Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

After reading all of these posts, I have decided that instead of going caching this weekend, I am going to visit all of my hides, and anybody that has signed the paper log but not logged online will get their paper log entry ERASED!!!

 

OK, but just keep in mind that if I happened to log any of yours, I'm sure I was able to see the cache container using google earth. That counts, right?

[+Too Tall John]

Cache owner decided to archive cache. Cache owner said he refused to follow the policy. I did not guess, the cache owner stated it in the archive message.

That's funny, here's the log. I can't see where they say the refuse to follow policy.

Regrettably, this cache is now archived and I will not reactivate it. You can blame liars and cheaters for the fact that you will no longer be allowed to log this virtual cache.

 

Two hundred people have now logged the Portal of The Folded Wings as a find. Many of them actually visited the site and were inspired by these courageous pioneers of aviation. Some, however, never actually visited the site. Instead, they chose to abuse the system and cheat. This goes against my ethics as well as the standards of Geocaching, and I will not be a party to it.

 

For those of you who came to The Portal with respect and admiration: thank you.

 

For those morally corrupt people who choose to lie and cheat: I suggest you find some other site on the internet to do your dirty deeds. Geocaching is a wholesome, family-friendly activity and those of us who get that do not want to associate with those of you who don't.

False logs did not result in archiving of cache. Cache owner deciding to archive rather than delete false logs. Following policy and deleting false logs and leaving the cache in place would result in the cache being active.

 

It was not false logs, it was not GeoCache policy, it was the cache owner's imposition of his set of values that resulted in his decision to archive the cache rather than meet his obligation to maintain the cache per policy.

Geocaching policy does not allow false logs. The cache owner was upset with cachers who "never actually visited the site. Instead, they chose to abuse the system and cheat. This goes against my ethics as well as the standards of Geocaching, and I will not be a party to it." Becasaue of these false loggers, they decided to shut down the cache. Placing the blame on the owner is being completely oblivious to the fact that they did it for a reason. Oblivious.

To me, you might as well argue that using a blue pen to sign a log leads to degradation of GeoCaching if one cache owner objects to blue ink and archives a cache because he cannot prevent the use of blue ink.

Good thing I use a green pen. Your analogy isn't analogous. It's broken.

These are very infantile arguments.

 

If I do not respond to any future statements from you please feel free to assume that I think they have already been thoroughly refuted in many previous posts.

This last statement feels to me like that little kid sticking his fingers in his ears and yelling

 

"LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!!"

For you folks that want to inflict your moralizing on everyone else because it is not enough for you to be miserable, you are upset that someone somewhere might be having fun,

 

I’d say that you have not been able to support your premise in any factual or effective way. You are just plowing the same fruitless ground over and over again.

Looks to me like you are ignoring a whole lot of posts.

If you come up with something new and interesting I may respond.

Does that mean you are done?

 

Promise?

Mean time you can suffer knowing that I am out there having fun, finding caches, and looking for caches and sometimes coming up empty. False logs, if there be any, cannot degrade me. I do not think false logs are getting ridiculous.

 

You cannot convince me that I am degraded, so give up trying.

 

And suffer – I am having fun. You can’t stop me.

Good! Have fun. I truly mean that. If you're ever in NH, look me up. We'll have fun, finding caches, and looking for caches and sometimes coming up empty.

[+Mudfrog]

I would say you missed the cache owner's message as to why the cache was deactivated.

 

Root cause: Cache owner decided he did not want to maintain the cache and logs per the policy.

 

I think I'll go with the cache owner's stated reason for archiving the cache, rather than your guess.

 

Regrettably, this cache is now archived and I will not reactivate it. You can blame liars and cheaters for the fact that you will no longer be allowed to log this virtual cache.

 

Some, however, never actually visited the site. Instead, they chose to abuse the system and cheat. This goes against my ethics as well as the standards of Geocaching, and I will not be a party to it.

 

Contumacious refusal to see facts.

 

Cache owner decided to archive cache. Cache owner said he refused to follow the policy. I did not guess, the cache owner stated it in the archive message.

 

False logs did not result in archiving of cache. Cache owner deciding to archive rather than delete false logs. Following policy and deleting false logs and leaving the cache in place would result in the cache being active.

 

It was not false logs, it was not GeoCache policy, it was the cache owner's imposition of his set of values that resulted in his decision to archive the cache rather than meet his obligation to maintain the cache per policy.

 

To me, you might as well argue that using a blue pen to sign a log leads to degradation of GeoCaching if one cache owner objects to blue ink and archives a cache because he cannot prevent the use of blue ink.

 

These are very infantile arguments.

 

If I do not respond to any future statements from you please feel free to assume that I think they have already been thoroughly refuted in many previous posts.

You're actually saying that it's the cache owner's fault that he had to archive his cache? That he imposed his "set of values", meaning that others should be truthful, do the right thing, and only log his cache if they actually visited the site. Utterly amazing!

[+sbell111]

Too bad that is not true because some virts are getting archived because some owners are getting fed up....

First I have to say that I found this cache and am sorry it was archived because it is really a cool place. I think I will submit it as a Best Kept Secret waymark.

 

That said, when I found it I already knew the answer to the question because it was easy to find on the internet. A list of all the pioneers of aviation interred at the Portal of Folded Wings is easy to find. Still the cache owner did try to stop armchair logs. First he added a request : DO NOT POST YOUR LOG ENTRY UNTIL YOU HAVE RECEIVED MY PERMISSION. FAILURE TO FOLLOW THIS POLICY WILL RESULT IN YOUR LOG ENTRY BEING DELETED. Eventually he even removed the certificate of achievement. I think he was on the right track and had he deleted the logs he felt were bogus, the armchair logging would've have stopped. There were also plenty of options for a verification question that couldn't be answered with a internet search. For example - Send me the name of the person whose marker is directly to the right of Walter R. Brookins the first civilian student and instructor for the Wright brothers. But the cache owner reacted slowly to the fact that his cache was being use for armchair logging, letting armchair loggers think that it was acceptable. He eventually decided not to maintain his cache anymore. - just like the cacher who gets tired of replacing a physical cache that keeps getting muggled. If you are not going to maintain your cache then it is better to archive it.

Thanks for the post. You worded it much better than I would have.

 

I certainly agree that the cache owner opened himself up for false logs by having such an easily googleable answer. This led to many false logs that ended up peaving him.

 

I think that it's also important to note that the cache in question was archived a year ago. That shows that these bogus logs aren't a new thing. Therefore, I fail to see how they are degrading the game.

If anyone owns caches and is worried about the potential of fake logs, add a code in every cache to be emailed to you to validate every find. Still ways around it but that's the best you'll do...

 

What's the problem?

If these people lie about logging them you don't think they would find out what the code is? They can Photoshop themselves in photos too. ...

That is certainly true. In fact, right around the time that you started playing the game, there was a kerfluffle in the forums because a well known cacher ginned up verification pictures and falsely logged lots of virts. Surprisingly, this didn't bring the game to it's knees. Edited February 6, 2008 by sbell111

[+ecanderson]

The only thing left to complain about is the numbers game - you are upset because you cannot increment your find count by one lousy number.

About says all there needs to be said, if you ask me... You'd think some of these folks were competing to be first to get their orienteering merit badge. Actually, that'd be a more worthy venture (batteries not included).

[+Renegade Knight]

The only thing left to complain about is the numbers game - you are upset because you cannot increment your find count by one lousy number.

About says all there needs to be said, if you ask me... You'd think some of these folks were competing to be first to get their orienteering merit badge. Actually, that'd be a more worthy venture (batteries not included).

So what was the point you were agreeing with?

[knowschad]

The only thing left to complain about is the numbers game - you are upset because you cannot increment your find count by one lousy number.

About says all there needs to be said, if you ask me... You'd think some of these folks were competing to be first to get their orienteering merit badge. Actually, that'd be a more worthy venture (batteries not included).

 

It seems obvious to me that if anyone is concerned about "the numbers game" ruining their caching experience, that its only because they are paying attention to "the numbers game". Ignore it and it goes away like magic.

[Mushtang]

You're actually saying that it's the cache owner's fault that he had to archive his cache?

It was certainly his decision. Nobody else archived it.

 

That he imposed his "set of values", meaning that others should be truthful, do the right thing, and only log his cache if they actually visited the site.

I think we all should do that, and we should all delete logs we know to be fake.

 

Utterly amazing!

The most amazing part, to me, is that people somehow think the archival was an action taken by the fake loggers, and not an action taken by the owner based on his decision to no longer maintain the cache.

 

[+Renegade Knight]

You cannot convince me that I am degraded, so give up trying.

 

Who's been trying? Read the title of the thread!

 

He's been like a stuck record on that point regardless of what any other post says. It's DEGRADING just having to listen to it!

[+sbell111]

You cannot convince me that I am degraded, so give up trying.

Who's been trying? Read the title of the thread!

He's been like a stuck record on that point regardless of what any other post says. It's DEGRADING just having to listen to it!

While I think that some posters continued personal insults have been grating and likely had the intention to degrade other cachers, I don't think that the game has been degraded. Edited February 6, 2008 by sbell111

[+Renegade Knight]

You're actually saying that it's the cache owner's fault that he had to archive his cache?

It was certainly his decision. Nobody else archived it. ...

 

When something stops being fun through the actions of others, I really can't see how it's a good thing.

If every time you sit down to have a drink someone spikes it with salt, anre you going to blame yourself when you quit hanging with those people? No. You will adapt and either make it worth their while to never spike your drink again, or find new friends. Either way you had to deal with the annoyance and solve a problem brought on by others.

 

You know this. Your just having too much fun with this debate.

[+ecanderson]

The only thing left to complain about is the numbers game - you are upset because you cannot increment your find count by one lousy number.

About says all there needs to be said, if you ask me... You'd think some of these folks were competing to be first to get their orienteering merit badge. Actually, that'd be a more worthy venture (batteries not included).

 

It seems obvious to me that if anyone is concerned about "the numbers game" ruining their caching experience, that its only because they are paying attention to "the numbers game". Ignore it and it goes away like magic.

Unfortunately, it can't be ignored, because the "numbers game" is what is driving the sort of bad logs under discussion. There are real downsides to bogus finds -- the online logs don't necessarily tell an accurate story of the current cache site situation. That can be a real bother both for the rest of us and the cache owner. If it weren't for that one result, many of us would be able to ignore it entirely. All of us -- cachers and cache owners alike -- depend upon the logs being as accurate as possible within the realm of human error. It's foundational to the process.

 

Do away with the public display of totals, and you will also do away with most of the bogus log problems to which this entire thread is directed. All the "invention" of a find serves is to boost someone's numbers, unless they just want to screw with people by inconveniencing them.

 

If you want to make these problems go away, recommend to the site owner that the design not display total counts. The resulting clean-up of attitudes would likely do a world of good here anyway.

Edited February 6, 2008 by ecanderson

[Mushtang]

You're actually saying that it's the cache owner's fault that he had to archive his cache?

It was certainly his decision. Nobody else archived it. ...

 

When something stops being fun through the actions of others, I really can't see how it's a good thing.

I agree, and I never said it was good. In fact, I said just the opposite on several occasions.

 

If every time you sit down to have a drink someone spikes it with salt, anre you going to blame yourself when you quit hanging with those people?

I'm not sure I'd blame them for anything other than spiking my drink with salt. If I couldn't make them stop and decided to leave, that would be my decision to leave, wouldn't it? I could decide to just stop drinking. I could decide to try and take the salt away from them. I could decide to talk them out of putting salt in my drink. I could decide to put my drink in a container that they couldn't spike. I could decide to react in a number of ways, and leaving would only be one choice. But the choice would be mine, not theirs.

 

No. You will adapt and either make it worth their while to never spike your drink again, or find new friends. Either way you had to deal with the annoyance and solve a problem brought on by others.

Correct. I'd solve the problem by one of the ways mentioned above, or I'd leave. They would be the ones salting the drink, and I'd be the one leaving. If you said that those people moved me away, you'd be wrong. I'm the one that decided I should move.

 

I don't doubt that the fake logs are the reason the owner decided to no longer maintain the cache. Deleting logs doesn't seem that difficult to me, but I'm sure that's what he decided for his own reasons. Once he decided he'd no longer be willing to maintain the cache he could have either just stopped logging on to it and let the fake logs pile up, or he could have archived it. In this case, he made a decision to archive it. The fake loggers didn't push the archive button, they didn't suggest he archive it, they didn't do anything that resulted in a reviewer archiving it, etc.

 

You know this.

I know this... position of yours is wrong.

 

Your just having too much fun with this debate.

That's true. With one exception I think everyone in this thread has been entertaining to talk to. That exception seems to be gone now, so this thread is definitely fun.

 

If it weren't fun, I'd stop posting.

 

Are you having fun?

[+Renegade Knight]

...Do away with the public display of totals, and you will also do away with most of the bogus log problems to which this entire thread is directed....If you want to make these problems go away, recommend to the site owner that the design not display total counts. The resulting clean-up of attitudes would likely do a world of good here anyway.

 

The real reason for bogus logs is not numbers by themselves. It's what the numbers buy the person doing the fake logging. While you can remove the numbers and suck a lot of legitimate fun from the game, you also create a different problem with respect to the liars. Those who seek to gain status through the fake logs, now merely need to show up and lie about their finds in person, or carefully picking the cache to log on so their log gets noticed. Same issue creating the problem, new form of expression.

 

The question becomes is the fun you remove from getting rid of finds worth the now non bogus logs? You actually backed into one of the points made by the folks who say "so freaking what if there are some bogus logs?" If the answer to the question is "the bogus logs are tolerable because of the larger fun had by more people" you just made their case and in all honesty made it well. You should still delete the bogus stuff if you find it.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Are you having fun?

It was a close call yesterday, but things are back on track now.

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

Are you having fun?

For the most part I've had fun. Many of the posts helped to me refine and even slightly modify my opinion.

 

Not sure that much more can be added to this thread, but then again I thought the same thing at around post #200.

 

Goodnight.

[+Too Tall John]

No. You will adapt and either make it worth their while to never spike your drink again, or find new friends. Either way you had to deal with the annoyance and solve a problem brought on by others.

Correct. I'd solve the problem by one of the ways mentioned above, or I'd leave. They would be the ones salting the drink, and I'd be the one leaving. If you said that those people moved me away, you'd be wrong. I'm the one that decided I should move.

As you walked out of the bar, if someone were to ask you why you were leaving, what would you say? If you were compelled to answer them honestly, I'm sure the subject of salted drinks would come up quickly. Yes, you made the decision to leave, but you made it because they salted your drinks.

 

It's really basic cause and effect stuff here.

[+Too Tall John]

Are you having fun?

I had my fun this morning when I got FTF on 2 caches and placed another in a snowstorm.

[+Renegade Knight]

Are you having fun?

For the most part I've had fun. Many of the posts helped to me refine and even slightly modify my opinion....

 

A thread well done. Kudos.

[+ecanderson]

...Do away with the public display of totals, and you will also do away with most of the bogus log problems to which this entire thread is directed....If you want to make these problems go away, recommend to the site owner that the design not display total counts. The resulting clean-up of attitudes would likely do a world of good here anyway.

 

The real reason for bogus logs is not numbers by themselves. It's what the numbers buy the person doing the fake logging.

One would have thought that to be obvious.

 

While you can remove the numbers and suck a lot of legitimate fun from the game, you also create a different problem with respect to the liars. Those who seek to gain status through the fake logs, now merely need to show up and lie about their finds in person, or carefully picking the cache to log on so their log gets noticed. Same issue creating the problem, new form of expression.

As noted in a prior post, at least the fish stories would likely be a good deal more entertaining than watching a counter increment. A good liar would have to entertain us, at a minimum. Meanwhile, the integrity of the logs would be improved, thus improving the situation for the rest of us. Seems like a fine idea all the way 'round.

 

The question becomes is the fun you remove from getting rid of finds worth the now non bogus logs? You actually backed into one of the points made by the folks who say "so freaking what if there are some bogus logs?"

There's a logical jump there somewhere that I'm at a loss to follow. It seems that it's the "purists" who are most up in arms about all of this. As "purists", they shouldn't have as much emotional investment in the numbers game to begin with, right? One wonders.

 

If the answer to the question is "the bogus logs are tolerable because of the larger fun had by more people" you just made their case and in all honesty made it well. You should still delete the bogus stuff if you find it.

Again, the leap of logic escapes me. The justification for the simplification of what has become in some cases an excessively competitive game (that, so far as I can tell, wasn't meant to be competitive in the first place) in order to improve the quality of play... That's a far cry from suggesting that bogus logs are tolerable. Bogus logs aren't tolerable for the reasons I've already outlined.

 

I've probably been around this online business far longer then 99% of the folks here. During the years of 300 baud (acoustic) dialup, it fell upon me to make and enforce some rules for a network that predates public use of "the internet". After listening to all of the kvetching by members and users over the course of several months, it became possible to distill what needed to be said into 4 simple rules:

 

1) You don't screw with someone else's equipment (e.g., mailbombs, hacking, etc.)

2) You don't impersonate other members

3) You don't do things that cost another member unnecessary time or expense

4) You don't use the medium for any purpose deemed illegal under local laws

 

Beyond that, it was "get a thicker skin and get over it". Period. (something a few here could learn)

 

Sadly, bogus online log entries violate #3. For that reason, and that reason alone, I object to them. Were it not for that, I wouldn't even have an interest in participating in this thread.

[Mushtang]

3) You don't do things that cost another member unnecessary time or expense

 

Sadly, bogus online log entries violate #3. For that reason, and that reason alone, I object to them. Were it not for that, I wouldn't even have an interest in participating in this thread.

I totally agree, and think that the fake loggers are doing something they shouldn't. Unfortunately there's no way to stop fake logs from happening. If some folks that were fake logging were banned, others would probably still do it. People shouldn't leave trash in caches either, or take an item without leaving one, or leave a zip lock bag open after signing the log book, etc. I don't think TPTB want to go around banning people for not playing nice.

 

So since cache maintenance is inevitable, a cache owner should decide what to do about it. The way I see it, he has three choices:

 

1) Delete all logs that he knows to be fake. This is easier to do on virtuals since they often require an email, and the required information should not be available on the internet. If it becomes available, change the requirement. In a physical cache the only way to verify would be to audit the log book. The higher the terrain rating a cache has makes this more difficult to do. The owner might not have to do this very long anyway, once the fake loggers identify the cache as one that doesn't allow the fake logs to stay, they'll likely move on. They might get the hint sooner if a warning it placed on the description. For this reason, I would first choose this option. However, if this option of maintaining the cache is more than the owner wants to deal with, he may choose to...

 

2) Not care about fake logs and let them stand. I've seen no evidence that this actually harms the game in any way, so I don't see it leading to any degradation of geocaching. However, in the past some caches, primarily virtuals, that have been known to allow fake logs have been archived by TPTB. I don't know if they give the owner a heads up first, and allow him to decide if he wants to start maintaining his cache again or not before they pull the plug. But either way, if he chooses not to maintain the cache he's violating the agreement he made when he checked the boxes during submittal. So if the owner chooses not to violate the agreement, or risk upsetting his forum peers, he may decide to...

 

3) Archive the cache. This will also solve the "problem" of the fake logs, but it also removes a cache from the system. If this is the route the owner chooses to take, it's still his choice, and he gets to post comments on his cache page that the mean old fake loggers are the ones that archived the cache, and we can all thank them. It's like saying the rain archived a cache which had a leaky lid after the owner decided not to fix the container or move it to a dry spot under an overhang, and we can all thank the rain.

 

Fake loggers are not causing the degradation of geocaching. If anything is, I'd say it's lazy cache owners that don't stick to their maintenance agreements they made. But I'd wouldn't even say that they're causing a degradation of geocaching either, as I don't see any degradation at all.

[+sbell111]

... As noted in a prior post, at least the fish stories would likely be a good deal more entertaining than watching a counter increment. ...

This is where your argument bogs down for me.

 

Half a dozen years ago, I stopped caring about the numbers. In most instances, I could care less how many caches you own or have found. I only really look up other people's numbers if they DNF a cache I own or if they make a comment in the forums that would need to be supported by their finds (Such as the cacher who during a recent micro rant stated that he hates them and never looks for them. A quick look at his history showed that he owned a number of them and very recently found several. He was trolling.)

 

For several years, I didn't really even care about my totals. If some one asked me how many finds I had, I'd typically answer 'I dunno' or give some extremely rough estimate. (I recently started to focus on my own numbers a bit more because for health reasons I'm trying to push myself to be more active, once again.)

 

Anyway, if a person is 'a purist' and isn't a 'number's cacher', why would he or she be paying attention to the 'counter increment' of other players?

3) You don't do things that cost another member unnecessary time or expense

 

Sadly, bogus online log entries violate #3. For that reason, and that reason alone, I object to them. Were it not for that, I wouldn't even have an interest in participating in this thread.

I totally agree, and think that the fake loggers are doing something they shouldn't. Unfortunately there's no way to stop fake logs from happening. If some folks that were fake logging were banned, others would probably still do it. People shouldn't leave trash in caches either, or take an item without leaving one, or leave a zip lock bag open after signing the log book, etc. I don't think TPTB want to go around banning people for not playing nice.

 

So since cache maintenance is inevitable, a cache owner should decide what to do about it. The way I see it, he has three choices:

 

1) Delete all logs that he knows to be fake. This is easier to do on virtuals since they often require an email, and the required information should not be available on the internet. If it becomes available, change the requirement. In a physical cache the only way to verify would be to audit the log book. The higher the terrain rating a cache has makes this more difficult to do. The owner might not have to do this very long anyway, once the fake loggers identify the cache as one that doesn't allow the fake logs to stay, they'll likely move on. They might get the hint sooner if a warning it placed on the description. For this reason, I would first choose this option. However, if this option of maintaining the cache is more than the owner wants to deal with, he may choose to...

 

2) Not care about fake logs and let them stand. I've seen no evidence that this actually harms the game in any way, so I don't see it leading to any degradation of geocaching. However, in the past some caches, primarily virtuals, that have been known to allow fake logs have been archived by TPTB. I don't know if they give the owner a heads up first, and allow him to decide if he wants to start maintaining his cache again or not before they pull the plug. But either way, if he chooses not to maintain the cache he's violating the agreement he made when he checked the boxes during submittal. So if the owner chooses not to violate the agreement, or risk upsetting his forum peers, he may decide to...

 

3) Archive the cache. This will also solve the "problem" of the fake logs, but it also removes a cache from the system. If this is the route the owner chooses to take, it's still his choice, and he gets to post comments on his cache page that the mean old fake loggers are the ones that archived the cache, and we can all thank them. It's like saying the rain archived a cache which had a leaky lid after the owner decided not to fix the container or move it to a dry spot under an overhang, and we can all thank the rain.

 

Fake loggers are not causing the degradation of geocaching. If anything is, I'd say it's lazy cache owners that don't stick to their maintenance agreements they made. But I'd wouldn't even say that they're causing a degradation of geocaching either, as I don't see any degradation at all.

Nice post.

 

Any cacher should be able to realize that different types of caches will have different maintenance requirements. Urban caches get muggled. Micros need log changes. Tough hides will require more visits to verify that they are still there. Hiking caches will require tha occasional hike to freshen them up.

 

Virtuals are especially susceptible to fake logs, so they should have been designed to either require a non-googleable answer ora verification picture. Otherwise, the owner will likely spend more time than he wants digging through the logs to identify bogus ones, which in many cases will just be a guess (How do you know I wasn't in your area and visited your virt?).

 

False logs are wrong. However, if a geocacher is not willing to maintain his caches, he shouldn't own caches.

[Mushtang]

I just thought of another option. The owner could have put the cache up for adoption and then someone who WAS willing to do the maintenance on the cache would deal with it properly, and the game wouldn't lose a cache. I'm sure there's a LONG list of people willing to adopt a virtual since they're becoming more rare.

 

It seems sort of selfish to remove a virtual cache just because you're no longer willing to maintain it.

 

So with a cache still in existence, fake logs being deleted, fake loggers being discouraged, maybe some would no longer think that there is a degradation of geocaching?

 

Edit: to add the word "virtual" in the second paragraph

Edited February 6, 2008 by Mushtang

[+infiniteMPG]

That solution comes up every now and then. Code word caches by themselves are not allowed. You can do them as an additional logging requirement as long as you also include a cache log. Thats my understanding.

Not changing the "regular" cache in any way, just an additional logging step for the seeker. And gives the owner a quick and easy way to monitor finds. No email with the code/hint/word, delete the log. Can't get much simpler then that....

[+cache_test_dummies]

That solution comes up every now and then. Code word caches by themselves are not allowed. You can do them as an additional logging requirement as long as you also include a cache log. Thats my understanding.

Not changing the "regular" cache in any way, just an additional logging step for the seeker. And gives the owner a quick and easy way to monitor finds. No email with the code/hint/word, delete the log. Can't get much simpler then that....

Except that according to the current listing guidelines, a cache with a code word requirement should be listed as a mystery, not a traditional.

 

From the guidelines:

 

Caches with mandatory requirements in addition to signing the logbook should be listed as mystery caches. Examples include sending the cache owner a verification codeword found inside the logbook, performing some task at the cache location and taking a photograph, or writing the online log in a format or with content that satisfies the cache requirements. The mystery cache designation assists finders in identifying that something extra is required in order to log a find.

[Mushtang]

That solution comes up every now and then. Code word caches by themselves are not allowed. You can do them as an additional logging requirement as long as you also include a cache log. Thats my understanding.

Not changing the "regular" cache in any way, just an additional logging step for the seeker. And gives the owner a quick and easy way to monitor finds. No email with the code/hint/word, delete the log. Can't get much simpler then that....

If a cache becomes a problem with fake loggers, I think this is one of the things an owner could do to discourage them, and then maybe later relax the requirement and see if the fake loggers are gone.

 

I wouldn't want to see this become a standard on all caches though. It would be too much for a person that owns enough caches that generate a few dozen finds a day, and the folks that own hundreds of caches would spend all day looking up verification codes and replying to emails. The mistakes that owners would make denying a Find even with the correct code because of a lookup error would soon become a bigger problem than the fake loggers.

 

But as a tool that an owner can apply when maintenance is needed... I like it.

[+infiniteMPG]

If these people lie about logging them you don't think they would find out what the code is? They can Photoshop themselves in photos too. The bottom line is that they will find a way...

Anyone that puts anything in place to try to keep people in line will sooner or later be compromised. Same people that make radar guns for the police make the radar detectors for the public. If people are strong in their position to prevent false logs as much as possible then the code in the cache would be a quick fix. Not perfect, but easy to do.

 

No matter how much dishonesty there is, some will say that you should enjoy it and keep maintaining your cache. They also say that if it stops being fun then archive it. However, if it stops being fun because of this, then doesn't that mean that geocaching has been degraded for that person? This is the part that I can empathasize with that they can't....

Agreed! I wouldn't even do the code thing myself because I don't see it as a big problem. I don't condone it, but I'm not going to waste my time investigating it. I do have one 5/5 with a code thing as I really want to confirm someone found it.

 

Another trick you could do is to have people write the TIME they found the cache in the log book. Then they have to email you the TIME when the LAST finder found it as well as their time. That way you'd always have a check of the find AND no one could cheat past it as the text they need to email would change after every find

[Mushtang]

Another trick you could do is to have people write the TIME they found the cache in the log book. Then they have to email you the TIME when the LAST finder found it as well as their time. That way you'd always have a check of the find AND no one could cheat past it as the text they need to email would change after every find

Ooh, this one is good too. But on a virtual (which seem to be the ones targeted most by fakers) this wouldn't work.

 

And CTD is right, adding a code to a regular would be an ALR (additional logging requirement) which would make it a different cache type. And since you can't change the cache type in mid game the code word solution might not work as a temporary solution.

[+infiniteMPG]

Romney, made that comment that if Hillary gets in office, he can only imagine what Bill will be doing with all that free time in the White House.....

I thought this thread was about the degredation of geocaching and not the degredation of America....

[+sbell111]

Good grief.

 

'Armchair' logging is wrong.

 

To combat this, a cache owner should do one of two things:

• For a 'traditional' cache, check the log book if you become suspicious. Delete any online logs that don't coincide with a signature (or hasn't in any other way met the definition of 'find' that you require.
  
• For virtuals, either require a photograph or a non-googleable verification question. Delete find logs that don't meet your verification requirement.
  

That's all that is needed. If cache owners delete bogus logs, armchair loggers will cease to find it fun and the instances of armchair logging will decrease. Geocaching will then be undegraded retrograded graded.

[+sbell111]

Romney, made that comment that if Hillary gets in office, he can only imagine what Bill will be doing with all that free time in the White House.....

I thought this thread was about the degredation of geocaching and not the degredation of America....

I don't think that he can respond.

 

(BTW, I think the answer to Romney's snarky, petty question is 'the same thing that he's been doing for 7 years'.)

Edited February 6, 2008 by sbell111

[+Batona]

It seems sort of selfish to remove a cache just because you're no longer willing to maintain it.

Interesting.

 

I note the following are caches you have archived:

• Gwinnett Co Fairgrounds Micro
  
• The Kobayashi Maru
  
• The Orca
  
• 30044
  

You were selfish archiving these instead of putting them up for adoption? Some of the reasons you list for archiving these are:

• "Since this one is gone I'll archive it instead of replacing it."
  
• "a few things have happened since we placed them that has made it difficult for us to responsibly maintain them."
  
• "1) The final container is gone
  2) I no longer live close enough to maintain it easily
  3) The final stage was a horrible cache anyway, but it was my first and I was learning, so I'm not willing to keep it alive.
  4) Maybe someone else will place a cache at, or near, the same starting place as this one and give locals something else to hunt."
  

[+infiniteMPG]

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 have some all day hikes or all day paddles to get to some of my hides and I'll gladly accept volunteers to personally regularly visit my hides and validate the signatures... if we owners were required to presonally visit all our hides on a regular basis to validate signatures then you'll see the 5/5's disappear and the 1/1's pop up everywhere. Dang, this is a friggin' hobby last time I checked.

hob·by n., pl. hob·bies. An activity or interest pursued outside one's regular occupation and engaged in primarily for pleasure.

 

If anyone gets "pleasure" in hunting down false logs and deleting them then go for it! Personally I don't condone them but I don't get any pleasure hunting them down....

[+Kit Fox]

I just thought of another option. The owner could have put the cache up for adoption and then someone who WAS willing to do the maintenance on the cache would deal with it properly, and the game wouldn't lose a cache. I'm sure there's a LONG list of people willing to adopt a virtual since they're becoming more rare.

 

It seems sort of selfish to remove a cache just because you're no longer willing to maintain it.

 

So with a cache still in existence, fake logs being deleted, fake loggers being discouraged, maybe some would no longer think that there is a degradation of geocaching?

 

Apparently the fake logging was bad enough that the Virtual had to be locked. This only occurs in rare cases (remember the Yellow Jeep Locationless).

 

 

I did a search of prior threads regarding cheating:

 

'Finder' Not Meeting Earthcache Requirements

 

Another faker busted

 

Cheaters !! Black List, Is there a way to fight against cheaters

 

Cheating (what is cheating?)

 

Logging virtuals without visiting

 

I'm still trying to find the thread where a reviewer was caught "Photoshopping" his arm and GPS into pictures to log locationless caches. Anyone remember that thread?

[+sbell111]

It seems sort of selfish to remove a cache just because you're no longer willing to maintain it.

Interesting.

 

I note the following are caches you have archived:

• Gwinnett Co Fairgrounds Micro
  
• The Kobayashi Maru
  
• The Orca
  
• 30044
  

You were selfish archiving these instead of putting them up for adoption? Some of the reasons you list for archiving these are:

• "Since this one is gone I'll archive it instead of replacing it."
  
• "a few things have happened since we placed them that has made it difficult for us to responsibly maintain them."
  
• "1) The final container is gone
  2) I no longer live close enough to maintain it easily
  3) The final stage was a horrible cache anyway, but it was my first and I was learning, so I'm not willing to keep it alive.
  4) Maybe someone else will place a cache at, or near, the same starting place as this one and give locals something else to hunt."
  

All completely valid reasons to archive a cache. I've archived one because it went missing and the area was substantially changed and 27 because I didn't feel that I could continue to give them the maintenance that they deserved.

 

That being said, none of them were 'historical' or of a type that is no longer listed.

[+sbell111]

I just thought of another option. The owner could have put the cache up for adoption and then someone who WAS willing to do the maintenance on the cache would deal with it properly, and the game wouldn't lose a cache. I'm sure there's a LONG list of people willing to adopt a virtual since they're becoming more rare.

 

It seems sort of selfish to remove a cache just because you're no longer willing to maintain it.

 

So with a cache still in existence, fake logs being deleted, fake loggers being discouraged, maybe some would no longer think that there is a degradation of geocaching?

 

Apparently the fake logging was bad enough that the Virtual had to be locked. This only occurs in rare cases (remember the Yellow Jeep Locationless).

 

 

I did a search of prior threads regarding cheating:

 

'Finder' Not Meeting Earthcache Requirements

 

Another faker busted

 

Cheaters !! Black List, Is there a way to fight against cheaters

 

Cheating (what is cheating?)

 

Logging virtuals without visiting

 

I'm still trying to find the thread where a reviewer was caught "Photoshopping" his arm and GPS into pictures to log locationless caches. Anyone remember that thread?

I remember it and referenced it in an earlier post.

 

I'll try to find the thread...

[Mushtang]

It seems sort of selfish to remove a cache just because you're no longer willing to maintain it.

Interesting.

 

I note the following are caches you have archived:

• Gwinnett Co Fairgrounds Micro
  
• The Kobayashi Maru
  
• The Orca
  
• 30044
  

You were selfish archiving these instead of putting them up for adoption? Some of the reasons you list for archiving these are:

• "Since this one is gone I'll archive it instead of replacing it."
  
• "a few things have happened since we placed them that has made it difficult for us to responsibly maintain them."
  
• "1) The final container is gone
  2) I no longer live close enough to maintain it easily
  3) The final stage was a horrible cache anyway, but it was my first and I was learning, so I'm not willing to keep it alive.
  4) Maybe someone else will place a cache at, or near, the same starting place as this one and give locals something else to hunt."
  

Touche! You got me there. You quoted ONE line out of a post where I was lamenting on the rarity of virtual caches. I did leave out the word virtual in the line you quoted, and I agree that it changed the meaning completely. My bad.

 

The line should have said, "It seems sort of selfish to remove a virtual cache just because you're no longer willing to maintain it.", but it didn't. Oops. Again, the rarity of virtuals is the reason I was attempting to make that statement. I would have said the same thing about a Project APE cache, a Web Cam Cache, etc.

 

And to be clear, I actually don't consider it selfish to remove any cache that is freely available for hiders.

 

I'll go back and edit my post to avoid further confusion.

[+sbell111]

I found this post from BasoonPilot way back when. It's funny how threads come around as if they are brand new issues.

... There was a guy who didn't want to look for a cache and logged it as a find just for driving by. We deleted the log and told him to go find it or log a note or no-find. About two weeks later, he logged it as a find again, saying something about there being no problem finding it this time. Well, there was no entry in the log book. ... In conclusion, since there are no geopolice, it is up to the integrity of the finder to log what he or she deems to be worthy of a find. Unfortunately, their idea of worthy may not even come close to the standards set by us forum users. What can we do about it?

But there ARE "Geopolice." Each and every cache owner has the ability (and I would suggest responsibility) to "police" his/her caches, as you have done.

 

That's all it takes . . . you mention the log being a matter of integrity for the finder. I suggest that it's also a matter of integrity for the cache owner. Such matters must be handled politely, yet firmly. Just the sorts of things that have been frequently discussed in these forums . . . e-mail the questionable finder, and if necessary copy the questionable log and e-mail it back to the suspected offender before deleting it from the page.

 

I understand that this would cause some cache owners concern over the security of their caches; unfortunately, I don't have a solution for them. But I feel that if people knew from the start that they were being held (somewhat) accountable, and knew what constituted acceptable/unacceptable behavior, problems would be minimal.

Edited February 6, 2008 by sbell111

[+infiniteMPG]

When something stops being fun through the actions of others, I really can't see how it's a good thing.

It only stops being fun if you let what the others are doing affect you personally. Ever play recreational golf? If the guy in the cart besdide you knocks strokes off his game every hole are you going to wrap your driver around his head or quit playing? PUH-lease....

 

If every time you sit down to have a drink someone spikes it with salt, anre you going to blame yourself when you quit hanging with those people? No. You will adapt and either make it worth their while to never spike your drink again, or find new friends. Either way you had to deal with the annoyance and solve a problem brought on by others.

The example given is someone doing something DIRECTLY to YOU. The better example would be if your friend spikes his own drink with salt and complains about how bad it tastes. Would this change what you were doing?

[Mushtang]

Apparently the fake logging was bad enough that the Virtual had to be locked.

HAD to? What was it that forced the owner to archive it? I think it was his decision based on no longer wanting to maintain it, and not something that was forced on him.

 

This only occurs in rare cases (remember the Yellow Jeep Locationless).

I thought that one was archived because of a software issue. Once the total number of finds got over 1,000 or something the page wouldn't work right. Maybe I'm remembering it wrong. And then after it was archived the owner no longer maintained it as if it were listed, and the fake logging sprang up. TPTB locked it at this point since there was nobody maintaining it.

[+Kit Fox]

Apparently the fake logging was bad enough that the Virtual had to be locked.

HAD to? What was it that forced the owner to archive it? I think it was his decision based on no longer wanting to maintain it, and not something that was forced on him.

 

This only occurs in rare cases (remember the Yellow Jeep Locationless).

I thought that one was archived because of a software issue. Once the total number of finds got over 1,000 or something the page wouldn't work right. Maybe I'm remembering it wrong. And then after it was archived the owner no longer maintained it as if it were listed, and the fake logging sprang up. TPTB locked it at this point since there was nobody maintaining it.

 

Archiving a cache doesn't automatically lock it. Look at all the threads posted about logging long archived caches. If I remember correctly, cachers kept logging the yellow Jeep locationless after it was archived. Once it was locked, game over.

 

The same thing happened with a cache in the Himalayas. (possibly Everest?)

Edited February 6, 2008 by Kit Fox

[+infiniteMPG]

Except that according to the current listing guidelines, a cache with a code word requirement should be listed as a mystery, not a traditional.

Don't see that as an issue if someone truly wants to cut down on false logs on their caches. I won't be doing it, but it's kind of time people stop whining about the problem and do something about it if they think it's such a bad thing...

[Mushtang]

Apparently the fake logging was bad enough that the Virtual had to be locked.

HAD to? What was it that forced the owner to archive it? I think it was his decision based on no longer wanting to maintain it, and not something that was forced on him.

 

This only occurs in rare cases (remember the Yellow Jeep Locationless).

I thought that one was archived because of a software issue. Once the total number of finds got over 1,000 or something the page wouldn't work right. Maybe I'm remembering it wrong. And then after it was archived the owner no longer maintained it as if it were listed, and the fake logging sprang up. TPTB locked it at this point since there was nobody maintaining it.

 

Archiving a cache doesn't automatically lock it. Look at all the threads posted about logging long archived caches.

I agree, which is why I said, "And then after it was archived the owner no longer maintained it as if it were listed, and the fake logging sprang up."

 

If I remember correctly, cachers kept logging the yellow Jeep locationless after it was archived. Once it was locked, game over.

That's how I remember it too, which is why I said, "TPTB locked it at this point since there was nobody maintaining it."

[+infiniteMPG]

Ooh, this one is good too. But on a virtual (which seem to be the ones targeted most by fakers) this wouldn't work.

Then the owner of a virtual needs to look at it from a faker's point of view and try to make it tougher to get the info needed.

 

And CTD is right, adding a code to a regular would be an ALR (additional logging requirement) which would make it a different cache type. And since you can't change the cache type in mid game the code word solution might not work as a temporary solution.

True, true, but as with anything, if anyone feels strong enough in their conviction on something then they should be willing to incur the additional work to resolve the situation they believe in rather then just complaining about it.

[+tozainamboku]

Ooh, this one is good too. But on a virtual (which seem to be the ones targeted most by fakers) this wouldn't work.

 

Good grief.

 

'Armchair' logging is wrong.

 

Logging that you found a traditional cache because you were in the area and didn't actual search for is lying.

 

Armchair logging of virtuals is not lying. It is playing an alternative game using the game piece that someone either placed to allow this game or placed as a geocache never intending it to be used in the alternative game. In either case, I don't think the fact that it was used in the alternative game should degrade anyones enjoyment of the geocaching aspect. I will accept that if a cache owner does not want his virtual used in this alternative game he has the right to take steps to keep his cache from being used this way. He can delete armchair logs, he can use a verification method to make armchair logs more difficult, he can require that finders email him the answer instead of using a certificate of achievement, and it he wants he can archive the cache and ask that the page be locked so that armchair loggers (and everyone else) can no longer degrade the cache.

 

I place all my caches with the expectation that people will use their GPS as an integral part of finding them. I've just discovered that some people don't use a GPS. Instead they use Google maps and decrypt the hint and find the cache without using a GPS. To me this isn't geocaching. I guess I could post on my cache page that you must use a GPSr to find my cache. I think if I remove the hint it might make it harder to find my caches without a GPS. I already hide them in remote areas where there the Google maps are lowere resolution. Rather than feeling degraded, I think I will just accept that some people are playing an alternative game that doesn't fit my definition of geocaching.

[+sbell111]

I just thought of another option. The owner could have put the cache up for adoption and then someone who WAS willing to do the maintenance on the cache would deal with it properly, and the game wouldn't lose a cache. I'm sure there's a LONG list of people willing to adopt a virtual since they're becoming more rare.

 

It seems sort of selfish to remove a cache just because you're no longer willing to maintain it.

 

So with a cache still in existence, fake logs being deleted, fake loggers being discouraged, maybe some would no longer think that there is a degradation of geocaching?

 

Apparently the fake logging was bad enough that the Virtual had to be locked. This only occurs in rare cases (remember the Yellow Jeep Locationless).

 

 

I did a search of prior threads regarding cheating:

 

'Finder' Not Meeting Earthcache Requirements

 

Another faker busted

 

Cheaters !! Black List, Is there a way to fight against cheaters

 

Cheating (what is cheating?)

 

Logging virtuals without visiting

 

I'm still trying to find the thread where a reviewer was caught "Photoshopping" his arm and GPS into pictures to log locationless caches. Anyone remember that thread?

A search on 'MrGigabyte' turned it up.

[+infiniteMPG]

I place all my caches with the expectation that people will use their GPS as an integral part of finding them. I've just discovered that some people don't use a GPS. Instead they use Google maps and decrypt the hint and find the cache without using a GPS. To me this isn't geocaching.

Hmmm, bringing up another point. GPS is Global Positioning System and even though it is highly accepted that it means a GPSr, Global Positioning System Receiver, it could be interpretted to be any system that allows you to find a global position (not necessarily YOUR global position). Google Earth could be used to find a global position, as could reading the stars, looking at a compass, observing land features, or a simple map. It's not the traditional way of finding geocaches but if people use alternative methods to find geocaches and they have fun doing it, would you even know they did so (they found the cache, signed the log sheet, logged a visit) so what would it hurt?

 

I have had people who were not even geocaching, didn't have their GPSr with them, parked somewhere and a cache that was not covered or rehidden well was exposed and found. I wouldn't deny them the find just because they didn't have their GPS in their hand. And when we're in heavy tree cover, the GPS just gets us close and then it's up to geosenses to find the cache. So what's the difference if Google Earth got us close?

 

Geocaching should not be expected to be the same experience for everyone. But as long as it's fun then great!!!!

[+cache_test_dummies]

Ooh, this one is good too. But on a virtual (which seem to be the ones targeted most by fakers) this wouldn't work.

Then the owner of a virtual needs to look at it from a faker's point of view and try to make it tougher to get the info needed.

 

And CTD is right, adding a code to a regular would be an ALR (additional logging requirement) which would make it a different cache type. And since you can't change the cache type in mid game the code word solution might not work as a temporary solution.

True, true, but as with anything, if anyone feels strong enough in their conviction on something then they should be willing to incur the additional work to resolve the situation they believe in rather then just complaining about it.

Well, there's more to it than just additional work for the owner. Hopefully this hypothetical cache-owner-of-conviction would recognize that adding a code word requirement and changing the cache type from traditional to mystery would have an impact on the stats of all previous visitors to the cache (their traditional count would go down by 1, and their mystery count would go up by 1).

 

If this option was suddenly being pursued on a large scale by a number of cache owners in an effort to fend off a rampant epidemic of fake logs, I would likely view the uncontrollable changes to my personal caching history as a form of degradation.

[+infiniteMPG]

If this option was suddenly being pursued on a large scale by a number of cache owners in an effort to fend off a rampant epidemic of fake logs, I would likely view the uncontrollable changes to my personal caching history as a form of degradation.

It would definitely impact my choice of caches to seek. We sometimes do a run around a big preserve or park and then can't log finds for a day or two. A couple times we have had to really look at our downloaded tracks and cache descriptions to remember what was what. If I had to write down and track codes from every cache I'd be in a world of hurt, especially since my amazing (lack of) organizational skills would probably have me spending hours digging under my Jeep seats for that little scrap of paper I wrote them on

[+infiniteMPG]

And CTD is right, adding a code to a regular would be an ALR (additional logging requirement) which would make it a different cache type. And since you can't change the cache type in mid game the code word solution might not work as a temporary solution.

A first hand example of a problem with this is a 5 part multi I have with about a dozen mile hike to do it. To confirm they found the final they email the text on a hat in the final. The cacher with the FTF escorted another cacher thru the series (and others) on a nice Florida summer day (about a bazillion degrees). The new cacher was hurting from, to be politically correct I'll just say a hairline recession issue and no cover, so when they completed the final, he took the hat out as a trade item to wear. When they got back to the parking area, the FTF cacher realized what they had done so it was a pretty big chore to replace that later (and we didn't want to use the same hat for obvious reasons). But if confirmation codes disappear then you end up with a bunch of chaos, a bunch of ticked off cachers, and a big mess.

 

To apply this across the board would be rediculous as I don't see the fake logging issue being much more then an annoyance.