Jump to content

Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?


Recommended Posts

Yup, there you have it!

 

Eliminate the published numbers and you solve the problem!

 

Bogus logs would help no one; high numbers or low numbers would not be a way to judge each other.

 

No one would be able to accuse another of being a numbers-ho und and any fear that bogus logs are degrading the game or our collective reputation would be quelled.

 

I certainly wouldn't miss them.

Ed, as one of the Deep Dixie region's original Numbers Ho's (since reformed!), I never thought I'd say this to you re your above-quoted post, but: I AGREE! Get rid of the stats and you not only solve the bogus logging problem, but you also solve Micro Spew - after all, what other incentive would cachers have to both hide and find so much UTTER CRAP (not ALL micros, just the Spew )? And you also stop the practice of deifying high-number cachers, and treat everyone equally, as regards "how people are perceived at events"...maybe folks would still get recognized for their longevity or for their reputations as great hiders or creative log-writers, but not just for their stats.

 

Ya know I'd never thought I'd agree with a concept like this but I actually do. If you get rid of the numbers you get rid of alot of issues. In fact, I think it will help to cull the herd.

Link to comment

In my short time geocaching I have observed quite a few behaviors that degrade the integrity of the game:

 

false logs

false discoveries of trackable items

false DNFs

arm chair caching

team caching (where one person makes the find, but the entire team takes credit) ;)

etc.

 

What are you gonna do? ;)

 

A little off topic, but responding to #5 in list above - team caching; Am I doing wrong under these circumstances - I am the only one in my family with a GeoCaching account. Sometimes I go hunting alone, sometimes with my wife and sometimes with wife and son. I log the find under my membership even if HopsMaltYeast Spouse or son finds it before I do.

 

There is only one paper log done and only one online log done. This seems to fit with the spirit of GeoCaching to me.

You're fine.
Link to comment

...<snip>

team caching (where one person makes the find, but the entire team takes credit) ;)

etc.

...<snip>

 

A little off topic, but responding to #5 in list above - team caching; Am I doing wrong under these circumstances - I am the only one in my family with a GeoCaching account. Sometimes I go hunting alone, sometimes with my wife and sometimes with wife and son. I log the find under my membership even if HopsMaltYeast Spouse or son finds it before I do.

 

There is only one paper log done and only one online log done. This seems to fit with the spirit of GeoCaching to me.

 

I cache with my kids and this is what we do...I log finds individually for me and then the kids get logged under a "team" account. I do this for the purpose sorting things in GSAK when we go caching. When they get old enough if they want their own account then they'll be able to back-log.

Link to comment

I don't know why I respond to these posts... but at the risk of being flayed alive ;) I feel someone needs to point out that this is not a problem unique to Geocaching. This is a broader issue concerning modern society and the push to be more and more "permissive" and less "judgemental". You know, the "we don't keep score because someone's feelings might get hurt" mentality. I guess I still come from that "old school" position that believes that things are right or wrong and that there's far less "gray" than some would have us believe. And someone will probably flame me here and say "how can you judge me personally on how I play geocaching... you don't even know me?". It's much like our current political campaigning... folks tell you what they think you want to hear, the only way to judge the moral character of an individual is based upon their prior actions. Yes, I do take into account that people change... we know they do, but your prior actions are still the best bet when judging how you'll behave in the future.

 

Now everyone stand back, I'm about to use the big "C" word... Cheating. Based on my belief in this theory, I'd figure that if you cheat at something as meaningless a geocaching, you must be a real piece of work in your daily interactions outside of geocaching. It's like the old saying "Character is what you do when no one's watching". Character assumes that right and wrong do exist, that there are objective moral standards that transcend individual choice—standards like respect, responsibility, honesty, and fairness. And I'll tell you that geocaching and "find logs" are the ultimate when it comes to "no one watching"... meaning, yes the site and TPTB leave you all the freedom in the world to log things however you want and however many times you wish. I just believe that others should then feel free to judge your character by your actions.

 

Feel free to flame away. I know some will want to argue about the semantics of what is and isn't a find... whether geocaching has "rules" or "guidelines" and what all that means. Some will want to call me "judgemental" or a "puritan" or other various and sundry names. There will be those that say "everyone plays by their own rules" which to me means "I'm unable to comprehend or follow simple instructions, so I make up my own, which keeps me happy"... and then there will be the string of posts shirking any responsibility with the words "it doesn't hurt me so why should I care?".

 

So I guess my answer is yes, we are allowing the degredation of geocaching... but I don't believe we have to accept it.

 

Thanks for the discussion,

 

DCC

Man, I am sorry I missed this the first time through the second page...

 

I agree, you see it more and more in general society...

 

When I was growing up, if I got an F in school it was becuase I was acting like an idiot and needed to be straightened out!!!

 

...now, give an F in school and you are being to harsh of a teacher, what about the student's feelings, what about this, what about that...enough is enough...

 

No flames from me...you spoke you opinion, nothing wrong with that.

Edited by ArcherDragoon
Link to comment
Wait a minute...I thought you said there was NO integrity in geocaching? ;)

 

Generally, I agree, I am not personally going to get worked up over how others log finds...play the game the way you want, but conversely people logging "out of the norm" have to accept that log owner's have the final say.

 

Conversely, I don't criticize people for supporting integrity in the game. If it's their preference that the game have standards that's also their prerogative. They just need to accept that it's never going to be a purist game.

 

At some point we all generally have a line to draw somewhere...

It would be nice if there was a recognized branch of geocaching where everyone plays the same game, by the same rules. Consistency would be much appreciated by those of us that prefer "black & white," versus the "rainbow" of "play game the way you want."
I couldn't agree more!!!!! If geocaching continues the way it has, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if a separate branch of geocaching develops for those folks who like consistency and appreciate a game that has rules to be followed and not blown off. While I've logged quite a few finds, I only consider a handfull to be really rewarding. In the future, I look forward to only seeking out "worthwhile" caches.
PuritanCaching.com. (Stolen from Mr. T.) Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
If I DNF a cache it's because I can't find it. I don't know how useful an aggregate of that data would be.
More useful than knowing how many finds you have....

Why? As I posted above, I have 174 DNFs. How is that number useful to you?
I already said earlier that the percentage would be useful. The total number is as useless as knowing the find count.

Actually unless carefully and meticulously segmented it wouldn't mean anything at all!

 

My (and your) DNF ratio for LPCs will be different than our ratio for ammo cans and our ratio for ammo cans will be different if I am hunting in the area where an active cacher hides easy finds than if I am in an area where another cacher hides them well. We will have more DNFs when we cache alone than when our kids accompany us and so on.

 

The ratio of DNFs to finds will always be meaningless.

Link to comment

On Thanksgiving weekend, two KC cachers came up to Des Moines, Iowa and "found" 110 caches on Friday and Saturday. However, most (about 80%) of the logs did not contain their signatures. All the "finds" were checked, and I am proud to say all active Des Moines deleted the finds that were bogus. Most cachers in this area take it pretty seriously.

 

So, to the original post, the cachers of Central Iowa are upholding the integrity of their hides.

 

The two KC thought they could pull a fast one and WE called them on it.

Link to comment
If I DNF a cache it's because I can't find it. I don't know how useful an aggregate of that data would be.
More useful than knowing how many finds you have....

Why? As I posted above, I have 174 DNFs. How is that number useful to you?
I already said earlier that the percentage would be useful. The total number is as useless as knowing the find count.

Actually unless carefully and meticulously segmented it wouldn't mean anything at all!

 

My (and your) DNF ratio for LPCs will be different than our ratio for ammo cans and our ratio for ammo cans will be different if I am hunting in the area where an active cacher hides easy finds than if I am in an area where another cacher hides them well. We will have more DNFs when we cache alone than when our kids accompany us and so on.

 

The ratio of DNFs to finds will always be meaningless.

Even between players in the same area hunting the same caches, it would be meaningless.

 

Cacher A logs a DNF and ignores the cache. Cacher B logs 5 DNFs before finding the cache. Cacher C looks until he runs out of time and then logs a DNF. Cacher D has more time, so looks longer and makes the find. Cacher E uses the scortched earth approach and ends up with very few DNFs. Cacher F never logs a DNF. Cacher G only logs a DNF if he 'looked everywhere, so it has to be missing'. Cacher H logs a DNF if he got called off the hunt any time after hitting 'GOTO'. Cacher I only logs a DNF if he arrived at ground zero.

 

The ratio gives you no useful information.

Link to comment

On Thanksgiving weekend, two KC cachers came up to Des Moines, Iowa and "found" 110 caches on Friday and Saturday. However, most (about 80%) of the logs did not contain their signatures. All the "finds" were checked, and I am proud to say all active Des Moines deleted the finds that were bogus. Most cachers in this area take it pretty seriously.

 

So, to the original post, the cachers of Central Iowa are upholding the integrity of their hides.

 

The two KC thought they could pull a fast one and WE called them on it.

Did they sign the logs, at all, or did they not even find the caches?

 

(I know, how dare I look for the grey?)

Link to comment
Wait a minute...I thought you said there was NO integrity in geocaching? ;)

 

Generally, I agree, I am not personally going to get worked up over how others log finds...play the game the way you want, but conversely people logging "out of the norm" have to accept that log owner's have the final say.

 

Conversely, I don't criticize people for supporting integrity in the game. If it's their preference that the game have standards that's also their prerogative. They just need to accept that it's never going to be a purist game.

 

At some point we all generally have a line to draw somewhere...

It would be nice if there was a recognized branch of geocaching where everyone plays the same game, by the same rules. Consistency would be much appreciated by those of us that prefer "black & white," versus the "rainbow" of "play game the way you want."
I couldn't agree more!!!!! If geocaching continues the way it has, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if a separate branch of geocaching develops for those folks who like consistency and appreciate a game that has rules to be followed and not blown off. While I've logged quite a few finds, I only consider a handfull to be really rewarding. In the future, I look forward to only seeking out "worthwhile" caches.
PuritanCaching.com. (Stolen from Mr. T.)

 

LOL!!!!!! But I think you got it wrong. The Puritans were kinda a splinter group themselves. A more proper caching site might be JesuitCaching.com!!!!! ;):lol::lol:

Edited by eagletrek
Link to comment

On Thanksgiving weekend, two KC cachers came up to Des Moines, Iowa and "found" 110 caches on Friday and Saturday. However, most (about 80%) of the logs did not contain their signatures. All the "finds" were checked, and I am proud to say all active Des Moines deleted the finds that were bogus. Most cachers in this area take it pretty seriously.

 

So, to the original post, the cachers of Central Iowa are upholding the integrity of their hides.

 

The two KC thought they could pull a fast one and WE called them on it.

Did they sign the logs, at all, or did they not even find the caches?

 

(I know, how dare I look for the grey?)

Much as I hate to admit it (ever!), I was also thinking the same thing as sbell on this matter. Can you imagine the reaction of a group of Numbers Ho's who made a special trip to a region to (falsely, apparently) run up numbers, only to lose 80% of them after the fact?!? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

Link to comment

On Thanksgiving weekend, two KC cachers came up to Des Moines, Iowa and "found" 110 caches on Friday and Saturday. However, most (about 80%) of the logs did not contain their signatures. All the "finds" were checked, and I am proud to say all active Des Moines deleted the finds that were bogus. Most cachers in this area take it pretty seriously.

 

So, to the original post, the cachers of Central Iowa are upholding the integrity of their hides.

 

The two KC thought they could pull a fast one and WE called them on it.

Did they sign the logs, at all, or did they not even find the caches?

 

(I know, how dare I look for the grey?)

Much as I hate to admit it (ever!), I was also thinking the same thing as sbell on this matter. Can you imagine the reaction of a group of Numbers Ho's who made a special trip to a region to (falsely, apparently) run up numbers, only to lose 80% of them after the fact?!? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

I imagine that if they really cheated, thewn they would not be too shocked that they were deleted.

 

I thought it was strange that they signed 20% of the logs. That's why I wondered if they didn't sign the remainder with some sort of team name made up for the cache run (Wheat Beats Corn 2007???).

Link to comment

My $0.02 – don’t agonize over it. There is no way to control false logging 100% of the time even if hiders audited 100% of their logs.

 

I doubt you are putting GeoCaching scores on your resume or college entrance application. It just doesn’t matter to you or me if people cheat unless you are betting on it in any practical sense. I doubt I have lost a promotion or raise because someone had more GeoCache finds than me.

 

To continue the golf analogy; Nothing is more pathetic than someone cheating at golf. They are only cheating themselves most of the time.

 

Anyone can cheat and get a way with it “sort of”. You cannot cheat at the national or tournament level where money is on the line. In a serious club where “bragging rights”, “best golfer cups” or “friendly wagers” are involved, folks will also learn who the cheaters are and will disrespect them and not play with them. (Unless that person is their boss, in which case they would intentionally lose to them anyway if they have any brains).

 

I would think that if you belong to a GeoCaching group, recognized club or just an informal collection of friends where “bragging rights” are involved then your group would know who the cheaters are and police the problem locally.

 

As others have said, we should be doing this for the joy and the experience, not worrying about who has more finds than you or me.

 

Note to self: I am pretty sure that guy in front of me at the check out line has taken more pennies than he has left from that “take a penny, leave a penny” dish beside the cash register.

Link to comment
A little off topic, but responding to #5 in list above - team caching; Am I doing wrong under these circumstances - I am the only one in my family with a GeoCaching account. Sometimes I go hunting alone, sometimes with my wife and sometimes with wife and son. I log the find under my membership even if HopsMaltYeast Spouse or son finds it before I do.

 

That's pretty normal. I think he's referring to teams that are created just to rack up high number counts.

Link to comment
If I DNF a cache it's because I can't find it. I don't know how useful an aggregate of that data would be.
More useful than knowing how many finds you have....
Why?

 

As I posted above, I have 174 DNFs. How is that number useful to you? Also, since you believe that the of DNFs is more important that the number of finds, How is the fact that I have 174 DNFs useful to you without factoring the number of caches that I have found?

Numbers are what they are.

 

I had one cache that the right number was "did you find this one other cache on the other side of the state" if the answer was "Yes" your DNF would mean my cache was likley gone. If the answer was "No" your DNF was par for the course. I had a high numbes cacher DNF it and emaim about how 'gone' it was. He didn't have the right number. A quick check just confirmed my theory on that other cache.

 

Everthing is useful within the limitations. There are some great cachers out there who can do a great hide but can't find the inside of a rubber room if they were in a straight jacket. 174 DNF by itself tells me the guy isn't afraid to log a DNF and if I'm hunting after them it tells me that the cache may be there. If it's 174 DNF's out of 175 caches there is an excellent chance I'll find the cache. If it's 174 DNFs out of 22,000 caches I'm in trouble for looking for that cache.

 

If they did get rid of the numbers they may get rid of the number posers. But they create a bunch of other problems and take away some of the fun of the activity and useful information for others.

Link to comment

I don't know why I respond to these posts... but at the risk of being flayed alive ;) I feel someone needs to point out that this is not a problem unique to Geocaching. This is a broader issue concerning modern society and the push to be more and more "permissive" and less "judgemental". You know, the "we don't keep score because someone's feelings might get hurt" mentality. I guess I still come from that "old school" position that believes that things are right or wrong and that there's far less "gray" than some would have us believe. And someone will probably flame me here and say "how can you judge me personally on how I play geocaching... you don't even know me?". It's much like our current political campaigning... folks tell you what they think you want to hear, the only way to judge the moral character of an individual is based upon their prior actions. Yes, I do take into account that people change... we know they do, but your prior actions are still the best bet when judging how you'll behave in the future.

 

Now everyone stand back, I'm about to use the big "C" word... Cheating. Based on my belief in this theory, I'd figure that if you cheat at something as meaningless a geocaching, you must be a real piece of work in your daily interactions outside of geocaching. It's like the old saying "Character is what you do when no one's watching". Character assumes that right and wrong do exist, that there are objective moral standards that transcend individual choice—standards like respect, responsibility, honesty, and fairness. And I'll tell you that geocaching and "find logs" are the ultimate when it comes to "no one watching"... meaning, yes the site and TPTB leave you all the freedom in the world to log things however you want and however many times you wish. I just believe that others should then feel free to judge your character by your actions.

 

Feel free to flame away. I know some will want to argue about the semantics of what is and isn't a find... whether geocaching has "rules" or "guidelines" and what all that means. Some will want to call me "judgemental" or a "puritan" or other various and sundry names. There will be those that say "everyone plays by their own rules" which to me means "I'm unable to comprehend or follow simple instructions, so I make up my own, which keeps me happy"... and then there will be the string of posts shirking any responsibility with the words "it doesn't hurt me so why should I care?".

 

So I guess my answer is yes, we are allowing the degredation of geocaching... but I don't believe we have to accept it.

 

Thanks for the discussion,

 

DCC

 

My thoughts exactly! DCC for President of Geocachers with Integrity!

 

Amen to that my brother!!!!!!! He's got my vote!!!!!!

 

I agree. Excellent post, DCC. ;)

Link to comment

They signed the logs of the finds they gotta keep as finds. No signy....no findy.

 

That's pretty black and white.

 

This is what I like about the Iowa area cachers I've met...they aren't monitoring logs looking for issues to knit-pick, but when something like this occurs they'll protect the integrity of the game.

 

There's that word again...integrity, we can't have that in geocaching!

Link to comment

They signed the logs of the finds they gotta keep as finds. No signy....no findy.

 

That's pretty black and white.

 

This is what I like about the Iowa area cachers I've met...they aren't monitoring logs looking for issues to knit-pick, but when something like this occurs they'll protect the integrity of the game.

 

There's that word again...integrity, we can't have that in geocaching!

Isn't that what I stated in my post...do I get some credit for Minnesota cachers ;)

 

I think the "i-word" is ok to use!!!

Link to comment

They signed the logs of the finds they gotta keep as finds. No signy....no findy.

 

That's pretty black and white.

 

This is what I like about the Iowa area cachers I've met...they aren't monitoring logs looking for issues to knit-pick, but when something like this occurs they'll protect the integrity of the game.

 

There's that word again...integrity, we can't have that in geocaching!

Isn't that what I stated in my post...do I get some credit for Minnesota cachers ;)

 

I think the "i-word" is ok to use!!!

 

I can't speak to anything stated by Minnesota cachers as I consider that Canada and really don't care... ;)

 

Sorry, I didn't see your post specifically on that, so I'll give you full credit for that. :lol:

Edited by egami
Link to comment

I don't believe that anyone has taken the position that logs can't be deleted if a cache owner verifies that the log wasn't signed. I'd like for someone to cite the post that takes that stand.

 

An online find is an agreement between the logger and the cache owner. Nothing more, nothing less.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I don't believe that anyone has taken the position that logs can't be deleted if a cache owner verifies that the log wasn't signed. I'd like for someone to cite the post that takes that stand.

 

An online find is an agreement between the logger and the cache owner. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

I don't believe Ive read where anyone accused another of taking that position...

Edited by egami
Link to comment

Wait a minute...I thought you said there was NO integrity in geocaching? ;)

 

Generally, I agree, I am not personally going to get worked up over how others log finds...play the game the way you want, but conversely people logging "out of the norm" have to accept that log owner's have the final say.

 

Conversely, I don't criticize people for supporting integrity in the game. If it's their preference that the game have standards that's also their prerogative. They just need to accept that it's never going to be a purist game.

 

At some point we all generally have a line to draw somewhere...

 

It would be nice if there was a recognized branch of geocaching where everyone plays the same game, by the same rules. Consistency would be much appreciated by those of us that prefer "black & white," versus the "rainbow" of "play game the way you want."

 

I mean no disrespect, but this gives me a giggle - showing how old I am - I remember a "Mad Magazine article from probably the early 1960's discussing sports and the Olympics that said something like 'There is no professional Volley Ball just as there is no professional "Running Around the Block". That was prophetic. I have lived long enough to see professional volley ball (even beach volley ball) and Jogging/10K road races/Marathon/ runs turn pro and Olympic. I hear softball is being proposed for the Olympics.

 

The Scandinavian "carry your wife" sport is on TeeVee now.

 

Orienteering is becoming a recognized sport with rules and a sanctioning body.

 

Perhaps in the next decade we will see a national GeoCaching league with rules against the use of steriods and shows on ESPN G highlighting the "sport".

 

Who will be the first Commissioner of GeoCache?

Link to comment

<<<snip>>>

I can't speak to anything stated by Minnesota cachers as I consider that Canada and really don't care... :lol:

 

Sorry, I didn't see your post specifically on that, so I'll give you full credit for that. :o

;):lol:;):P;)

Yeah, it's cold up this way, i would ignore us too...put Canada is still a bit colder!!!

 

I don't believe that anyone has taken the position that logs can't be deleted if a cache owner verifies that the log wasn't signed. I'd like for someone to cite the post that takes that stand.

 

An online find is an agreement between the logger and the cache owner. Nothing more, nothing less.

What are you refering to...did I miss something???

Edited by ArcherDragoon
Link to comment

Fake or real, I have trouble seeing how the raw number of finds matter.

 

Hypothetical: I have found 500 urban caches in a cache rich environment like say NYC and you have 5 caches. Am I the better cacher with a better experience?

 

What if your 5 caches are?:

1. Near the summit of Everest.

2. Center of the outback in Australia

3. Close to the far end of the Great Wall of China

4. Peak of Denali in Alaska

5. Head waters of the Amazon

 

What if 5 of my NYC caches include:

1. Ellis Island

2. Empire State building

3. Statue of Liberty

4. A show at Carnegie Hall

5. Brooklyn Heights site where Washington’s Continental Army gave the British the slip

 

My opinion – the experience is what is important to me. If numbers turn your tumblers, then good on ya and continued success. It ain’t black and white.

 

Unless it turns pro, then there aught to be rules and referees.

 

Me? Hitting some milestones in my early experience – I have about 50 finds – is important. I am already seeing that pretty soon I will not give 2 wonks to numbers, I will only care about the value I find from each individual location and hunt.

 

{edit} What I meant was "If it turns pro", then there aught to be rules and referees.

Edited by HopsMaltYeast
Link to comment

I don't know why I respond to these posts... but at the risk of being flayed alive ;) I feel someone needs to point out that this is not a problem unique to Geocaching. This is a broader issue concerning modern society and the push to be more and more "permissive" and less "judgemental". You know, the "we don't keep score because someone's feelings might get hurt" mentality. I guess I still come from that "old school" position that believes that things are right or wrong and that there's far less "gray" than some would have us believe. And someone will probably flame me here and say "how can you judge me personally on how I play geocaching... you don't even know me?". It's much like our current political campaigning... folks tell you what they think you want to hear, the only way to judge the moral character of an individual is based upon their prior actions. Yes, I do take into account that people change... we know they do, but your prior actions are still the best bet when judging how you'll behave in the future.

 

Now everyone stand back, I'm about to use the big "C" word... Cheating. Based on my belief in this theory, I'd figure that if you cheat at something as meaningless a geocaching, you must be a real piece of work in your daily interactions outside of geocaching. It's like the old saying "Character is what you do when no one's watching". Character assumes that right and wrong do exist, that there are objective moral standards that transcend individual choice—standards like respect, responsibility, honesty, and fairness. And I'll tell you that geocaching and "find logs" are the ultimate when it comes to "no one watching"... meaning, yes the site and TPTB leave you all the freedom in the world to log things however you want and however many times you wish. I just believe that others should then feel free to judge your character by your actions.

 

Feel free to flame away. I know some will want to argue about the semantics of what is and isn't a find... whether geocaching has "rules" or "guidelines" and what all that means. Some will want to call me "judgemental" or a "puritan" or other various and sundry names. There will be those that say "everyone plays by their own rules" which to me means "I'm unable to comprehend or follow simple instructions, so I make up my own, which keeps me happy"... and then there will be the string of posts shirking any responsibility with the words "it doesn't hurt me so why should I care?".

 

So I guess my answer is yes, we are allowing the degredation of geocaching... but I don't believe we have to accept it.

 

Thanks for the discussion,

 

DCC

Man, I am sorry I missed this the first time through the second page...

 

I agree, you see it more and more in general society...

 

When I was growing up, if I got an F in school it was becuase I was acting like an idiot and needed to be straightened out!!!

 

...now, give an F in school and you are being to harsh of a teacher, what about the student's feelings, what about this, what about that...enough is enough...

 

No flames from me...you spoke you opinion, nothing wrong with that.

I missed that post too and also agree with it. Sometimes it seems like this "anything goes" attitude is winning the battle, but then when you hear stuff like this from a lot of people, you realize that "doing what's right" is still winning the war. ;)
Link to comment

<<<snip>>>

I can't speak to anything stated by Minnesota cachers as I consider that Canada and really don't care... :lol:

 

Sorry, I didn't see your post specifically on that, so I'll give you full credit for that. :o

;):lol:;):P;)

Yeah, it's cold up this way, i would ignore us too...put Canada is still a bit colder!!!

 

I don't believe that anyone has taken the position that logs can't be deleted if a cache owner verifies that the log wasn't signed. I'd like for someone to cite the post that takes that stand.

 

An online find is an agreement between the logger and the cache owner. Nothing more, nothing less.

What are you refering to...did I miss something???

You were appearing to take the positions that it's some miraculous action when a cache owner deletes bogus finds and that many people disagree with this action.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

<<<snip>>>

I can't speak to anything stated by Minnesota cachers as I consider that Canada and really don't care... :o

 

Sorry, I didn't see your post specifically on that, so I'll give you full credit for that. ;)

;):P;):lol::lol:

Yeah, it's cold up this way, i would ignore us too...put Canada is still a bit colder!!!

 

I don't believe that anyone has taken the position that logs can't be deleted if a cache owner verifies that the log wasn't signed. I'd like for someone to cite the post that takes that stand.

 

An online find is an agreement between the logger and the cache owner. Nothing more, nothing less.

What are you refering to...did I miss something???

You were appearing to take the positions that it's some miraculous action when a cache owner deletes bogus finds and that many people disagree with this action.

If it appeared that way...sorry, that is not what I meant...

 

I was just refering to egami about being in Iowa and I from Minnesota and had posted a similar statement about when/how I check logs and why...sorry just my dry (very dry) sense of humor...

Edited by ArcherDragoon
Link to comment

I was just refering to egami about being in Iowa and I from Minnesota and had posted a similar statement about when/how I check logs and why...sorry just my dry (very dry) sense of humor...

Well, it *is* very dry up here in MN this time of year! ;)

I remember that from my years in NW Wisconsin. Everything got really staticy and my skin got so dry it always itched. When I parked my car at work, it felt like I was parking on an ice skating rink. Actually I was! ;)
Link to comment

I was just refering to egami about being in Iowa and I from Minnesota and had posted a similar statement about when/how I check logs and why...sorry just my dry (very dry) sense of humor...

Well, it *is* very dry up here in MN this time of year! ;)

I remember that from my years in NW Wisconsin. Everything got really staticy and my skin got so dry it always itched. When I parked my car at work, it felt like I was parking on an ice skating rink. Actually I was! ;)

Heh, tell me about it! Try being from where I'm from (<---) and spending workweeks here in MN and then weekends at home in the opposite climate!

Link to comment

In my short time geocaching I have observed quite a few behaviors that degrade the integrity of the game:

 

false logs

false discoveries of trackable items

false DNFs

arm chair caching

team caching (where one person makes the find, but the entire team takes credit) ;)

etc.

 

What are you gonna do? ;)

 

A little off topic, but responding to #5 in list above - team caching; Am I doing wrong under these circumstances - I am the only one in my family with a GeoCaching account. Sometimes I go hunting alone, sometimes with my wife and sometimes with wife and son. I log the find under my membership even if HopsMaltYeast Spouse or son finds it before I do.

 

There is only one paper log done and only one online log done. This seems to fit with the spirit of GeoCaching to me.

 

As others have said, do what you want. Personally I only want to keep track of finds I make myself. Too bad there is no way to categorize your finds online (e.g., found alone or found with others).

 

Cheers

Link to comment

It would be better to know someone's DNF percentage versus their find count when a DNF gets logged. Numbers cachers typically follow a shorter time limit so they will have a higher percentage of DNFs than people willing to spend a long time look for a cache.

 

I think it'd be just the opposite. Numbers cachers won't bother logging DNFs.

 

I'm not a numbers cacher, and I have a high DNF rate directly because of it. Once I get to the location of the cache, I care very little if I get the smiley or not. If I was a number hound, I'd really want to find it, but instead, I have just as much fun hiking, taking pictures, and logging online as a DNF as I would if I dug out the box and signed the book, so digging around in the same spot for 30 minutes isn't something I usually do.

Link to comment

It would be better to know someone's DNF percentage versus their find count when a DNF gets logged. Numbers cachers typically follow a shorter time limit so they will have a higher percentage of DNFs than people willing to spend a long time look for a cache.

 

I think it'd be just the opposite. Numbers cachers won't bother logging DNFs.

 

I'm not a numbers cacher, and I have a high DNF rate directly because of it. Once I get to the location of the cache, I care very little if I get the smiley or not. If I was a number hound, I'd really want to find it, but instead, I have just as much fun hiking, taking pictures, and logging online as a DNF as I would if I dug out the box and signed the book, so digging around in the same spot for 30 minutes isn't something I usually do.

 

Actually our top numbers cachers (5000-8000 finds) are also competing for most DNFs. One of them hit 500 DNFs the other day in our local congrats thread. So it has been my observation that numbers cachers are very competitive. If you are competing for most DNFs you'd have to be very competitive.... ;) Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

Competing for the DNF record seems like a ton of fun.

 

well now, back to the OP,

 

I think you could break the DNF record really easy.

 

Just while I was posting this, I didn't find a cache in Germany, and I didn't find one in Canada, and I didnt' find one in....

 

 

:D

Link to comment

ArcherDragon: The i-word? We love you guys to our north. You guys are just like a big brother on the top bunk. We know you guys are just committed to protecting this great game.

 

It's not the heat, but the humidity. Right? Dry? We got a boatload of snow and NBC had some dude up in your state in front of a frozen ice wall. Now, that's a great place for a cache. Paint it white and nobody will ever find it. Make the cache water soluble and when it FINALLY heats up....no impact to our environment and the "wall" won't be hurt either.

Link to comment

Competing for the DNF record seems like a ton of fun.

 

well now, back to the OP,

 

I think you could break the DNF record really easy.

 

Just while I was posting this, I didn't find a cache in Germany, and I didn't find one in Canada, and I didnt' find one in....

 

 

:D

 

I keep DNF stats on my profile page... and they're above the "find" stats! I was curious how many of my DNF'ed caches I eventually find. I think that "conversion" is an interesting stat. It shows your perseverance (or sheer lunacy... I don't know which)!

 

DCC

Link to comment

Here's my two cents on this subject and some of the othere stuff that has been discussed.

 

"fake" found logs

I think it is a very small percentage of cachers who log "false" found logs. That said, I know a couple of them. In our area we have a family that caches, and I know for a fact that the kids logs finds on caches that they were never anywhere near, if one family member finds it, they all log it. What really makes me cringe is that the mother has stated that she is "bringing her kids' up to be honest people"!! :D:P:)

 

Are "false" find logs "degrading" the sport? Eh, probably not, there will always be people who "cheat" in every sport in one way or another ( Barry Bonds, The N.E. Patriots Bill Clinton) those people eventually get found out and word spreads......

 

Would I delete a "found" log that I KNEW was fake, In a split second!

 

Team caching

I have a team that I cache with. As a general rule, we do not log a "find" for the team unless at least 3 of us are present for the find. The exception to that rule is if the whole team is out, and only one or two of us "need" the cache. The members who need the cache go find it while the rest of us figure out our next stop.

 

Mind you, just because the team has found the cache does not mean all the members go and log it even if they were not there. Most of us believe that we have to be there to claim it.

 

Sometimes we just sign the team name on the log, usually that happens when the logbook is small ( saving space for other cachers) or the weather is so bad that we don't want to have the logbook out in it for very long ( rain, snow)

 

"Live and Let live" attitude.

Generally, it's the best policy. If you don't like micros, skirtlifters, long hikes, puzzles, temporary event caches, caches where the name starts with the letter "T", whatever, don't look for them, there is always the "ignore" button. Personally, if it's a cache, I'll most likely look for it. I know cachers that physically cannot go for long hikes, the "micro spew" is what they are limited to.

 

If people don't want to log their finds online, fine. If it's a cache that hasn't been found in a while, give some thought to posting a note that you were there and the cache is OK, just to let the owner know.

 

Posting DNF's. I'll admit that for a long time I didn't post them, I've changed that attitude though. If nothing else, it at least lets the owner know that there might be a problem.

Link to comment

Perhaps in the next decade we will see a national GeoCaching league with rules against the use of steriods

 

:D Oh oh!! :P

 

Back on topic, fishermen have been lying about their catches for hundreds, if not thousands of years, but it hasn't ruined that sport. Of course, nobody believes a fisherman unless he brings his catch home, and geocaching is all "catch and release" in that sense.

 

I can't believe that people would drive around and actually check the physical logs in their caches just to make sure that those that posted online had actually signed the log. That's crazier than logging a cache that you haven't found! Well, OK... maybe not if you only have one or two hides, and they're only blocks from your house, but otherwise... you have way too much time on your hands!

Link to comment

Team caching

I have a team that I cache with. As a general rule, we do not log a "find" for the team unless at least 3 of us are present for the find. The exception to that rule is if the whole team is out, and only one or two of us "need" the cache. The members who need the cache go find it while the rest of us figure out our next stop.

 

Mind you, just because the team has found the cache does not mean all the members go and log it even if they were not there. Most of us believe that we have to be there to claim it.

 

Sometimes we just sign the team name on the log, usually that happens when the logbook is small ( saving space for other cachers) or the weather is so bad that we don't want to have the logbook out in it for very long ( rain, snow)

 

Since all of the members of the team I belong to have their own accounts, there has to be at least 3 members present to sign a log by our team name. Even then, the only reason we sign it with a team name instead of our individual names is to save space. Everyone still logs it normally, but we say it was found with the team instead of listing the whole group individually.

Link to comment

I can't believe that people would drive around and actually check the physical logs in their caches just to make sure that those that posted online had actually signed the log. That's crazier than logging a cache that you haven't found! Well, OK... maybe not if you only have one or two hides, and they're only blocks from your house, but otherwise... you have way too much time on your hands!

 

No crazier than routine maintenance checks.

Link to comment

My apologies for the double post. An error messages said that the post timed out and did not go through, so I posted again. Again, I am sorry.

 

DIE!

 

:D

 

Yeah, it can be a deceptive message, you do technically timeout, but the majority of the time the post goes through I've noticed.

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