Jump to content

Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?


Cedar Grove Seekers
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

Maybe the topic should be what to do about bogus cachers rather then how to delete fake logs. But IMHO this would also include people who don't properly log trackable items or steal them from the caches (i.e expensive trackable geocoins like the new FGA coin I just had go missing and since it has my picture on it I wasn't real happy about that), people who don't conceal or cover caches when they're done (they just toss them to the side leaving them vulnerable to muggling), people who don't take the .5 seconds to close a container properly causing damage to it's contents, owners who have missing or damaged caches and don't maintain them even after being reported, people who emphatically state in their log that a cache is missing just because they didn't find it, people who enter logs less then 2 words (okay, okay, maybe not that one). To me that's more of a problem to GC then just fake logs.

 

Oh yeah... need to add to that people who name their caches starting with a " or a * or things like that. Makes it sooooo much fun for us people with PDA's trying to look up a cache by name.... hehehe :unsure:

Edited by infiniteMPG
Link to comment

Maybe the topic should be what to do about bogus cachers rather then how to delete fake logs. But IMHO this would also include people who don't properly log trackable items or steal them from the caches (i.e expensive trackable geocoins like the new FGA coin I just had go missing and since it has my picture on it I wasn't real happy about that), people who don't conceal or cover caches when they're done (they just toss them to the side leaving them vulnerable to muggling), people who don't take the .5 seconds to close a container properly causing damage to it's contents, owners who have missing or damaged caches and don't maintain them even after being reported, people who emphatically state in their log that a cache is missing just because they didn't find it, people who enter logs less then 2 words (okay, okay, maybe not that one). To me that's more of a problem to GC then just fake logs.

 

Well, I don't see much need for anything to be done. Cachers who don't play well with others become isolated and unpopular. What further sanction would you want? For an honor-system structure run by people self-recruited off the internet, caching works better than I would ever have imagined.

 

Disclaimer: I've mostly stayed away from easy/urban caches for some time. Cachers who take the trouble to hike into the wilderness are, by and large, a better-behaved lot than the general population. And fake logs are easier to detect on a cache that gets three visitors a year vice three a day.

Link to comment
Well, I don't see much need for anything to be done. Cachers who don't play well with others become isolated and unpopular. What further sanction would you want? For an honor-system structure run by people self-recruited off the internet, caching works better than I would ever have imagined.
As I see nothing more need to be done about someone faking a log entry other then handling it on a case by case basis when discovered. I would no more hike out to check for a bogus log then I would hike out to be sure the last cacher hid it back the way it was supposed to be. At some point you have to have some degree of trust. Be it a bogus log or a improperly re-hid cache, anything you became aware of, you deal with it. But I don't agree with spending a lot of time hunting for it. I am also learning to let a DNF age, I was spending too much time disabling a cache and checking on it at the first sign of a sincere sounding DNF.

 

Disclaimer: I've mostly stayed away from easy/urban caches for some time. Cachers who take the trouble to hike into the wilderness are, by and large, a better-behaved lot than the general population. And fake logs are easier to detect on a cache that gets three visitors a year vice three a day.
I am pretty level on the hiding playing field between urbans and wilderness and some paddle only's in there, too. Everyone has their own taste and I aim to pass along options for anyone. And as I often say, if you don't like hunting a particular type cache or don't agree with a cache type in particular area, then look for something else. There's a half million caches out there so hopefully people can find what they like.
Link to comment

What's really degrading the sport of Geocaching is the proliferation of Lamp Skirt caches, guard rail micros and most micros in general unless they are at the end of a 20 or more minute hike in some nice woods.

 

After 1.5 years caching in January of 2007 I've really curtailed my caching by not doing traditional caches anymore, well I still do some. If I had kept up my caching rate since then I would be at 2500 caches now instead of 1500, but then I wouldn't have the stats of more than one 'Other Than Traditional' cache for every Two Traditional caches.

Edited by trainlove
Link to comment
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.

I was away from my computer all day, and from time to time I'd think about the thread and really hoped that you would have been able to come back with something other than telling me that I blame the owner for the fake logs when I only blame the owner for not deleting them.

 

I'm not sure why you can't see the difference, but there is a huge one. The people that posted the fake logs created them, so how can ANYONE else be to blame? They can't. I didn't do it. I never said that the cache owner created the logs, and therefore never said the owner is to blame for them.

 

Please, answer my analogy of the cookie. If I give you a cookie, and you don't eat it, would I then blame you for baking the cookie?

 

No, and so it is with the fake log. Someone gave the owner a fake log. He didn't delete it. I'm not going to blame the owner for the fake log.

 

The only thing I blame the owner for is for not deleting it AFTER someone else created it.

Link to comment
But still a possibility, so using this as a basis for some action doesn't carry much weight.

 

It's possible that a airplane may crash into my house tonight. Very unlikely though. Considering that possibility as a basis for my actions this evening would be pretty silly.

 

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.

 

The 6 fake logs required extra time on my part. Why? Because I have a responsibility to maintain my caches. Part of that responsibility includes policing the logs. If I don't the cache may be archived. Is that a disaster on par with an airplane crashing into my house? Of course not, but it's not something I would want to happen.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
But still a possibility, so using this as a basis for some action doesn't carry much weight.

 

It's possible that a airplane may crash into my house tonight. Very unlikely though. Considering that possibility as a basis for my actions this evening would be pretty silly.

Brian, are going to change your name to GARP now?

:D:D:lol:;):D

Edited by Peconic Bay Sailors
Link to comment
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.

I was away from my computer all day, and from time to time I'd think about the thread and really hoped that you would have been able to come back with something other than telling me that I blame the owner for the fake logs when I only blame the owner for not deleting them.

 

I'm not sure why you can't see the difference, but there is a huge one. The people that posted the fake logs created them, so how can ANYONE else be to blame? They can't. I didn't do it. I never said that the cache owner created the logs, and therefore never said the owner is to blame for them.

 

Please, answer my analogy of the cookie. If I give you a cookie, and you don't eat it, would I then blame you for baking the cookie?

 

No, and so it is with the fake log. Someone gave the owner a fake log. He didn't delete it. I'm not going to blame the owner for the fake log.

 

The only thing I blame the owner for is for not deleting it AFTER someone else created it.

OK...whatever. By saying the owner could have stopped the fake logs by making their virt armchair-proof, you ARE blaming the owner. I've linked to posts where you did say the owner could have made the cache better....

 

And the cookie thing...makes no sense and has no relevence to this. No one is denying WHO made the logs.

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to comment
By saying the owner could have stopped the fake logs by making their virt armchair-proof, you ARE blaming the owner. ...
I sort of am blaming the owner a little bit, I guess.

 

Let's try out this analogy:

 

Many cachers hate 'cut-and-paste' and TFTC-type logs. If such a cacher placed an LPM, it's likely that a number of people would either cut-and-paste their logs or merely do a quick TFTC. I wouldn't have too much sympathy for the cache owner's complaing about these logs on his cache. His actions created an environment suited for this type of log. Therefore, he is partly to blame for the logs that he dislikes.

 

So, while the owner is not to blame for the fake logs, he established a situation that made fake logs easy and somewhat more acceptable to the loggers (the combination of easily googleable answers and automated verification).

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
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.
I was away from my computer all day, and from time to time I'd think about the thread and really hoped that you would have been able to come back with something other than telling me that I blame the owner for the fake logs when I only blame the owner for not deleting them.

 

I'm not sure why you can't see the difference, but there is a huge one. The people that posted the fake logs created them, so how can ANYONE else be to blame? They can't. I didn't do it. I never said that the cache owner created the logs, and therefore never said the owner is to blame for them.

 

Please, answer my analogy of the cookie. If I give you a cookie, and you don't eat it, would I then blame you for baking the cookie?

 

No, and so it is with the fake log. Someone gave the owner a fake log. He didn't delete it. I'm not going to blame the owner for the fake log.

 

The only thing I blame the owner for is for not deleting it AFTER someone else created it.

OK...whatever. By saying the owner could have stopped the fake logs by making their virt armchair-proof, you ARE blaming the owner. I've linked to posts where you did say the owner could have made the cache better....

 

And the cookie thing...makes no sense and has no relevence to this. No one is denying WHO made the logs.

So if you're not denying WHO made the logs, and neither am I, then we agree that it was the fake finders that made the fake logs. So how in the heck can you still say that I'm suggesting that the owner is to blame for them?

 

Are you under the impression that I believe the cache owner has mind control powers and forced the Germans to post fake logs?

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again here, I do NOT blame the owner for the fake log. That should clear up ANY misunderstanding you have made about any earlier posts of mine. It's NOT the owners fault that the fake logs were posted. I don't see how it can be. So if you continue to suggest I believe otherwise, after I've stated it plainly, I'll have no choice but to assume you're trolling.

 

The only thing I blame the owner for is not choosing to delete the logs (after they existed) and for choosing to archive the cache instead of maintaining it.

 

Does that clear it up?

Link to comment
But still a possibility, so using this as a basis for some action doesn't carry much weight.

 

It's possible that a airplane may crash into my house tonight. Very unlikely though. Considering that possibility as a basis for my actions this evening would be pretty silly.

 

 

*picturing Briansnat crawling around the house from door frame to door frame, wearing PJs, fuzzy bunny slippers, and A TINFOIL LINED HARDHAT!*

:D

 

:D:lol:;):D:D

Edited by Okiebryan
Link to comment
The 6 fake logs required extra time on my part. Why? Because I have a responsibility to maintain my caches. Part of that responsibility includes policing the logs. If I don't the cache may be archived. Is that a disaster on par with an airplane crashing into my house? Of course not, but it's not something I would want to happen.
I don't recall the guidelines stating it's an owner's responsibility to police the logs. I did see it state to delete logs that appear bogus or off topic but I would think that's at an owner's discretion.

 

You and I are in similar situations with over 200 hides, how much time do you spend or are you willing to spend policing all the logs for your caches? What flags you to even check a log?

 

We searched for a cache a few weeks ago that had not been found in several months and had a load of DNF's, just because we were in the area and we like the challenge. We found it but to someone looking at our log from a distrustful point of view, our find would look suspicious. This is a six mile hike. Should the owner hike six miles to validate we actually found it????? I think they should of checked after the DNF's but with the fake log issue I don't see them making the hike just to read the log sheet.

 

I have even had people tell me that sometimes people enter a find of the same cache more then once and that hasn't caused problems. In fact we attempted a multi early in my caching career and didn't succeed. I accidently entered the "note" as a "find". Later when we actually finished it we entered a find. It wasn't until years later that a stat program flagged me that I had accidentally entered two finds for the same cache. I fixed it but it never caused a problem. In fact the cache ended up being voted #1 in west central Florida.

 

I would imagine the odds of a plane crashing into anyone's home is pretty astronomical. I see the odds of a fake log causing a problem with a cache pretty high, too. Just as I wouldn't check all the flight paths in an area before picking where to buy a home to try to prevent a plane from ever crashing into my home, I don't see spending loads of time policing logs having much benifit, either. No one condones fake logs but it's up to the owner of each cache on how that want to handle it.

Link to comment
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.
I was away from my computer all day, and from time to time I'd think about the thread and really hoped that you would have been able to come back with something other than telling me that I blame the owner for the fake logs when I only blame the owner for not deleting them.

 

I'm not sure why you can't see the difference, but there is a huge one. The people that posted the fake logs created them, so how can ANYONE else be to blame? They can't. I didn't do it. I never said that the cache owner created the logs, and therefore never said the owner is to blame for them.

 

Please, answer my analogy of the cookie. If I give you a cookie, and you don't eat it, would I then blame you for baking the cookie?

 

No, and so it is with the fake log. Someone gave the owner a fake log. He didn't delete it. I'm not going to blame the owner for the fake log.

 

The only thing I blame the owner for is for not deleting it AFTER someone else created it.

OK...whatever. By saying the owner could have stopped the fake logs by making their virt armchair-proof, you ARE blaming the owner. I've linked to posts where you did say the owner could have made the cache better....

 

And the cookie thing...makes no sense and has no relevence to this. No one is denying WHO made the logs.

So if you're not denying WHO made the logs, and neither am I, then we agree that it was the fake finders that made the fake logs. So how in the heck can you still say that I'm suggesting that the owner is to blame for them?

 

Are you under the impression that I believe the cache owner has mind control powers and forced the Germans to post fake logs?

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again here, I do NOT blame the owner for the fake log. That should clear up ANY misunderstanding you have made about any earlier posts of mine. It's NOT the owners fault that the fake logs were posted. I don't see how it can be. So if you continue to suggest I believe otherwise, after I've stated it plainly, I'll have no choice but to assume you're trolling.

 

The only thing I blame the owner for is not choosing to delete the logs (after they existed) and for choosing to archive the cache instead of maintaining it.

 

Does that clear it up?

 

Sure is a nice dance you do...and I don't troll! Answer this please...IF the virt had been armchair-proof, would the owner have had need to archive the cache? IF the virt were better set up, would there have been the armchair logging? If your answer is YES to either or both of these, who do you think could have made the logs stop? If you answer the owner, you obviously place a bit of the responsibility on the owner...you are blaming the owner for their role in this!

 

You can claim you don't harbor feelings that the owner could have stopped this, but your words in this thread say much different whether you realize it or not!

 

I may not understand some things, but I tell you this, I'm far from trolling.

Link to comment
The 6 fake logs required extra time on my part. Why? Because I have a responsibility to maintain my caches. Part of that responsibility includes policing the logs. If I don't the cache may be archived. Is that a disaster on par with an airplane crashing into my house? Of course not, but it's not something I would want to happen.
I don't recall the guidelines stating it's an owner's responsibility to police the logs. I did see it state to delete logs that appear bogus or off topic but I would think that's at an owner's discretion.

 

You and I are in similar situations with over 200 hides, how much time do you spend or are you willing to spend policing all the logs for your caches? What flags you to even check a log?

 

We searched for a cache a few weeks ago that had not been found in several months and had a load of DNF's, just because we were in the area and we like the challenge. We found it but to someone looking at our log from a distrustful point of view, our find would look suspicious. This is a six mile hike. Should the owner hike six miles to validate we actually found it????? I think they should of checked after the DNF's but with the fake log issue I don't see them making the hike just to read the log sheet.

 

I have even had people tell me that sometimes people enter a find of the same cache more then once and that hasn't caused problems. In fact we attempted a multi early in my caching career and didn't succeed. I accidently entered the "note" as a "find". Later when we actually finished it we entered a find. It wasn't until years later that a stat program flagged me that I had accidentally entered two finds for the same cache. I fixed it but it never caused a problem. In fact the cache ended up being voted #1 in west central Florida.

 

I would imagine the odds of a plane crashing into anyone's home is pretty astronomical. I see the odds of a fake log causing a problem with a cache pretty high, too. Just as I wouldn't check all the flight paths in an area before picking where to buy a home to try to prevent a plane from ever crashing into my home, I don't see spending loads of time policing logs having much benifit, either. No one condones fake logs but it's up to the owner of each cache on how that want to handle it.

When I do maintenance on my caches I will check the logs. I will make a special trip to check logs when I see logs by cachers that I know are in the habit of throwing down caches when they cannot find a cache container.

Link to comment
When I do maintenance on my caches I will check the logs.
I can totally see doing that. And after being in this thread, I will probably start looking myself :D But I think it would take something pretty glaring to make me make a run JUST to check a log.

 

I will make a special trip to check logs when I see logs by cachers that I know are in the habit of throwing down caches when they cannot find a cache container.
Guess if I had identified cachers guilty of that I would do it, too. I don't have that much familiararity with local cachers to tag anyone with that kind of label. Maybe we could form a local caching 'group' just so the local owners could discuss stuff like that. We have FGA but that's state wide.

 

Hmmm, that almost sounded like something getting done to address the problem.... ACK!!! hehehehe

Link to comment
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.

I was away from my computer all day, and from time to time I'd think about the thread and really hoped that you would have been able to come back with something other than telling me that I blame the owner for the fake logs when I only blame the owner for not deleting them.

 

I'm not sure why you can't see the difference, but there is a huge one. The people that posted the fake logs created them, so how can ANYONE else be to blame? They can't. I didn't do it. I never said that the cache owner created the logs, and therefore never said the owner is to blame for them.

 

Please, answer my analogy of the cookie. If I give you a cookie, and you don't eat it, would I then blame you for baking the cookie?

 

No, and so it is with the fake log. Someone gave the owner a fake log. He didn't delete it. I'm not going to blame the owner for the fake log.

 

The only thing I blame the owner for is for not deleting it AFTER someone else created it.

OK...whatever. By saying the owner could have stopped the fake logs by making their virt armchair-proof, you ARE blaming the owner. I've linked to posts where you did say the owner could have made the cache better....

 

And the cookie thing...makes no sense and has no relevence to this. No one is denying WHO made the logs.

This is a silly bit of semantics we are arguing over here. I'm not sure what is has to do with whether or no false logs degrade geocaching and whether or not they should be deleted. According to the OP, people who don't want false logs on their caches should delete these logs. The owner of the virt in question did not delete false logs. He made an attempted to stop false logs by posting a note on the cache page not to log a find until he gave permission. When that didn't work he archived his cache.

 

I don't blame the cache owner for the armchair logs. I blame the cache owner for not doing everything he could to stop the armchair logs before taking the drastic step of archiving the cache. He could have changed the verification question. He could have removed the certificate of achievement. He could have DELETED LOGS THAT APPEARED BOGUS. he did none of these things. If I leave my car unlock and someone steals something from it, I would hope that next time I remember to lock the car. I don't just put a sign on the car that says "Please don't steal from this car" and when that doesn't work sell the car.

Link to comment
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.

I was away from my computer all day, and from time to time I'd think about the thread and really hoped that you would have been able to come back with something other than telling me that I blame the owner for the fake logs when I only blame the owner for not deleting them.

 

I'm not sure why you can't see the difference, but there is a huge one. The people that posted the fake logs created them, so how can ANYONE else be to blame? They can't. I didn't do it. I never said that the cache owner created the logs, and therefore never said the owner is to blame for them.

 

Please, answer my analogy of the cookie. If I give you a cookie, and you don't eat it, would I then blame you for baking the cookie?

 

No, and so it is with the fake log. Someone gave the owner a fake log. He didn't delete it. I'm not going to blame the owner for the fake log.

 

The only thing I blame the owner for is for not deleting it AFTER someone else created it.

OK...whatever. By saying the owner could have stopped the fake logs by making their virt armchair-proof, you ARE blaming the owner. I've linked to posts where you did say the owner could have made the cache better....

 

And the cookie thing...makes no sense and has no relevence to this. No one is denying WHO made the logs.

This is a silly bit of semantics we are arguing over here. I'm not sure what is has to do with whether or no false logs degrade geocaching and whether or not they should be deleted. According to the OP, people who don't want false logs on their caches should delete these logs. The owner of the virt in question did not delete false logs. He made an attempted to stop false logs by posting a note on the cache page not to log a find until he gave permission. When that didn't work he archived his cache.

 

I don't blame the cache owner for the armchair logs. I blame the cache owner for not doing everything he could to stop the armchair logs before taking the drastic step of archiving the cache. He could have changed the verification question. He could have removed the certificate of achievement. He could have DELETED LOGS THAT APPEARED BOGUS. he did none of these things. If I leave my car unlock and someone steals something from it, I would hope that next time I remember to lock the car. I don't just put a sign on the car that says "Please don't steal from this car" and when that doesn't work sell the car.

 

Toz, I agree with this. I too see this as semantics, but Mushtang (as much as I hate to agree with him) usually makes clear sense. This is one place where I saw differently and was at first wondering if he purposely was dancing around his comments or if he truly believes he doesn't blame the owner. I think dancing now, but could be wrong.

 

I do disagree where you said that he could have deleted false logs...he did from what I read....until he tired of it and the continual cheating sickened him. As I said, maybe the owner had no idea HOW to fix the question, or even how the people were doing the fake logging! He did his part as outlined and then tired of the whole thing and archived...a true loss to all of us since it's ONE LESS CACHE to find!! So, this really does fit in with the debate and false logging DOES affect everyone (even if you don't know of it).

 

Yes, I do agree that the owner could have come here asking for help instead of archiving and coming here complaining...but that's neither here nor there at this point! Getting people to realize there could be problems from fake logs IS doing some good to stop this IMHO! I see where at least ONE person now knows this can and does happen!

Link to comment
Sure is a nice dance you do...and I don't troll! Answer this please...IF the virt had been armchair-proof, would the owner have had need to archive the cache?
I would guess he would not have decided to archive it. So no.

 

IF the virt were better set up, would there have been the armchair logging?
Probably not. It's possible the information required to log it would have turned up on the internet anyway, but then he might have decided to change the requirement. So my answer will be no.

 

If your answer is YES to either or both of these, who do you think could have made the logs stop?
My answers were no. But the owner has the responsibility to delete any logs he deems bogus.

 

If you answer the owner, you obviously place a bit of the responsibility on the owner...you are blaming the owner for their role in this!
The owner is responsible for deleting any bogus log. Yes, I'm blaming the owner for not deleting the logs, but that's not what you accused me of earlier. All this time I've thought we were debating whether it "was the fault of the owner because someone wanted to make and continue to make false logs". I never claimed this, and objected when you said I did.

 

You can claim you don't harbor feelings that the owner could have stopped this, but your words in this thread say much different whether you realize it or not!
My words say that the owner could have deleted the logs. My words do NOT say that it's the owners fault because someone else wanted to fake log.

 

I may not understand some things, but I tell you this, I'm far from trolling.
I'm not so sure. I keep telling you that I don't believe something, and you keep telling me that I do.
Link to comment
I don't blame the cache owner for the armchair logs. I blame the cache owner for not doing everything he could to stop the armchair logs before taking the drastic step of archiving the cache. He could have changed the verification question. He could have removed the certificate of achievement. He could have DELETED LOGS THAT APPEARED BOGUS. he did none of these things.

 

Toz, I agree with this.

I'm confused. When I say these exact things, you tell me that I'm blaming the owner for the bogus logs. When he says it you agree with him.

Link to comment
I don't blame the cache owner for the armchair logs. I blame the cache owner for not doing everything he could to stop the armchair logs before taking the drastic step of archiving the cache. He could have changed the verification question. He could have removed the certificate of achievement. He could have DELETED LOGS THAT APPEARED BOGUS. he did none of these things.

 

Toz, I agree with this.

I'm confused. When I say these exact things, you tell me that I'm blaming the owner for the bogus logs. When he says it you agree with him.

Scroll past the parsed part and read the rest of my comment please! If you are saying the same as Toz, you ARE placing a bit of blame (just like Toz does) on the owner! Can't you see this??

 

Either way, I'm done as I've made my point (as many can see) and tire of the dance!!

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to comment
I have even had people tell me that sometimes people enter a find of the same cache more then once and that hasn't caused problems. In fact we attempted a multi early in my caching career and didn't succeed. I accidently entered the "note" as a "find". Later when we actually finished it we entered a find. It wasn't until years later that a stat program flagged me that I had accidentally entered two finds for the same cache. I fixed it but it never caused a problem. In fact the cache ended up being voted #1 in west central Florida.

A bogus find log is not intrinsically bad.

 

Cheating on one’s find count and putting out inaccurate information which might mislead other cachers are two completely different things. Either can occur without the other. The former is benign; the latter is inherently bad. The former is the subject of this thread; the latter is not in dispute and is, in my opinion, completely off topic for this thread.

 

A fake log can create confusion just like any other form of bad information, but: apart from that detail, the mere fact that someone claims a find on a cache they did not find is not an inherently evil thing.

 

I strongly suspect that those who are troubled by the so-called "degradation" would not be nearly as troubled by other people’s bogus find logs – if at all – were it not for the existence of the public find count. None of the folks in this thread who report feeling "degraded" by bogus logs will admit to viewing the find count as a competition score, yet their arguments only make sense when considered from this competitive point of view.

 

Geocaching is not a competition.

 

I am not proposing a removal of the find counts. What I recommend instead is that readers of this thread do their best to remember the original reason why finds counts are displayed, and to not try to impose made-up competition rules on those who have not chosen to compete.

 

A fake log is not intrinsically evil. It can’t be. A fake log only becomes "evil" when it is artificially overlaid by some perceived morality or made-up reason for indignation.

 

Logging a cache you didn’t find is something I neither support nor recommend. I advise against it because it is silly, pointless, asinine and futile. It is NOT, however, inherently evil. Bogus logs do not cause any Dark-Side ripple throughout the Force. If I go out and hide or find a geocache today I will likely have a good time. The fact that some other person somewhere claims a bogus find cannot harm my enjoyment unless I let it. The fact that some other person somewhere decides to cheat on his numbers does not directly cause me to feel degraded unless I choose to feel degraded.

 

It is not my job to police other people's diaries.

 

Becoming morally outraged over other people's strange yet benign logging practices is also something I neither support nor recommend. I advise against it because it is silly, pointless, asinine and futile.

Link to comment
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.

I was away from my computer all day, and from time to time I'd think about the thread and really hoped that you would have been able to come back with something other than telling me that I blame the owner for the fake logs when I only blame the owner for not deleting them.

 

I'm not sure why you can't see the difference, but there is a huge one. The people that posted the fake logs created them, so how can ANYONE else be to blame? They can't. I didn't do it. I never said that the cache owner created the logs, and therefore never said the owner is to blame for them.

 

Please, answer my analogy of the cookie. If I give you a cookie, and you don't eat it, would I then blame you for baking the cookie?

 

No, and so it is with the fake log. Someone gave the owner a fake log. He didn't delete it. I'm not going to blame the owner for the fake log.

 

The only thing I blame the owner for is for not deleting it AFTER someone else created it.

OK...whatever. By saying the owner could have stopped the fake logs by making their virt armchair-proof, you ARE blaming the owner. I've linked to posts where you did say the owner could have made the cache better....

 

And the cookie thing...makes no sense and has no relevence to this. No one is denying WHO made the logs.

This is a silly bit of semantics we are arguing over here. I'm not sure what is has to do with whether or no false logs degrade geocaching and whether or not they should be deleted. According to the OP, people who don't want false logs on their caches should delete these logs. The owner of the virt in question did not delete false logs. He made an attempted to stop false logs by posting a note on the cache page not to log a find until he gave permission. When that didn't work he archived his cache.

 

I don't blame the cache owner for the armchair logs. I blame the cache owner for not doing everything he could to stop the armchair logs before taking the drastic step of archiving the cache. He could have changed the verification question. He could have removed the certificate of achievement. He could have DELETED LOGS THAT APPEARED BOGUS. he did none of these things. If I leave my car unlock and someone steals something from it, I would hope that next time I remember to lock the car. I don't just put a sign on the car that says "Please don't steal from this car" and when that doesn't work sell the car.

 

ahhh...never mind.

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to comment

I do not. I have not. And I never will, audit the paper logs in my caches against the online logs. Never.

 

I agree with that, for a time I tried to delete inappropriate logs, there were a lot of cachers attacking other cachers in logs on my caches, I started a big thing by deleting a lot of logs and made some enemies, I realized afterwards that it's not worth it, it's a GAME, a FUN GAME that I love, and how would I feel if someone was censoring my way of playing? I'd hate it, so why should I do that to someone else? I shouldn't, I've been a lot happier living by the " I play how I want to and I let them do the same " rules.

 

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

 

Luckily that's never been an issue where we're from, I've never even heard of it being done.

Link to comment
Good point. Bogus cachers make bogus logs. The logs are just a symptom. Unfortunatly they are the only thing we have any control over. I'd love to spray my cache with "bogie be gone" and have them repelled.
Hmmmm, maybe a cache called B-BUSTER CACHE and then place a cache container no one can access the log inside. Then anyone who just signs the log and doesn't complain about not being able to get to the log is totally BUSTED! :rolleyes:
Link to comment

Maybe the topic should be what to do about bogus cachers rather ...

 

Good point. Bogus cachers make bogus logs. The logs are just a symptom. Unfortunatly they are the only thing we have any control over. I'd love to spray my cache with "bogie be gone" and have them repelled.

ABSOLUTELY...get rid of the cheats and we'd ALL be happier (well, not those who wish to cheat)!

Link to comment

...there were a lot of cachers attacking other cachers in logs on my caches,... it's a GAME, a FUN GAME that ...

 

Three kinds of logs that I don't think belong in caches.

Attacks on other players.

Bogus logs.

Discussions playing out on a cache page that should be in the forums.

 

All three I have no problem deleting or asking for edits as is apprpriate.

 

After all if it's a fun game, then the attacks are something other than fun.

The debates belong in the forms and don't add anything to the cache.

The bogus are just that and don't even have the merit the other two types of log have.

 

Yeah, sometimes it's not fun to help others have fun.

Link to comment
Good point. Bogus cachers make bogus logs. The logs are just a symptom. Unfortunatly they are the only thing we have any control over. I'd love to spray my cache with "bogie be gone" and have them repelled.
Hmmmm, maybe a cache called B-BUSTER CACHE and then place a cache container no one can access the log inside. Then anyone who just signs the log and doesn't complain about not being able to get to the log is totally BUSTED! :rolleyes:

BUT (and I believe this is what most have been trying to figure out) WHAT do we do when we PROVE someone a cheat??
Link to comment
I agree with that, for a time I tried to delete inappropriate logs, there were a lot of cachers attacking other cachers in logs on my caches, I started a big thing by deleting a lot of logs and made some enemies, I realized afterwards that it's not worth it, it's a GAME, a FUN GAME that I love, and how would I feel if someone was censoring my way of playing? I'd hate it, so why should I do that to someone else? I shouldn't, I've been a lot happier living by the " I play how I want to and I let them do the same " rules.
Only deleted one log in my whole GC career and threatened to delete one that the logger ended up editing... one was a well camoed cache and someone just flat out posted a complete description of the hide and how to find it (not a hint, just a flat out give-away and I didn't spend days building it for that) and they edited their log, and the other was someone blasting me mistakenly thinking my cache was not placed right (which had to be proven to them with a reviewer involved). Never deleted a fake log in my life nor had a reason to suspect a log was fake. I might look at them when doing mainetance now and if I see online a cache was found 20 times in the last month but the last signed log was 3 months ago or something out of line, I'll check it out. But I doubt I'd ever have a reason to visit a cache just for that sole purpose.
Link to comment
BUT (and I believe this is what most have been trying to figure out) WHAT do we do when we PROVE someone a cheat??
Good point to bring this thread back to trying to formulate a solution -

 

1 - Somehow we have the opportunity to compare a signed log book/sheet to the online logs.

2 - We notice an online log that has no matching signed log

<here's where the variations for each of us come in so I'll just post MHO>

3 - Email the person who created the online log entry diplomatically stating that the cache was being maintained, this discrepancy was found and maybe they entered the find for the wrong cache.

4 - If they don't reply back, maybe give them a second chance stating if they don't reply you are obligated to delete the log listing. No reply means delete the log but give them enough time as here in Florida, we have vacationing cachers (i.e. snowbirds) who cache here but don't enter logs for weeks.

5 - If they do reply back, then discuss what's going on. If they can validate the hide (describe the hide or the container or something) then let is sit. If they can't or your full-of-***-detector goes off, delete the log. If they b*tch... let'em... unless they give you more to validate it.

 

Maybe I'm not much of a hard@ss with this as I like GC being fun for me and for other so I would give people the benifit of a doubt as I would hope someone would do the same for me. I have been to caches with log books where people skipped a couple pages, then others didn't, and logs were not in chronological order, or people signed where ever they could fit it and finding out who was after who would be impossible. Also nanos are hard to figure out anyone's log listing. And other log books have had pages come loose, got blurry from moisture, other issues that could cloud the determination if someone actually signed the log. Some people sign their whole caching name, others use just initials. Sometimes it's raining when we're signing so just a quick scribble before things get wet. Had people forget a pen and use a dirty stick to mark the log. So there are a lot of variables that could make it tough to make this determination even for valid finders.

Edited by infiniteMPG
Link to comment
Either way, I'm done as I've made my point (as many can see) and tire of the dance!!

Fair enough. I too have made my point multiple times, agreed with you on some items, pointed out specifically what I didn't agree with, only to have you come back and tell me that I have a different opinion than I really do.

 

Apparently we're done, and as long as you don't try and tell me what I really think, I won't try and tell you that you're really wrong. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Mushtang (as much as I hate to agree with him) usually makes clear sense.

You hate to agree with him?

 

Why would you hate to agree with anyone? If someone makes a reasonable or agreeable statement, does the statement suddenly become any less reasonable or agreeable just because it comes from a certain person? Wouldn’t you agree that truth is truth regardless of the source?

 

ABSOLUTELY...get rid of the cheats and we'd ALL be happier!

Are you proposing a forced restriction (or worse, an outright ban from the game) on ALL cachers who behave in some certain way that happens to makes you uncomfortable?

 

If not, then what do you mean by this?

 

If so, then I have some more questions:

 

For the purposes of this ban, who gets to define "cheat?" For every cacher who exists I am fairly sure I can find something they’ve done that some other cacher would be willing to include in the definition. Be careful what you ask for.

 

How can a bogus logger be "cheating" you if Geocaching is not a competition in the first place? What, exactly, does a bogus log cheat you out of?

Link to comment

I'm fairly new to geocaching and pretty dadgum pleased with myself for our ~30 finds. From my perspective the worst part about false logs is that a cache owner may not know that there is a problem with a particular cache. Anyone who logs a false log is a pretty sad individual. Cheating at an activity like this for bigger numbers won't make you rich, it just makes you lazy (IMHO).

 

So I guess there are two types of cache owners ... the type who doesn't care about the logs and the type that does. For those who do, have you considered creating a paper log with codes? Perhaps it would look like this:

 

HASOIMC GeoHunder 12/2/2007

LWEJCILJ TheDirtyFaceGang 12/6/2007

VEWRUIN RedRider 12/10/2007

KCUWNE GeoHunder2007 12/20/2007

 

When users do enter their logs they would be required to enter a code. You could validate the logs by checking to make sure the code matches one that you have created. It might be a little bit of work, but it would discourage people from making false entries.

 

Just a thought ... personally I think it's sad that people cheat at a "game" like this ... but then again I'm proud of my 30 finds.

 

DJ

Link to comment
When users do enter their logs they would be required to enter a code. You could validate the logs by checking to make sure the code matches one that you have created. It might be a little bit of work, but it would discourage people from making false entries.
If you look back thru the previous 20 pages on this thread (and I doubt you'd really want to do that) you'll find that was offerred as an alternative way to prevent this and it was agreed to be a good method EXCEPT the cache would be required to be turned into a mystery cache which is probably not going to sit well with some.

 

Like minds :rolleyes::)

Link to comment
When users do enter their logs they would be required to enter a code. You could validate the logs by checking to make sure the code matches one that you have created. It might be a little bit of work, but it would discourage people from making false entries.
If you look back thru the previous 20 pages on this thread (and I doubt you'd really want to do that) you'll find that was offerred as an alternative way to prevent this and it was agreed to be a good method EXCEPT the cache would be required to be turned into a mystery cache which is probably not going to sit well with some.

 

Like minds :rolleyes::)

The cache would have to be archived and relisted as a mystery cache.

Link to comment

I am not proposing a removal of the find counts. What I recommend instead is that readers of this thread do their best to remember the original reason why finds counts are displayed, and to not try to impose made-up competition rules on those who have not chosen to compete.

It isn't attempts at the imposition of any rules on the "non-competitors" that is causing the problem. I think most of us are perfectly capable of ignoring that sort of thing.

 

If this isn't supposed to be a competition, then what value is there in the public display of the total "found" count? Given the number of people geocaching, the display of those numbers will inevitably turn up a fair number who do wish to turn this into a competition, and that competition is what provides the incentive for logging bogus finds that inconvenience the rest of us -- both cache owners and other cachers.

 

Not much real upside to speak of, and the opportunity for a serious downside. That is why I believe removal of those counts from public display would, in some measure, help to "un-degrade" geocaching.

Edited by ecanderson
Link to comment
Mushtang (as much as I hate to agree with him) usually makes clear sense.

You hate to agree with him?

 

Why would you hate to agree with anyone? If someone makes a reasonable or agreeable statement, does the statement suddenly become any less reasonable or agreeable just because it comes from a certain person? Wouldn’t you agree that truth is truth regardless of the source?

 

ABSOLUTELY...get rid of the cheats and we'd ALL be happier!

Are you proposing a forced restriction (or worse, an outright ban from the game) on ALL cachers who behave in some certain way that happens to makes you uncomfortable?

 

If not, then what do you mean by this?

 

If so, then I have some more questions:

 

For the purposes of this ban, who gets to define "cheat?" For every cacher who exists I am fairly sure I can find something they’ve done that some other cacher would be willing to include in the definition. Be careful what you ask for.

 

How can a bogus logger be "cheating" you if Geocaching is not a competition in the first place? What, exactly, does a bogus log cheat you out of?

 

I'm sure an intelligent person like yourself can figure out what I meant to say in that somewhat jumbled and broken statement...it's called a compliment! :D

 

As far as the cheat thing....please re-read this entire topic to figure out who we're talking about when we (and I say we here because it's not just myself considering these people this) call someone a cheat! Ban? Who said ANYTHING about a ban? :D:D:D

Link to comment
As far as the cheat thing....please re-read this entire topic to figure out who we're talking about when we (and I say we here because it's not just myself considering these people this) call someone a cheat!

I didn't ask anyone else. You are the one who said "Get rid of the cheats and we'd ALL be happier." I'm asking you.

 

Ban? Who said ANYTHING about a ban?

I'll ask again: If that's not what you meant by "Get rid of the cheats," then what did you mean?

 

I also asked you some other questions in that post, including these: How can a bogus logger be "cheating" you if Geocaching is not a competition in the first place? What, exactly, does a bogus log cheat you out of?

Link to comment
As far as the cheat thing....please re-read this entire topic to figure out who we're talking about when we (and I say we here because it's not just myself considering these people this) call someone a cheat!

I didn't ask anyone else. You are the one who said "Get rid of the cheats and we'd ALL be happier." I'm asking you.

 

Ban? Who said ANYTHING about a ban?

I'll ask again: If that's not what you meant by "Get rid of the cheats," then what did you mean?

 

I also asked you some other questions in that post, including these: How can a bogus logger be "cheating" you if Geocaching is not a competition in the first place? What, exactly, does a bogus log cheat you out of?

And again, read the thread...since I don't have to answer to you, please try not being so demanding. :D All your questions are already answered, going backwards now isn't in my game plan here. :D As for the get rid...there's plenty of ways to deal with cheats, some are even mentioned here in this thread...which brings me back to read the thread...

Link to comment

Ok we just got a delete log on a cache we found In Florida Owner has posted the following note

 

LOG DELETION NOTICE: If your log was recently deleted and you are wondering why, please read the following.

 

Someone placed there own cache at this location after they could not find the real one. It was a medicine bottle zip tied to a nearby tree. This was not the real cache. The real cache is still there! To be fair to those that found the real cache we have deleted the logs of those who found the 'other' cache. Hate to do it folks but have to be fair to those got the right one. Please be sure to write a cache owner if you ever need to replace a cache.

 

Just because your cache has been compromised we in good faith found a cache with a log book although lame we sign and carried on. There was little description of what we should be looking for Now we traveled a long way we exchanged TB/coins do you think the owner should delete our log we should have the right to decide how to log our visit Just throwing it out there a e-mail explaining what happened would be a good starting point

Thanks Brain

Link to comment

I am not proposing a removal of the find counts. What I recommend instead is that readers of this thread do their best to remember the original reason why finds counts are displayed, and to not try to impose made-up competition rules on those who have not chosen to compete.

It isn't attempts at the imposition of any rules on the "non-competitors" that is causing the problem. I think most of us are perfectly capable of ignoring that sort of thing.

I have to disagree. As I said before:

 

I strongly suspect that those who are troubled by the so-called "degradation" would not be nearly as troubled by other people’s bogus find logs – if at all – were it not for the existence of the public find count. None of the folks in this thread who report feeling "degraded" by bogus logs will admit to viewing the find count as a competition score, yet their arguments only make sense when considered from this competitive point of view.

 

If this isn't supposed to be a competition, then what value is there in the public display of the total "found" count?

It indicates the cacher’s experience level for one thing. It’s not a precise measure, of course – ten easy micros is hardly equal to ten strenuous-terrain caches or ten challenging puzzles – but when you’re reading a DNF log and deciding whether to attempt the cache yourself it makes a big difference whether the cacher with the DNF has 10 finds versus 1000.

 

Given the number of people geocaching, the display of those numbers will inevitably turn up a fair number who do wish to turn this into a competition ...

That’s their choice. Nothing wrong with that.

 

I am just as free, however, NOT to participate in the competition. I therefore find it more than a little annoying when the competitive types try to tell me they know better than I do what I should count as a find and what I shouldn't

 

... and that competition is what provides the incentive for logging bogus finds that inconvenience the rest of us -- both cache owners and other cachers.

Inconvenience? If you’re talking about merely being inconvenienced by bogus logs, then I repeat:

 

Cheating on one’s find count and putting out inaccurate information which might mislead other cachers are two completely different things. Either can occur without the other. The former is benign; the latter is inherently bad. The former is the subject of this thread; the latter is not in dispute and is, in my opinion, completely off topic for this thread.

 

A fake log can create confusion just like any other form of bad information, but: apart from that detail, the mere fact that someone claims a find on a cache they did not find is not an inherently evil thing.

 

If you’ve been inconvenience by bad info then you have a legitimate gripe, but if you’ll read the OP you’ll see that gripe is not relevant to this thread. The OP specifically talks about fake logs causing so-called "moral degradation" to the entire game, not the practical effects fake logs have on individuals.

 

Not much real upside to speak of, and the opportunity for a serious downside.

The downside of other peoples’ find counts only occurs when cachers choose to be bothered by those other peoples’ find counts.

 

Just because you don’t see a strong reason for the finds to be displayed doesn’t mean they need to go away.

 

Your avatar, for example, doesn’t provide much real upside to speak of, and if I choose to let it bother me I could see a serious downside, but that doesn’t mean I have any legitimate case to ask for it to be removed.

 

If you like your avatar, and it’s not causing any real harm, then it should be allowed to stay. Same with the find counts. Please don’t try to protect me from things against which I need no protection.

 

That is why I believe removal of those counts from public display would, in some measure, help to "un-degrade" geocaching.

If the operators of this website allow themselves to be browbeaten into removing the find counts over a few complaints from a few self-righteous competitive loggers, then that, in itself, will be far more degrading to the hobby than the fake find logs could ever be. Fortunately that doesn’t seem to be happening.

Link to comment
And again, read the thread...since I don't have to answer to you, please try not being so demanding.

I didn’t demand anything. I merely asked you some questions based on your statement – questions that you keep dancing around. If you’re not interested in defending your statement that is your choice, but I think you should be willing to say as much instead of pretending like it’s my fault you can’t (or won’t) answer.

 

All your questions are already answered, going backwards now isn't in my game plan here.

Again: You are the one who said "Get rid of the cheats and we'd ALL be happier." I am asking you to explain what you mean by "cheat."

 

"Going back through the thread" doesn't provide that answer. If you don’t even have a working definition of the word (as it pertains to your statement) in your own mind, then how can you presume to make such pronouncements in the thread?

Link to comment

I am not proposing a removal of the find counts. What I recommend instead is that readers of this thread do their best to remember the original reason why finds counts are displayed, and to not try to impose made-up competition rules on those who have not chosen to compete.

It isn't attempts at the imposition of any rules on the "non-competitors" that is causing the problem. I think most of us are perfectly capable of ignoring that sort of thing.

I have to disagree. As I said before:

 

I strongly suspect that those who are troubled by the so-called "degradation" would not be nearly as troubled by other people’s bogus find logs – if at all – were it not for the existence of the public find count. None of the folks in this thread who report feeling "degraded" by bogus logs will admit to viewing the find count as a competition score, yet their arguments only make sense when considered from this competitive point of view.

 

I jumped in kinda late and really only browsed over much of this thread, but I don't recall anyone making this "about the number", nor have I even seen it mentioned...until now! Make's me wonder why it was even mentioned?

Link to comment
What, exactly, does a bogus log cheat you out of?

Time and money.

I repeat:

 

A bogus find log is not intrinsically bad.

 

Cheating on one’s find count and putting out inaccurate information which might mislead other cachers are two completely different things. Either can occur without the other. The former is benign; the latter is inherently bad. The former is the subject of this thread; the latter is not in dispute and is, in my opinion, completely off topic for this thread.

 

A fake log can create confusion just like any other form of bad information, but: apart from that detail, the mere fact that someone claims a find on a cache they did not find is not an inherently "evil" thing.

Link to comment

Ok we just got a delete log on a cache we found In Florida Owner has posted the following note

 

LOG DELETION NOTICE: If your log was recently deleted and you are wondering why, please read the following.

 

Someone placed there own cache at this location after they could not find the real one. It was a medicine bottle zip tied to a nearby tree. This was not the real cache. The real cache is still there! To be fair to those that found the real cache we have deleted the logs of those who found the 'other' cache. Hate to do it folks but have to be fair to those got the right one. Please be sure to write a cache owner if you ever need to replace a cache.

 

Just because your cache has been compromised we in good faith found a cache with a log book although lame we sign and carried on. There was little description of what we should be looking for Now we traveled a long way we exchanged TB/coins do you think the owner should delete our log we should have the right to decide how to log our visit Just throwing it out there a e-mail explaining what happened would be a good starting point

Thanks Brain

 

Wow. I agree this could be upsetting. This probably warrants a whole new forum thread, but I'm certainly not going to start it. My take is that this is yet another thing that has a "slightly negative impact" on geocaching (don't worry, I won't throw the D word out there). It doesn't sound like the original cache was compromised as you suggest, because it was still there, so I can certainly understand the cache owner's position in deleting your log. You really should be upset with the one who threw down their own cache.

Link to comment
A bogus find log is not intrinsically bad.
But wait, in the very next paragraph you say this:
...putting out inaccurate information which might mislead other cachers ... is inherently bad.... A fake log can create confusion just like any other form of bad information...
If putting out misleading info is inherently bad, and a fake log can confuse & mislead another cacher, doesn't that mean that fake logs are misleading and thus inherently bad?
but: apart from that detail...
But apart from that detail? Isn't that detail an important one?
I strongly suspect that those who are troubled by the so-called "degradation" would not be nearly as troubled by other people’s bogus find logs – if at all – were it not for the existence of the public find count. None of the folks in this thread who report feeling "degraded" by bogus logs will admit to viewing the find count as a competition score, yet their arguments only make sense when considered from this competitive point of view.
This is a pretty lame argument. There is no way you can truthfully tell me that I care about false logs because it it ruining my find count. Other than what I share here in the forums, you have absolutely no way of knowing what I think and feel.

 

Wait, it isn't an argument at all, it is an attempt to stigmatize the position of people you are arguing with. Ad Hominem, a logical fallacy.

Logging a cache you didn’t find is something I neither support nor recommend. I advise against it because it is silly, pointless, asinine and futile. It is NOT, however, inherently evil. Bogus logs do not cause any Dark-Side ripple throughout the Force.
Bogus logs will, however, make it look like missing caches have been found. They will cause consternation and aggravation for cache owners who have to police the logs for the caches they placed because they thought it would be fun. For those who do care about find counts, bogus logs will cause even more undue pressure, maybe even enough to spawn even more bogus loggers. Force? We don't need no stinkin' Force!
Link to comment

I am not proposing a removal of the find counts. What I recommend instead is that readers of this thread do their best to remember the original reason why finds counts are displayed, and to not try to impose made-up competition rules on those who have not chosen to compete.

It isn't attempts at the imposition of any rules on the "non-competitors" that is causing the problem. I think most of us are perfectly capable of ignoring that sort of thing.

I have to disagree. As I said before:

 

I strongly suspect that those who are troubled by the so-called "degradation" would not be nearly as troubled by other people’s bogus find logs – if at all – were it not for the existence of the public find count. None of the folks in this thread who report feeling "degraded" by bogus logs will admit to viewing the find count as a competition score, yet their arguments only make sense when considered from this competitive point of view.

 

I jumped in kinda late and really only browsed over much of this thread, but I don't recall anyone making this "about the number", nor have I even seen it mentioned...until now! Make's me wonder why it was even mentioned?

... which is why I chose my words exactly as I did.

 

Nobody has actually admitted to it. That’s the point. They merely argue against so-called "degradation" as if that’s their underlying motivation. Their arguments only make sense when considered from the competitive point of view.

 

Please read my statement again – the one you quoted – and note the bolded part:

 

"I strongly suspect that those who are troubled by the so-called "degradation" would not be nearly as troubled by other people’s bogus find logs – if at all – were it not for the existence of the public find count."

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