes him look silly.

[+Team Cotati]

Most of what we are talking about is alternative game play that doesn't affect me (and shouldn't affect any puritan).

 

At what point does this alternative game play take geocaching to where it's unrecognizable. If I use a baseball bat to hit a soccer ball on a golf course am I still playing golf?

It doesn't matter what it's called. Instead of wondering if you're still playing golf, it's more on topic to wonder how you'd react if someone told you that you're not having fun and you should stop.

 

It might well be fun. I wouldn't want to tell the person to stop. But I think golfers would be right to point out that he isn't really golfing. He is free to call it golf all he wants, but it just makes him look silly.

 

Don't want to look silly, eh?

Edited February 2, 2008 by Team Cotati

[+Mudfrog]

Most of what we are talking about is alternative game play that doesn't affect me (and shouldn't affect any puritan).

 

At what point does this alternative game play take geocaching to where it's unrecognizable. If I use a baseball bat to hit a soccer ball on a golf course am I still playing golf?

No matter how many people hit a soccer ball with a baseball bat or play frisbee on the golf course, golfers can still golf. There might be a minor inconvenience waiting for the alternative game to get out of the way. No one is being forced to log bogus logs. You are able to look for caches and log only those cache which you find according to the puritan definition of geocaching. You are able to hide caches and delete logs of people who don't meet your requirements for finding your cache. You are confusing the use of Geocaching.com online logs with geocaching.

 

TPTB have already made it harder to create certain kinds of caches that led to some of the alternatives. Issues with verification of virtuals and armchair logging of them certainly was a contributing factor in their no longer being published. I believe that when some geocachers insist that the main point of hiding a geocache is to bring others to a cool place they are encouraging some of the other alternatives. Hiders hear this argument over and over, so they decide that so long as the finder went to the cool place it isn't important whether or not the cache was found. If cache owners understood that the purpose of the game is to hide caches to find and not to play tour guide, maybe they would delete more bogus find logs.

Falsely logging doesn't have anything to do with playing the game a little differently or being a puritan. This is a true black and white issue. Finding a cache, signing the log then logging online is right. Logging online without finding anything is wrong. It has to do with honesty and integrity which should be upheld in all aspects of our lives!

[Mushtang]

Logging online without finding anything is wrong. It has to do with honesty and integrity which should be upheld in all aspects of our lives!

You never play Monopoly with house rules such as collecting $500 for landing on Free Parking?

You never play poker with a wild card?

You never drive just a *little* over the speed limit?

You never cheat on your taxes?

You never shot a man just to watch him die?

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

You never play Monopoly with house rules such as collecting $500 for landing on Free Parking?

I have

 

You never play poker with a wild card?

I have

 

You never drive just a *little* over the speed limit?

I have

 

You never cheat on your taxes?

I have

 

You never shot a man just to watch him die?

I have not - this is almost as wrong as logging false caches.

[Dinoprophet]

This thread has opened my eyes to how devious and underhanded I am. My dad accompanies me on caches once in a while. He's never interested in signing the log so I write in both our names, for the benefit of those who read the log. I created an account for him a while back and have logged some (not all) of those finds online for him, again for the benefit of the hider.

 

It seems in my good intentions, I've actually been doing the hider a horrible disservice.

 

I've also signed physical logs as my family account but logged online as both the family and personal account. Keeping track of my finds with two accounts seemed pointless. But apparently it preserved my integrity.

 

I guess I won't be letting my kids create their own accounts and retroactively log caches we found as a family over the years. My son's still only three, I better wait until he can write his name to let him have an account.

 

The sad thing is, I'm being facetious, but some people will agree with all of this.

[CoyoteRed]

I am not proposing that everyone must adhere to a very strict set of rules, but false logs are getting a little ridiculous. One of the basic notions of caching is that you actually visit the location. I am proposing that cache owners who agree with the premise of physically visiting the cache location, do their part to enforce it - don’t allow false logs on your caches, and don’t be embarrassed to enforce this basic notion of geocaching.

I'm not seeing the false logging getting out of hand personally, but I do take it seriously. I'm not afraid of calling anyone on it either. I've called a very prominent geocacher on a log and I've even got a task on my to-do list of going out and checking a log because of a suspicious entry.

 

I know some folks will never call someone on a log. So what? I will. I do. I will continue to do so.

 

I can't make others police their logs, but that doesn't mean I have to condone the activity. Doesn't mean I have to change the way I take care of our caches. Doesn't mean I have to let a log they falsely entered on one of our caches stand. We play the game our way on our caches. We have the ultimate control of our caches--as we are always reminded from the other side.

 

I think some folks get hung up on the fact everyone has to play the same way in order for the numbers to mean anything. Ironically, it's because of those who play fast and loose with rules in order to up their numbers make those very numbers less meaningful.

 

I've come to the conclusion that because of these players the numbers have little to no meaning for me. As such, if someone doesn't like the way I log their cache--or I don't even like their cache--I don't need to log it. I don't need that smilie.

 

Unfortunately, until there is some sort of disincentive for false logging it will continue. You can only be vigilant with your own caches and refuse to condone the practice.

[Mushtang]

I am not proposing that everyone must adhere to a very strict set of rules, but false logs are getting a little ridiculous. One of the basic notions of caching is that you actually visit the location. I am proposing that cache owners who agree with the premise of physically visiting the cache location, do their part to enforce it - don’t allow false logs on your caches, and don’t be embarrassed to enforce this basic notion of geocaching.

I'm not seeing the false logging getting out of hand personally, but I do take it seriously. I'm not afraid of calling anyone on it either. I've called a very prominent geocacher on a log and I've even got a task on my to-do list of going out and checking a log because of a suspicious entry.

 

I know some folks will never call someone on a log. So what? I will. I do. I will continue to do so.

 

I can't make others police their logs, but that doesn't mean I have to condone the activity. Doesn't mean I have to change the way I take care of our caches. Doesn't mean I have to let a log they falsely entered on one of our caches stand. We play the game our way on our caches. We have the ultimate control of our caches--as we are always reminded from the other side.

 

I think some folks get hung up on the fact everyone has to play the same way in order for the numbers to mean anything. Ironically, it's because of those who play fast and loose with rules in order to up their numbers make those very numbers less meaningful.

 

I've come to the conclusion that because of these players the numbers have little to no meaning for me. As such, if someone doesn't like the way I log their cache--or I don't even like their cache--I don't need to log it. I don't need that smilie.

 

Unfortunately, until there is some sort of disincentive for false logging it will continue. You can only be vigilant with your own caches and refuse to condone the practice.

I pretty much agree with this. Well said.

 

The things I agree on (and correct me if I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly)

1) False logs are not, in fact, causing a degradation of geocaching (as the thread title suggests).

2) If I know a log on one of my own caches is bogus, I'll delete it.

3) Other people won't delete logs, and I don't care. It doesn't bother me if it doesn't bother them.

 

Things we see a little different

1) My numbers mean a lot to me, and the numbers of people I know mean something. Numbers of people posting DNFs mean a little less, but are still worthwhile. Everyone else's numbers are meaningless.

2) The numbers hounds are not the reason that other people's numbers are meaningless to me, it's the fact that caches are all so different, but they're all worth one smiley. It makes comparison useless even if everyone logged the same way.

3) I don't feel the need to condemn a practice I don't participate in to try and get it stopped. To me it's not unfortunate that there's no disincentive. The false logging is between the cache owner and the false logger. If that's how they enjoy playing, or are willing to play, then it's no skin off my nose.