Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?

[+MountainMudbug]

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!

 

Well. When one of my cache logs fills up, I go maintain my cache and collect it. I take it home and read through it to see what finders have written (which frankly isn't much these days), to see if any muggles found the cache and signed the log, to see what signature stickers and such are in there. I keep all the old logs in a gallon ziplock bag.

 

It isn't like I'm running around looking for any possible hint of "cheating" every time somebody logs online.

 

Do you just toss your logbooks in the trash? Really curious, not trying to be snide....

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

First of all I appreciate all the feedback and responses to this forum discussion, even if some don’t agree with my point of view.

 

I agree with some of you that there are many grey areas in geocaching. I often take the attitude of “let geocachers play their own game”. There are many contentious geocaching practices that span the range of grey.

 

In my opinion, the practice of false logging isn’t even at the edge of the grey spectrum, but is black and white and is NOT geocaching. I also agree that the percentage of false loggers is probably very low, but I do think it is getting worse, even to the point where some false loggers don’t realize it’s wrong.

 

Recent forum discussions defending false logs as ‘just another way some people choose to geocache’ were the last straw for me. ‘False logs’ were what prompted me to start this discussion, but my real concern is that the notion of ‘letting geocachers play their own game’ has gone so far that we’re willing to allow almost anything to be called geocaching.

 

My post was to appeal to cachers to take a bit more of a stand than “it doesn’t hurt me so I don’t care”. Many cachers already do take a stand. I believe some want to take a stand but are concerned with the ramifications. I also want to appeal to those who are guilty of false logging, to have a little more integrity and respect for geocaching.

 

I am NOT suggesting the answer to all of this is to drive around auditing your caches for false logs. However I am suggesting that people merely care enough to dissuade the practice.

[knowschad]

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!

 

You're a better man than me, if you do routine maintenance checks. I do maintence checks when I have a reason to believe a cache needs one, but there is nothing routine about it.

 

However, I was actually referring to this event:

 

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.

 

That sounds as though a bunch of cachers went out and checked up on all of the cachers that this KC team claimed to have found.

Edited January 31, 2008 by knowschad

[+egami]

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!

 

You're a better man than me, if you do routine maintenance checks. I do maintence checks when I have a reason to believe a cache needs one, but there is nothing routine about it.

 

Well, I currently only have two caches...both of which are walking distance from work or home.

 

However, I guess the point was that checking out a cache in a situation like you mention below isn't that much more intensive than a maintenance check...you're probably right that "routine" was probably a poor choice of wording.

 

However, I was actually referring to this event:

 

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.

 

That sounds as though a bunch of cachers went out and checked up on all of the cachers that this KC team claimed to have found.

 

Well, I know The NVG as we are from the same state, and I know somewhat of what he is talking about from talking to other cachers and reading the Iowa forums. I just moved to the area, so we've met, but don't know each other well or anything.

 

I think it was more something that tipped them off and so people realized it was kind an odd thing and so a few of them went and checked and things cascaded from there. Actually most of the caches in the DSM area are mostly owned by about a dozen or so very active cachers, so it really didn't take that much probably to go check them.

 

But maybe NVG can speak better to it as I think he was actively involved.

[+The NVG]

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!

 

Not too much time on my hands. Just not enough caches to find within a thirty mile radius.

 

As to Crazy....Guilty as charged.

[+Bad_CRC]

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!

 

 

But you can't let them get away with it!

 

and what if they forgot to cross a T or dot an I? The find doesn't count!! They must be punished!!

 

Edited January 31, 2008 by Bad_CRC

[+The NVG]

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!

 

You're a better man than me, if you do routine maintenance checks. I do maintence checks when I have a reason to believe a cache needs one, but there is nothing routine about it.

 

However, I was actually referring to this event:

 

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.

 

That sounds as though a bunch of cachers went out and checked up on all of the cachers that this KC team claimed to have found.

 

You are wrong about ONE thing. Not a "bunch" of cachers just one....me. Yes, way too much time on my hands, but the KC cachers were very indignant about me questioning them on the unsigned logs.

 

One of the two emailed me how it really hurt to have me question them. Beautiful, cop an attitude to further discourage me from checking.

 

On top of that, in one of the bogus logs, the other cacher quoted the previous finder (in September) about how the clues were still missing in the cache.

 

Here is what went down with this cache:

 

I disabled the cache because I had forgotten to replace clue like the KC cacher logged.

 

But here's the thing...I had replaced the clues, but had forgotten I had done it. There was no need to disable it. But I redid the log, made more clues, and headed out for the cache to maintain. I get out there and see there are still plenty of clues in the cache and no signature from the KC cachers.

 

Isn't that a nice touch? Lying and utlizing the previous finders log to further throw me off the case.

 

These two totally knew and planned how they were going to try to pull this off. And the Polk County Cache Sheriff busted them!

 

Don't mess with Central Iowa. 3AMT and Bucknuts checked their caches as well. In these two cachers case, the KC cachers didn't sign any of the seven logs. Five for 3AMT and two for bucknuts.

 

Further note on how obsessive I am:

 

About two years ago, I busted a board member of the Iowa Geocachers Organization logging caches he didn't find. He resigned for the board. Domino!

[+egami]

But you can't let them get away with it!

 

and what if they forgot to cross a T or dot an I? The find doesn't count!! They must be punished!!

 

 

That is only 2 demerits in Iowa.

[+The NVG]

It is pretty hard to cross T's and dot I's when you don't sign the log, find the cache, or even get out of your car.

[+BlueDeuce]

I think some of us should consider minding their own knitting, and I quote.

[+The NVG]

I am. Over half of the bogus finds were MY CACHES. Oh, and It's MY hood not yours BD. I wasn't runnin' a bunch of PQ's and then being a nusance. I was busting a C H E A T E R. Not pointing out the obvious. Although, it should have been obvious to the KC phonies that they didn't find the caches.

[+paleolith]

I think it's just part of the demographic of people who geocache, or maybe the subset of geocachers who post on internet forums?

It's absolutely certain that the people who post in these forums are unusual among geocachers. I wouldn't say the difference is necessarily demographic -- it might be, but it is far more certainly a different distribution of personality type. (Though I have a particular version of personality type in mind, the statement is probably true no matter what version of personality type you use.)

 

What portion of cachers EVER post to a forum? Somewhere between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000? How many read forums without posting? Probably about 10 to 20 times as many as post based on studies going quite a way back. Which means that at least 90% have never read ANYTHING in the forums.

 

That may seem terribly odd to those of us posting here -- it does to me -- but that's the world.

 

Edward

[+sbell111]

Well, I know The NVG as we are from the same state ...

I see you're from Iowa. Do you know Bob Smith?

[+sbell111]

I am. Over half of the bogus finds were MY CACHES. Oh, and It's MY hood not yours BD. I wasn't runnin' a bunch of PQ's and then being a nusance. I was busting a C H E A T E R. Not pointing out the obvious. Although, it should have been obvious to the KC phonies that they didn't find the caches.

Hey, buddy. I think you dropped this:

 

(Am I the only one amused by an Iowan being all 'street'? I mean no offense, but I'm really quite amused by it.)

[+egami]

Well, I know The NVG as we are from the same state ...

I see you're from Iowa. Do you know Bob Smith?

 

Yeah, he works at the Co-op!

[Mr.Yuck]

I think it's just part of the demographic of people who geocache, or maybe the subset of geocachers who post on internet forums?

It's absolutely certain that the people who post in these forums are unusual among geocachers. I wouldn't say the difference is necessarily demographic -- it might be, but it is far more certainly a different distribution of personality type. (Though I have a particular version of personality type in mind, the statement is probably true no matter what version of personality type you use.)

 

What portion of cachers EVER post to a forum? Somewhere between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000? How many read forums without posting? Probably about 10 to 20 times as many as post based on studies going quite a way back. Which means that at least 90% have never read ANYTHING in the forums.

 

That may seem terribly odd to those of us posting here -- it does to me -- but that's the world.

 

Edward

 

Only 285,855 of the approx. 1,400,000 registered accounts on geocaching.com have ever even looked at the forums (about 20%). But every time I bring something like that up, everyone thinks I'm just weird, and doesn't believe me.

 

Say, has anyone seen my Puritan Geocache Police badge? I seem to have dropped it somewhere.

[+BlueDeuce]

But every time I bring something like that up, everyone thinks I'm just weird, and doesn't believe me.

 

Well I believe you.

[+ArcherDragoon]

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.

I was thinking the same thing!!!

[+sbell111]

But every time I bring something like that up, everyone thinks I'm just weird, and doesn't believe me.

 

Well I believe you.

It sounds a little high to me, but what do I know?

[+Mudfrog]

I am. Over half of the bogus finds were MY CACHES. Oh, and It's MY hood not yours BD. I wasn't runnin' a bunch of PQ's and then being a nusance. I was busting a C H E A T E R. Not pointing out the obvious. Although, it should have been obvious to the KC phonies that they didn't find the caches.

Hey, buddy. I think you dropped this:

 

(Am I the only one amused by an Iowan being all 'street'? I mean no offense, but I'm really quite amused by it.)

Am i missing something here? It sounds like NVG checked on his own caches to see whether or not someone else actually found them or not. He found physical cache logs that were NOT signed and then deleted the bogus online logs. Isn't this the proper thing to do? Dsn't the GC.com guidelines for placing and maintaining geocaches mention this very thing?

 

What gets me is that some of you advocate lying. That's exactly what's happening when someone doesn't physically find a cache but logs it online. Granted, those bogus cache finds up in Iowa or whereever don't directly affect me, but lying is lying and it doesn't sit well with me at all. It's hard to believe that there are some of you on here that don't see this as being wrong and in fact, go out of your way to defend it!

 

We haven't had trouble with bogus logging in our area but i'm sure glad that we are a close bunch that would hollar at each other if something like this was ever suspected. Down here, we call it doing what's right and helping fellow cachers out, not the "geocaching police"...

[+BlueDeuce]

But every time I bring something like that up, everyone thinks I'm just weird, and doesn't believe me.

 

Well I believe you.

It sounds a little high to me, but what do I know?

 

eh, I was just being nice to the weird guy.

 

Besides 74% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Edited January 31, 2008 by BlueDeuce

[+TotemLake]

Welcome to "Geocaching Version B."

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

Siskel and Ebert would be proud.

[+sbell111]

I am. Over half of the bogus finds were MY CACHES. Oh, and It's MY hood not yours BD. I wasn't runnin' a bunch of PQ's and then being a nusance. I was busting a C H E A T E R. Not pointing out the obvious. Although, it should have been obvious to the KC phonies that they didn't find the caches.

Hey, buddy. I think you dropped this:

 

(Am I the only one amused by an Iowan being all 'street'? I mean no offense, but I'm really quite amused by it.)

Am i missing something here? It sounds like NVG checked on his own caches to see whether or not someone else actually found them or not. He found physical cache logs that were NOT signed and then deleted the bogus online logs. Isn't this the proper thing to do? Dsn't the GC.com guidelines for placing and maintaining geocaches mention this very thing?

Yup and yup. NVG then checked the logs on approximately 55 caches that he didn't own. That's what sounded kinda Kravitzy, to me.

What gets me is that some of you advocate lying. That's exactly what's happening when someone doesn't physically find a cache but logs it online. Granted, those bogus cache finds up in Iowa or whereever don't directly affect me, but lying is lying and it doesn't sit well with me at all. It's hard to believe that there are some of you on here that don't see this as being wrong and in fact, go out of your way to defend it!

Please point me to a post where someone advocated or defended lying.

We haven't had trouble with bogus logging in our area but i'm sure glad that we are a close bunch that would hollar at each other if something like this was ever suspected. Down here, we call it doing what's right and helping fellow cachers out, not the "geocaching police"...

There's helping, and then there's nosing, and then there's nosing and thumping your chest about it, and then... Edited January 31, 2008 by sbell111

[+JohnnyVegas]

I delete bogus logs on my caches when I find them.

Some people get rathet upset when I do. But I really do not care if they do.

I consider them to be liars and cheats, for all I care they can go find another hobby.

[+egami]

There's helping, and then there's nosing, and then there's nosing and thumping your chest about it, and then...

 

Having met most of these individuals, and knowing the general consensus of the DSM area cache owners regarding integrity, I feel pretty confident in my assumption that they really didn't consider it nosing. I think that is also evident in the fact that they were quite willing and happy to work with him on it.

 

Chest-thumping? Sure, but then again...I don't see anything wrong with taking pride in actively maintaining integrity in geocaching...at least he is willing to do something about it versus just talk about it.

 

Nothing wrong with doing the right thing.

[+UncleJimbo]

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!

Isn't that part of a cache owner's responsibility of maintaining a cache?

 

Maybe if more people actually took responsibility for their caches after placing them, we wouldn't have things like some cachers becoming indignant that other cachers are not "giving back to the game" by keeping up a 10% hide-to-find ratio. If you don't have enough time to keep up with your hides, then have fewer hides.

[Dinoprophet]

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!

Isn't that part of a cache owner's responsibility of maintaining a cache?

That's debatable, and for my part in the debate, I would say "no". The guidelines say you should delete logs that appear bogus. They do not say you must do everything in your power to illuminate and root out bogus logs. Are we to run out every time there's a new log posted and make sure there's a matching signature? If that were the case, we'd have nothing but LPCs.

[+Driver Carries Cache]

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!

Isn't that part of a cache owner's responsibility of maintaining a cache?

 

Maybe if more people actually took responsibility for their caches after placing them, we wouldn't have things like some cachers becoming indignant that other cachers are not "giving back to the game" by keeping up a 10% hide-to-find ratio. If you don't have enough time to keep up with your hides, then have fewer hides.

 

I'd agree on this. I've just begun placing caches and it's going slowly... because I want to make sure I've got the time for the proper "care and feeding" of each one I hide. My first is chugging along just fine and I've managed to check on it quarterly, which was my goal.

 

DCC

[+sbell111]

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!

Isn't that part of a cache owner's responsibility of maintaining a cache?

 

Maybe if more people actually took responsibility for their caches after placing them, we wouldn't have things like some cachers becoming indignant that other cachers are not "giving back to the game" by keeping up a 10% hide-to-find ratio. If you don't have enough time to keep up with your hides, then have fewer hides.

It is part of the cache owners obligation, in my opinion. However, it is not part of a random cachers obligation.

[+TotemLake]

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!

Isn't that part of a cache owner's responsibility of maintaining a cache?

That's debatable, and for my part in the debate, I would say "no". The guidelines say you should delete logs that appear bogus. They do not say you must do everything in your power to illuminate and root out bogus logs. Are we to run out every time there's a new log posted and make sure there's a matching signature? If that were the case, we'd have nothing but LPCs.

No, not everytime a log is made, but that should be part of your cache maintenance routine.

[+egami]

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!

Isn't that part of a cache owner's responsibility of maintaining a cache?

That's debatable, and for my part in the debate, I would say "no". The guidelines say you should delete logs that appear bogus. They do not say you must do everything in your power to illuminate and root out bogus logs. Are we to run out every time there's a new log posted and make sure there's a matching signature? If that were the case, we'd have nothing but LPCs.

 

That's easy for you to say from the outside, but knowing these people I can tell you they were very glad The NVG had caught on to this and were also glad he took action to preserve integrity on their caches.

 

Frankly, that being the case, you could argue that NOT doing it would have been the wrong thing to do.

[Dinoprophet]

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!

Isn't that part of a cache owner's responsibility of maintaining a cache?

That's debatable, and for my part in the debate, I would say "no". The guidelines say you should delete logs that appear bogus. They do not say you must do everything in your power to illuminate and root out bogus logs. Are we to run out every time there's a new log posted and make sure there's a matching signature? If that were the case, we'd have nothing but LPCs.

 

That's easy for you to say from the outside, but knowing these people I can tell you they were very glad The NVG had caught on to this and were also glad he took action to preserve integrity on their caches.

 

Frankly, that being the case, you could argue that NOT doing it would have been the wrong thing to do.

I don't mean to criticize anyone who does do it. The more maintenance someone can do on their cache, the better. I just don't believe that a cache owner *must* do it or should be expected to do it. (Edit: by "it" there I mean checking every log, not maintenance. I noticed it might be unclear)

 

Edit to add: I was also exaggerating about nothing but LPCs. I was just making the point that frequent checking of more remote caches is most often unfeasible, but I think most of us would rather those caches still exist despite that.

Edited January 31, 2008 by Dinoprophet

[+ArcherDragoon]

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!

Isn't that part of a cache owner's responsibility of maintaining a cache?

 

Maybe if more people actually took responsibility for their caches after placing them, we wouldn't have things like some cachers becoming indignant that other cachers are not "giving back to the game" by keeping up a 10% hide-to-find ratio. If you don't have enough time to keep up with your hides, then have fewer hides.

 

I'd agree on this. I've just begun placing caches and it's going slowly... because I want to make sure I've got the time for the proper "care and feeding" of each one I hide. My first is chugging along just fine and I've managed to check on it quarterly, which was my goal.

 

DCC

For the most part...quarterly works for me as well...there are a couple I worry about a lot less (found almost once a week...) or some I worry about more...

 

Usually, I will check a cache if it was three-four DNF's in a row and should be easy to find...other than that...I think I do a good job of monitoring online logs to see what is being said about a cache of mine to see if it needs a visit before my next planned visit...

[+sbell111]

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!

Isn't that part of a cache owner's responsibility of maintaining a cache?

That's debatable, and for my part in the debate, I would say "no". The guidelines say you should delete logs that appear bogus. They do not say you must do everything in your power to illuminate and root out bogus logs. Are we to run out every time there's a new log posted and make sure there's a matching signature? If that were the case, we'd have nothing but LPCs.

 

That's easy for you to say from the outside, but knowing these people I can tell you they were very glad The NVG had caught on to this and were also glad he took action to preserve integrity on their caches.

 

Frankly, that being the case, you could argue that NOT doing it would have been the wrong thing to do.

I don't mean to criticize anyone who does do it. The more maintenance someone can do on their cache, the better. I just don't believe that a cache owner *must* do it or should be expected to do it.

Agreed.

 

I'm uncomfortable with third parties taking it upon themselves to police the local caches, however.

[+egami]

I don't mean to criticize anyone who does do it. The more maintenance someone can do on their cache, the better. I just don't believe that a cache owner *must* do it or should be expected to do it.

 

I agree with that...I just wasn't 100% sure, so I made the distinction being knowledgeable of the situation.

[+tozainamboku]

Isn't that part of a cache owner's responsibility of maintaining a cache?

The guidelines for cache maintenance do say

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

For a puritan, the definition of bogus or counterfeit is pretty black and white. If someone didn't sign the physical log book they didn't find the cache. But of course most people aren't puritans since they see the main purpose of geocaching is to have fun and the points don't matter. They are perfectly willing to let many found it logs stand on the honor system. Perhaps the person forgot to bring a pen, perhaps the log was too wet to sign, perhaps they simple forgot to sign the log. Since you can't verify the log in this case, owners choose to let the online log stand.

 

But what about the cases where the log obviously states that they didn't find the log? Someone logged a virtual without leaving home or logged a find because they are sure the cache is missing and they would have found it anyhow. I personally would ask the person to change their Found It to a note or DNF in these cases. But some cache owners let these stand as well.

 

Some have hidden virtuals because they wanted people to find out more about some historic event, culturally important work, or geologic phenomenon. They choose to allow people who don't live in the area to claim a find if they can answer the question. While I can agree that this doesn't meet the guidelines for virtuals that existed immediately prior to them being grandfathered, these may have been posted prior to those guidelines. The big problem we have with armchair virtuals are the number of virtuals that exist where the owner is no longer active in geocaching. They simply don't check the logs and don't respond to emails.

 

Even physical caches are hidden by people who insist that the primary reason for hiding a cache is to bring someone to an interesting location. This cache owner may feel that the "find" has met his requirement so long as a person was actually in the area whether or not the cache was found. Or what about the person who didn't find the cache so they left a replacement? Many cache owners are so happy that someone did maintenance for them, that they're not going to delete the log. Now someone else can find the replacement (or maybe even the original cache) and go to the great spot the cache was meant to point out - the real reason that this owner hid a cache here. I personally think that if the TPTB would emphasize that geocaching is primarily about finding caches and not about taking you to a neat place fewer people would try to claim a find when they didn't find the cache and you'd be in a better position to convince cache owners that these are bogus finds.

[+rlridgeway]

...But every time I bring something like that up, everyone thinks I'm just weird, and doesn't believe me...

 

I am bit of a statistics hound myself.

Statistics can put things in perspective.

In the last 5 years the number of geocachers has increased 10 fold and the number of caches by 20 fold. The trends haven't flattened out yet.

I am not worried about the demise of geocaching. If only the stock market and my paycheck would do as well.

Edited January 31, 2008 by rlridgeway

[+Bad_CRC]

Hey, buddy. I think you dropped this:

 

[+infiniteMPG]

>>Maybe if more people actually took responsibility for their caches after placing them, we wouldn't have things like some cachers becoming indignant that other cachers are not "giving back to the game" by keeping up a 10% hide-to-find ratio. If you don't have enough time to keep up with your hides, then have fewer hides.

 

I am the proud father of over 230 hides and proudly maintain every one. I despise tossed hides and like unique locations/camo/area/techniques. I am proud to have a 40% hide to find ratio and it used to be about 80% but I am about saturated on maintenance time. Numbers don't mean much to me. I did three maintenance runs already this week on a dozen caches and have been taking some old less imaginative caches and upgrading the hides. I take pride in my hides and think everyone 'should' but I have no control over anyone except me (and sometimes that's questionable... hehehe). I have one mega-multi that requires a minimum of 11 miles of hiking and there's a clue in the final that someone has to email to me to get credit. Other then that one it's a honor system.

 

The way I see it is if someone logs finds they didn't find then the only real person they're cheating is themselves. When they go to an event or cross paths with another cacher and state "I have 250,000 finds" in the back of their mind a little voice, maybe littler in some then others, is whispering "You cheating low life piece of ****". They have to live with that and if they think it fools anyone then they're even more foolish. Just like the golf analogy, when some hack comes in off the course and says "Yeah, I shot a 75 today" and yet you see the guy has about as much golf talent as your golf towel, just chuckle and walk away.

 

A better analogy (yeah, us engineers are full of analogies among other things) would be to look at us cache hiders as a dart manufacturing company. We make 'em, we put them in public, but we have little control over what people do with them when we're away. Most people toss 'em at a dart board and have fun with 'em. Some people leave 'em in the drawer as talk about how good they can throw, others throw 'em at squirells in the back yard. All we can do it make 'em.

 

Have never checked on a log sheet and not planning on it. When a log fills I keep the old one and enjoy reading what some people have written. But to me, we take the time to make the container, find a spot, devise some camo, write and publish the listing, and maintain it. If someone finds it and all they can do is write "TFTH!" in their log entry then so be it. But my pleasure comes from reading the stories in the logs, and just like side-of-the-road tossed out caches, I pass by the cut-and-paste logs to a dozen caches, too.

 

The same people who fake the finds are probably the same ones who leave the stuff scattered around we CITO for, can't figure out how to snap the lid shut on a decon container, don't have a clue how to log a trackable item in or out, and can't figure out how to use their turn signal.

[+eagletrek]

I am. Over half of the bogus finds were MY CACHES. Oh, and It's MY hood not yours BD. I wasn't runnin' a bunch of PQ's and then being a nusance. I was busting a C H E A T E R. Not pointing out the obvious. Although, it should have been obvious to the KC phonies that they didn't find the caches.

Hey, buddy. I think you dropped this:

 

(Am I the only one amused by an Iowan being all 'street'? I mean no offense, but I'm really quite amused by it.)

Am i missing something here? It sounds like NVG checked on his own caches to see whether or not someone else actually found them or not. He found physical cache logs that were NOT signed and then deleted the bogus online logs. Isn't this the proper thing to do? Dsn't the GC.com guidelines for placing and maintaining geocaches mention this very thing?

 

What gets me is that some of you advocate lying. That's exactly what's happening when someone doesn't physically find a cache but logs it online. Granted, those bogus cache finds up in Iowa or whereever don't directly affect me, but lying is lying and it doesn't sit well with me at all. It's hard to believe that there are some of you on here that don't see this as being wrong and in fact, go out of your way to defend it!

 

We haven't had trouble with bogus logging in our area but i'm sure glad that we are a close bunch that would hollar at each other if something like this was ever suspected. Down here, we call it doing what's right and helping fellow cachers out, not the "geocaching police"...

 

Well I know Texas is a big state but I can tell you from first hand knowledge that lying, cheating and all other forms of dubious activities are alive and well within the Texas Geocaching community. In fact, what makes it worse is that it exists among some of the state's top cachers. I believe it's alive and well across the entire globe!!!!

 

It seems that finding a large group of honest cachers may be a tougher feat than scoring a 5/5 cache!!!!!

[+egami]

The way I see it is if someone logs finds they didn't find then the only real person they're cheating is themselves.

 

That's your perception, and a valid one, but I think a number of cache owners feel "cheated" if their cache was used in this manner. Personally, I wouldn't knowingly enable someone to use my cache for this purpose.

[+sbell111]

The way I see it is if someone logs finds they didn't find then the only real person they're cheating is themselves.

 

That's your perception, and a valid one, but I think a number of cache owners feel "cheated" if their cache was used in this manner. Personally, I wouldn't knowingly enable someone to use my cache for this purpose.

That's why it's important to remember that a 'find' is basically an agreement between cache 'finder' and cache owner. If the owner doesn't believe a find has been made, hwe can ask for the log to be changed and/or delete the 'bogus' log.

[knowschad]

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.

Isn't that part of a cache owner's responsibility of maintaining a cache?

 

No.

[+egami]

The way I see it is if someone logs finds they didn't find then the only real person they're cheating is themselves.

 

That's your perception, and a valid one, but I think a number of cache owners feel "cheated" if their cache was used in this manner. Personally, I wouldn't knowingly enable someone to use my cache for this purpose.

That's why it's important to remember that a 'find' is basically an agreement between cache 'finder' and cache owner. If the owner doesn't believe a find has been made, hwe can ask for the log to be changed and/or delete the 'bogus' log.

 

I've never really contested this concept.

[+sbell111]

The way I see it is if someone logs finds they didn't find then the only real person they're cheating is themselves.

 

That's your perception, and a valid one, but I think a number of cache owners feel "cheated" if their cache was used in this manner. Personally, I wouldn't knowingly enable someone to use my cache for this purpose.

That's why it's important to remember that a 'find' is basically an agreement between cache 'finder' and cache owner. If the owner doesn't believe a find has been made, hwe can ask for the log to be changed and/or delete the 'bogus' log.

 

I've never really contested this concept.

Well, than how can a person pass judgement on someone else's finds on still another person's cache? Also, why is it acceptable for some cachers to elect themselves as the roving log checker of everyone's caches?

[+egami]

The way I see it is if someone logs finds they didn't find then the only real person they're cheating is themselves.

 

That's your perception, and a valid one, but I think a number of cache owners feel "cheated" if their cache was used in this manner. Personally, I wouldn't knowingly enable someone to use my cache for this purpose.

That's why it's important to remember that a 'find' is basically an agreement between cache 'finder' and cache owner. If the owner doesn't believe a find has been made, hwe can ask for the log to be changed and/or delete the 'bogus' log.

 

I've never really contested this concept.

Well, than how can a person pass judgement on someone else's finds on still another person's cache? Also, why is it acceptable for some cachers to elect themselves as the roving log checker of everyone's caches?

 

The better question is why can't someone pass judgment on someone else's find on another's cache and why isn't acceptable for some cacher to elect themselves as the roving log checker of other's caches.

 

No one is twisting any cache owner's arm to edit logs. They can elect to react to the information as they choose. Just because it's your opinion that this shouldn't be done doesn't make the action wrong. Especially considering the fact that ultimately, at the end of the day, it's still between the cache owner and the logger.

[+sbell111]

The way I see it is if someone logs finds they didn't find then the only real person they're cheating is themselves.

 

That's your perception, and a valid one, but I think a number of cache owners feel "cheated" if their cache was used in this manner. Personally, I wouldn't knowingly enable someone to use my cache for this purpose.

That's why it's important to remember that a 'find' is basically an agreement between cache 'finder' and cache owner. If the owner doesn't believe a find has been made, hwe can ask for the log to be changed and/or delete the 'bogus' log.

 

I've never really contested this concept.

Well, than how can a person pass judgement on someone else's finds on still another person's cache? Also, why is it acceptable for some cachers to elect themselves as the roving log checker of everyone's caches?

 

The better question is why can't someone pass judgment on someone else's find on another's cache and why isn't acceptable for some cacher to elect themselves as the roving log checker of other's caches.

 

No one is twisting any cache owner's arm to edit logs. They can elect to react to the information as they choose. Just because it's your opinion that this shouldn't be done doesn't make the action wrong. Especially considering the fact that ultimately, at the end of the day, it's still between the cache owner and the logger.

Really?

 

Neither the OP nor NVG are the cache owner or the logger.

[+egami]

The way I see it is if someone logs finds they didn't find then the only real person they're cheating is themselves.

 

That's your perception, and a valid one, but I think a number of cache owners feel "cheated" if their cache was used in this manner. Personally, I wouldn't knowingly enable someone to use my cache for this purpose.

That's why it's important to remember that a 'find' is basically an agreement between cache 'finder' and cache owner. If the owner doesn't believe a find has been made, hwe can ask for the log to be changed and/or delete the 'bogus' log.

 

I've never really contested this concept.

Well, than how can a person pass judgement on someone else's finds on still another person's cache? Also, why is it acceptable for some cachers to elect themselves as the roving log checker of everyone's caches?

 

The better question is why can't someone pass judgment on someone else's find on another's cache and why isn't acceptable for some cacher to elect themselves as the roving log checker of other's caches.

 

No one is twisting any cache owner's arm to edit logs. They can elect to react to the information as they choose. Just because it's your opinion that this shouldn't be done doesn't make the action wrong. Especially considering the fact that ultimately, at the end of the day, it's still between the cache owner and the logger.

Really?

 

Neither the OP nor NVG are the cache owner or the logger.

 

And they should both be able to exercise their right to voice their opinion.

[+JohnnyVegas]

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.

Isn't that part of a cache owner's responsibility of maintaining a cache?

 

No.

You are so wrong - from the guidelines

 

Cache Maintenance

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

As the cache owner, you are also responsible for physically checking your cache periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.). You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive or transfer the listing.

 

It may be difficult to fulfill your maintenance obligations if you place a cache while traveling on vacation or otherwise outside of your normal caching area. These caches may not be published unless you are able to demonstrate an acceptable maintenance plan. It is not uncommon for caches to go missing, areas to be cleared, trails to be blocked or closed, objects used for multi-cache or puzzles to be moved or removed, etc. Your maintenance plan must allow for a quick response to reported problems.

 

The territory in which a geocacher is able to maintain caches responsibly will vary from one person to the next. An active geocacher who regularly visits areas hundreds of miles apart can demonstrate their ability to maintain a cache 100 miles from home. A geocacher whose previous finds and hides are all within 25 miles of their home would likely not see their cache published if placed 250 miles away from their home.

 

If you have special circumstances, please describe your maintenance plan on your cache page. For example, if you have made arrangements with a local geocacher to watch over your distant cache for you, that geocacher’s name should be mentioned on your cache page.

[+sbell111]

You are so wrong - from the guidelines

 

Cache Maintenance

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

As the cache owner, you are also responsible for physically checking your cache periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.). ...

You will note that 'delete any logs...' and 'physically check' parts are not together in teh same paragraph. One could certainly argue that these are two completely seperate thoughts.