Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?

[Mushtang]

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).

Owners can't change the cache type themselves. The only way it can be done, once published, is for a reviewer to do it. They probably won't change it if there's been any finds posted.

 

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.

This is why we're not allowed to change our own, and why a reviewer probably won't either.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I also wonder why so many other people want to protect the rights of the false loggers.

Who is doing this?

 

I'm glad I got to read this before leaving work today... Gave me a good laugh!

 

Mushtang, it really depends on how you define "Is" doesn't it?

No, it depends on how you define "protect the rights of false loggers". If someone thinks this is what I've been trying to do, then I've obviously done a very bad job of stating my position.

 

Hasn't anyone read my posts where I've said that I'd delete any false logs on my caches if I knew it was false?

 

1) I don't think people should log caches as Found if they didn't find them.

2) I think owners have the responsibility to delete any logs they know to be fake.

 

(Surely points 1 and 2 don't sound like I'm protecting their "rights" do they?)

3) I don't think that if another owner doesn't delete a false log that it harms my game in any significant way.

4) I don't think false logs left on caches in general will cause a degradation of geocaching.

 

(These two points only speak to what affect the logs have on me and the game, not on if the logs should be allowed or not)

 

Those are the only points that I think I've made in this thread. Maybe that makes it more clear.

 

You're right...points 3 & 4 suggest you'd just turn a blind eye to the problem if it isn't in your court. This suggests that you don't care and so you condone such actions (allowing the false logs because you don't get affected). Well, the false logs OBVIOUSLY affect you since there's now one less cache to find. Maybe you SHOULD stand up and take notice of this!

[+HopsMaltYeast]

...I would go further and say that all of them have as the root cause of the problem - "Lack of Maintenance" or missing caches....

 

I know you would. But you are busying trying to prove the bogus logs were a good thing. Why don't you take the next step in your logic and request that this site issue random bogus logs and that if owners don't catch them their cache be archived for lack of maintaince? That is the case you are making. That the archived cache had a maintaince problem and the bogus logs were ok? Because if they were not ok then that would mean they are a problem.

 

Sir, you are completely baseless in the claim that that I am trying to prove or have ever even claimed that bogus logs are a good thing.

 

I challenge you to show that I ever said that bogus logs are in general or without restrictions a good thing.

 

Please note the plural - not that a single bogus log might have incidentally resulted in a good result.

 

(I did make the facetious joke that a false log might have led to to the archiving of an abandoned virtual cache - because that helped support the GC policy of archiving abandoned caches.)

 

Sir, I await your apology or evidence.

 

HMY

[+HopsMaltYeast]

Everything old is new again.

 

Bunches of these.

 

"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."

 

The owner of your example decided he'd rather not maintain the cache by deleting all the "greetings from Germany" logs, so he archived it. Lack of maintenance gets another one!

 

I'd say we've allowed degradation to the point where a cache owner can't even keep up with the false logs.

 

I tried to start an honest discussion of why Waymarking is not an acceptable replacement for those types.

 

We know why. Its about the smileys. Through Waymarking, you still get to use your GPS to find interesting places and some not so interesting places. Through Waymarking.com you can discover, learn, blah blah blah - all the things that were so "great" about virutals. Nothing has changed as far as that's concerned. What has changed is that you don't get a smiley for finding a waymark.

 

The day (if it ever happens) that GC.COM starts counting waymark finds as cache finds is the day that Waymarking.com becomes as popular as a shopping mall micro.

 

Its not about the learning, the hunt, the history, the discovery or the fun, its about the numbers. End of story.

[+sbell111]

I accept your apology.

[+HopsMaltYeast]

Everything old is new again - when it comes to virtual caches at least.

 

Unless they are asking for specific info to verify your visit, then I don't see a big deal about logging a find. With all the people who log visits to their own caches, or log finds on caches that have been missing for months, because they "know" they were in the right spot, I wouldn't lose any sleep over logging a virtual that you've visited before. If the cache owner doesn't like your log, he'll delete it.

There is one virt that I logged as a find because I had visited the site several dozen times before it became a virtual cache. The cache owner didn't ask for specific verification info, so I logged it as a find. I've since visited it 5 or 6, so I didn't have a qualm about logging the cache as a find.

 

It would seem silly to me to go there with my GPS, just so I can log the find.

 

<BR><BR>"Life is a daring adventure, or it is nothing" - Helen Keller

 

Added bold to brian's words from Sep. 2002.

Edited February 7, 2008 by HopsMaltYeast

[Mushtang]

I also wonder why so many other people want to protect the rights of the false loggers.

Who is doing this?

 

I'm glad I got to read this before leaving work today... Gave me a good laugh!

 

Mushtang, it really depends on how you define "Is" doesn't it?

No, it depends on how you define "protect the rights of false loggers". If someone thinks this is what I've been trying to do, then I've obviously done a very bad job of stating my position.

 

Hasn't anyone read my posts where I've said that I'd delete any false logs on my caches if I knew it was false?

 

1) I don't think people should log caches as Found if they didn't find them.

2) I think owners have the responsibility to delete any logs they know to be fake.

 

(Surely points 1 and 2 don't sound like I'm protecting their "rights" do they?)

3) I don't think that if another owner doesn't delete a false log that it harms my game in any significant way.

4) I don't think false logs left on caches in general will cause a degradation of geocaching.

 

(These two points only speak to what affect the logs have on me and the game, not on if the logs should be allowed or not)

 

Those are the only points that I think I've made in this thread. Maybe that makes it more clear.

 

You're right...points 3 & 4 suggest you'd just turn a blind eye to the problem if it isn't in your court. This suggests that you don't care and so you condone such actions (allowing the false logs because you don't get affected). Well, the false logs OBVIOUSLY affect you since there's now one less cache to find. Maybe you SHOULD stand up and take notice of this!

Points 3 & 4 only state that I don't believe harm or degradation will be a result of a false log. I'm starting to think that it's not me that is doing a bad job of stating my position, but it's people that reply to me that aren't reading my posts.

 

You say they OBVIOUSLY affect me since there's one less cache to find. How is there one less cache? I don't see how a false log causes a cache to disappear.

 

If you can explain how logging a fake find will cause the cache to disappear then I'd definitely stand up and take notice! I don't think the site should allow finders to archive caches simply by faking a find!!! I believe that archiving caches should be left up to the owners, and maybe the reviewers. Something tells me though, that you're mistaken, and finders actually DON'T have the ability to archive a cache with a fake log.

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

I don't see how a false log causes a cache to disappear.

 

"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."

[+HopsMaltYeast]

Everything old is new again - keep plowing the same old ground.

 

Y'all couldn't come up with anything new so I came up with something old that seems new.

 

I wish I would have known about the changes in virtual cache rules prior to this, but that's not my real issue.

 

The issue I have, I guess, is why the rules got changed.

 

The rules were changed some time in 2003, so this isn't a new thing.

 

One reason for the change was because people were marking every roadside marker, no matter how mundane, as well as fence posts, manhole covers, debris in the woods and even a rotting animal carcass and submitting them as virtuals. It basically was getting out of hand

 

Another and more important reaso was that when negotiating with land managers about allowing geocaches, they often pointed to virtuals as an acceptable alternative. This threatened the future of traditional geocaching in many areas. By taking virtuals off the table, negotations could center on getting real caches into these parks.

 

How many times was that used?

 

(edit - changed "could" to "couldn't")

Edited February 7, 2008 by HopsMaltYeast

[+sbell111]

I don't see how a false log causes a cache to disappear.

"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."

He can blame liars and cheeters for the archival, but really it was due to the cache being poorly designed which resulted in a heavy maintenance burden that he was unwilling to perform.

[+HopsMaltYeast]

Good question. The reason I am making the stink I am now is that I am hoping that the policy will be revisited before the new solution is presented to us as a fait accompli.

If we waited this long to address these kinds of issues we'd be screwed. But you don't know anything about the solution so it makes sense you can have some concerns about what you think the solution is. Actually, in all honestly, finding out what you think the solution could be would be a much more interesting topic than this one. I'd love to know.

 

So, the "no virts on vacation rule" was decided by me, unilaterally. My justifications are flawed inasmuch as I am flawed. I did not base the decision on statistical analysis, quantum mechanics or string theory. It was a gut feeling to stem the flood of virtuals - which by the way are not really geocaches. If a virtual is so important to show to others it made sense that a local would "own" and "maintain" that listing. Which, by the way, isn't really a geocache, which happens to be the basis of this activity.

 

So where does that leave us? Well, at the tip I suppose we're in disagreement, so tough. However, it can be assumed that we could take the 4+ years experience in creating the geocaching.com site and apply it to the new solution. Obviously it won't make everyone happy but it will certainly address this issue. And since you don't know what the solution is you'll just have to be patient and wait to see it, after the fact. fait accompli indeed.

[+HopsMaltYeast]

Everything old is new again - a virtual multi -

 

The GC.com view of multi's - exactly a good reason to archive the aviation virt - not because of the false logs, but because the original cache owner did not meet responsibilities, either in the conception or in the maintenance.

 

I didn't want to continue bogging down the virutal cache topic.

 

Here's the deal. I submitted a virtual, multi-stage cache. I set it up like a spy thriller....with the first stage requiring answers to questions. Once those questions were obtained, the cacher would e-mail me the answer, and I would send back a new chapter, with a new location requiring answers to another question. It was fairly clever. All "caches" were permanent, specific clues.

 

The concept was rejected due to not having a physical cache at the end.

 

Fine.

 

I offered to add a final stage with a physical cache/logbook.

 

This was shot down because the reviewer required an automated e-mail response to those who responded. I pointed out that was not doable, as there has to be a correct answer to get the next chapter.

 

Now, I understand that rules are rules...but under the guidelines for a virtual cache, there is nothing listed about automated responses. In fact, here are the guidelines:

 

1. A virtual cache must be a unique physical object that can be referenced through latitude and longitude coordinates. That object should be semi-permanent to permanent. If I post the cache today, someone else should be able to find it tomorrow and the next day.

 

A trail is a trail, a beach is a beach, a view is a view; but a trail, beach, or view is NOT a virtual cache. A cache has to be a specific distinct GPS target - not something large like a mountain top or a park, however special those locations are.

 

2. A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should “WOW” the prospective finder. Signs, memorials, tombstones, statues or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches. Unusual landmarks or items that would be in a coffee table book are good examples. If you don't know if it is appropriate, contact your local reviewer first, or post a question to the forums about your idea.

 

3. There should be one or more questions about an item at a location, something seen at that location, etc., that only the visitor to that physical location will be able to answer. The questions should be difficult enough that it cannot be answered through library or web research. The use of a "certificate of achievement" or similar item is not a substitute for the find verification requirement.

 

4. An original photo posted to the cache log can be an acceptable way to verify a find, or an email to the owner with valid answers for the question or questions. In NO cases should answers be posted in the logs, even if encrypted.

 

I feel my offer to include a physical cache at the end makes this cache meet all the guidelines. And, in fact, the reason it is being shot down now is due to the e-mail requirement....which is literally set out as allowed in rule 4.

 

I have been through the appropriate appeals process, and am now throwing this out for comments. Remember, the issue is not whether or not YOU would want to do this....the issue is should this be approved. Let me add that I did a lot of work researching, writing, and marking this. Also, all points are within my home town.

 

Also, I do appreciate the volunteers' time and efforts, and the reviewer has been nothing but cordial and helpful to me. I just think this deserved discussion, because I feel I have complied with all requirements and can see no reason this should not be approved.

 

Repeated for emphasis.

 

Virtual caches have been on the hit list to be removed since like 2002? Exactly for the the problems exampled in the aviation cache exploited by the German cachers (possibly due to languge problems, not because they are liars or cheats.)

[Mushtang]

I don't see how a false log causes a cache to disappear.

"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."

You're going to have to do better than that. You know as well as anyone else that the false log didn't archive the cache. The owner decided he didn't want to do maintenance on his cache that he agreed to do when he submitted the cache for review, and so he archived it himself.

 

He had other options.

 

Sorry, repeating the cache owners words of blaming other people for his lack of maintenance, stamina, patience, creativity, fortitude, and tolerance will not show that it was not his DECISION to archive the cache. The fake logs did NOT thrust the archival upon it.

[+HopsMaltYeast]

Everything old is new again.

 

At least two posters to the current thread posted opinions to this 2002 thread.

 

Who says y'all ain't plowing the same old ground again and again?

 

 

Greetings friends,

 

I found two virtual caches today without even leaving my computer.

 

Should we allow virtual caches that are so easy you can find the answers just by conducting a search at <A HREF="http://www.google.com?" TARGET=_blank>www.google.com?</A>

 

<BR><BR>I thought virtual caches had to be places that you actually had to go to, but that you could log a find by retrieving some information that could only be found at the location.

 

<BR><BR>Just asking,<BR><BR>- Peanuthead

 

WoW - false logs ain't so new, so maybe GeoCaching ain't going to hell in a hand basket in the recent years as the OP suggests?

 

(Chicken Little: well maybe I exaggerated a little about the sky is falling and that false logs are getting ridiculous.)

 

Forgive me if I do not cry along with your pity tears over the aviation virtual cache being archived because the owner did not have the gumption to place a real cache or the gumption to maintain a poorly planned virtual from folks that posters here have called morons. What does it say about the owner if he couldn't defeat morons?

 

The originators and some charter members of GC thought virtual caches were not supportive of the hobby, so one might argue that anything that helped eliminate a virtual cache actually elevated GeoCaching or at least eliminated something that had the potential to degrade it.

[Trinity's Crew]

I don't see how a false log causes a cache to disappear.

"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."

He can blame liars and cheeters for the archival, but really it was due to the cache being poorly designed which resulted in a heavy maintenance burden that he was unwilling to perform.

So those people who were logging this virtual without actually finding it bear NO responsibility THEIR actions? It's all the cache owners fault? Nice.

 

If people weren't abusing the cache it may still be active. Yes the owner could have done many things besides archiving it, but placing the blame for the archival totally on the owner seems ludicrous to me.

[+sbell111]

So those people who were logging this virtual without actually finding it bear NO responsibility THEIR actions? It's all the cache owners fault? Nice.

I never posted that, not in this thread or any other thread on this topic in the last half dozen years.

If people weren't abusing the cache it may still be active. Yes the owner could have done many things besides archiving it, but placing the blame for the archival totally on the owner seems ludicrous to me.

A while back, TrailGators posted an example of a cacher who archived his hiking caches because too many people liked low terrain caches. The cachers didn't archive the cache, the cache owner did. The cache owner had a number of options available to him, and chose archival as his solution.

Edited February 7, 2008 by sbell111

[+HopsMaltYeast]

I don't see how a false log causes a cache to disappear.

"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."

He can blame liars and cheeters for the archival, but really it was due to the cache being poorly designed which resulted in a heavy maintenance burden that he was unwilling to perform.

So those people who were logging this virtual without actually finding it bear NO responsibility THEIR actions? It's all the cache owners fault? Nice.

 

If people weren't abusing the cache it may still be active. Yes the owner could have done many things besides archiving it, but placing the blame for the archival totally on the owner seems ludicrous to me.

 

The people lying by logging a virtual cache bear 100% responsibility for their actions. (Unless the cache page instructions were unclear).

 

The cache owner bears 100% responsibility for his/her actions.

 

A cacher who thinks he is degraded because someone filed a false log bears 100% responsibility for her/his feelings.

 

It is simple.

 

I am still having fun finding clever caches - regardless of how many folks lie about finding caches.

 

It is all about the fun going to new places and attempting the challenge of a well place cache.

 

If someone lies about finding a cache it might degrade them. It does not degrade me or GeoCaching.

Edited February 7, 2008 by HopsMaltYeast

[Mushtang]

I don't see how a false log causes a cache to disappear.

"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."

He can blame liars and cheeters for the archival, but really it was due to the cache being poorly designed which resulted in a heavy maintenance burden that he was unwilling to perform.

So those people who were logging this virtual without actually finding it bear NO responsibility THEIR actions? It's all the cache owners fault? Nice.

What are you talking about? They bear ALL the responsibilities THEIR actions. But THEIR actions were to false log. Their actions were NOT to archive the cache. A finder can NOT archive a cache, only the owner and reviewers can.

 

The finders should not have logged a Find if they didn't actually visit the site. They did wrong by false logging. The logs therefore should have been deleted by the owner as one of the things he agreed to do when he submitted the cache. He didn't do this, instead he chose to archive it himself.

 

If people weren't abusing the cache it may still be active. Yes the owner could have done many things besides archiving it, but placing the blame for the archival totally on the owner seems ludicrous to me.

So the owner that refused to maintain his cache as agreed will bear NO responsibility for HIS lack of actions? It's all the loggers fault? Nice.

[+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).

Owners can't change the cache type themselves. The only way it can be done, once published, is for a reviewer to do it. They probably won't change it if there's been any finds posted.

 

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.

This is why we're not allowed to change our own, and why a reviewer probably won't either.

I know. I was just continuing to walk down the path opened by infiniteMPG in an effort to demonstrate how extreme responses to rampant fake logging could lead to degradation of geocaching.

 

As I've said, I don't see evidence of degradation, but I'm open to trying to understand what it would look like, or how it could come about.

[Trinity's Crew]

So those people who were logging this virtual without actually finding it bear NO responsibility THEIR actions? It's all the cache owners fault? Nice.

I never posted that, not in this thread or any other thread on this topic in the last half dozen years.

No, you just heaped all of your negative comments on the owner while totally ignoring any culpability the fake loggers had in the ultimate demise of the cache.

 

That's fine. The owner DOES bear some of the responsibility. He could have designed the cache better. He could have just continued to delete fake logs. He could have ignored the logs until someone turned him in and Groundspeak shut it down, but he wouldn't have had to do anything if people weren't abusing his cache.

[+HopsMaltYeast]

So those people who were logging this virtual without actually finding it bear NO responsibility THEIR actions? It's all the cache owners fault? Nice.

I never posted that, not in this thread or any other thread on this topic in the last half dozen years.

No, you just heaped all of your negative comments on the owner while totally ignoring any culpability the fake loggers had in the ultimate demise of the cache.

 

That's fine. The owner DOES bear some of the responsibility. He could have designed the cache better. He could have just continued to delete fake logs. He could have ignored the logs until someone turned him in and Groundspeak shut it down, but he wouldn't have had to do anything if people weren't abusing his cache.

 

That is totally untrue. That poster and almost every poster to this thread have said that lying and cheating are bad.

 

The bottom line remains; the owner entered into an agreement to maintain the cache. If things changed or events were other than what the owner expected, the owner still is responsible for either maintaining the commitment or for bailing.

 

In this case, the owner chose to bail.

 

And he would have had to do several things even if people were not abusing his cache. He needed to review logs. At least monthly he needed to show activity. He needed to visit the site whether it was a virtual or a physical cache to assure the integrity of the cache.

Edited February 7, 2008 by HopsMaltYeast

[+Renegade Knight]

...The bottom line remains; the owner entered into an agreement to maintain the cache. If things changed or events were other than what the owner expected, the owner still is responsible for either maintaining the commitment or for bailing.

 

In this case, the owner chose to bail.

 

Every word you said is true yet utterly the wrong path for finding the real reason the cache is gone. You have to look at all factors to see the truth. Refusing just makes you culpable for not doing your job as you sit as judge and jury blaming the owner to better make your case about what? The reasonableness of the logs? Oh wait, you did say the logs were bogus. What exactly is the point of all your posts?

[Mushtang]

So those people who were logging this virtual without actually finding it bear NO responsibility THEIR actions? It's all the cache owners fault? Nice.

I never posted that, not in this thread or any other thread on this topic in the last half dozen years.

No, you just heaped all of your negative comments on the owner while totally ignoring any culpability the fake loggers had in the ultimate demise of the cache.

 

That's fine. The owner DOES bear some of the responsibility. He could have designed the cache better. He could have just continued to delete fake logs. He could have ignored the logs until someone turned him in and Groundspeak shut it down, but he wouldn't have had to do anything if people weren't abusing his cache.

This part is totally untrue too.

 

1) The sign that the required information was on could have been taken down or changed, and part of the maintenance agreement would be for him to find new information that could be used to verify the finders were at the site.

2) The information could have been put on the internet, and part of the maintenance agreement would be for him to find different information for verification, that wasn't available on the internet.

3) The people that DID find the cache were asked to email information, so part of his agreement was to check the emails and make sure the finders sent the correct information.

 

There are MANY things he would have done to perform cache maintenance if people weren't abusing his cache. If he had only done the second thing on the list, he wouldn't have had any further fake logs and he could have been a happy cacher.

 

In this case, the owner chose to bail.

[+Renegade Knight]

Cache is MIA SBA

[+Rockin Roddy]

I also wonder why so many other people want to protect the rights of the false loggers.

Who is doing this?

 

I'm glad I got to read this before leaving work today... Gave me a good laugh!

 

Mushtang, it really depends on how you define "Is" doesn't it?

No, it depends on how you define "protect the rights of false loggers". If someone thinks this is what I've been trying to do, then I've obviously done a very bad job of stating my position.

 

Hasn't anyone read my posts where I've said that I'd delete any false logs on my caches if I knew it was false?

 

1) I don't think people should log caches as Found if they didn't find them.

2) I think owners have the responsibility to delete any logs they know to be fake.

 

(Surely points 1 and 2 don't sound like I'm protecting their "rights" do they?)

3) I don't think that if another owner doesn't delete a false log that it harms my game in any significant way.

4) I don't think false logs left on caches in general will cause a degradation of geocaching.

 

(These two points only speak to what affect the logs have on me and the game, not on if the logs should be allowed or not)

 

Those are the only points that I think I've made in this thread. Maybe that makes it more clear.

 

You're right...points 3 & 4 suggest you'd just turn a blind eye to the problem if it isn't in your court. This suggests that you don't care and so you condone such actions (allowing the false logs because you don't get affected). Well, the false logs OBVIOUSLY affect you since there's now one less cache to find. Maybe you SHOULD stand up and take notice of this!

Points 3 & 4 only state that I don't believe harm or degradation will be a result of a false log. I'm starting to think that it's not me that is doing a bad job of stating my position, but it's people that reply to me that aren't reading my posts.

 

You say they OBVIOUSLY affect me since there's one less cache to find. How is there one less cache? I don't see how a false log causes a cache to disappear.

 

If you can explain how logging a fake find will cause the cache to disappear then I'd definitely stand up and take notice! I don't think the site should allow finders to archive caches simply by faking a find!!! I believe that archiving caches should be left up to the owners, and maybe the reviewers. Something tells me though, that you're mistaken, and finders actually DON'T have the ability to archive a cache with a fake log.

It's already been demonstrated in this very thread, your twisting it to where the owner decided not to maintain their cache doesn't change the fact. Saying it was the fault of the owner because someone wanted to make and continue to make false logs...wow!

[+Renegade Knight]

MIA Cache. Do abetter job.

[+Renegade Knight]

Wow, what a great cache. Had fun. Logging from my armchair.

[+Renegade Knight]

You should maintain your cahe better. It's full of **&^%! Moron. Check it already. Needs Maintance.

[+Renegade Knight]

The owner of the land yelled at me. You better check it out before I post an SBA on your cache.

[+Renegade Knight]

Well enough of that. It's annoying just typing up examples of the kind of fake logs I've seen.

 

Those who needed to see the point won't 'see it' and for those who arleady do. Sorry about that.

 

For those who don't "get it" multiply that across 30 or 40 owners and several caches each. Maybe that falls short of degradation, but it also falls short of fun.

Edited February 7, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+sbell111]

So those people who were logging this virtual without actually finding it bear NO responsibility THEIR actions? It's all the cache owners fault? Nice.

I never posted that, not in this thread or any other thread on this topic in the last half dozen years.

No, you just heaped all of your negative comments on the owner while totally ignoring any culpability the fake loggers had in the ultimate demise of the cache.

Do all of my posts saying that fake finds are wrong not count? That doesn't seem fair.

That's fine. The owner DOES bear some of the responsibility. He could have designed the cache better. He could have just continued to delete fake logs. He could have ignored the logs until someone turned him in and Groundspeak shut it down, but he wouldn't have had to do anything if people weren't abusing his cache.

He would still be responsible for maintaining his cache.

[Trinity's Crew]

I will have to agree to disagree. While I don't think false logging is running rampant or SUBSTANTIALLY impacting the game, I do believe it can be a nuisance and the practice is wrong. It should be discouraged. I don't think we're accomplishing that with this thread.

 

Since this is not fun for me at the moment, I'm taking a hiatus from the thread. Carry on.

[+sbell111]

I will have to agree to disagree. While I don't think false logging is running rampant or SUBSTANTIALLY impacting the game, I do believe it can be a nuisance and the practice is wrong. It should be discouraged. I don't think we're accomplishing that with this thread.

I completely 100% agree. I wish that I had stated it so concisely.

[Mushtang]

It's already been demonstrated in this very thread,

Not even close.

 

your twisting it to where the owner decided not to maintain their cache doesn't change the fact.

There's no twist to it. He decided not to maintain the cache and delete the fake logs (and/or change the required information away from something available on the internet), and decided to archive it instead. What is not correct about any of that?

 

Saying it was the fault of the owner because someone wanted to make and continue to make false logs...wow!

No, I NEVER said that. I NEVER said the owner was at fault for the fake logs. Not one time. If you can show me where I said it was the owners fault that the fake logs exist I'll apologize, but I seriously doubt you'll apologize if you can't.

 

What I DID say was that it was the people that logged the cache's fault that the fake logs were posted.

 

What I DID say was that it was the owner's fault that he didn't delete the fake logs like he was supposed to.

 

What I DID say was that it was the owner's decision to archive the cache, and NOT the fake logger's decision.

[Mushtang]

I will have to agree to disagree. While I don't think false logging is running rampant or SUBSTANTIALLY impacting the game, I do believe it can be a nuisance and the practice is wrong. It should be discouraged. I don't think we're accomplishing that with this thread.

I completely 100% agree. I wish that I had stated it so concisely.

I also agree 100%. Well said.

[+briansnat]

18 pages, over 10,000 views! Is it a record for a non OT thread or threads not about Cool Cache Containers?

 

sbell111 92

Renegade Knight 67

Mushtang 64

TrailGators 62

KBI 53

HopsMaltYeast 47

infiniteMPG 44

Cedar Grove Seekers 43

egami 35

JohnnyVegas 29

Bad_CRC 25

BlueDeuce 23

tozainamboku 23

briansnat 21

ArcherDragoon 21

Mudfrog 14

Driver Carries Cache 14

MountainMudbug 13

ecanderson 11

Kit Fox 10

Too Tall John 9

Dinoprophet 9

The NVG 9

Team Cotati 8

eagletrek 8

TheAlabamaRambler 7

knowschad 7

drat19 6

ReadyOrNot 6

geomann1 6

Trinity's Crew 6

ScoutingWV 6

cache_test_dummies 5

paleolith 4

UncleJimbo 4

CoyoteRed 4

TheWhiteUrkel 4

VickersDavis 3

MickieD 3

Walt Jabsco 3

C-Ker1 2

ChiefWings 2

Harry Dolphin 2

TotemLake 2

Vinny & Sue Team 2

rlridgeway 2

MickEMT 2

Isonzo Karst 2

Rockin Roddy 2

cezanne 2

ODragon 2

KoosKoos 1

Christian und die Wutze 1

scuba dude 1

Radnord 1

arthurat 1

Team Magic 1

joranda 1

NotThePainter 1

Keystone 1

Campcreekers 1

9Key 1

neat_guy 1

Geo-Joe-N-Josh 1

Drooling_Mongoloid 1

AHOLLYS 1

proimion 1

MikeB3542 1

Misha 1

Annie & PB 1

Zop 1

edscott 1

Batona 1

Jeepergeo 1

Thistle Dew 1

team lagonda 1

Trailhead Tessie 1

StarBrand 1

1NatureMom 1

Moose Mob 1

MoparMan 1

larryc43230 1

Thore 1

Jeep_Dog 1

Prfctly Mad 1

Edited February 7, 2008 by briansnat

[+Renegade Knight]

...There are MANY things he would have done to perform cache maintenance if people weren't abusing his cache. If he had only done the second thing on the list, he wouldn't have had any further fake logs and he could have been a happy cacher.

 

In this case, the owner chose to bail.

 

Time wasted dealing with bogus logs before the cache was archived could have been better spent improving the virtual, maintaining other caches, or reading their kids bedtime stories. Even when they were maintaining their cache the logs are a deteriment to that cacher and in turn his ability to do good things for geoching as a whole, or maybe just having more time with the family.

 

The loss of what appears to be a good virtual was a detriment to all the cachers who would have enjoyed finding it.

 

There is a ripple effect. None of it good from those logs.

[Mushtang]

multiply that across 30 or 40 owners and several caches each. Maybe that falls short of degradation, but it also falls short of fun.

I agree, it doesn't seem like fun to me either. I'm not sure why you're posting that here though, I don't remember anyone in this thread suggesting that it's fun to log caches that way, that it's fun to fake log, that fake logs are good, etc.

[Mushtang]

...There are MANY things he would have done to perform cache maintenance if people weren't abusing his cache. If he had only done the second thing on the list, he wouldn't have had any further fake logs and he could have been a happy cacher.

 

In this case, the owner chose to bail.

 

Time wasted dealing with bogus logs before the cache was archived could have been better spent improving the virtual, maintaining other caches, or reading their kids bedtime stories. Even when they were maintaining their cache the logs are a deteriment to that cacher and in turn his ability to do good things for geoching as a whole, or maybe just having more time with the family.

 

The loss of what appears to be a good virtual was a detriment to all the cachers who would have enjoyed finding it.

 

There is a ripple effect. None of it good from those logs.

If he had only spent a little time improving the cache by changing the required information to something not available on the internet, he would have been doing his duty as a cache owner and would have had plenty of time for all the other stuff you mentioned.

 

If I were to use logic similar to what I've seen you use in this thread, I'd say that it sounds like you're suggesting NOT maintaining a cache is a good thing, so that you can spend more time doing other things you'd enjoy. That doesn't sound good for geocaching as a whole.

[+sbell111]

...There are MANY things he would have done to perform cache maintenance if people weren't abusing his cache. If he had only done the second thing on the list, he wouldn't have had any further fake logs and he could have been a happy cacher.

 

In this case, the owner chose to bail.

 

Time wasted dealing with bogus logs before the cache was archived could have been better spent improving the virtual, maintaining other caches, or reading their kids bedtime stories. Even when they were maintaining their cache the logs are a deteriment to that cacher and in turn his ability to do good things for geoching as a whole, or maybe just having more time with the family.

 

The loss of what appears to be a good virtual was a detriment to all the cachers who would have enjoyed finding it.

 

There is a ripple effect. None of it good from those logs.

Imagine how much grief he would have saved himself if he had only designed the virt better.

[+HopsMaltYeast]

...The bottom line remains; the owner entered into an agreement to maintain the cache. If things changed or events were other than what the owner expected, the owner still is responsible for either maintaining the commitment or for bailing.

 

In this case, the owner chose to bail.

 

Every word you said is true yet utterly the wrong path for finding the real reason the cache is gone. You have to look at all factors to see the truth. Refusing just makes you culpable for not doing your job as you sit as judge and jury blaming the owner to better make your case about what? The reasonableness of the logs? Oh wait, you did say the logs were bogus. What exactly is the point of all your posts?

Thank you for saying every word I say is true.

 

My points are simple:

 

I do not think the sky is falling

 

False logs are not degrading GeoCaching.

 

There is no evidence presented in this thread that false logs are increasing or are getting ridiculous.

 

My Geocaching experience is not degraded by false logs or by your opinions.

 

False logs have been around since online logging has been around (or there about)

 

I think that the OP is false on the face of it and the Op’r and no one else has supported the claim.

 

I think that making vague and unsubstantiated claims about wrongdoing are harmful, even more harmful than the false claims would be.

 

What I did not claim:

 

I am judge or jury.

 

Lying and cheating are good universally.

 

Sir, I am still awaiting either your apology or proof for your baseless allegation that I said that bogus logs are in general or without restrictions a good thing.

 

Knights still have honor do they not?

[+cache_test_dummies]

I will have to agree to disagree. While I don't think false logging is running rampant or SUBSTANTIALLY impacting the game, I do believe it can be a nuisance and the practice is wrong. It should be discouraged. I don't think we're accomplishing that with this thread.

I completely 100% agree. I wish that I had stated it so concisely.

I also agree 100%. Well said.

Yeah! Where were you about 17 pages ago?

[Mushtang]

I will have to agree to disagree. While I don't think false logging is running rampant or SUBSTANTIALLY impacting the game, I do believe it can be a nuisance and the practice is wrong. It should be discouraged. I don't think we're accomplishing that with this thread.

I completely 100% agree. I wish that I had stated it so concisely.

I also agree 100%. Well said.

Yeah! Where were you about 17 pages ago?

I've been saying all that for 17 pages, you just put it more concisely than I did.

[+Rockin Roddy]

...There are MANY things he would have done to perform cache maintenance if people weren't abusing his cache. If he had only done the second thing on the list, he wouldn't have had any further fake logs and he could have been a happy cacher.

 

In this case, the owner chose to bail.

 

Time wasted dealing with bogus logs before the cache was archived could have been better spent improving the virtual, maintaining other caches, or reading their kids bedtime stories. Even when they were maintaining their cache the logs are a deteriment to that cacher and in turn his ability to do good things for geoching as a whole, or maybe just having more time with the family.

 

The loss of what appears to be a good virtual was a detriment to all the cachers who would have enjoyed finding it.

 

There is a ripple effect. None of it good from those logs.

If he had only spent a little time improving the cache by changing the required information to something not available on the internet, he would have been doing his duty as a cache owner and would have had plenty of time for all the other stuff you mentioned.

If I were to use logic similar to what I've seen you use in this thread, I'd say that it sounds like you're suggesting NOT maintaining a cache is a good thing, so that you can spend more time doing other things you'd enjoy. That doesn't sound good for geocaching as a whole.

 

Apology accepted!

[+Team Cotati]

18 pages, over 10,000 views! Is it a record for a non OT thread or threads not about Cool Cache Containers?

 

sbell111 92

Renegade Knight 67

Mushtang 64

TrailGators 62

KBI 53

HopsMaltYeast 47

infiniteMPG 44

Cedar Grove Seekers 43

egami 35

JohnnyVegas 29

Bad_CRC 25

BlueDeuce 23

tozainamboku 23

briansnat 21

ArcherDragoon 21

Mudfrog 14

Driver Carries Cache 14

MountainMudbug 13

ecanderson 11

Kit Fox 10

Too Tall John 9

Dinoprophet 9

The NVG 9

Team Cotati 8

eagletrek 8

TheAlabamaRambler 7

knowschad 7

drat19 6

ReadyOrNot 6

geomann1 6

Trinity's Crew 6

ScoutingWV 6

cache_test_dummies 5

paleolith 4

UncleJimbo 4

CoyoteRed 4

TheWhiteUrkel 4

VickersDavis 3

MickieD 3

Walt Jabsco 3

C-Ker1 2

ChiefWings 2

Harry Dolphin 2

TotemLake 2

Vinny & Sue Team 2

rlridgeway 2

MickEMT 2

Isonzo Karst 2

Rockin Roddy 2

cezanne 2

ODragon 2

KoosKoos 1

Christian und die Wutze 1

scuba dude 1

Radnord 1

arthurat 1

Team Magic 1

joranda 1

NotThePainter 1

Keystone 1

Campcreekers 1

9Key 1

neat_guy 1

Geo-Joe-N-Josh 1

Drooling_Mongoloid 1

AHOLLYS 1

proimion 1

MikeB3542 1

Misha 1

Annie & PB 1

Zop 1

edscott 1

Batona 1

Jeepergeo 1

Thistle Dew 1

team lagonda 1

Trailhead Tessie 1

StarBrand 1

1NatureMom 1

Moose Mob 1

MoparMan 1

larryc43230 1

Thore 1

Jeep_Dog 1

Prfctly Mad 1

 

You've just got to wonder.

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

18 pages, over 10,000 views! Is it a record for a non OT thread or threads not about Cool Cache Containers?

 

sbell111 92

Renegade Knight 67

Mushtang 64

TrailGators 62

KBI 53

HopsMaltYeast 47

infiniteMPG 44

Cedar Grove Seekers 43

egami 35

JohnnyVegas 29

Bad_CRC 25

BlueDeuce 23

tozainamboku 23

briansnat 21

ArcherDragoon 21

Mudfrog 14

Driver Carries Cache 14

MountainMudbug 13

ecanderson 11

Kit Fox 10

Too Tall John 9

Dinoprophet 9

The NVG 9

Team Cotati 8

eagletrek 8

TheAlabamaRambler 7

knowschad 7

drat19 6

ReadyOrNot 6

geomann1 6

Trinity's Crew 6

ScoutingWV 6

cache_test_dummies 5

paleolith 4

UncleJimbo 4

CoyoteRed 4

TheWhiteUrkel 4

VickersDavis 3

MickieD 3

Walt Jabsco 3

C-Ker1 2

ChiefWings 2

Harry Dolphin 2

TotemLake 2

Vinny & Sue Team 2

rlridgeway 2

MickEMT 2

Isonzo Karst 2

Rockin Roddy 2

cezanne 2

ODragon 2

KoosKoos 1

Christian und die Wutze 1

scuba dude 1

Radnord 1

arthurat 1

Team Magic 1

joranda 1

NotThePainter 1

Keystone 1

Campcreekers 1

9Key 1

neat_guy 1

Geo-Joe-N-Josh 1

Drooling_Mongoloid 1

AHOLLYS 1

proimion 1

MikeB3542 1

Misha 1

Annie & PB 1

Zop 1

edscott 1

Batona 1

Jeepergeo 1

Thistle Dew 1

team lagonda 1

Trailhead Tessie 1

StarBrand 1

1NatureMom 1

Moose Mob 1

MoparMan 1

larryc43230 1

Thore 1

Jeep_Dog 1

Prfctly Mad 1

 

You've just got to wonder.

My buddy bet me that I couldn't start a thread that would go 18 pages. WooHoo, I just won $1.

[+cache_test_dummies]

My buddy bet me that I couldn't start a thread that would go 18 pages. WooHoo, I just won $1.

Ok, now I feel degraded.

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

 

What I DID say was that it was the people that logged the cache's fault that the fake logs were posted.

 

What I DID say was that it was the owner's fault that he didn't delete the fake logs like he was supposed to.

 

What I DID say was that it was the owner's decision to archive the cache, and NOT the fake logger's decision.

So would you agree that the owner archived the cache because he was unwilling to maintain the cache by deleting fake logs?

[+HopsMaltYeast]

...There are MANY things he would have done to perform cache maintenance if people weren't abusing his cache. If he had only done the second thing on the list, he wouldn't have had any further fake logs and he could have been a happy cacher.

 

In this case, the owner chose to bail.

 

Time wasted dealing with bogus logs before the cache was archived could have been better spent improving the virtual, maintaining other caches, or reading their kids bedtime stories. Even when they were maintaining their cache the logs are a deteriment to that cacher and in turn his ability to do good things for geoching as a whole, or maybe just having more time with the family.

 

The loss of what appears to be a good virtual was a detriment to all the cachers who would have enjoyed finding it.

 

There is a ripple effect. None of it good from those logs.

 

Tic Toc, waiting for the evidence or apology.

 

No Knights honor?

[Mushtang]

 

What I DID say was that it was the people that logged the cache's fault that the fake logs were posted.

 

What I DID say was that it was the owner's fault that he didn't delete the fake logs like he was supposed to.

 

What I DID say was that it was the owner's decision to archive the cache, and NOT the fake logger's decision.

So would you agree that the owner archived the cache because he was unwilling to maintain the cache by either deleting fake logs, or changing the required information needed to log the cache?

Fixed. Now it's accurate.