Jump to content

Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?


Recommended Posts

I can't believe this thread is still alive.
Yup. People keep posting to it. We're interested in talking about the topic, trying to get the other side to see our point while trying to understand the reason they're making their points. It's fun.

 

I cache with my grandkids because it's a fun way for us to spend time together. If we piddle around and make two finds on a Saturday we're happy campers. It's about US havin fun as a family TOGETHER.
Awesome! That sounds like a great way to geocache!

 

I don't really give a hoot how anyone else goes about their caching.
There are a LOT of people here that agree with you (myself included). But a lot that will claim that the way someone else is caching will somehow have a negative effect on the rest of us.

 

I think this is 12 pages of mostly junior high, adolescent, snotty behavior.
Now you're getting a little personal. We may not be able to debate at your level, but try not to be so intolerant. If you're not enjoying the thread, there is an easy way to avoid it.

 

Let's grow up and be at peace.
As opposed to jumping into a thread and telling everyone they're behaving like junior high adolescent snots?

 

Geocaching is for fun. This is so NOT fun!
It's not fun for you, but most everyone else is enjoying it. As long as we can keep it civil, and we don't resort to name calling and getting rude and personal, we'll be able to continue with the fun. For those that don't think it's fun, there is an easy way to avoid reading it.

 

I hope you stay and have fun though. :blink:

Link to comment

...Actually we cache sans paper. When we get to GZ, we have no idea what we're looking for. I run PQ's and use GSAK to dump right into my GPS. That's how we like to do it. It's more fun. :blink:

 

So, that explained, please don't argue with what I said and leverage my comments to make your point, mkay? Thanks so much.

 

Cool.

 

Alas nothing has changed. You still rely on the honesty of others since a false find log can cause a reviewer who would have disabled a questionable cache to let it stand and you end up wasting your time. You are impacted and so is your fun.

 

Also by hunting blind you can (and in time will) miss out on key cache instructions that you will need to pay attention to. A lot of cachers like to hunt the way you do. A lot of cache owners put instruction on the cache page to keep cachers out of trouble ,or to spell out land owner concerns.

 

So yeah, maybe you don't give a hoot, but you are impacted. Like it or not.

Link to comment

I have to say I agree with Kit Fox. There is some controversary about some of the behaviors listed below in my area. It really makes for alot of hurt/hard feeling for those who are "cheating" and those rule followers. The rules are the rules.

 

All evil needs to get triumph is for good men to do nothing. I beleive that the right thing is the right thing. We all have to work together to keep this site fun.

 

Welcome to "Geocaching Version B."

 

Physically going outdoors to find, then sign a cache log is obsolote.

 

Criticising anyone who practices "Cheesy Version B" gets you labled an elitist.

 

Arguing that a particular hide type is both dangerous, and hidden without permission, will get you lambasted on the forum.

 

Nice caches, hidden in unique/scenic/historical areas routinely get skipped so cachers can bag 20 1/1s instead of one quality cache.

 

Logging event caches 5 to 50 times to get smilies for temporary caches is "in!"

 

Sharing lists of trackables to pad your trackable stats is "in"

 

Armchair logging virtual caches while you sit at the computer in Germany is now "in."

 

Geocachers have become spineless and can't be bothered to delete frivolous logs on their caches. I guess they either don't care, or are afraid they might hurt someone's feelings.

 

I could go on and on, but most of these things have ruined the hobby for me. Now I waste half of my spare time researching caches that don't take me to parking lots, housing tracts, dumps, bum outhouses, pickle parks, and any other place where you have to ask yourself, "Why the hell would a geocachers share this place with me?"

 

TPTB don't care about these issues because they are only a "listing service." :blink:

Edited by AHOLLYS
Link to comment

 

I think this is 12 pages of mostly junior high, adolescent, snotty behavior.

 

Let's grow up and be at peace. Geocaching is for fun. This is so NOT fun!

 

Don't worry, this is par for the course for this forum. It might be just a little heated at the moment but we're just splitting the infinitive hair. As usual.

 

 

By the way, this is a par 4 and anyone who disagrees is a letterboxer!!!!!!!! :blink:

Link to comment

Take a stab at answering the same question I posed to HopsMaltYeast

 

What does it tell your honest finders if you allow logs from both the ones who did the work and the ones who lied? Does it do right by them?

Can I take a stab at it?

 

I wouldn't allow logs from those who lied if I knew about it. I'll delete a fake log just as fast as anyone. But only because I like to have the logs on my cache be accurate for me, not because I think it'll make it better for anyone else in any way.

 

However, if someone else allowed a fake log to remain, I don't see how it would take away anything from you as far as this game goes. So far I haven't seen any indication that it will, at all.

Not quite what I had in mind. That's your view of how you deal with the situation and you are deleting the false log anyway.

 

Maybe rephrasing is better. Assuming you are keeping the false logs (since that's what some are arguing here it seems)

 

Your honest finder asks you "Why did you let this bogus log stand" I did the work and this jerk just logs your Florida caches while he's in Tahiti and you let it stand!?? Why?

 

Or your kid wiht the puppy dog eyes asks you "why are you letting the guy who didn't find your cache log it?"

Fair enough. I'll play. So, IF for some reason I knew of a false log and decided to let it stay and a finder asks why I let it stand, I suppose I'd tell him the reason (couldn't log on the day I found out about it and forgot later, or I thought his log was funny and didn't want to get rid of it, or it was a friend that logged it to account for a deleted log somewhere else, etc). Then I'd turn around and ask him why he seems to think it matters. His find count is still the same either way.

 

I'm all for deleting false logs on your own caches. I'm all for trying to keep your find count just as "accurate" as you want it to be. I just can't understand why people think that a false log will take away something from the game, and somehow degrade it. Can you explain it to I can understand it?

Link to comment

...This is all completely either wrong or irrelevant to me.

 

You do not know how many false logs are out there.

True. I don't. I also don't think how many matters. The case I'm building simply says false logs are a problem. Not that you need a certain number of them to matter.

You have not given one concrete example of how a false log has hurt your integrity or degraded you or degrade the "sport" (I think it is a hobby or pastime).

A slew of false logs cased our reviewer to spend time evaluating a bunch of local caches for the need to be archived. Ultimately that cacher was banned. In the meantime a lot of time was wasted that could have been better used approving caches or dealing with real issues.

 

Quotes are FUBAR. Oh well.

 

OK, you don't know how many false logs there are. You don't know if it is an insignificant issue, a significant issue or a huge issue that will bring down the house.

 

You do not even know if it will degrade the experience one iota.

 

I don't know how many are a slew.

 

but, it appears from your account that the system worked sufficiently to get a cacher banned. (was that the hider or the false log hunter?)

 

But it seems like in your example the problem was "caches that needed to be archived" not false logs.

 

I understand, and I think everyone commenting agrees, that false finds in a few isolated cases might have delayed maintenance visits by cache owners.

 

But, Cache owners should make maintenance visits regardless of logs. Many caches require maintenance with or without internet logged finds or dnf's.

 

The cache would have required maintenance or archiving regardless of any false log.

 

Some cache hunters will encounter missing caches even if there is never a false log.

 

Some newbie attempts at GeoCaching will come up empty and some of them will be discouraged by a DNF - whether the DNF was caused by a tough hide, a missing cache or a missing cache that had a false find log. Some of them will be challenged and try again.

 

My first 2 attempts were dnfs. The caches were there. I tried again and found them.

 

If I had not tried again it would not matter if they were there or not.

Link to comment

Here is a great example of how peer pressure was effectively used to steer a cacher from logging a false find, on a legendary cache that they actually DNFed. The person ended up returning, looked a little harder, then actually found the cache. the dragonfly scroll. I'm not sure why, but he deleted his initial DNF/find.

 

A fake find on this cache cheapens the find for all of us that actually made the effort to solve, then find this cache. Besides an extremely well done puzzle, the cache was a fantastice hide.

Link to comment

...In order for an action to be wrong it needs a valid, logical reason to be characterized as wrong other than just because it makes someone uncomfortable.

 

In order for an action to be wrong it has to cause real harm to a real person, not perceived harm to a confused person.

You are saying you need to see a harm rise to a level you recognize or deem worthy?

Recognize? Yes. Deem worthy? I have no idea what you mean. Nothing is "worthy" of my allowing it to bug me if there is no actual harm involved. Why would I choose to be upset over something I need not be upset about?

 

I mean it has to be real harm. Just because you choose to get unnecessarily annoyed at something I do doesn’t mean I have done anything wrong. Other than the undisputed practical issue (see below), nobody has shown me how a false log harms me, hurts me, damages me or in any way "degrades" me just because it is bogus.

 

If I log a find on my own cache page, for example, that does not harm you, hurt you, damage you or in any way "degrade" you – unless you actively choose otherwise. Nothing has been taken away from you – unless you somehow feel entitled not only to consider yourself in completion with me, but to also demand some sort of specific behavior from me to which I did not agree.

 

If I agree to compete with you for most cache finds then many of the things you are saying in this thread would make perfect sense. If my find records only exist for my own purposes, however ... well, I think you know thw rest by now.

 

What is the threshold of lying which rises to that level that level? It is enough that it can cause you to waste your time and gas?

For the last time: The practical effect of false logs has already been covered.

 

Apparently you really did miss my response to your post. I’ll repeat it here ... this one time:

 

Fake logs also tell a fake story about a real cache. They verify the cache is there and ready to be found. They can turn the owner off of a needed maintance trip. They can cause people to seek in vain for a cache that really is gone. Decisions are made based on the logs.

That is a perfectly valid point, one which has been addressed repeatedly in this thread. If you haven’t read the entire thread – I don’t blame you. :blink:

 

Suffice it to say that nobody in this thread has posted anything in support of misleading their fellow cachers via bad information. The objection you describe here is a practical objection, and is not in dispute.

 

The claim that is being disputed here is an ethical objection: whether bogus logs constitute a "moral degradation" of the entire game, not a potential bit of confusion over a specific cache.

Link to comment

Wow, hard to believe there are 13+ pages on this topic. You all are board members of your Home Owner's Associations, aren't you? Really...who can really tell, unless it is your own cache. And then, how many times could this have happened to you? This is not the epidemic you make it seem. Most of us play the game in our own ways. If someone is screwing it up for themselves they deserve the inner demons they gain. That is the beauty of the game. Relax and go out and find something.

Link to comment
Maybe rephrasing is better. Assuming you are keeping the false logs (since that's what some are arguing here it seems)

 

Your honest finder asks you "Why did you let this bogus log stand" I did the work and this jerk just logs your Florida caches while he's in Tahiti and you let it stand!?? Why?

I think your premise is presumptuous. Like Mushtang, I wouldn’t let the false log stand either. I would be polite about it, emailing the logger first and asking him to change the log himself and go from there ... because, like Mushtang, I would want my cache page to reflect an accurate history. My reason for requesting the change would have nothing to do with any wild claims in this thread that the log somehow "morally degrades" anyone.

 

Why don’t you ask how I would feel if I were the honest logger, and a cache owner with a different owner-viewpoint from me allowed the log to stand?

 

My answer: I wouldn’t care. Why should I?

 

Would you care? What would it take away from you? Nothing, that’s what.

 

The false logger's log doesn’t take anything away from your accurate log any more than the false entry in his diary takes anything away from your accurate diary.

 

Or your kid with the puppy dog eyes asks you "why are you letting the guy who didn't find your cache log it?"

See above.

Link to comment

....OK, you don't know how many false logs there are. You don't know if it is an insignificant issue, a significant issue or a huge issue that will bring down the house.

 

I'm saying one is a problem and deleting it is right. 1, 10, one million. Doesn't matter. Wrong things are fixed one at a time. Your asking me to make a case that there is a magical threshold where all of the sudden the last bogus log will break geocaching. I think it's simple enough that if you find a bogus log it should be deleted.

 

The problem and solution are both at the individual level.

Link to comment
You have not given one concrete example of how a false log has hurt your integrity or degraded you or degrade the "sport"

 

False logs on virtuals have led to the archiving of the virtuals involved. That takes away a potential cache for all of us..

 

Why was the virtual archived?

why did false logs lead to the archiving. Even with the false log the virtual could have stood and been available all of us.

 

How was that degrading? How did that hurt your integrity?

That is not very convincing.

 

If the virtual had been left active for the honest potential cacher would not that have been a better decision?

 

Sounds like the owner of the cache made the crucial decision.

 

Why didn't the cache owner just follow the guidelines and delete logs that were obviously false? Why punish everyone?

Link to comment

.... Like Mushtang, I wouldn’t let the false log stand either. I would be polite about it, emailing the logger first and asking him to change the log himself and go from there ... because, like Mushtang, I would want my cache page to reflect an accurate history. ....

 

So you and Mushtang both do the right thing for exactly the reasons I've said are important (note my case is built on an accurate cache history having a value to finders, owners, and reviewers) and we are still managing to have a debate?

Link to comment
You have not given one concrete example of how a false log has hurt your integrity or degraded you or degrade the "sport"

 

False logs on virtuals have led to the archiving of the virtuals involved. That takes away a potential cache for all of us..

 

Why was the virtual archived?

why did false logs lead to the archiving. Even with the false log the virtual could have stood and been available all of us....

 

What value does all the wasted time dealing with bogus logs give to caching?

When people mistakenly rely on wrong information (because they don't yet know it's crap) to make wrong decisions how does that enhance the integreity of geocaching?

Even if it doesn't devalue, how does it add value in some way?

 

Show me the good bogus logs do for us all.? If you can't do that, can you make your case that the wasted time and effort is at least neutral instead of something other than a waste?

Link to comment
Why was the virtual archived?

why did false logs lead to the archiving. Even with the false log the virtual could have stood and been available all of us.

 

This website will archive unmaintained caches. They consider virtuals where the owner doesn't address bogus logs to be unmaintained and they will archive them.

 

How was that degrading? How did that hurt your integrity?

 

No skin off my back, however it does degrade the sport for those who are into virtuals. There are a fixed number. No more will be listed, so every one archived is one less for fans of virtuals to find.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Wow, hard to believe there are 13+ pages on this topic. You all are board members of your Home Owner's Associations, aren't you? Really...who can really tell, unless it is your own cache. And then, how many times could this have happened to you? This is not the epidemic you make it seem. Most of us play the game in our own ways. If someone is screwing it up for themselves they deserve the inner demons they gain. That is the beauty of the game. Relax and go out and find something.

 

I hate Home Owners Associations and am proud to say that I don't belong to one and my house has no CC&Rs. When I did belong to one rather than talk about flooding in the street because of a storm drainage system that didn't work they spend all their time talking about barking dogs. Later the ex president ran off with our funds. He got away with it.

 

Epidemic? Depends on your area.

 

Like you say, you deal with it as a cache owner. That's all there is.

 

So why are you posting instead of going out and finding something. I'm avoiding my income tax and paying one rather oversized bill that's going to take some money juggling.

Link to comment

....OK, you don't know how many false logs there are. You don't know if it is an insignificant issue, a significant issue or a huge issue that will bring down the house.

 

I'm saying one is a problem and deleting it is right. 1, 10, one million. Doesn't matter. Wrong things are fixed one at a time. Your asking me to make a case that there is a magical threshold where all of the sudden the last bogus log will break geocaching. I think it's simple enough that if you find a bogus log it should be deleted.

 

The problem and solution are both at the individual level.

 

You have still not addressed the central issues:

 

How does one false log out of ten million degrade GeoCaching, you, me, my friend in Africa, my efforts, your numbers, yada yada yada?

 

Cache owners are under no obligation to make detailed audits and rectifications of paper logs to online logs.

 

Cache owners should delete obvious bogus logs.

 

You have no idea how many, if any, cache owners are not following that guideline.

 

The OP questioned that false logs were degrading GeoCaching, neither you nor the OP has presented a single piece of evidence to support that allegation.

 

How has it been degraded. How have you been degraded?

 

If you think there should be a sanctioning body and independent audits of every log and cache owner then I think you should advocate that. I would think that would be a much bigger threat to GeoCaching than a few false logs.

 

It is a hobby, a fun pursuit, a family pastime and a lot of other things, but it is not a competition and one or 100 or 10,000 false logs will not degrade my experience or GeoCaching.

Link to comment

...You have still not addressed the central issues:

 

How does one false log out of ten million degrade GeoCaching,...

 

One cache at a time for all the reasons expressed before. That's why I'm proposing the same solution that already exists. Pay attention, delete bogus log on your caches. No need for any higher authority.

 

You asked how many 'degrade caching'. Suffice it to say it can be done. You want numbers? Sorry I don't have numbers. I just know the people impacted. If you want to put your money where your mouth is I'll make introductions. You can ask them how joyful bogus logs have made their geocaching life. You can also ask exactly what the magic number was and calculate a percent. For you this debate is hypothetical. Lucky you.

 

You haven't yet explained to me how fake logs enhance in any way geocaching. What exactly is your point anyway?

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
How does one false log out of ten million degrade GeoCaching, you, me, my friend in Africa, my efforts, your numbers, yada yada yada?

 

Phony logs are a pain in the butt for cache owners. When I get a fishy log it means I have to set aside time to

check the logbook. It's enough work keeping up with the usual cache maintenance issues like animal damage, water damage and full log books. The last thing I need is some Bozo making more work for me because he gets his jollies logging phony finds.

Link to comment
A fake find on this cache cheapens the find for all of us that actually made the effort to solve, then find this cache.

Speak for yourself.

 

If I succeed in finding a difficult or challenging cache I know exactly what my accomplishment was, and I’ll be dad-GUMMED if I’m going to either (1) let some bogus-logging yay-hoo allow me to view my proud accomplishment any differently, or (2) let anybody else try to tell me that the faker’s log takes anything away from what I accomplished.

 

If you want to allow the faker to make you feel that your own accomplishment has been somehow cheapened, then go for it. Personally I don’t see the sense in it, but make yourself happy.

Link to comment

.... Like Mushtang, I wouldn’t let the false log stand either. I would be polite about it, emailing the logger first and asking him to change the log himself and go from there ... because, like Mushtang, I would want my cache page to reflect an accurate history. ....

 

So you and Mushtang both do the right thing for exactly the reasons I've said are important (note my case is built on an accurate cache history having a value to finders, owners, and reviewers) and we are still managing to have a debate?

Nope ... and you conveniently left out the part of my post that explains why.

 

Please try again, and this time read the entire explanation. I'm done repeating myself for you.

Link to comment
Why was the virtual archived?

why did false logs lead to the archiving. Even with the false log the virtual could have stood and been available all of us.

This website will archive unmaintained caches. They consider virtuals where the owner doesn't address bogus logs to be unmaintained and they will archive them.

That's an issue of practicality, not of morality. Once again your point does nothing to explain the claim that false logs "degrade" anything.

Link to comment
Why was the virtual archived?

why did false logs lead to the archiving. Even with the false log the virtual could have stood and been available all of us.

 

This website will archive unmaintained caches. They consider virtuals where the owner doesn't address bogus logs to be unmaintained and they will archive them.

 

How was that degrading? How did that hurt your integrity?

 

No skin off my back, however it does degrade the sport for those who are into virtuals. There are a fixed number. No more will be listed, so every one archived is one less for fans of virtuals to find.

 

I am relatively new so I am not sure I follow this logic and maybe the terminology. Like what is a virtual?

 

But, if no one was monitoring the cache then who determined that it was not maintained and that there were bogus finds that were not addressed?

 

If the virtual was not being maintained shouldn't it be archived anyway?

 

So you are saying that ignoring the rules about maintaining a cache are important unless it is a cache that you want to remain active even if unmaintained?

 

I am probably missing something obvious here.

 

But it sounds like even if the cache were unmaintained it could last one hundred years without a single find.

 

If there were 100 DNF's that would be fine.

 

If there were 100 real finds that would be fine.

 

One false find would not be OK?

 

Who and how were a few bogus finds found and determined to be a problem and by whom?

 

Do you mean that a reported find would require a response from the absent owner? Why would a real find or a false find result in a different outcome?

 

 

I am seriously lost.

Link to comment

.... Like Mushtang, I wouldn’t let the false log stand either. I would be polite about it, emailing the logger first and asking him to change the log himself and go from there ... because, like Mushtang, I would want my cache page to reflect an accurate history. ....

 

So you and Mushtang both do the right thing for exactly the reasons I've said are important (note my case is built on an accurate cache history having a value to finders, owners, and reviewers) and we are still managing to have a debate?

you conveniently left out the part of my post that explains why.

 

You said an accurate cache history is important to you. I said it's important to everyone. Simple enough.

 

You do the right thing. You do the right thing for one of the three reasons I've given it's right in my own posts and the stress in your own post was on accuracy. I didn't create that stress. You did.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
Why was the virtual archived?

why did false logs lead to the archiving. Even with the false log the virtual could have stood and been available all of us.

This website will archive unmaintained caches. They consider virtuals where the owner doesn't address bogus logs to be unmaintained and they will archive them.

That's an issue of practicality, not of morality. Once again your point does nothing to explain the claim that false logs "degrade" anything.

You seem to be stuck on third definition of the word:

 

degrade

(dĭ-grād') pron.gifv., -grad·ed, -grad·ing, -grades. v.tr.

  1. To reduce in grade, rank, or status; demote.
  2. To lower in dignity; dishonor or disgrace: a scandal that degraded the participants.
  3. To lower in moral or intellectual character; debase.
  4. To reduce in worth or value: degrade a currency.

I think many are applying the 1st or 2nd definitions of the word....

Link to comment
You asked how many 'degrade caching'. Suffice it to say it can be done. You want numbers? Sorry I don't have numbers. I just know the people impacted.

That's a nice, indirect, vague, un-provable answer.

 

If you want to put your money where your mouth is I'll make introductions.

I'll take you up on that one. If you can't convince me that the actions of a bogus logger are "morally degrading" to the pastime of Geocaching, I would be very interested to talk to someone who can.

 

Introduce away!

 

You can ask them how joyful bogus logs have made their geocaching life. You can also ask exactly what the magic number was and calculate a percent. For you this debate is hypothetical. Lucky you.

 

You haven't yet explained to me how fake logs enhance in any way geocaching. What exactly is your point anyway?

Strawman alert!!

 

When has anyone in this thread claimed that bogus logs has made anyone's geocaching life "joyful?"

 

When has anyone in this thread claimed that "fake logs enhance geocaching?"

 

Please stick to the actual claim that's been made, the one nobody seems to be able to support, and stop making up fictitious stuff to argue against.

Link to comment
How does one false log out of ten million degrade GeoCaching, you, me, my friend in Africa, my efforts, your numbers, yada yada yada?

Phony logs are a pain in the butt for cache owners. When I get a fishy log it means I have to set aside time to

check the logbook. It's enough work keeping up with the usual cache maintenance issues like animal damage, water damage and full log books. The last thing I need is some Bozo making more work for me because he gets his jollies logging phony finds.

Again: That is a practical issue, not a morality issue.

 

It annoys you. That’s understandable. What I don’t see is how it can "degrade" you ... or me, or any one of the fine folks who logged your cache honorably.

 

You DO understand the difference between "moral" and "practical," right?

Link to comment

...When has anyone in this thread claimed that bogus logs has made anyone's geocaching life "joyful?"

 

When has anyone in this thread claimed that "fake logs enhance geocaching?"...

 

There are three arguments to be made.

Bogus logs are crap and a detriment.

Bogus logs are neutral and neither help nor harm.

Bogus logs are wonderful and are a worthy addition to geocahcing.

 

The first case has been made.

Neither of the other two have been made.

 

Would you like to actually prove your case? Ignoring that you already do the right thing for the right reasons but are defending the neutral or wonderful standpoints.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
How does one false log out of ten million degrade GeoCaching, you, me, my friend in Africa, my efforts, your numbers, yada yada yada?

 

Phony logs are a pain in the butt for cache owners. When I get a fishy log it means I have to set aside time to

check the logbook. It's enough work keeping up with the usual cache maintenance issues like animal damage, water damage and full log books. The last thing I need is some Bozo making more work for me because he gets his jollies logging phony finds.

 

How do you know it is a phony log? If it is an obvious phony log then delete it.

 

Who says you have to set aside time or drop everything and go check on a potentially phony log? This is a hobby. There is nothing urgent in checking a fishy log.

 

Check it on your normal maintenance run seems OK.

 

If someone falsely logs a "needs maintenance" log then that is different than logging a false find.

 

Do you run out every time someone logs a DNF to make sure all is OK?

 

What is a fishy log? That has nothing to do with the OP which was false find logs.

 

If you know it is phony why are you checking on it? How do you check on it?

 

You could do this later on a normal maintenance run.

Edited by HopsMaltYeast
Link to comment

.... Like Mushtang, I wouldn’t let the false log stand either. I would be polite about it, emailing the logger first and asking him to change the log himself and go from there ... because, like Mushtang, I would want my cache page to reflect an accurate history. ....

 

So you and Mushtang both do the right thing for exactly the reasons I've said are important (note my case is built on an accurate cache history having a value to finders, owners, and reviewers) and we are still managing to have a debate?

you conveniently left out the part of my post that explains why.

 

You said an accurate cache history is important to you. I said it's important to everyone. Simple enough.

 

You do the right thing. You do the right thing for one of the three reasons I've given it's right in my own posts and the stress in your own post was on accuracy. I didn't create that stress. You did.

Yes I did. I explained what my reason was, and I explained what it was not. I chose my words carefully. You cut half of them out of my quote.

 

Accuracy and moral degradation are two different things. As a cache owner I maintain accurate logs for the self-defined reason: accuracy. I don't maintain accurate logs out of any perceived need to protect my honest finders from some "moral-degradation" bogeyman. They don’t need that protection from me; they’re already honest! Ten thousand bogus logs on my cache page can’t take that away from them. You have yet to convince me otherwise.

Link to comment
Why was the virtual archived?

why did false logs lead to the archiving. Even with the false log the virtual could have stood and been available all of us.

This website will archive unmaintained caches. They consider virtuals where the owner doesn't address bogus logs to be unmaintained and they will archive them.

That's an issue of practicality, not of morality. Once again your point does nothing to explain the claim that false logs "degrade" anything.

 

When somebody deliberately makes life more difficult for someone else, I think we are venturing onto moral ground.

Link to comment
Why was the virtual archived?

why did false logs lead to the archiving. Even with the false log the virtual could have stood and been available all of us.

This website will archive unmaintained caches. They consider virtuals where the owner doesn't address bogus logs to be unmaintained and they will archive them.

That's an issue of practicality, not of morality. Once again your point does nothing to explain the claim that false logs "degrade" anything.

You seem to be stuck on third definition of the word:

 

degrade

(dĭ-grād') pron.gifv., -grad•ed, -grad•ing, -grades. v.tr.

  1. To reduce in grade, rank, or status; demote.
  2. To lower in dignity; dishonor or disgrace: a scandal that degraded the participants.
  3. To lower in moral or intellectual character; debase.
  4. To reduce in worth or value: degrade a currency.

I think many are applying the 1st or 2nd definitions of the word....

Fine.

 

Then please explain to me how any of those four things happens to me, my honest cache log, my find history, or to anyone or anything else in this hobby when some confused cacher posts a fake find.

Link to comment

...When has anyone in this thread claimed that bogus logs has made anyone's geocaching life "joyful?"

 

When has anyone in this thread claimed that "fake logs enhance geocaching?"...

There are three arguments to be made.

Bogus logs are crap and a detriment.

Bogus logs are neutral and neither help nor harm.

Bogus logs are wonderful and are a worthy addition to geocahcing.

Maybe in another thread on another day, but none of those applies here. This thread is about bogus logs and how they supposedly "degrade" the hobby of Geocaching.

 

I will not argue a strawman with you.

Link to comment

....If it is an obvious phony log then delete it.

Agreed.

 

Who says you have to set aside time or drop everything and go check on a potentially phony log? This is a hobby. There is nothing urgent in checking a fishy log.

Obvious phony logs would be deleted. Plausible phony logs are the problem.

 

If someone falsely logs a "needs maintenance" log then that is different than logging a false find.

They both provide bogus information that people rely on to make decisions. Neither is ok.

 

Do you run out every time someone logs a DNF to make sure all is OK?

Depends on a lot of factors. First there needs to be a DNF log. A false DNF is a problem as well.

 

What is a fishy log? That has nothing to do with the OP which was false find logs.

Fishy as in doesn't seem quite right. The first step to deciding if a log is crap.

 

If you know it is phony why are you checking on it? How do you check on it?

Per your first suggestion, if you know you delete. How you check in it varies. 13 fishy logs all relating to to a common theme can be the tip off.

Link to comment
You DO understand the difference between "moral" and "practical," right?

I'm not very bright, so no.

Neither am I, which is why I can't understand why you would attempt to convince others of a claim that you now admit you do not understand.

 

Maybe you and I have no disagreement after all. You have made no case for the "degradation" claim, yet you have made an excellent case for why bogus logs cause a practical problem.

 

I don't think you and I have anything further to argue about here. :D

Link to comment
Why was the virtual archived?

why did false logs lead to the archiving. Even with the false log the virtual could have stood and been available all of us.

 

This website will archive unmaintained caches. They consider virtuals where the owner doesn't address bogus logs to be unmaintained and they will archive them.

 

How was that degrading? How did that hurt your integrity?

 

No skin off my back, however it does degrade the sport for those who are into virtuals. There are a fixed number. No more will be listed, so every one archived is one less for fans of virtuals to find.

 

My be you can use your influence to change the rules and allow unmaintained caches to remain active.

Link to comment
Why was the virtual archived?

why did false logs lead to the archiving. Even with the false log the virtual could have stood and been available all of us.

This website will archive unmaintained caches. They consider virtuals where the owner doesn't address bogus logs to be unmaintained and they will archive them.

That's an issue of practicality, not of morality. Once again your point does nothing to explain the claim that false logs "degrade" anything.

You seem to be stuck on third definition of the word:

 

degrade

(dĭ-grād') pron.gifv., -grad•ed, -grad•ing, -grades. v.tr.

  1. To reduce in grade, rank, or status; demote.
  2. To lower in dignity; dishonor or disgrace: a scandal that degraded the participants.
  3. To lower in moral or intellectual character; debase.
  4. To reduce in worth or value: degrade a currency.

I think many are applying the 1st or 2nd definitions of the word....

Fine.

 

Then please explain to me how any of those four things happens to me, my honest cache log, my find history, or to anyone or anything else in this hobby when some confused cacher posts a fake find.

Are you reducing your entire argument to what happens if one person does it? :D

 

Briansnat brought up some good examples of how this practice has hurt the game. Virtuals which many enjoy are being archived because of this practice. If people wanted to get rid of virtuals, logging fake finds is one of the best ways to do it...

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

Several people are asking how false logs can degrade an innocent cacher. I've never said that they degrade innocent cachers, I said they degrade geocaching. I personally don't feel degraded because of false logs.

 

Several people are also asking how false logs can degrade geocaching. I feel that false logs have a negative impact on the integrity of geocaching. I also feel that the toleration of false logs has a negative impact on the integrity of geocaching. Because of both false logs, and the tolerance of false logs, my opinion on the integrity of geocaching has been degraded. Because integrity is reasonably important to me, I believe that geocaching is being degraded. This is MY opinion.

 

There are others who also feel that false logs, and the tolerance of false logs, degrades geocaching. This is OUR opinion. If you do not share the same opinion, then you've got nothing to be concerned about.

Edited by Cedar Grove Seekers
Link to comment
Why was the virtual archived?

why did false logs lead to the archiving. Even with the false log the virtual could have stood and been available all of us.

This website will archive unmaintained caches. They consider virtuals where the owner doesn't address bogus logs to be unmaintained and they will archive them.

That's an issue of practicality, not of morality. Once again your point does nothing to explain the claim that false logs "degrade" anything.

 

When somebody deliberately makes life more difficult for someone else, I think we are venturing onto moral ground.

Agreed.

 

Bogus logs don't always make life more difficult for others (aka "actual harm") however, so therefore they don't necessarily "degrade" anything unless the actual harm exists.

 

Therefore it is not the bogus log that is immoral. It is the intentional harm associated with some of the bogus logs that is immoral.

Link to comment

...When has anyone in this thread claimed that bogus logs has made anyone's geocaching life "joyful?"

 

When has anyone in this thread claimed that "fake logs enhance geocaching?"...

There are three arguments to be made.

Bogus logs are crap and a detriment.

Bogus logs are neutral and neither help nor harm.

Bogus logs are wonderful and are a worthy addition to geocahcing.

Maybe in another thread on another day, but none of those applies here. This thread is about bogus logs and how they supposedly "degrade" the hobby of Geocaching.

 

I will not argue a strawman with you.

 

If it's not neutral or good, it's a detriment to geocaching. You can call that degrading the activity if you like. You have such a simple way to make your case here you can either rise to the occasion or not. Your call.

Link to comment

.... Like Mushtang, I wouldn’t let the false log stand either. I would be polite about it, emailing the logger first and asking him to change the log himself and go from there ... because, like Mushtang, I would want my cache page to reflect an accurate history. ....

 

So you and Mushtang both do the right thing for exactly the reasons I've said are important (note my case is built on an accurate cache history having a value to finders, owners, and reviewers) and we are still managing to have a debate?

you conveniently left out the part of my post that explains why.

 

You said an accurate cache history is important to you. I said it's important to everyone. Simple enough.

 

You do the right thing. You do the right thing for one of the three reasons I've given it's right in my own posts and the stress in your own post was on accuracy. I didn't create that stress. You did.

Yes I did. I explained what my reason was, and I explained what it was not. I chose my words carefully. You cut half of them out of my quote....

 

We do things for reasons. We don't do things for non reasons. Half your post were the things you were not worried about and not quoted when I was pointing out we agreed on the accuracy which was your stated reason for deleting bogus logs.

Link to comment

How phony logs hurt the sport:

 

1. They are at minimum confusing to other geocachers.

 

2. They can result in the archiving of caches.

 

3. They can delay needed maintenance on a cache

 

4. They can cause other geocachers to waste their time and/or money.

 

One can say these are practical issues, but when your selfish actions have a negative effect on others

it becomes a moral one.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
Briansnat brought up some good examples of how this practice has hurt the game. Virtuals which many enjoy are being archived because of this practice. If people wanted to get rid of virtuals, logging fake finds is one of the best ways to do it...

Sorry, wrong again. There hasn't been a SINGLE virtual cache that has been archived because someone fake logged it.

 

The virtuals you're talking about were archived because the cache owners did not maintain their cache, and did not delete these logs from the cache pages. Word got around that the owner didn't care, and lots of other Germ... uh, fake loggers showed up to fake log the virt.

 

If 100 fake logs are posted to a virtual cache, and all 100 are deleted, I promise you the cache would remain.

 

If 100 fake logs are posted to a virtual cache, and the owner is asleep at the wheel and doesn't delete them, it's likely to get archived.

 

It was obvious that the cache owner was no longer maintaining the cache, so it was archived. It's the same as if an ammo can were mauled by a bear, and the owner didn't go replace it. Eventually all the notes to the page explaining the condition of the cache and requesting maintenance would result in it being archived.

Link to comment
If 100 fake logs are posted to a virtual cache, and the owner is asleep at the wheel and doesn't delete them, it's likely to get archived.

 

And if nobody lied about finding the cache it wouldn't have been archived. The fake logs might not be the reason for the archival, but they certainly are the catalyst.

Link to comment
Why was the virtual archived?

why did false logs lead to the archiving. Even with the false log the virtual could have stood and been available all of us.

This website will archive unmaintained caches. They consider virtuals where the owner doesn't address bogus logs to be unmaintained and they will archive them.

That's an issue of practicality, not of morality. Once again your point does nothing to explain the claim that false logs "degrade" anything.

You seem to be stuck on third definition of the word:

 

degrade

(dĭ-grād') pron.gifv., -grad•ed, -grad•ing, -grades. v.tr.

  1. To reduce in grade, rank, or status; demote.
  2. To lower in dignity; dishonor or disgrace: a scandal that degraded the participants.
  3. To lower in moral or intellectual character; debase.
  4. To reduce in worth or value: degrade a currency.

I think many are applying the 1st or 2nd definitions of the word....

Fine.

 

Then please explain to me how any of those four things happens to me, my honest cache log, my find history, or to anyone or anything else in this hobby when some confused cacher posts a fake find.

Are you reducing your entire argument to what happens if one person does it? :D

 

Briansnat brought up some good examples of how this practice has hurt the game. Virtuals which many enjoy are being archived because of this practice. If people wanted to get rid of virtuals, logging fake finds is one of the best ways to do it...

That's very interesting, but that still doesn't explain to me how any of those four things happens to me, my honest cache log, my find history, or to anyone or anything else in this hobby when some confused cacher posts a fake find.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...