Jump to content

Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?


Followers 5

Recommended Posts

I have been seeing this thread stretch out to 14 pages, and it is getting sickening. Let's face the facts, folks, There are only two kinds of geocachers:

There are geocachers who are good, moral and upright and upstanding citizens who do not file fake logs or engage in other shady and shaky practices, and there are geocachers who are bad people and who are destined to burn forever in the H3llfires of Eternal Damnation. I say that we end all the debate right now, by implementing the following steps immediately:

  • get the US Congress to pass a law requiring that all geocachers in the USA be licensed and registered, and that the full name and address -- including home address and work address -- of each licensed geocacher be available on the DOJ's USA Geocacher Registry website.
  • I suggest that geocachers in each region form volunteer death squads, whose job it will be to seek out bad geocachers, that is geocachers who lie, cheat, steal and break the rules, and hunt them down at their homes or at their place of work and break in the door and execute them summarily on the spot for their infractions.
  • I further humbly suggest that the death squads systematically behead the bodies, post-execution, of each of the bad geocachers whom they were forced to execute (in order to keep our pure sport clean and pure), and that the heads be shipped by Fedex Express via FedEx Standard Overnight® shipping to a central location in the USA, hopefully near Groundspeak headquarters in Washington state, and that the severed heads be mounted alongside a roadway or alleyway that will henceforth be called "The Memorial Lane of Geocaching's Shameful Offenders". In fact, we can even place a special commemorative geocache at this spot!

Aside from ridding our ranks -- and the planet as well -- of liars, cheats, thieves and hoaxsters, this self-policing vigilante activity will firmly demonstrate to land managers that we geocachers are willing and able to self-police our sport to keep it clean and to keep it pure and righteous. This will undoubtedly work to vastly increase the trust that land managers have in geocachers and geocaching, as we will have demonstrated unequivocally that we are willing to ruthlessly and efficiently cull from our esteemed ranks the liars, cheaters, thieves, offenders, communists, terrorists and any others who wish to pollute, sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids. Thus, this self-policing activity becomes win-win for all! :D

 

:D

 

BRAVO

Link to comment
Do you know what they call everyone playing the game of life with their own set of rules? Anarchy. There is a right, there is a wrong it does matter. Teaching otherwise is irresponsible, and wrong.
Huh???? Okay, it's wrong to drive 1mph over the speed limit. It's wrong to stand in the 10 items or less line with 11 items. It's wrong to use the word "ain't". It's wrong to not put recyclable items in your trash can. It's wrong to smoke. It's wrong to cross the road where's there's not a designated crossing marked. It's wrong to drink milk after the expiration date. It's wrong to turn without using your turn signal properly. It's wrong to follow the car in front of you less then 1 car length per 10mph of speed. Hmmm, people do all these wrong things all the time and I didn't notice the anarchy sign lighting up.... :D
Link to comment

I have been seeing this thread stretch out to 14 pages, and it is getting sickening. Let's face the facts, folks, There are only two kinds of geocachers:

 

:D

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are only two kinds of people in the world; those who say there are only two kind of people in the world, and those who don't.

 

;-)

Link to comment
So when I said, "it's not happening enough to degrade geocaching" that doesn't clearly imply that I think there is such thing as enough. It only clearly implies that it's not happening, and I was directly answering the OPs question (again) of "Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching". See? That was me saying, no, it's not happening.

 

Any other "key points" you want to make so you can prove I've suddenly done a 180 on my position? :D

You need to learn to write exactly what you mean. When I hear someone say "it's not happening enough to result in the degradation of geocaching;" I don't interpret that as meaning "It's not happening." Adding the adverb "enough" means that it has not hit a threshold yet.

I guess you're right. Suddenly I'm trying to say that false Finds ARE causing a degradation of geocaching. That word "enough" gave me away. You're on to me. I was trying to pretend I hadn't changed my mind, but you figured it out. That's me outsmarted!

 

:D

Next time I will call the Psychic Hotline to ask them what you really mean.... :D

No need. You're doing fine making it up yourself and replying to stuff that I didn't really say.

I'm just learning your version of the English language. Tell me if I got it right with this example:

 

Example: Mushtang has not been obnoxious enough to get booted from this thread... :D

This means that you haven't been obnoxious. I had to say it that way so you would understand.... :D

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
I'm just learning your version of the English language. Tell me if I got it right with this example:

 

Example: Mushtang has not been obnoxious enough to get booted from this thread... ;)

This means that you haven't been obnoxious. I had to say it that way so you would understand.... :ph34r:

Whatever. I'm tired of you pulling this thread off topic.

 

So... ANYway... as I'll be demonstrating, it's quite possible to ignore something that you might not agree with, without it causing you to feel like the game is being degraded. There can be certain aspects of the game that people do differently than you'd prefer they do, but if you ignore it and don't let it bother you, the game you play will be just as fun.

 

Hooray for freedom!

Link to comment
I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are only two kinds of people in the world; those who say there are only two kind of people in the world, and those who don't.;-)
I always thought that there was THREE kinds of people in this world, those who are good at math, and those who aren't... :ph34r:
Link to comment

I find the number of people in this thread that do not have a problem with liars and cheats to be some of the black eye's of geocaching.

 

I'll second that... I'm right there with ya!...

 

That's the frustrating thing in this thread. That peole are defending liars and cheats. 14 pages on micros suck I can see. 14 pages defending a lack of virtue?

 

Hey don't stop there Senator Renegade Knight McCarthy and cohorts.

 

Let's have names of those people defending liars and cheats. We need a list.

 

We'll haul those folks before a committee and make them name names too of anyone they think might have logged a fake find. If they don't then we will blacklist them.

 

HopsMaltYeast

I do not now, nor have I ever defended liars and cheats.

 

Saying that someone somewhere making a false log does not degrade me or my experience in GeoCaching is not the same as "Defending" liars and cheats.

Link to comment

No one said they condone cheaters or liers, but not many people have the time, patience, or desire to spend any of this precious and limited life of ours trying to crucify cheaters in something as trivial as a recreational activity. I would rather pass my time smiling after my next hide or find then waste one minute playing detective and occasionally feel some vedictive justification in flogging someone who armchair geocached in order to stroke their tiny little ego.

 

I also don't defend or condone people who are just too friggin' lazy or don't have the mental capacity to figure out the highly challenging task of using their turn signals, but I'm also not going to follow them home just so I can rub their nose on the turn signal lever.

 

If this world or the people in it were perfect, it would be one massively boring place....

Edited by infiniteMPG
Link to comment
So when I said, "it's not happening enough to degrade geocaching" that doesn't clearly imply that I think there is such thing as enough. It only clearly implies that it's not happening, and I was directly answering the OPs question (again) of "Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching". See? That was me saying, no, it's not happening.

 

Any other "key points" you want to make so you can prove I've suddenly done a 180 on my position? :ph34r:

You need to learn to write exactly what you mean. When I hear someone say "it's not happening enough to result in the degradation of geocaching;" I don't interpret that as meaning "It's not happening." Adding the adverb "enough" means that it has not hit a threshold yet.

This is a strange comment from someone who keeps insulting others and, when called on it, excuses it with a 'didn't you see the smiley?' type of response.
Link to comment

I haven't looked at this thread for a day or two so this may have been covered/asked... Again, i look at this as being a matter of principle, that it is lying and is wrong. However, we'll just forget this for a moment...

 

KBI, Mushtang, anyone else who says that false logs do not affect them. I agree that for most of the time, they don't directly affect me either. But what about that one time that it does.

 

Say that you look at the logs for a cache and see that the cache was just found yesterday. You go for the cache, perform your search and don't find it. No harm, thats part of geocaching, but then you somehow find out later that the found log that you read earlier was false. Granted, it's not life or death, but wouldn't you, at the very least, think about it for a moment and wonder why the last person lied and caused you to go searching for a missing cache? In otherwords, did this not affect you in some way?

 

Another question, do you think that false logging would start happening more often if we all adopted your "it doesn't affect me, cache how you want" attitude? Unfortunately, i believe that it would.

 

As we all agree, this does not seem to be a widespread or large problem right now. However, if it did start happening more often, then i believe your blanket statement that "false logging doesn't affect you because you don't allow it to", would be hogwash. What do you think?

 

Edited to spell "principle" correctly. :ph34r:

Yes, it's possible that a false Find will have an affect on me. But it's not going to be the degradation of the game that others are suggesting. It's certainly not going to be a larger affect than any other DNF.

 

I'd say that the "one time it does" happen to me I can't imagine that I'd think it was in a category of DNFs that does special damage to the game. Caches will go missing, and there will be DNFs. People will continue to look for them after they've been reported as missing for several reasons:

1) old data in a PQ [maybe someone hasn't downloaded the DNF logs that were posted an hour ago]

2) not trusting the DNF [maybe the people logging the DNFs were newbies and the cache may still be there]

3) a false Find [someone padding their numbers picks a poor cache to lie about a find]

4) failure to read the cache page before looking [lots of people just load up waypoints and go, and may actually have the DNFs in their PQs but don't read them]

 

All of these can result in someone looking for a missing cache after it has been reported missing, none of these will cause a "degradation of geocaching".

5) accidently logging an old find with the current date.

Link to comment

I find the number of people in this thread that do not have a problem with liars and cheats to be some of the black eye's of geocaching.

 

I'll second that... I'm right there with ya!

 

I think that's the point that many are missing. Saying "It doesn't affect me, so I don't care, I'm still having fun" is proof of degredation. Not necessarily of Geocaching, but of society as a whole. This problem becomes more evident in a "self-policing" activity such as Geocaching, where the participants are granted a certain degree of autonomy. I find this disheartening.

 

DCC

The fact that some people aren't affected is proof that we all are affected? Really?

Link to comment
Do you know what they call everyone playing the game of life with their own set of rules? Anarchy. There is a right, there is a wrong it does matter. Teaching otherwise is irresponsible, and wrong.
Huh???? Okay, it's wrong to drive 1mph over the speed limit. It's wrong to stand in the 10 items or less line with 11 items. It's wrong to use the word "ain't". It's wrong to not put recyclable items in your trash can. It's wrong to smoke. It's wrong to cross the road where's there's not a designated crossing marked. It's wrong to drink milk after the expiration date. It's wrong to turn without using your turn signal properly. It's wrong to follow the car in front of you less then 1 car length per 10mph of speed. Hmmm, people do all these wrong things all the time and I didn't notice the anarchy sign lighting up.... :ph34r:

There is a reason this thread is now at 15 pages. There are some people who believe is is always wrong to lie and others who believe there are times it is OK to lie - for example bluffing at poker. Does a lie degrade the game? It probably depends on whether you believe lying is always bad or whether you believe that sometimes lying is OK (i.e. either good or neutral).

 

I take the OP's position to be that false lies make the game less enjoyable for him. In that respect false logs are degrading his enjoyement of the game and you can't argue with an individual's perception. False logs degrade Cedar Groves Seekers enjoyment of the game and probably the enjoyment of some others who have argued against them. False logs probably enhance the game for some other geocachers. Anywhere from the people who enjoy the ability to armchair log virtual caches when they can't get out to find a cache, to those who just like to see the reaction of others to a log that really doesn't mean much, to those who have so much time on their hands that they spend all day looking for examples to post to the Found It = Didn't Find It thread. Still others don't see false logs as affecting the game much either way since they don't pay attention to the logs or are able to read the logs and assess which are false logs and which are genuine without getting worked up about it.

 

During the second World War, several deeply religious Christians such as Corrie ten Boom, hid their Jewish neighbors from the Nazis. When the SS would come to look for the Jews these people would lie because they believe that the saving of innocent lives was more important than telling the truth. I will grant that a bogus log won't save anyone from the Nazis so this example doesn't justify lying in your log. It is simply an example that lying can be good, bad, or neutral.

Link to comment
So when I said, "it's not happening enough to degrade geocaching" that doesn't clearly imply that I think there is such thing as enough. It only clearly implies that it's not happening, and I was directly answering the OPs question (again) of "Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching". See? That was me saying, no, it's not happening.

 

Any other "key points" you want to make so you can prove I've suddenly done a 180 on my position? :ph34r:

You need to learn to write exactly what you mean. When I hear someone say "it's not happening enough to result in the degradation of geocaching;" I don't interpret that as meaning "It's not happening." Adding the adverb "enough" means that it has not hit a threshold yet.

This is a strange comment from someone who keeps insulting others and, when called on it, excuses it with a 'didn't you see the smiley?' type of response.

The problem with these threads is how you read them. I thought the smilies were there to help communicate your intention/tone of voice. If we were talking you'd hear that my tone of voice is jovial and joking and yet some people like you constantly take what I say as insulting. The lesson learned is that you can't joke around with thin skinned people. That's why I don't joke around with you anymore. I guess I'll have to add Mushtang to that list too. I think I can still joke around with KBI...
Link to comment

I find the number of people in this thread that do not have a problem with liars and cheats to be some of the black eye's of geocaching.

 

I'll second that... I'm right there with ya!...

 

That's the frustrating thing in this thread. That peole are defending liars and cheats. 14 pages on micros suck I can see. 14 pages defending a lack of virtue?

I'm still looking for the post that defended either liars or cheats.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I find the number of people in this thread that do not have a problem with liars and cheats to be some of the black eye's of geocaching.

 

I'll second that... I'm right there with ya!...

 

That's the frustrating thing in this thread. That peole are defending liars and cheats. 14 pages on micros suck I can see. 14 pages defending a lack of virtue?

I think it's 14 pages of some people saying false logging is degrading the game, and other people saying false logging is not degrading the game. I haven't read anyone "defend a liar and a cheat".

 

On the off chance you're lumping me in with the defenders of liars and cheats, I'll re-state that if I knew a false Find had been logged on one of my caches I'd delete it. I don't want them on my cache. My stance is that if an owner allows a false log to stay, I can't see how that is degrading to the game.

I agree completely, but I would add that from this thread that it's not completely clear what lying and cheating is. Clearly, different cachers define a find in different ways. As long as teh cache seeker and cache finder agree that a find was made, it was.
Link to comment
So... ANYway... as I'll be demonstrating, it's quite possible to ignore something that you might not agree with, without it causing you to feel like the game is being degraded. There can be certain aspects of the game that people do differently than you'd prefer they do, but if you ignore it and don't let it bother you, the game you play will be just as fun.

 

Hooray for freedom!

I do ignore it, but this is a discussion thread. Lying is bad. Telling the truth is good.
Link to comment

... I realize that I wasn’t around ‘in the beginning’, but I’ve been around long enough to notice an increase in what I’ll refer to as ‘false logs’. I am talking about cachers logging finds when they didn’t even come anywhere close to the cache.

 

... I personally think that this latter attitude, as it relates to false logs, will ultimately have a very negative impact on geocaching.

 

...I fear that one day most geocaching will be done without leaving the computer, and we’ll have allowed it to come to this by ‘looking the other way’ on false logs. I won’t be such a proud geocacher then.

 

...

I am not proposing that everyone must adhere to a very strict set of rules, but false logs are getting a little ridiculous. ...

 

A modest proposal:

 

After 700+ posts to this thread, I have not seen any hard evidence that there is widespread cheating or lying, nor any data to demonstrate that cheating is higher now than in the good ole days.

 

I have not seen evidence that lying on logs degrades my experience or the hobby in a moral sense.

 

I have seen a few anecdotal examples of actually events or possible events when someone might be inconvenienced because they counted on a log to be factual and visited a cache site to find it missing or archived. However, even in those cases the root cause was that the Cache was either missing or abandoned. And in a minor way, that inconvenienced cacher had the opportunity to “elevate” the hobby of GeoCaching by reporting the missing cache or a cache that needed maintenance.

 

A few days ago someone else was posting vague and/or unsubstantiated opinions that folks were ignoring rules to obtain proper permission for placing caches, and out of frustration later even said, “…everybody is placing caches without permission…”

 

Perhaps we should check facts before slinging accusations?

 

I have a greater concern that unsubstantiated or speculative claims of these sorts have a higher potential for damaging the image of GeoCaching than a few armchair find logs has.

 

I imagine a new comer who has had no thought of cheating or that cheating occurs, when reading claims like these, deciding to move on down the road to a different hobby. Why get involved with something that is corrupt and going to the dogs?

 

I think to a new comer the prospect of joining a club crawling with liars, cheaters and rules ignorers would be a bit off putting.

 

Recall that the OP and thread say, “Are we allowing the degradation of GeoCaching – subhead – “False logs are getting ridiculous!””

 

I am much more concerned with the impact of abandoned and poorly maintained caches on the hobby of GeoCaching than the impact of a false find log.

Link to comment
So when I said, "it's not happening enough to degrade geocaching" that doesn't clearly imply that I think there is such thing as enough. It only clearly implies that it's not happening, and I was directly answering the OPs question (again) of "Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching". See? That was me saying, no, it's not happening.

 

Any other "key points" you want to make so you can prove I've suddenly done a 180 on my position? :ph34r:

You need to learn to write exactly what you mean. When I hear someone say "it's not happening enough to result in the degradation of geocaching;" I don't interpret that as meaning "It's not happening." Adding the adverb "enough" means that it has not hit a threshold yet.
This is a strange comment from someone who keeps insulting others and, when called on it, excuses it with a 'didn't you see the smiley?' type of response.
The problem with these threads is how you read them. I thought the smilies were there to help communicate your intention/tone of voice. If we were talking you'd hear that my tone of voice is jovial and joking and yet some people like you constantly take what I say as insulting. The lesson learned is that you can't joke around with thin skinned people. That's why I don't joke around with you anymore. I guess I'll have to add Mushtang to that list too. I think I can still joke around with KBI...
You'll have to run it by him, but it looks like he can't decipher your posts, either:
Last time I checked this was a discussion forum where you "share" your views. I'm not sure how you "impose" anything in a discussion forum ...
Then why did you accuse me of doing exactly that?
I'll give you the same answer I just gave to your brother...
I was joking. Note the laughing dude --> ;) I added after I joked about that....
Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

So how was your recent golf outing with KBI and Mushtang? :ph34r:;)

130-221~The-Three-Stooges-Posters.jpg

How about you stay on topic, and stop with the name calling and insulting? I would appreciate that very much.

 

Does this mean that you're officially out of reasons to argue that false logs are degrading to geocaching?

Link to comment

So how was your recent golf outing with KBI and Mushtang? ;);)

130-221~The-Three-Stooges-Posters.jpg

How about you stay on topic, and stop with the name calling and insulting? I would appreciate that very much.

 

Does this mean that you're officially out of reasons to argue that false logs are degrading to geocaching?

This thread was getting too serious so it needed some lightening up... ;):ph34r:

 

My views have been already consisely expressed by Brainsnat:

How phony logs hurt the sport:

1. They are at minimum confusing to other geocachers.

2. They can result in the archiving of caches.

3. They can delay needed maintenance on a cache

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

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

it becomes a moral one.

Link to comment

[Off topic insults ignored]

 

My views have been already consisely expressed by Brainsnat:

How phony logs hurt the sport:

1. They are at minimum confusing to other geocachers.

2. They can result in the archiving of caches.

3. They can delay needed maintenance on a cache

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

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

it becomes a moral one.

I still disagree that number 2 on the list is true.

 

Were you able to find an example of a cache that was archived because of fake logs, as opposed to lack of maintenance?

Link to comment

I find the number of people in this thread that do not have a problem with liars and cheats to be some of the black eye's of geocaching.

 

I'll second that... I'm right there with ya!...

 

That's the frustrating thing in this thread. That peole are defending liars and cheats. 14 pages on micros suck I can see. 14 pages defending a lack of virtue?

 

Hey don't stop there Senator Renegade Knight McCarthy and cohorts.

 

Let's have names of those people defending liars and cheats. We need a list.

 

We'll haul those folks before a committee and make them name names too of anyone they think might have logged a fake find. If they don't then we will blacklist them.

 

HopsMaltYeast

 

That's a ludicrous jump. I don't recall anyone screaming "lets burn them"! :ph34r:

 

All I said, way back on page 2 was that dishonest behavior should be called as such. When someone responds to dishonesty with "it doesn't affect me, so I'm going on my merry way..." I see that as part of the problem. When society refuses, or just can't be bothered with calling bad behavior "bad" I feel that hurts us all. You can (and many here obviously do) disagree.

 

DCC

Link to comment

I find the number of people in this thread that do not have a problem with liars and cheats to be some of the black eye's of geocaching.

 

I'll second that... I'm right there with ya!...

 

That's the frustrating thing in this thread. That peole are defending liars and cheats. 14 pages on micros suck I can see. 14 pages defending a lack of virtue?

 

Hey don't stop there Senator Renegade Knight McCarthy and cohorts.

 

Let's have names of those people defending liars and cheats. We need a list.

 

We'll haul those folks before a committee and make them name names too of anyone they think might have logged a fake find. If they don't then we will blacklist them.

 

HopsMaltYeast

 

That's a ludicrous jump. I don't recall anyone screaming "lets burn them"! :ph34r:

 

All I said, way back on page 2 was that dishonest behavior should be called as such. When someone responds to dishonesty with "it doesn't affect me, so I'm going on my merry way..." I see that as part of the problem. When society refuses, or just can't be bothered with calling bad behavior "bad" I feel that hurts us all. You can (and many here obviously do) disagree.

 

DCC

 

Last time I checked this was a GeoCaching site.

 

I come here for GeoCaching information, not to wring my hands over the fact that someone might lie and therefore degrade me or my experience with GeoCaching.

 

Debating when or if lying or cheating might ever be moral is not GeoCaching.

 

I believe that lectures on morality could be better placed on a philosophy or religion site or thread or on the off topic board.

 

GeoCaching is hunting for a cache.

Link to comment

In an effort to return to the thread's topic, I offer this retread of my fifth reply to this thread (and the first one that was serious):

What I've noticed in my brief time in the forums is that people want to alter every thread to be about their favorite whipping topic and that people want to exhibit some control over people who enjoy the game differently than they do.

 

Therefore, let's stick to the topic of false logs. I fail to see how a false log is an issue that should not be privately handled between a cache hider and a cache seeker. With the exception of a 'truly' false log that could possibly inconvenience Brian's friend, none of the actions given by the OP affects anyone except the cache seeker and cache hider.

 

It is my belief 'false logging' happens extremely rarely and even then, it mostly affects virtual caches. This issue is not worthy of the angst level that it causes. It is just another example of little issues that get people riled up in the forums and hardly affects any of us in real life.

Link to comment

[Off topic insults ignored]

 

My views have been already consisely expressed by Brainsnat:

How phony logs hurt the sport:

1. They are at minimum confusing to other geocachers.

2. They can result in the archiving of caches.

3. They can delay needed maintenance on a cache

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

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

it becomes a moral one.

I still disagree that number 2 on the list is true.

 

Were you able to find an example of a cache that was archived because of fake logs, as opposed to lack of maintenance?

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

 

These things will happen regardless of logs one way or the other.

 

The problem exists regardless of logs. A false log is incidental to a poorly maintained, damaged, abandoned or missing cache.

Link to comment

...I would rather pass my time smiling after my next hide or find...

As would we all. I'd rather never have to deal with a bogus log in my life. But as you say people are not perfect.

...If this world or the people in it were perfect, it would be one massively boring place....

Maybe to you. I'd have a lot of fun. My perfect world wouldn't be boring. It would just have a lot less pathological liars in it plying their trade.

Link to comment

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

 

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

Link to comment

[Off topic insults ignored]

 

My views have been already consisely expressed by Brainsnat:

How phony logs hurt the sport:

1. They are at minimum confusing to other geocachers.

2. They can result in the archiving of caches.

3. They can delay needed maintenance on a cache

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

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

it becomes a moral one.

I still disagree that number 2 on the list is true.

 

Were you able to find an example of a cache that was archived because of fake logs, as opposed to lack of maintenance?

 

They are archived for lack of maintenance, but the fake logs are responsible for bringing the cache to the attention of TPTB. No phony logs, no archived cache.

Link to comment

In an effort to return to the thread's topic, I offer this retread of my fifth reply to this thread (and the first one that was serious):

...I fail to see how a false log is an issue that should not be privately handled between a cache hider and a cache seeker. With the exception of a 'truly' false log that could possibly inconvenience Brian's friend, none of the actions given by the OP affects anyone except the cache seeker and cache hider.

 

It is my belief 'false logging' happens extremely rarely and even then, it mostly affects virtual caches. This issue is not worthy of the angst level that it causes. It is just another example of little issues that get people riled up in the forums and hardly affects any of us in real life.

 

I agree on your assessment as to who should handle them. The present system is fine. Unlike you though I have seen widespread issues and problems that impact more than a few people. Isolated case? I sure hope so. Though I'd happly let BHM have a go just for the expereince of it so they could cure their myopia and misperceptions about how wonderful caching is in such an environment. We locals thrived in spite of a miscreants efforts. Not because of them.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
In an effort to return to the thread's topic, I offer this retread of my fifth reply to this thread (and the first one that was serious):
...I fail to see how a false log is an issue that should not be privately handled between a cache hider and a cache seeker. With the exception of a 'truly' false log that could possibly inconvenience Brian's friend, none of the actions given by the OP affects anyone except the cache seeker and cache hider.

 

It is my belief 'false logging' happens extremely rarely and even then, it mostly affects virtual caches. This issue is not worthy of the angst level that it causes. It is just another example of little issues that get people riled up in the forums and hardly affects any of us in real life.

I agree on your assessment as to who should handle them. The present system is fine. Unlike you though I have seen widespread missues and problems that impact more than a few people. Isolated case? I sure hope so.
I would think that this is still an issue that should be handled locally, perhaps with support from TPTB if there are specific 'false loggers' that keep it up.
Though I'd happly let BHM have a go just for the expereince of it so they could cure their myopia.
I don't understand. What's BHM?
Link to comment

[Off topic insults ignored]

 

My views have been already consisely expressed by Brainsnat:

How phony logs hurt the sport:

1. They are at minimum confusing to other geocachers.

2. They can result in the archiving of caches.

3. They can delay needed maintenance on a cache

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

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

it becomes a moral one.

I still disagree that number 2 on the list is true.

 

Were you able to find an example of a cache that was archived because of fake logs, as opposed to lack of maintenance?

 

They are archived for lack of maintenance, but the fake logs are responsible for bringing the cache to the attention of TPTB. No phony logs, no archived cache.

 

So fake logs are good then? They help bring abandoned caches to TPTB's attention and facilitate timely enforcement of the policy. Following the policy is morally good in my mind in most cases.

Link to comment
2. They can result in the archiving of caches.
I still disagree that number 2 on the list is true.

 

Were you able to find an example of a cache that was archived because of fake logs, as opposed to lack of maintenance?

Until they reinstate the ability to search archived caches, that'll be tough for me, but I'm sure someone has an example. In the meantime, imagine there are two grandfathered Virtual Caches named "What a View" and "Virtual History," owned by CacherX and CacherY respectively, neither of whom have been paying any attention to either of them. Suddenly GutenCacher, an armchair cacher from Germany, and his friends all log "Virtual History" without actually visiting the site. This comes to the attention of a reviewer.

 

Which cache, "What a View" or "Virtual History," will last longer?

 

"Virtual History" will be history because of false logging. "Why oh why?" asks CacherY.

 

Mushtang happens to be passing by and answers. "Why, that cache was archived because you weren't maintaining it!"

 

"EXcuse me," says CacherX, "This may be partly true, eXcept the fact is, if it had not been logged falsely, it never would have been archived. Look, I haven't paid a bit of attention to "What a View" in about a year, and it's still active."

 

It is very hard to tell if a Virtual Cache is being maintained unless the cache page is being filled with bogus finds.

 

An unmaintained VC could last a very long time if not for false loggers.

Link to comment

[Off topic insults ignored]

 

My views have been already consisely expressed by Brainsnat:

How phony logs hurt the sport:

1. They are at minimum confusing to other geocachers.

2. They can result in the archiving of caches.

3. They can delay needed maintenance on a cache

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

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

it becomes a moral one.

I still disagree that number 2 on the list is true.

 

Were you able to find an example of a cache that was archived because of fake logs, as opposed to lack of maintenance?

 

They are archived for lack of maintenance, but the fake logs are responsible for bringing the cache to the attention of TPTB. No phony logs, no archived cache.

Caches which aren't maintained have lots of issues. When these issues are brought to the attention of TPTB they get archived.

 

What you're saying is if a cache isn't maintained because the owner dropped out of the game, and a bear mauls his cache, that it would be the bear that is responsible for bringing the cache to the attention of TPTB. No bear maulings, no archived cache.

 

This ignores the fact that if the owner was around he could certainly replace the cache and clean the mess which would avoid the archival. Replacing damaged containers, replacing wet logs, deleting fake Finds, etc., are all part of cache maintenance.

 

I'm NOT suggesting that fake logs are GOOD, any more than I'm suggesting that bear maulings are good. They exist. I AM suggesting that bear maulings are not degrading the game. I'm also suggesting that fake finds are not degrading the game.

Link to comment
2. They can result in the archiving of caches.
I still disagree that number 2 on the list is true.

 

Were you able to find an example of a cache that was archived because of fake logs, as opposed to lack of maintenance?

Until they reinstate the ability to search archived caches, that'll be tough for me, but I'm sure someone has an example. In the meantime, imagine there are two grandfathered Virtual Caches named "What a View" and "Virtual History," owned by CacherX and CacherY respectively, neither of whom have been paying any attention to either of them. Suddenly GutenCacher, an armchair cacher from Germany, and his friends all log "Virtual History" without actually visiting the site. This comes to the attention of a reviewer.

 

Which cache, "What a View" or "Virtual History," will last longer?

 

"Virtual History" will be history because of false logging. "Why oh why?" asks CacherY.

 

Mushtang happens to be passing by and answers. "Why, that cache was archived because you weren't maintaining it!"

 

"EXcuse me," says CacherX, "This may be partly true, eXcept the fact is, if it had not been logged falsely, it never would have been archived. Look, I haven't paid a bit of attention to "What a View" in about a year, and it's still active."

 

It is very hard to tell if a Virtual Cache is being maintained unless the cache page is being filled with bogus finds.

 

An unmaintained VC could last a very long time if not for false loggers.

The only thing I'm seeing here is an argument that unmaintained caches are acceptable to a lot of people, and the false logs that bring this up are bad because they lead to archival.

 

What if the nearby sign containing the information necessary to find Virtual History had gone missing instead of the false loggers showing up? After a string of DNFs, notes, etc. mentioning the problem with no reply, a reviewer sees the issue and archives the cache. "Why oh why?" asks CacherY.

 

Mushtang happens to be passing by and answers. "Why, that cache was archived because you weren't maintaining it!"

 

"Excuse me," says CacherX, "This may be partly true, except the fact is, if nobody had complained that the sign went missing, it never would have been archived. Look, I haven't paid a bit of attention to "What a View" in about a year, and it's still active."

 

An unmaintained VC could have a number of issues that could cause problems. False loggers are no more of a degradation to geocaching than missing signs are.

Link to comment

[Off topic insults ignored]

 

My views have been already consisely expressed by Brainsnat:

How phony logs hurt the sport:

1. They are at minimum confusing to other geocachers.

2. They can result in the archiving of caches.

3. They can delay needed maintenance on a cache

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

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

it becomes a moral one.

I still disagree that number 2 on the list is true.

 

Were you able to find an example of a cache that was archived because of fake logs, as opposed to lack of maintenance?

 

They are archived for lack of maintenance, but the fake logs are responsible for bringing the cache to the attention of TPTB. No phony logs, no archived cache.

 

I heard that a virtual cache with no maintenance was archived due to a legitimate find and attempted legitimate log. The finder emailed the absent cache owner per instructions on cache page to get permission to log and got no response.

 

When he complained to TPTB about no response they determined the cache was abandoned and archived it.

 

So was the problem logging a find or failure to maintain the cache? Should we not follow policy in verifying and logging real finds?

 

The root cause is failure to maintain the cache - virtual or real.

Link to comment

 

Last time I checked this was a GeoCaching site.

 

I come here for GeoCaching information, not to wring my hands over the fact that someone might lie and therefore degrade me or my experience with GeoCaching.

 

Debating when or if lying or cheating might ever be moral is not GeoCaching.

 

I believe that lectures on morality could be better placed on a philosophy or religion site or thread or on the off topic board.

 

GeoCaching is hunting for a cache.

 

Interesting....

 

Hey don't stop there Senator Renegade Knight McCarthy and cohorts.

 

Let's have names of those people defending liars and cheats. We need a list.

 

We'll haul those folks before a committee and make them name names too of anyone they think might have logged a fake find. If they don't then we will blacklist them.

 

HopsMaltYeast

 

And that was about hunting a cache.... how?

Link to comment

Maybe what we need is a way to log

 

Saw Did Not Touch

 

SDNT

That would be either a Note, or a DNF.

People are not happy with a note or a DNF. With a note they have to type the explanation, and they do not like to post a DNF. At least with a SDNT the cache owner knows the cache is there. :ph34r:

Edited by JohnnyVegas
Link to comment
...GutenCacher, an armchair cacher from Germany, and his friends all log "Virtual History" without actually visiting the site. This comes to the attention of a reviewer.

 

Which cache, "What a View" or "Virtual History," will last longer?

 

"Virtual History" will be history because of false logging. "Why oh why?" asks CacherY.

 

Mushtang happens to be passing by and answers. "Why, that cache was archived because you weren't maintaining it!"

 

"EXcuse me," says CacherX, "This may be partly true, eXcept the fact is, if it had not been logged falsely, it never would have been archived. Look, I haven't paid a bit of attention to "What a View" in about a year, and it's still active."

What if the nearby sign containing the information necessary to find Virtual History had gone missing instead of the false loggers showing up? After a string of DNFs, notes, etc. mentioning the problem with no reply, a reviewer sees the issue and archives the cache. "Why oh why?" asks CacherY.

 

Mushtang happens to be passing by and answers. "Why, that cache was archived because you weren't maintaining it!"

 

"Excuse me," says CacherX, "This may be partly true, except the fact is, if nobody had complained that the sign went missing, it never would have been archived. Look, I haven't paid a bit of attention to "What a View" in about a year, and it's still active."

In both examples, lack of maintenance may be the underlying cause, but not the direct reason for archival. ;)

 

Thank you for playing with my CacherX and CacherY characters. :ph34r: I thought about having CacherX use a few more words with X in them, but decided it might get a little too Sesame Street.

 

That would be getting commercial.

 

Oh, that's the other thread... ;)

Link to comment

The examples given of how to be "flagged" a log "might be fake" are rare. So other then checking logs vs. signatures (and from the sound of it, checking handwriting against examples with groups of cachers) how do you validate a log entry???????

 

Please tell us how you would do this on the following examples :

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- A paddle only cache that involves several hours on a river to reach

 

- A hiking cache deep in a preserve requiring dozens of miles of ground to be covered on foot

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And how do you validate that a cacher found all the stages of a multi and was not just given the final coords by a friend?????

 

Nobody condones a fake log entry but after a while this starts sounding more like a witch hunt then a way to preserve the sanctity of geocaching.

 

How many fake entries have each of you actually found, how many caches do you have and how much time are you willing to spend running around to do nothing but validate log entries? And I don't mean just checking them when you do maintenance, I mean a trip JUST to check logs.

Edited by infiniteMPG
Link to comment
Were you able to find an example of a cache that was archived because of fake logs, as opposed to lack of maintenance?
Well, there's one...

 

For those who don't want to follow the link, here's the Archived note:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Link to comment
I would go further and say that all of them have as the root cause of the problem - "Lack of Maintenance" or missing caches.
Too bad that is not true because some virts are getting archived because some owners are getting fed up.... :ph34r:

That's no different than someone archiving a cache because they're tired of replacing the wet log. Instead of maintaining the cache and possibly changing the container, they "got fed up" and archived it.

 

The wet log can't be the reason the cache was archived, it was that the owner decided he wasn't willing to maintain it anymore.

 

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

Link to comment
Well, there's one...
Some, however, never actually visited the site. Instead, they chose to abuse the system and cheat.

So if the owner actually knows that a logger cheated (either they didn't send the required verification, or they admitted it in their log) it's his responsibility to delete the log.

 

If he chooses not to, and instead chooses to archive the cache, then it's not the loggers that archived the cache, it's the owner deciding he no longer was willing to maintain the cache. The archival was not thrust upon him.

 

In fact, when he created the cache he agreed to maintain it when he checked the box, did he not? If he changes his mind and no longer wished to maintain the cache then I'd say he definitely should have archived it.

 

I still see no evidence of a cache that was archived because of fake logs, and not because of lack of maintenance. And I also see no evidence of any degradation of geocaching.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...