Jump to content

Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?


Cedar Grove Seekers
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

Fixed. Now it's accurate.

How about..

Link to comment

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

Fixed. Now it's accurate.

How about..

This is all that really needs to be said.

Link to comment

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

Ok, now I feel degraded. :lol:

I also feel so used now. I am going to take a shower, I feel so dirty. :)

Lest anyone believe I was serious, the little :anibad: was intended to show I was joking.

Yeah, I figured you were kidding about the $1. And I don't really feel degraded. :huh:

 

 

 

 

 

 

So how much did you really win? :)

Link to comment
Tic Toc, waiting for the evidence or apology.

 

No Knights honor?

After a string of posts like the ones referenced below, none of which seemed to make a point, some didn't even seem on topic, perhaps RK is just plain ignoring you.
Everything old is new again.

 

<snip>

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

 

<snip>

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

 

<snip>

Everything old is new again - a virtual multi -

 

<snip>

Everything old is new again.

 

<snip>

Now, did you have a point?
Link to comment
1) I don't think people should log caches as Found if they didn't find them.

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

I'm not disagreeing with these points, Mushtang, but I am curious as to why you believe them to be true?
Fake loggers are not causing the degradation of geocaching.
If false logs don't take away from (degrade) the game, what is the problem with them?
Link to comment
1) I don't think people should log caches as Found if they didn't find them.

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

I'm not disagreeing with these points, Mushtang, but I am curious as to why you believe them to be true?
Fake loggers are not causing the degradation of geocaching.
If false logs don't take away from (degrade) the game, what is the problem with them?

I guess I'd say that just because something might not belong somewhere, it doesn't necessarily cause a problem if it remains.

 

If my brother put his Barbara Streisand greatest hits CD into my CD case, I'd probably want to take it out since it didn't belong there and I really don't care for her music. But suppose I thought it was too much trouble to remove it and left it in... would it degrade the music YOU listen to in your CD player? Would it degrade the music I listen to if I put something else in my player and left the Streisand CD in the case?

Link to comment

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

Ok, now I feel degraded. :)

I also feel so used now. I am going to take a shower, I feel so dirty. :)

Lest anyone believe I was serious, the little :anibad: was intended to show I was joking.

You made me take my March shower in 3 weeks early...that means my next shower is around 7 weeks away :)

Link to comment

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

 

In this case, the owner chose to bail.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

As the only one of the poster to this thread who actual found this cache, I have to point out a few things. When I went to the cache I wondered why there wasn't a better verification question. In addition to the plaque for the Pioneers of Aviation whose ashes are interred with the portal there are several other signs and exhibits. If you're there on a Sunday afternoon the Portal is also the home of the Burbank Aviation Museum. You can spend several hours. I would have asked several question to make sure the visitor spent a little time exploring. Instead the cache owner chose to use a simple question whose answer could be used to open a certificate of achievement. That way he didn't have to spend time answering emails with the verification answer. Perhaps that time could have been better spent improving the virtual, maintaining other caches, or reading their kids bedtime stories. :) Still the cache lasted a long time - from January 2002 till November 2006 before the first armchair log. I suspect the cache owner never though about armchair logging when he hid his cache up until he was caught by surprise when they started to happen.

 

My guess is that someone from Germany discovered the certificate of achievement and decided that this meant you could log this one virtually. The cache owner changed the page to ask that now you send email first and wait for his response before logging. Of course that didn't stop armchair loggers from finding the answer and emailing the cache owner. It was too difficult for the cache owner to check each email that came from Germany to see if that perhaps that person was visiting Los Angeles and may have found the cache. And it seem he didn't want to delete anyone's log. So eventually he gave up and archived the cache.

 

Had there never been an armchair log he wouldn't have archived the cache (unless Walter R. Brookins' ashes were removed or the Portal was close to the public because it didn't meet seismic standards) However, once there was an armchair log he had choices about what to do. He did make an attempt to stop armchair logs that wasn't successful so archiving was his second choice when the first failed. Had he posted a thread asking for suggestions on how to stop armchair logging, I'm sure that it would not have taken 17 pages for people to have come up with a solution that would've worked.

 

As one who found this virtual, I can say it is a shame that the owner archived it. He could have left the armchair logs stand and those that really found it would know that while the armchair cacher got a smiley he didn't get the enjoyment of finding a special place - as one of the last legitimate logs states. You could blame the armchair log for degrading the geocaching opportunities here in L.A., but I for one don't feel my experience was degraded by any of the armchair logs. My experience of finding this cache cannot be affected by any logs before or after. If anything geocaching was degraded by a cache owner who when someone would not play by his rules took his ball and went home. Certainly within his rights, but not much fun.

Link to comment
Apology accepted!

Nice try. By not doing those things the owner did NOT cause the fake logs to show up.

 

Care to try again?

You are blaming the owner for not doing these things, which in turn caused others to be able to make false logs...I think this is exactly what I referred to.

 

But I ddin't really think you'd actually apologize! :anibad::huh::)

Link to comment

Everything old is new again.

 

Bunches of these.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Here's another quote which say's you blame the owner for not maintaining his cache by deleting the bogus logs...another where you are blaming the owner.....should I "try again"?

Link to comment

We don't have this problem in Norway as far as I know. That could be cultural. Norwegians pride themselves on ethics and fair play and humility. Let me rephrase... Norwegians place great importance on ethics, fairplay, humility, and equality. This goes back to the Jante (Yanta) Laws. I say this from the point of view of an American expat.

 

That being said, caches are not as plantious or superfluous here, at least in Stavanger. They have Allemanns Retter (Everyman's Right) which means there is almost no such thing as tresspassing so long as one respects the livestock, crops, and property of others. One can walk, and even camp, pretty much where one sees fit. Additionally, Norway is very sparsely populated with lots of back county. This makes most of the caches a lot harder won than walking out in to the Walmart parking lot.

This illustrates what some have already said that comparing numbers is next to futile without looking at the big picture. Even the difficulty ratings are relatively subjective. The stats, however, are good for setting goals to keep one going through the dulldrums.

As far as personal experiences even remotely close to false logging, I once claimed a webcam cache with out capturing the actual webfeed in the Stutagart, Germany airport. I verified that I had found the right spot. TOk a picture of myself standing there and a 360° panorama from the spot. I then logged the find, explaining the situation, and left it up to the cache owner to judge whether it was ligitimate. I had not support from home to log on and capture the pic since I was traveling on business internationally with a business only cell phone and did not have a computer with me to use any wireless network. So far he has not deleted it. If he decides that my efforts do not rate a find, so be it.

Edited by Bluespade00
Link to comment
Here's another quote which say's you blame the owner for not maintaining his cache by deleting the bogus logs...another where you are blaming the owner.....should I "try again"?

Dude, the owner isn't the one making the fake logs. You claimed I said it was the owner's fault that the fake logs exist, and I never did.

 

"The owner didn't maintain the cache by deleting them" only means that the owner didn't erase them, but that does NOT mean he's responsible for creating them.

 

If I give you a cookie and you don't eat it, does that mean that you're responsible for baking the cookie?

 

Yes, you should try again. Show me where I said it was the owner's fault that the fake logs exist. Show me where I said he was the one responsible for the logs appearing on his cache instead of the people that were actually logging the cache.

Edited by Mushtang
Link to comment
I also wonder why so many other people want to protect the rights of the false loggers.

Who is doing this?

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Can we do the twist??

 

Here's what I said...here's what you said! I said you appear to condone the false logs since they don't affect you, you said that didn't cause the cache to be archived. It surely did since the owner stated so. The boldened part might interest you? Now, you can try to get me to prove something you twisted this into, but I've proven repeatedly what I said I would....

 

You then parsed my words so you could twist your way out of this....

 

oh, BTW...you certainly DO blame the owner for the lack of maintaining, you then said that if the owner would have made it so people couldn't find the info, there'd be no fake logs in which to have to do maintenance...just a little below this post if you need to look! So, YEAH...you ARE blaming the owner for the fake logs.

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to comment
So those people who were logging this virtual without actually finding it bear NO responsibility THEIR actions? It's all the cache owners fault? Nice. :)
I never posted that, not in this thread or any other thread on this topic in the last half dozen years.

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

 

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

This part is totally untrue too.

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

In this case, the owner chose to bail.

 

This last boldened part points to what I said exactly....

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to comment
My experience of finding this cache cannot be affected by any logs before or after. If anything geocaching was degraded by a cache owner who when someone would not play by his rules took his ball and went home. Certainly within his rights, but not much fun.

 

Yeah, blame the victim.

Link to comment
My experience of finding this cache cannot be affected by any logs before or after. If anything geocaching was degraded by a cache owner who when someone would not play by his rules took his ball and went home. Certainly within his rights, but not much fun.
Yeah, blame the victim.
Give me a break.

 

A virt was poorly designed to allow easy armchair logging. When this became apparant to the owner, he archived the poorly designed virt.

 

Move along, folks. There's nothing to see here.

Link to comment
My experience of finding this cache cannot be affected by any logs before or after. If anything geocaching was degraded by a cache owner who when someone would not play by his rules took his ball and went home. Certainly within his rights, but not much fun.
Yeah, blame the victim.
Give me a break.

 

A virt was poorly designed to allow easy armchair logging. When this became apparant to the owner, he archived the poorly designed virt.

 

Move along, folks. There's nothing to see here.

 

Yeah, it's the owner's fault that dishonest geocachers swooped down enmasse to take advantage of his cache and get their phony smileys. When I listed my first virtuals they were "poorly designed" because it never occurred to me that people would be so dishonest as to log them without visiting them.

 

When someone robs your house is it really your fault because you forgot to lock the door?

Link to comment

OK, let's say a cache owner clearly disagrees with false logging, but rather than choosing to maintain his cache by dealing with false loggers, he decides to archive his cache.

 

The unnecessary archiving of viable caches, in my opinion, will have a "negative impact on geocaching".

 

Had the cache owner done his part to dis-allow false logs instead of archiving his cache, there wouldn't have been such a negative impact.

 

This kind of reminds me of the solution I proposed in post #1.

 

I am proposing that cache owners who agree with the premise of physically visiting the cache location, do their part to enforce it - don’t allow false logs on your caches, and don’t be embarrassed to enforce this basic notion of geocaching.
Link to comment
My experience of finding this cache cannot be affected by any logs before or after. If anything geocaching was degraded by a cache owner who when someone would not play by his rules took his ball and went home. Certainly within his rights, but not much fun.
Yeah, blame the victim.
Give me a break.

 

A virt was poorly designed to allow easy armchair logging. When this became apparant to the owner, he archived the poorly designed virt.

 

Move along, folks. There's nothing to see here.

Yeah, it's the owner's fault that dishonest geocachers swooped down enmasse to take advantage of his cache and get their phony smileys. When I listed my first virtuals they were "poorly designed" because it never occurred to me that people would be so dishonest as to log them without visiting them.

 

When someone robs your house is it really your fault because you forgot to lock the door?

Somewhat, yes.

 

If you leave your keys dangling from your car door, is it your fault if it gets stolen?

Link to comment

OK, let's say a cache owner clearly disagrees with false logging, but rather than choosing to maintain his cache by dealing with false loggers, he decides to archive his cache.

 

The unnecessary archiving of viable caches, in my opinion, will have a "negative impact on geocaching".

 

Had the cache owner done his part to dis-allow false logs instead of archiving his cache, there wouldn't have been such a negative impact.

 

This kind of reminds me of the solution I proposed in post #1.

 

I am proposing that cache owners who agree with the premise of physically visiting the cache location, do their part to enforce it - don’t allow false logs on your caches, and don’t be embarrassed to enforce this basic notion of geocaching.

 

From what I've read, it would appear the cache owner DID delete logs until they got so fed up that they had enough and archived the cache. Possibly the owner didn't know any way to make the cache armchair proof? Possibly the owner didn't know there was info available on the net? Possibly the owner even had faith in their fellow cachers to do the right thing and actually VISIT the location and got sickened after seeing the false logs...sickened enough to not continue to delete log after log after log?

 

The owner could have done better, but the ones doing the false logging are the culprits. I left my car doors unlocked one night. My coin collection and other caching equipment was stolen because of this. My fault for not remembering to lock the doors or some (&^% fault for not staying off my private property, not having the character to be an upstanding citizen and not being able to keep their sticky paws off my stuff? Locks only keep the honest people out anyway...if the doors were locked, I'm sure that same person could figure out a way around the locks!

Link to comment
... I left my car doors unlocked one night. My coin collection and other caching equipment was stolen because of this. My fault for not remembering to lock the doors or some (&^% fault for not staying off my private property, not having the character to be an upstanding citizen and not being able to keep their sticky paws off my stuff? Locks only keep the honest people out anyway...if the doors were locked, I'm sure that same person could figure out a way around the locks!
A few years ago, some scoundrel helped himself to my GPS V and other stuff in my Jeep and my wife's purse from her TrailBlazer while it was parked overnight, unlocked, behind our house in our extremely low-crime neighborhood. They also stole things out of unlocked cars behind several of our neighbor's homes. The cars that were locked did not have anything removed from them. It turns out that the auto manufacturers install locks for a reason.

 

Was the rascal who stole my stuff wrong? Absolutely, 100%.

Was I wrong for leaving my doors unlocked. Absolutely, 100%.

Link to comment

From what I've read, it would appear the cache owner DID delete logs until they got so fed up that they had enough and archived the cache. Possibly the owner didn't know any way to make the cache armchair proof? Possibly the owner didn't know there was info available on the net? Possibly the owner even had faith in their fellow cachers to do the right thing and actually VISIT the location and got sickened after seeing the false logs...sickened enough to not continue to delete log after log after log?

 

The owner could have done better, but the ones doing the false logging are the culprits. I left my car doors unlocked one night. My coin collection and other caching equipment was stolen because of this. My fault for not remembering to lock the doors or some (&^% fault for not staying off my private property, not having the character to be an upstanding citizen and not being able to keep their sticky paws off my stuff? Locks only keep the honest people out anyway...if the doors were locked, I'm sure that same person could figure out a way around the locks!

 

Yes, I agree with you. I completely sympathize with the cache owner. Others don't.

Link to comment
... I left my car doors unlocked one night. My coin collection and other caching equipment was stolen because of this. My fault for not remembering to lock the doors or some (&^% fault for not staying off my private property, not having the character to be an upstanding citizen and not being able to keep their sticky paws off my stuff? Locks only keep the honest people out anyway...if the doors were locked, I'm sure that same person could figure out a way around the locks!
A few years ago, some scoundrel helped himself to my GPS V and other stuff in my Jeep and my wife's purse from her TrailBlazer while it was parked overnight, unlocked, behind our house in our extremely low-crime neighborhood. They also stole things out of unlocked cars behind several of our neighbor's homes. The cars that were locked did not have anything removed from them. It turns out that the auto manufacturers install locks for a reason.

 

Was the rascal who stole my stuff wrong? Absolutely, 100%.

Was I wrong for leaving my doors unlocked. Absolutely, 100%.

A couple of years ago someone tried to pry open my car door and severely damaged the body of my car. When that failed they smashed my window. Not sure why because they took nothing. I wish I left my car doors unlocked.

 

Regardless, was I wrong for daring to actually take my car out of my garage? Absolutely 100%.

Link to comment
... I left my car doors unlocked one night. My coin collection and other caching equipment was stolen because of this. My fault for not remembering to lock the doors or some (&^% fault for not staying off my private property, not having the character to be an upstanding citizen and not being able to keep their sticky paws off my stuff? Locks only keep the honest people out anyway...if the doors were locked, I'm sure that same person could figure out a way around the locks!
A few years ago, some scoundrel helped himself to my GPS V and other stuff in my Jeep and my wife's purse from her TrailBlazer while it was parked overnight, unlocked, behind our house in our extremely low-crime neighborhood. They also stole things out of unlocked cars behind several of our neighbor's homes. The cars that were locked did not have anything removed from them. It turns out that the auto manufacturers install locks for a reason.

 

Was the rascal who stole my stuff wrong? Absolutely, 100%.

Was I wrong for leaving my doors unlocked. Absolutely, 100%.

A couple of years ago someone tried to pry open my car door and severely damaged the body of my car. When that failed they smashed my window. Not sure why because they took nothing. I wish I left my car doors unlocked.

 

Regardless, was I wrong for daring to actually take my car out of my garage? Absolutely 100%.

I'd say that you weren't wrong and that your experience isn't analogous to this thread.

 

A few weeks ago, my assistant's Expedition got it's window broken in her parking place in the middle of the day, just a few yards away from the state capitol building. She had left a camera in view on the seat and the bad guy smashed her window and snagged it. A few parking spots away, my Jeep was untouched. I didn't leave anything of value in view.

 

Was the ne'er do well who smashed her window and stole her stuff wrong? Absolutely, 100%.

Was she wrong for leaving stuff in view? Absolutely, 100%.

 

Back when the virt at issue was listed, it was already known that some people would try to 'armchair' log virts. The owner didn't try to make his virt hard to google nor did he ever try to rectify the problem with the listing after it started to attract bogus logs. Of course he should accept some of the blame for the cache's archival.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

From what I've read, it would appear the cache owner DID delete logs until they got so fed up that they had enough and archived the cache. Possibly the owner didn't know any way to make the cache armchair proof? Possibly the owner didn't know there was info available on the net? Possibly the owner even had faith in their fellow cachers to do the right thing and actually VISIT the location and got sickened after seeing the false logs...sickened enough to not continue to delete log after log after log?

 

The owner could have done better, but the ones doing the false logging are the culprits. I left my car doors unlocked one night. My coin collection and other caching equipment was stolen because of this. My fault for not remembering to lock the doors or some (&^% fault for not staying off my private property, not having the character to be an upstanding citizen and not being able to keep their sticky paws off my stuff? Locks only keep the honest people out anyway...if the doors were locked, I'm sure that same person could figure out a way around the locks!

 

Yes, I agree with you. I completely sympathize with the cache owner. Others don't.

Who doesn't sympathize with the cache owner? I certainly do, even though I think that he could have avoided some of his angst.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

From what I've read, it would appear the cache owner DID delete logs until they got so fed up that they had enough and archived the cache. Possibly the owner didn't know any way to make the cache armchair proof? Possibly the owner didn't know there was info available on the net? Possibly the owner even had faith in their fellow cachers to do the right thing and actually VISIT the location and got sickened after seeing the false logs...sickened enough to not continue to delete log after log after log?

 

The owner could have done better, but the ones doing the false logging are the culprits. I left my car doors unlocked one night. My coin collection and other caching equipment was stolen because of this. My fault for not remembering to lock the doors or some (&^% fault for not staying off my private property, not having the character to be an upstanding citizen and not being able to keep their sticky paws off my stuff? Locks only keep the honest people out anyway...if the doors were locked, I'm sure that same person could figure out a way around the locks!

 

Yes, I agree with you. I completely sympathize with the cache owner. Others don't.

I don't believe I blamed the cache owner for archiving his cache. I said the cache owner had choices on how to deal the armchair logs. He choose to archive his cache. It was withing his rights as a cache owner to 'archive his cache. I said it was a shame he chose this route as now other caches in my area won't have the opportunity to log a virtual cache when they visit this special place. He could've made other choices,he could've asked in the forums for suggestion so wouldn't have felt he had to archive his cache.

 

OK, let's say a cache owner clearly disagrees with false logging, but rather than choosing to maintain his cache by dealing with false loggers, he decides to archive his cache.

 

The unnecessary archiving of viable caches, in my opinion, will have a "negative impact on geocaching".

 

Had the cache owner done his part to dis-allow false logs instead of archiving his cache, there wouldn't have been such a negative impact.

 

This kind of reminds me of the solution I proposed in post #1.

 

I am proposing that cache owners who agree with the premise of physically visiting the cache location, do their part to enforce it - don’t allow false logs on your caches, and don’t be embarrassed to enforce this basic notion of geocaching.

I don't think anyone has disagreed with your proposal. Cache owners who feel that you should only log a 'found it' online if you actually physically visited the cache location should do their part by deleting the logs they feel are bogus. The thread has probably gone on so long because of the title. By claiming that allowing fake logs is degrading geocaching you made a controversial statement. I still believe that you have not shown that false logs degrade geocaching. They may degrade the enjoyment of geocaching for some cachers. Some people don't like getting the emails when their cache or a cache on their watch list is falsely logged. Some who rely on seeing when a cache was last logged when deciding to hunt it, may go after a cache they would have otherwise skipped, possibly increasing the chance of a DNF. They may make it hard for some when they explain geocaching if they can't answer the question of why sometimes there are 'found it' logs for a cache where the logger states that he was never physically at the cache. (I think the last is just a problem that you don't accept that people will use an open online logging system in unintended ways. The simple explanation is that these logs are from people who are using their own definition of geocaching which doesn't agree with your definition.) False logs enhance geocaching for some. Armchair loggers have invented a new game that can be played using the same equipment as geocaching. In this new game they take credit for finding answers on the Internet or for cracking passwords on files. Others may be playing a game where they get friend to find cache for them and take credit for that. I see no reason for logging a find for driving within a mile of cache or for logging a traditional cache from you home just because you like to enter 'found it' logs, but perhaps these people even see this as a game - see how many you can log this way before you get caught. Since this case can cause problems for other cachers, I do agree it is morally wrong to log finds here. But in spite of that, it hardly degrades the enjoyment or geocaching by most people.

Link to comment

...If my brother put his Barbara Streisand greatest hits CD into my CD case, I'd probably want to take it out since it didn't belong there and I really don't care for her music. But suppose I thought it was too much trouble to remove it and left it in... would it degrade the music YOU listen to in your CD player? Would it degrade the music I listen to if I put something else in my player and left the Streisand CD in the case?

 

I'm a lot less likley to look for your CD player than a cache with a bogus log.

 

But playing along, if you loaned me the CD and I payed it on my computer not realizing that it as 'bogus' and that Sony Root kit installed... I'd say my computer was degrated. Then I'd just be annoyed for having to fix the thing. Then annoyed again becaue it was a BS CD instead of that Classic Albert Morris CD. :unsure:

Link to comment

...waiting for the evidence...

I've done the leg work and since I'm posting first hand on it that's the "proof". Since it's clear that It's clear that nothing short of directly talking to them will work for . I've given you a chance to do your own leg work to talk to real people impacted by bogus logs. Not hypothetical situations or third hand. Perhaps you missed the post?

 

Email me. It's time to put your money where your mouth is. I'll find those willing to talk to you and make the introductions. I doubt you will change your mind, but you would at least see the impact are not hypothetical.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

my $.02...

 

-If someone is actually sad enough to cheat at such an easy game, they have bigger problems than this.

 

-Most (not all, most) cachers couldn't care less if you have 100 or 1000 or 10,000 cache finds. Personally, I certainly dont log into my account just to check a leaderboard or anything. From an online-spectator standpoint, geocaching is even more dull than televised golf :unsure:

 

-Most (not all, most) cachers cache for their own satisfaction.

 

Personally, my idea of "degrading geocaching" would be the overabundance of simple streetcorner and lampost micros. No challenge whatsoever, and most seem to be placed to simply boost numbers during winter :unsure:

 

Everyone plays different, I enjoy the game on my own terms.

Link to comment

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

That is true. I used to have a lot of ALR caches. They were a PITA becaue for every legit log there was someone who figured they found it and ALR was just crap. I learned the hard way to not have ALR but have AFR (Additional Finding Requirments) so that they had to go through the work to find the cache rather than log it. Lab Rats work hard for a treat. They don't work at all if you start out with the treat.

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

I read posts talking about one virtual cache being archived and that may of been due in some way to fake logs. With 516,339 caches out there, that's about 0.000002%. Also read about one person seeking a missing cache due to a supposed fake log making it sound like it was there but no way to prove it didn't go missing AFTER the person logged their find.

 

Maybe everyone strongly opposed to fake logs should lay out some facts. How many fake logs have you determined 100% to be faked and not mistakes and then personally deleted????? With about a quarter million logs entered a week, unless it's a big number it doesn't sound like we're fixing much of a problem.

Link to comment

Was the rascal who stole my stuff wrong? Absolutely, 100%.

Was I wrong for leaving my doors unlocked. Absolutely, 100%.

 

Why do you call the person a Rascal, the person was not a Rascal, the person in a scum sucking pig. and it is not your falt that the scum sucking pig stole from you,

Drop the PC nonsense, it is ok to call a scum sucking pig a scum suck pig.

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

I read posts talking about one virtual cache being archived and that may of been due in some way to fake logs. With 516,339 caches out there, that's about 0.000002%. Also read about one person seeking a missing cache due to a supposed fake log making it sound like it was there but no way to prove it didn't go missing AFTER the person logged their find.

 

Maybe everyone strongly opposed to fake logs should lay out some facts. How many fake logs have you determined 100% to be faked and not mistakes and then personally deleted????? With about a quarter million logs entered a week, unless it's a big number it doesn't sound like we're fixing much of a problem.

 

What are you saying then? Just ignore it and allow it to go on?? Pretend it isn't a problem and hope it goes away? OR...and I like this one...how about we discuss it, figure out ways to stop it and maybe even TRY to make caching better?

Link to comment

Was the rascal who stole my stuff wrong? Absolutely, 100%.

Was I wrong for leaving my doors unlocked. Absolutely, 100%.

 

Why do you call the person a Rascal, the person was not a Rascal, the person in a scum sucking pig. and it is not your falt that the scum sucking pig stole from you,

Drop the PC nonsense, it is ok to call a scum sucking pig a scum suck pig.

I guess because this is a family friendly site that I try to dial the vitriol all the way down. Everyone still knows that he's a bad guy.

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

I read posts talking about one virtual cache being archived and that may of been due in some way to fake logs. With 516,339 caches out there, that's about 0.000002%. Also read about one person seeking a missing cache due to a supposed fake log making it sound like it was there but no way to prove it didn't go missing AFTER the person logged their find.

 

Maybe everyone strongly opposed to fake logs should lay out some facts. How many fake logs have you determined 100% to be faked and not mistakes and then personally deleted????? With about a quarter million logs entered a week, unless it's a big number it doesn't sound like we're fixing much of a problem.

 

What are you saying then? Just ignore it and allow it to go on?? Pretend it isn't a problem and hope it goes away? OR...and I like this one...how about we discuss it, figure out ways to stop it and maybe even TRY to make caching better?

Mr T and Trinity's Crew put it best. Everyone is against the concept of bogus logs. While I totally don't buy that it's leading to the downfall of humanity (or even this silly little game), it should be discouraged. This thread doesn't appear to be doing anything about anything.
Link to comment
The bottom line remains; the owner entered into an agreement to maintain the cache. If things changed or events were other than what the owner expected, the owner still is responsible for either maintaining the commitment or for bailing.In this case, the owner chose to bail. And he would have had to do several things even if people were not abusing his cache. He needed to review logs. At least monthly he needed to show activity. He needed to visit the site whether it was a virtual or a physical cache to assure the integrity of the cache.

I beg to differ. The very FIRST line of the geocaching guidelines states "These are listing guidelines only." so there is no "agreement" nor is there any "requirements" to do a dang thing! And if someone choses to do nothing then the reviewer can archive the cache. Each person has freedom to choose what to do or not to do and no one is mandated or required to do anything.

 

As far as deleting log listsing the guidelines state "Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements." and you may notice the word APPEAR in there. Even as it's just guidelines it states to delete the logs that APPEAR to be bogus, which can also be interpretted to mean "you can leave fake logs that look real". No where can I find it states to investigate logs, do handwriting analysis, validiate visits or anything like that. No, no one CONDONES fake logs, no one agrees with fake logs, no one would allow a fake log to exist on their cache page if they knew about it. The whole debate is about what extent each of us will go to in order to validate the log is real.

 

As far as needing to visit cache sites to validate integrity, the guidelines state "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.)." and there is no reference to what that "periodic" period needs to be other then checking on caches that have reported issues. Some people may choose their period of time is a week, for others it may be every decade, it's up to the owner if there's no reported issues.

 

A responsible cache owner will check their caches regular enough to be sure they're all good and functional, they will replace full or wet logs, they will defend their caches from muggles, irrisponsible cachers, and mother nature, they will resolve reported issues as soon as they can, they will try to keep the game fun for everyone playing, and they will delete logs that are detrimental to their caches and the game including ones that devuldge everything about a hide, use inappropriate language, are off color or off topic, or bogus but it is up to each cache owner to make that determination.

 

>>>iMPG steps down off soapbox and walks away in a huff

Link to comment
The bottom line remains; the owner entered into an agreement to maintain the cache. If things changed or events were other than what the owner expected, the owner still is responsible for either maintaining the commitment or for bailing.In this case, the owner chose to bail. And he would have had to do several things even if people were not abusing his cache. He needed to review logs. At least monthly he needed to show activity. He needed to visit the site whether it was a virtual or a physical cache to assure the integrity of the cache.

I beg to differ. The very FIRST line of the geocaching guidelines states "These are listing guidelines only." so there is no "agreement" nor is there any "requirements" to do a dang thing! And if someone choses to do nothing then the reviewer can archive the cache. Each person has freedom to choose what to do or not to do and no one is mandated or required to do anything.

 

As far as deleting log listsing the guidelines state "Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements." and you may notice the word APPEAR in there. Even as it's just guidelines it states to delete the logs that APPEAR to be bogus, which can also be interpretted to mean "you can leave fake logs that look real". No where can I find it states to investigate logs, do handwriting analysis, validiate visits or anything like that. No, no one CONDONES fake logs, no one agrees with fake logs, no one would allow a fake log to exist on their cache page if they knew about it. The whole debate is about what extent each of us will go to in order to validate the log is real.

 

As far as needing to visit cache sites to validate integrity, the guidelines state "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.)." and there is no reference to what that "periodic" period needs to be other then checking on caches that have reported issues. Some people may choose their period of time is a week, for others it may be every decade, it's up to the owner if there's no reported issues.

 

A responsible cache owner will check their caches regular enough to be sure they're all good and functional, they will replace full or wet logs, they will defend their caches from muggles, irrisponsible cachers, and mother nature, they will resolve reported issues as soon as they can, they will try to keep the game fun for everyone playing, and they will delete logs that are detrimental to their caches and the game including ones that devuldge everything about a hide, use inappropriate language, are off color or off topic, or bogus but it is up to each cache owner to make that determination.

 

>>>iMPG steps down off soapbox and walks away in a huff

 

Point well taken, there is not legally binding agreement with penalties.

 

The cache owner does say that they have read the guidelines and will follow them in order to get the cache listed (I am speaking generally - not quoting exact terms from the guidelines.).

 

The guidelines say a virtual cache owner should make an appearance (show activity) at least monthly.

 

If a cache owner is determined to not be following the guidelines then GC may archive the cache.

 

Of course, this is GC's site and they can archive any cache for any reason or on a whim not matter how carefully an owner maintains a cache.

 

They banned new virtuals just because the didn't like them, essentially.

Link to comment
What are you saying then? Just ignore it and allow it to go on?? Pretend it isn't a problem and hope it goes away? OR...and I like this one...how about we discuss it, figure out ways to stop it and maybe even TRY to make caching better?

Not much solution coming out of this debate and it's not much of a debate. In a nutshell some people say they don't condone fake logs and would delete anything obviously bogus, but they're not going to employ a detective to find out if every log entry is valid. The others seem to think if you don't investigate to the fullest extent of your ability if each and every log entry is valid then you're condoning and encouraging it which will lead to the demise of geocaching. I haven't seen anyone post anything in here except (as stated several times before) one virtual cache with issues that had some due to fake logs, and one regular cache that someone went to that they assumed had a fake log yet you can't prove it didn't disappear after they last people logged the find. Two caches out of 516,339 isn't a very big problem.

 

Where's the proof that a problem exists?????

Link to comment
Point well taken, there is not legally binding agreement with penalties.
First time I get a form in the mail from geocaching to sign and notarize I'll re-think this 'game'

 

Of course, this is GC's site and they can archive any cache for any reason or on a whim not matter how carefully an owner maintains a cache.
If they want to delete someone because "they can" no one can stop them. If they want to shut down the whole operation because it's an odd numbered day and the vending machine was out of Diet Dr. Pepper again then that's their right.... Ain't freedom great! :unsure:

 

They banned new virtuals just because the didn't like them, essentially.
From the sound of these posts, the problem with fake logs seems to be one of virtuals so sounds like GC may seen 'issues' with virtuals to start with. In that aspect maybe virtuals should be dropped from this discussion.
Link to comment
I read posts talking about one virtual cache being archived and that may of been due in some way to fake logs. With 516,339 caches out there, that's about 0.000002%.
Phony logs have sparked the archival of a number of virtuals by TPTB. The exact number, I don't know. Maybe 5, perhaps 10, could be 20. The number is irrelevant.

 

Also read about one person seeking a missing cache due to a supposed fake log making it sound like it was there but no way to prove it didn't go missing AFTER the person logged their find.

 

Happened to me. Happened to several others I know. I doubt we are the only ones. Did the caches go missing after the phony logs? Very unlikely in each case.

 

Maybe everyone strongly opposed to fake logs should lay out some facts. How many fake logs have you determined 100% to be faked and not mistakes and then personally deleted?????

On my caches I can think of 6. That was 5 times (once a fellow geocacher checked for me) I had to head out and check my caches and roughly 5 hours of extra work on my part thanks to the liars. If it happens on only 1 percent of caches that's still 5,100 cacher owners inconvenienced. Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
What are you saying then? Just ignore it and allow it to go on?? Pretend it isn't a problem and hope it goes away? OR...and I like this one...how about we discuss it, figure out ways to stop it and maybe even TRY to make caching better?

Not much solution coming out of this debate and it's not much of a debate. In a nutshell some people say they don't condone fake logs and would delete anything obviously bogus, but they're not going to employ a detective to find out if every log entry is valid. The others seem to think if you don't investigate to the fullest extent of your ability if each and every log entry is valid then you're condoning and encouraging it which will lead to the demise of geocaching. I haven't seen anyone post anything in here except (as stated several times before) one virtual cache with issues that had some due to fake logs, and one regular cache that someone went to that they assumed had a fake log yet you can't prove it didn't disappear after they last people logged the find. Two caches out of 516,339 isn't a very big problem.

 

Where's the proof that a problem exists?????

 

False logging doesn't seem to be a widespread problem, but it does happen. We had a local guy who sprinkled some phony logs in amongst his legitimate finds. The driving and hiking distance he claimed to cover in a day seemed implausible, so several of us--finders, not cache owners--made it a project to check for his signature in the physical logs. When we found cases in which he hadn't signed the log, we politely notified the cache owner, or included the fact in our own online found-it logs. About half the time the owner deleted the false finds.

 

More important than the log deletions was the fact that the frauducacher's name became Mud locally. All of his claimed finds were viewed with suspicion. He had signed up for an event just prior to his outing, then decided not to attend. By his bad acts he deprived himself of the pleasure of our company :unsure:

 

Since that time, identifying fake logs has become sort of a sub-hobby for some of us. We'll look over the previous logs on some cache and lay a mental bet that this one is bogus. When we find the cache, we're eager to see whether our guess was correct. I'll stop short of saying that the fraudsters enhance the hobby, but if you remind yourself that this is not a competition, and is not life-or-death, you can actually have a little fun with the cheaters.

Link to comment

....My points are simple..I do not think the sky is falling

Geocaching as a whole is thriving. Locally it can vary for any number of reasons.

False logs are not degrading GeoCaching.

In simple terms. Caching without false logs is better than caching with them. This has been proven. For it to not degrade caching you have to believe that caching with false logs is the same as or better than caching without them. This has not been proven. You continue to say it’s not degrading caching so that says where you stand. That’s your choice.

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

Increasing is simple math. In my area they have probably dropped off a bit after an increase. Ridiculous?…that magical point is subjective but I know we passed it. YMMV.

My Geocaching experience is not degraded by false logs….

That’s because you have said time spent dealing with issues created by false logs is just as much fun as the real deal. More power to you. The same can’t be said for most and even if you were the only person in the world to get bogus logs others would still be impacted.

False logs have been around since online logging has been around (or there about)
True enough.
I think that the OP is false on the face of it and the Op’r and no one else has supported the claim.

Geocaching as a whole is thriving. Regional variations are where you will see false logging hit a problem level. Again I’ve proven the case by simply saying “I have seen this first hand.” That you don’t accept that factual testimony does not obligate me to write a thesis for you. Instead I invite you to do your own leg work. If after talking to people impacted you still claim “geocaching wasn’t degraded” great I’ll know were you stand. With Clinton in the “I did not have sexual relations” camp. In other words working the spin on the truth to your best effect.

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

Let me see if I can understand this.

Making a claim you think is correct is more wrong, than making a false claim?

On the one hand you base the claim on experience and on the other you just know it’s wrong.

Looks like you are working hard to move false logs up the scale of legitimacy. It doesn’t take a Knight to see where the honor is in that statement.

 

What I did not claim:

Is exactly what we are not talking about.

Knights Still Have Honor Do they not?

Yeast still excretes where it lives until it poisons itself does is not?

 

Are we debating or sparring?

Link to comment
Phony logs have sparked the archival of a number of virtuals by TPTB. The exact number, I don't know. Maybe 5, perhaps 10, could be 20. The number is irrelevant.
And suppodely so are virtuals since it sounds like GC saw some inherint problems with them.

 

Happened to me. Happened to several others I know. I doubt we are the only ones. Did the caches go missing after the phony logs? Very unlikely in each case.
But still a possibility, so using this as a basis for some action doesn't carry much weight.

 

On my caches I can think of 6. That was 5 times (once a fellow geocacher checked for me) I had to head out and check my caches and roughly 5 hours of extra work on my part thanks to the liars. If it happens on only 1 percent of caches that's still 5,100 cacher owners inconvenienced.
I guess my gray area here still makes me ask what problems happened due to these 6 fake logs (or 6 caches with fake logs)? Not sure how many cache owners would invest 5 hours in just deleting a fake log on the basis of principle. Some people might see that it's worth it but I think most would rather put that 5 hours into a couple more finds or some new camo job.

 

I'm not saying anything at all is wrong with what was done, I just don't think many others would put that much effort into something unless something bad was or could happen from it.

Link to comment
Since that time, identifying fake logs has become sort of a sub-hobby for some of us. We'll look over the previous logs on some cache and lay a mental bet that this one is bogus. When we find the cache, we're eager to see whether our guess was correct. I'll stop short of saying that the fraudsters enhance the hobby, but if you remind yourself that this is not a competition, and is not life-or-death, you can actually have a little fun with the cheaters.

Sounds like an alternative game for cache owners since you were having fun in that.... but doesn't sound like something that should be expected of all cache owners :unsure:
Link to comment
Since that time, identifying fake logs has become sort of a sub-hobby for some of us. We'll look over the previous logs on some cache and lay a mental bet that this one is bogus. When we find the cache, we're eager to see whether our guess was correct. I'll stop short of saying that the fraudsters enhance the hobby, but if you remind yourself that this is not a competition, and is not life-or-death, you can actually have a little fun with the cheaters.

Sounds like an alternative game for cache owners since you were having fun in that.... but doesn't sound like something that should be expected of all cache owners :unsure:

 

No, I wouldn't expect that. I was surprised and happy that we got a 50% cleanup rate on the bad logs. If you think about it, it makes sense that some cache owners would either be apathetic or actually hostile to the idea of detecting and removing bad logs--the guy we originally tracked was a cache owner himself, after all.

Link to comment
No, I wouldn't expect that. I was surprised and happy that we got a 50% cleanup rate on the bad logs. If you think about it, it makes sense that some cache owners would either be apathetic or actually hostile to the idea of detecting and removing bad logs--the guy we originally tracked was a cache owner himself, after all.
Until I started reading this thread I didn't even know it existed. I kind of assumed it did as not much in this world happens without someone bending or breaking the rules. I can see it as a GC policing issue to address bogus cachers but I still am not sure I see much risk of problems being caused to the regular honet cachers.

 

Dang, too cloudy to see the Shuttle go up.... RATS!

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