Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?

[+KBI]

What reasons would those be?

After about page 12 I started considering the possibility that you've been trolling. Now I know it. You reeled me in big time, but now I'm spitting the hook.

Just because you either don’t understand the argument or aren’t willing to defend your position is no reason to resort to personal insults.

 

Defending one's personal principles is NOT trolling.

 

I take exception when people try to impose their own strange version of morals in places where they either do not apply or where it is none of their business. The OP tried to claim that ALL bogus logs cause degradation to the hobby. I have shown that that is not the case. You may reasonably disagree, and I welcome your attempts to help me see your point of view, but calling me names and attacking my personal integrity does nothing to make your argument sound any more convincing.

[+team lagonda]

jerrrry....jerrrry....

Edited February 9, 2008 by team lagonda

[+briansnat]

OP: ALL bogus logs are degrading to the hobby.

 

KBI: It is not correct to say that ALL bogus logs are degrading to the hobby.

 

I just re-read the OP and didn't see the word ALL.

[+BlueDeuce]

jerrrry....jerrrry....

 

Stop. It's not helping. Okay?

Edited February 9, 2008 by BlueDeuce

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

If you fly over a shark, do you count those as finds too?

Doesn't that depend on the kind of shark?

I am a very upright and moralistic cacher, and thus I would NEVER log a find on a shark that my airplane flies over unless the shark had either seen or eaten a cache in her lifetime, or unless she had seen, bitten or eaten a cacher in her lifetime. I like to follow the rules!

[+team lagonda]

sorry duce..i was just tryin to point out the futilness of arguing....

[+cache_test_dummies]

OP: ALL bogus logs are degrading to the hobby.

 

KBI: It is not correct to say that ALL bogus logs are degrading to the hobby.

 

I just re-read the OP and didn't see the word ALL.

The word ALL doesn't appear, but I believe it is implied by the way the terms "false logs", "them" and "they" are used in this paragraph from the OP:

 

I certainly don’t agree with false logs, and I try not to let them bother me, but the fact is they do directly affect me. False logs degrade the game/hobby/sport/activity of geocaching, and what it means to be a geocacher.

If the OP had prefixed those terms with "some", this thread probably wouldn't have become The Longest Thread Ever.

[+BlueDeuce]

sorry duce..i was just tryin to point out the futilness of arguing....

 

It's shark infested waters dude.

 

Check your PM.

[+Rockin Roddy]

sorry duce..i was just tryin to point out the futilness of arguing....

 

It's shark infested waters dude.

 

Check your PM.

 

I think most are friendly in here....and this is fun....mostly!

 

You sure have been going through the avatars today BD!!

[+team lagonda]

i apoligize..i was trying to point out arguing is realy futile in this kind of setting..tryed to pm back duce but i dont think it took....

[+BlueDeuce]

i apoligize..i was trying to point out arguing is realy futile in this kind of setting..tryed to pm back duce but i dont think it took....

 

It did. Check the reply.

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

OP: ALL bogus logs are degrading to the hobby.

 

KBI: It is not correct to say that ALL bogus logs are degrading to the hobby.

 

I just re-read the OP and didn't see the word ALL.

The word ALL doesn't appear, but I believe it is implied by the way the terms "false logs", "them" and "they" are used in this paragraph from the OP:

 

I certainly don’t agree with false logs, and I try not to let them bother me, but the fact is they do directly affect me. False logs degrade the game/hobby/sport/activity of geocaching, and what it means to be a geocacher.

If the OP had prefixed those terms with "some", this thread probably wouldn't have become The Longest Thread Ever.

 

Don't blame this "Longest Thread Ever" crap on me! ...unless there's a prize or something?

 

I certainly didn't see 23 pages all talking about SOME versus ALL.

 

For the record, I would not have meant ALL, but probably something more like MOST. After all the excellent points made in this thread, maybe now I'd say between SOME and MANY.

[+BlueDeuce]

I think most are friendly in here....and this is fun....mostly!

 

Friendly folks I agree. Nth degree conversations that push out all other comments is another.

 

You sure have been going through the avatars today BD!!

 

Usually a browser problem. You might want to clear your buffer.

[+cache_test_dummies]

OP: ALL bogus logs are degrading to the hobby.

 

KBI: It is not correct to say that ALL bogus logs are degrading to the hobby.

 

I just re-read the OP and didn't see the word ALL.

The word ALL doesn't appear, but I believe it is implied by the way the terms "false logs", "them" and "they" are used in this paragraph from the OP:

 

I certainly don’t agree with false logs, and I try not to let them bother me, but the fact is they do directly affect me. False logs degrade the game/hobby/sport/activity of geocaching, and what it means to be a geocacher.

If the OP had prefixed those terms with "some", this thread probably wouldn't have become The Longest Thread Ever.

 

Don't blame this "Longest Thread Ever" crap on me! ...unless there's a prize or something?

I'm not aware of any sanctioned prizes for long threads, but perhaps you could renegotiate the wager you mentioned earlier. Maybe try for "double or nothing if this topic reaches 2,000 posts".

 

Please don't get me wrong - this is my favorite thread at the moment. I hope it goes on forever.

 

I certainly didn't see 23 pages all talking about SOME versus ALL.

True. But I'm starting to think that at least some (perhaps most) of the disconnect in this discussion may have occurred as a result of this very issue. I fear that the subtle difference between 'some' and 'all' may have fueled the moral vs practical confusion that seems to underly much of the debate.

 

For the record, I would not have meant ALL, but probably something more like MOST. After all the excellent points made in this thread, maybe now I'd say between SOME and MANY.

As I've mentioned, I suspect that such a slight adjustment in the OP would have made a difference in the discussion.

[+Too Tall John]

OP: ALL bogus logs are degrading to the hobby.

 

KBI: It is not correct to say that ALL bogus logs are degrading to the hobby.

 

<SNIPPED>

 

KBI: Yes, I can, but that’s not the same thing as claiming that ALL bogus logs are bad for the hobby.

 

TooTallJohn: We cannot ignore that some bogus logs can have a negative impact and can be bad for the hobby.

 

KBI: <<SNIP>>

I think, in the interest of accuracy, it should be pointed out that you were not involved in this conversation until page 8, well after the conversation had already evolved into a discussion about the practical reasons that false logs are a problem. Your first post looked like you were going to be following the "numbers cachers are evil" line of thought.

All of the problems (degradation issues) stem from the fact that ones find count on GC is public, which brings out the worse (obsessive competitiveness) in a small faction of the cachers in either (1) logging false finds or (2) becoming obsessive about others scores.

As I was just saying in another thread:

 

I've learned that although one's find count is clearly unusable as any kind of meaningful score to be compared between cachers for competitive reasons, some people will nevertheless get all wrapped around the axle (inconsolably distressed) over the way others choose to log finds.

 

Nobody ever achieved a smiley for themselves by criticizing – or glaring disapprovingly at – another person's numbers, but that doesn’t seem to stop people from trying.

Also, a more accurate representation of the conversation would look something like this:

OP: ALL bogus logs are degrading to the hobby.

 

KBI: It is not correct to say that ALL bogus logs are degrading to the hobby. (KBI not involved yet...)

 

Second Poster: Some bogus logs are bad for the hobby.

 

KBI: If you don't like bogus logs, you must be a numbers hound.

 

Third Poster: I have actually seen bogus logs that were bad for the hobby.

 

KBI: Why must you insist that all bogus logs are inherently evil? Bogus logs aren't evil.

 

Fourth Poster: But bogus logs can cause problems!

 

KBI: If you don't like bogus logs, you must be a numbers hound. Bogus logs aren't evil.

 

TooTallJohn: We cannot ignore that some bogus logs can have a negative impact and can be bad for the hobby.

 

KBI: Bogus logs aren't evil. Only some bogus logs cause problems.

 

TooTallJohn: Hey! We agree, bogus logs can cause problems!

 

KBI: See? Look, I said some. We agree! Why aren't you happy? I am such a victim here.

Yeah, ok... Edited February 10, 2008 by Too Tall John

[+cache_test_dummies]

KBI: <picks up revolver, inserts one bullet, spins barrel ...>

Oh, the dramatics...

Because KBI specifically mentioned the use of only a single bullet, I thought the scene was intended to reflect frustration-induced-humor (something akin to Archie faking a suicide while having to endure an endless Edith monologue), rather than drama.

 

The use of two or three bullets would have made it a drama. Six bullets would have been action/thriller, and no bullets at all would have made it a comedy.

Edited February 10, 2008 by cache_test_dummies

[+Too Tall John]

KBI: <<SNIP>>

Oh, the dramatics...

Because KBI specifically mentioned the use of only a single bullet, I thought the scene was intended to reflect frustration-induced-humor (something akin to Archie faking a suicide while having to endure an endless Edith monologue), rather than drama.

 

The use of two or three bullets would have made it a drama. Six bullets would have been action/thriller, and no bullets at all would have made it a comedy.

To be truthful, I almost cut the whole "roulette" part from my copy of the post. In retrospect, I think I regret having left it in there, and my comments on it. For many people, suicide isn't something to mess around with.

 

There, it's gone.

Edited February 10, 2008 by Too Tall John

[+KBI]

I certainly didn't see 23 pages all talking about SOME versus ALL.

 

For the record, I would not have meant ALL, but probably something more like MOST. After all the excellent points made in this thread, maybe now I'd say between SOME and MANY.

Works for me!

 

I have no further objections to the OP's position on this issue, Your Honor.

[+Too Tall John]

I certainly didn't see 23 pages all talking about SOME versus ALL.

 

For the record, I would not have meant ALL, but probably something more like MOST. After all the excellent points made in this thread, maybe now I'd say between SOME and MANY.

Works for me!

 

I have no further objections to the OP's position on this issue, Your Honor.

I'd like to teach the world to sing

In perfect harmony

I'd like to buy the world a Coke

And keep it company

 

[+Rockin Roddy]

OP: ALL bogus logs are degrading to the hobby.

 

KBI: It is not correct to say that ALL bogus logs are degrading to the hobby.

 

<SNIPPED>

 

KBI: Yes, I can, but that’s not the same thing as claiming that ALL bogus logs are bad for the hobby.

 

TooTallJohn: We cannot ignore that some bogus logs can have a negative impact and can be bad for the hobby.

 

KBI: <<SNIP>>

I think, in the interest of accuracy, it should be pointed out that you were not involved in this conversation until page 8, well after the conversation had already evolved into a discussion about the practical reasons that false logs are a problem. Your first post looked like you were going to be following the "numbers cachers are evil" line of thought.

All of the problems (degradation issues) stem from the fact that ones find count on GC is public, which brings out the worse (obsessive competitiveness) in a small faction of the cachers in either (1) logging false finds or (2) becoming obsessive about others scores.

As I was just saying in another thread:

 

I've learned that although one's find count is clearly unusable as any kind of meaningful score to be compared between cachers for competitive reasons, some people will nevertheless get all wrapped around the axle (inconsolably distressed) over the way others choose to log finds.

 

Nobody ever achieved a smiley for themselves by criticizing – or glaring disapprovingly at – another person's numbers, but that doesn’t seem to stop people from trying.

Also, a more accurate representation of the conversation would look something like this:

OP: ALL bogus logs are degrading to the hobby.

 

KBI: It is not correct to say that ALL bogus logs are degrading to the hobby. (KBI not involved yet...)

 

Second Poster: Some bogus logs are bad for the hobby.

 

KBI: If you don't like bogus logs, you must be a numbers hound.

 

Third Poster: I have actually seen bogus logs that were bad for the hobby.

 

KBI: Why must you insist that all bogus logs are inherently evil? Bogus logs aren't evil.

 

Fourth Poster: But bogus logs can cause problems!

 

KBI: If you don't like bogus logs, you must be a numbers hound. Bogus logs aren't evil.

 

TooTallJohn: We cannot ignore that some bogus logs can have a negative impact and can be bad for the hobby.

 

KBI: Bogus logs aren't evil. Only some bogus logs cause problems.

 

TooTallJohn: Hey! We agree, bogus logs can cause problems!

 

KBI: See? Look, I said some. We agree! Why aren't you happy? I am such a victim here.

Yeah, ok...

 

You're leaving out the interrogationary tactics here!

[Mushtang]

I certainly didn't see 23 pages all talking about SOME versus ALL.

 

For the record, I would not have meant ALL, but probably something more like MOST. After all the excellent points made in this thread, maybe now I'd say between SOME and MANY.

Works for me!

 

I have no further objections to the OP's position on this issue, Your Honor.

I might not agree with everything others have said, and they might not agree with me, but I think both sides have stated their opinions in so many different ways it's clear we'll all just disagree. It doesn't seem like we're changing anyone's minds here.

 

I think we do all agree that in some cases a fake Find can be harmful.

 

My major disagreement comes from how often that harm actually happens (I suspect it's comparatively rare), and if it's a non-harmful fake Find does it really matter (I say no).

 

It's great that we can all still enjoy this game together though.

Edited February 10, 2008 by Mushtang

[+ecanderson]

I disagree with the idea that bogus logs constitute 'cheating.' Cheating implies competition, and Geocaching is not a competition.

 

You're clearly ignoring a subset of the group that most definitely sees this as a competition. A further subset of that group is prepared to generate bogus find logs for the purpose of furthering their position in that competition. Those bogus find logs can and do confuse both cache owners and fellow cachers, causing them unnecessary time and expense.

 

And to defuse your prior argument -- yes, other bad information can and will inevitably find its way into the public logs. We must attempt to excuse errors when they are errors, and ask people to be a bit more careful in their entries. That's not the topic at hand. We're talking about bad information entered with that intent, the majority of which seems to stem from claiming finds that aren't finds.

 

Fortunately, it appears that for now, the frequency of these incidents of inconvenience due to bogus recording of finds isn't very great (at present, it seems to be reported at the "anecdotal" level). If it became large, I think you'd see changes that would inhibit this, and several have been discussed over the course of this thread.

 

Until then, it's just a forum topic.

Edited February 10, 2008 by ecanderson

[+KBI]

I disagree with the idea that bogus logs constitute 'cheating.' Cheating implies competition, and Geocaching is not a competition.

You're clearly ignoring a subset of the group that most definitely sees this as a competition. A further subset of that group is prepared to generate bogus find logs for the purpose of furthering their position in that competition. Those bogus find logs can and do confuse both cache owners and fellow cachers, causing them unnecessary time and expense.

Let's add that one to the script then, shall we? (see below)

 

I have a strong feeling that most bogus logs are not of the benign nature of your examples. At the very least, bogus logs cause trouble for concerned cache owners.

I have never disputed this point. I have agreed with it 100% every time it has come up. How many times do I have to repeat it?

 

If so, then the impact that bogus logs can have is a very valid part of the discussion.

Bogus logs can have an impact. AGAIN, I agree. That does not mean they always have an impact. Therefore it is invalid to conclude that all bogus logs are degrading to the hobby.

 

Since we agree that they can have a negative impact, we cannot ignore that. From what I've read in your posts, KBI, you seem to be trying to dismiss this.

Dismiss?!?

 

Repeating over and over, eighteen freaking times per page of this thread, that I agree with the point means I am trying to dismiss it?

 

'Pointing out that something is off topic while agreeing with it' and 'dismissing it' are two very different things.

 

It is a valid point. I have said that the point is valid. I have also said that the point is off topic to the thread. It is off topic because it has no relation to the OP’s premise. The OP’s claimed that not only are ALL bogus logs bad, but that they are also immoral in that they degrade the entire hobby.

 

OP: ALL bogus logs are degrading to the hobby.

 

KBI: It is not correct to say that ALL bogus logs are degrading to the hobby.

 

Second Poster: Some bogus logs are bad for the hobby.

 

KBI: I agree, but that’s not the same thing as claiming that ALL bogus logs are bad for the hobby.

 

Third Poster: But I have actually seen bogus logs that were bad for the hobby.

 

KBI: I agree that some bogus logs are bad for the hobby, but that doesn’t change the fact that NOT ALL bogus logs are bad for the hobby.

 

Fourth Poster: But bogus logs can cause problems!

 

KBI: I agree, but that’s not the same thing as claiming that ALL bogus logs are bad for the hobby.

 

Fifth Poster: Can’t you see that a bogus log can waste a person’s time?

 

KBI: Yes, I can, but that’s not the same thing as claiming that ALL bogus logs are bad for the hobby.

 

TooTallJohn: We cannot ignore that some bogus logs can have a negative impact and can be bad for the hobby.

 

KBI: No, we cannot ignore that, but that’s not the same thing as claiming that ALL bogus logs are bad for the hobby.

 

ecanderson: You're clearly ignoring a subset of bogus find logs that can and do confuse both cache owners and fellow cachers, causing them unnecessary time and expense.

 

KBI: <bangs head against table, adding to the existing, large, and deepening dent ...>

[+KBI]

It doesn't seem like we're changing anyone's minds here.

I'm not so sure.

 

I’m convinced that quite a few folks have reconsidered their previous viewpoint on this issue. I’m also fairly certain that at least a few of them have changed their viewpoint as a result of considering the viewpoints of others.

 

I myself have learned from this debate.

 

I have learned that other people apparently assign a lot more value to my online find logs than I assign to them myself.

 

I have always looked at my own find logs as merely an Internet-based record of my Geocaching activities; one that exists purely as an indication to me, the cache owner, and other interested cachers of the fact that I performed an act that day at the cache location that fits within my definition of "find." This viewpoint is what allows me to disregard other cachers’ bogus logs when they exist in such a form as to pose no threat of inconvenience or misinformation. My personal reasons for not logging bogus finds myself were self-intuitive from the start.

 

Others, however, apparently not only view each of my online find logs (and my running total) as a metric for determining my relative worthiness as a cacher; they also evidently assign a very real and solidly tangible value to each and every one of my smileys. My online find logs, by virtue of merely existing, have an actual and concrete worth to these friends of mine, as if they were dollar bills or shares of stock – not to me, but to them. I can imagine no other explanation (other than the competition thing) as to why other cachers would feel automatically and genuinely 'cheated' or 'degraded,' as they have passionately described, were I ever to engage in the inadvisable activity of logging a counterfeit find.

 

While looking at the issue from this angle doesn’t drive me to adopt their crusade, it nevertheless moves me a bit closer to an understanding of why they say the things they do, and therefore allows for an easier tolerance and acceptance of their point of view on my part.

[+Team Cotati]

"it tells me that these people are the closet competitors." Exactus au Mundos. Though you might more correctly call them "frustrated" closet competitors.

[+Jedi Cacher]

I disagree with the idea that bogus logs constitute 'cheating.' Cheating implies competition, and Geocaching is not a competition.

 

You're clearly ignoring a subset of the group that most definitely sees this as a competition. A further subset of that group is prepared to generate bogus find logs for the purpose of furthering their position in that competition. Those bogus find logs can and do confuse both cache owners and fellow cachers, causing them unnecessary time and expense.

 

The force is strong with you young ecanderson! I totally agree with KBI that Geocaching is not a competition, but ecanderson has said it well, that there are those out there that see it as a competition. I have experienced this but care not to elaborate.

I have played all different kinds of sports and there are those that cheat all the time. These type of people want to win at all costs whatever the consequences. This used to really irritate me, but later I learned that cheaters are only cheating themselves and they are the ones missing out.

[+Trucker Lee]

My personal reasons for not logging bogus finds myself were self-intuitive from the start.

 

Besides them being an outright lie!

Others, however, apparently not only view each of my online find logs (and my running total) as a metric for determining my relative worthiness as a cacher; they also evidently assign a very real and solidly tangible value to each and every one of my smileys. My online find logs, by virtue of merely existing, have an actual and concrete worth to these friends of mine, as if they were dollar bills or shares of stock – not to me, but to them. I can imagine no other explanation (other than the competition thing) as to why other cachers would feel automatically and genuinely 'cheated' or 'degraded,' as they have passionately described, were I ever to engage in the inadvisable activity of logging a counterfeit find.

 

While looking at the issue from this angle doesn’t drive me to adopt their crusade, it nevertheless moves me a bit closer to an understanding of why they say the things they do, and therefore allows for an easier tolerance and acceptance of their point of view on my part.

 

The importance of my smiley count to others as a way to judge me, or to make themselves feel better about their own activities in comparison, if I read this right. The anal attitudes about numbers and the need to worry about what others are doing only serve to tell me too many in this need a life of their own, a bit of self-assurance, and to get out and earn real smileys.

 

Come on people, false logs are lies and only serve to make you feel better. This could be accomplished as well by getting outside, go caching, assist at a food bank, clean up in invalid's yard, organize and work a CITO event, or any one of a number of other things. And an added benefit--- moving around will help get that pizza off your bum! Get out and have fun, that is what caching is about. Screw the numbers!

[Mushtang]

My personal reasons for not logging bogus finds myself were self-intuitive from the start.

 

Besides them being an outright lie!

Others, however, apparently not only view each of my online find logs (and my running total) as a metric for determining my relative worthiness as a cacher; they also evidently assign a very real and solidly tangible value to each and every one of my smileys. My online find logs, by virtue of merely existing, have an actual and concrete worth to these friends of mine, as if they were dollar bills or shares of stock – not to me, but to them. I can imagine no other explanation (other than the competition thing) as to why other cachers would feel automatically and genuinely 'cheated' or 'degraded,' as they have passionately described, were I ever to engage in the inadvisable activity of logging a counterfeit find.

 

While looking at the issue from this angle doesn’t drive me to adopt their crusade, it nevertheless moves me a bit closer to an understanding of why they say the things they do, and therefore allows for an easier tolerance and acceptance of their point of view on my part.

 

The importance of my smiley count to others as a way to judge me, or to make themselves feel better about their own activities in comparison, if I read this right. The anal attitudes about numbers and the need to worry about what others are doing only serve to tell me too many in this need a life of their own, a bit of self-assurance, and to get out and earn real smileys.

 

Come on people, false logs are lies and only serve to make you feel better. This could be accomplished as well by getting outside, go caching, assist at a food bank, clean up in invalid's yard, organize and work a CITO event, or any one of a number of other things. And an added benefit--- moving around will help get that pizza off your bum! Get out and have fun, that is what caching is about. Screw the numbers!

I'm pretty sure nearly everyone in here agrees with you. It's the fake loggers that you need to tell this to, and I'm guessing they're not forum regulars.

[+Team Cotati]

I'm guessing that they ARE forum regulars for the simple reason that this is the one place where they can get visible proof of their desired effect upon the game.

[Mushtang]

I'm guessing that they ARE forum regulars for the simple reason that this is the one place where they can get visible proof of their desired effect upon the game.

I would think their desired effect is to increase their find count, which they can't see here.

 

I don't think they're logging fake finds just to upset the few folks that post to the forums. If they wanted to do that they could troll in almost every thread they post to and have a very disturbing avatar.

[+Renegade Knight]

...It's the fake loggers that you need to tell this to, and I'm guessing they're not forum regulars.

 

Excellent Point.

 

The recent non find find log was deleted at my request by the finder. I doubt they were happy but they didn't argue. If I ever can do them a caching favor I will for making my job easy.

[+Too Tall John]

I don't think they're logging fake finds just to upset the few folks that post to the forums. If they wanted to [upset the few folks that post to the forums] they could troll in almost every thread they post to and have a very disturbing avatar.

...

[+Team Cotati]

I'm guessing that they ARE forum regulars for the simple reason that this is the one place where they can get visible proof of their desired effect upon the game.

I would think their desired effect is to increase their find count, which they can't see here.

 

I don't think they're logging fake finds just to upset the few folks that post to the forums. If they wanted to do that they could troll in almost every thread they post to and have a very disturbing avatar.

 

Oh I don't nkow about that. I'd suspect that the 'jollies' that you guys are certainly providing have got to be a component of their quest.

[+Okiebryan]

[+Team Cotati]

 

Hey, that's really cool, did you create that yourself?

[+ecanderson]

.

Let's add that one to the script then, shall we? (see below).

Add if you will, but I would recommend against self-serving edits. What you claim to have quoted is most definitely NOT what was written. And next time, I'll use the words "have and will" instead of "can", and you may italicize those too, if you wish.

[+ecanderson]

I disagree with the idea that bogus logs constitute 'cheating.' Cheating implies competition, and Geocaching is not a competition.

 

You're clearly ignoring a subset of the group that most definitely sees this as a competition. A further subset of that group is prepared to generate bogus find logs for the purpose of furthering their position in that competition. Those bogus find logs can and do confuse both cache owners and fellow cachers, causing them unnecessary time and expense.

 

The force is strong with you young ecanderson! I totally agree with KBI that Geocaching is not a competition, but ecanderson has said it well, that there are those out there that see it as a competition. I have experienced this but care not to elaborate.

I have played all different kinds of sports and there are those that cheat all the time. These type of people want to win at all costs whatever the consequences. This used to really irritate me, but later I learned that cheaters are only cheating themselves and they are the ones missing out.

Alas -- "young" my butt! I have to pop on my glasses to read the itty bitty waypoint numbers on my eTrex. OTOH, I suppose "old" is always relative, isn't it???

 

Unfortunately, geocaching is one of those few sports/hobbies where the bad behavior of others can really screw up your day, even if you're not attempting to join into any sort of competition. It runs the gamut of having caches muggled or moved, or having bogus logs entered that mislead one into decisions that cost either time or money (or more often, both). While playing golf, if the other fellow wants to knock a few strokes off his score while I'm not looking, it doesn't matter at all of we're not in some sort of competition. I'm out there to beat my own last score, sorry though it may have been! EDIT: While the analogy isn't great, bogus logs are more like some idiot refusing to replace his divots or clean up his ball marks on the green, and finding myself stuck in his divot, or finding his 1" deep ball mark right on my line to the hole. It's that sort of self-serving lack of attention to others who have to share their "field of play" that degrades the game of golf at times, and actions of that sort will get you really dirty looks from those who really love the game AND follow its etiquette.

 

Depending upon a community logging system to maintain this sport/hobby in some orderly fashion means that we can, by not properly considering human nature from the outset, make ourselves the occasional victim to the bad behaver -- even though this really isn't necessary with means in hand to prevent it. That there is so much resistance to this is probably ONLY a function of the relative rarity of logs that cause others real bother. It'd still annoy the heck out of me if I got caught in one of those situations, though.

Edited February 10, 2008 by ecanderson

[Mushtang]

It runs the gamut of having caches muggled or moved, or having bogus logs entered that mislead one into decisions that cost either time or money (or more often, both).

That only one half of the gamut. Bad behavior can also be completely benign.

 

BAD BEHAVIOR SPECTRUM

 

Harmless

Bogus Find that nobody ever notices.

Bogus Find, back dated into actual Finds, doesn't effect anyone

Bogus Find on existing cache, makes some other cachers feel bad about their own numbers

Cache found but not logged online, no information about cache given

Moved cache, takes longer to find and changes intended cache experience

Clues left in field to show where cache is, such as ribbons on trees

Bogus Find on missing cache, resulting in cost of time or money

Bogus Find on missing cache, resulting in cost of time and money

Muggled cache

Harmful

 

That's a first attempt, I'm sure I'd be able to add more, and might rearrange it if I sat and looked longer, but it still shows that even though some behavior is bad, it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to cause harm. For me, the top three examples on the harmless end of the spectrum don't bother me at all, and so far I can't see that they contribute to the degradation of geocaching.

[+HopsMaltYeast]

Maybe one or all of the folks that are so put out with bogus loggers and finders who fail to log finds and DNF's online, should start sending letters or emails to the folks that offend them with bogus logs and tell them they are breaking the rules? You know the folks that think they and/or the hobby is degraded should do something to stop it?

 

Maybe they would stop if they knew it was wrong and that it upset you.

 

I say that because someone posted statistics here that said only a small percentage of GeoCachers post or read the forums. I have no reason to believe they were posting bogus stats.

[+HopsMaltYeast]

If some knucklehead wants to cheat on his/her count. Why is it any of my buisness. I have 22 caches. I don't check every online entry against the logbook. Who are they cheating? Me, you, No they are cheating themselves. It must get them aroused in some way. Yes, I suppose it bothers me a little too but why don't we focus our attention to something we can make a difference in, like eliminating cheating at chess,checkers, or hopskotch.

 

When a person logs a "Found it" he is essentially telling the geocaching community that the cache is there. That can entice people into wasting their time searching for a cache that is missing. I know of one geocacher who was lured into a fruitless 100 mile round trip because someone logged a false find on a cache. I wasted my gas and nearly an hour of my time searching for a cache that was gone. Had I seen recent DNFs I would have chosen to hunt a different cache, but the cache had recent "found its" that turned out to be bogus.

 

It also affects cache owners. If the cache is missing, a bogus find can delay needed maintenance. A cache of mine had several DNFs and I was about to head out there and check on it when a "found it" log appeared. Great! No problem, so I don't have to worry about it. Well something about the log was fishy to me, so I checked into it and it turned out to be a phony find. There actually was a problem with the cache that I nearly ignored thanks to some liar who gets his jollies by logging fake finds.

 

So by logging phony finds uou are screwing with your fellow geocachers. This game isn't solitaire. Our actions do not occur in a vacuum. What we do can and does affect other geocachers.

 

What did you do about the fishy phony logger?

 

What happened to the 2 false loggers as a result of their false logs?

 

(If the cache and logs were gone, how do you know the logs were false?)

 

By the bye, I am new and I have found at least one cache that had several DNF's as the last logs. Two of the DNF's stated that the cache was MIA and had been muggled. They were wrong. If I had believed them and failed to give it a look I would have been denied the opportunity to find a cache.

Edited February 10, 2008 by HopsMaltYeast

[+HopsMaltYeast]

What reasons would those be?

 

After about page 12 I started considering the possibility that you've been trolling. Now I know it. You reeled me in big time, but now I'm spitting the hook.

 

Brian – as a moderator you must be pretty Internet savvy. I mean no offense to you or KBI.

 

I understand taking a bait the first time, even for a moderator.

 

I do not understand about spitting it out and then wheeling on your fish tail and taking it back in a few posts later.

 

That is some effective lure KBI is trolling, if he be a troll.

 

(This is not intended as trolling - half joke, half tit for tat for the touche over my "I wish my life was so serene that I could worry..." comment.

[+cache_test_dummies]

It runs the gamut of having caches muggled or moved, or having bogus logs entered that mislead one into decisions that cost either time or money (or more often, both).

That only one half of the gamut. Bad behavior can also be completely benign.

 

BAD BEHAVIOR SPECTRUM

 

Harmless

Bogus Find that nobody ever notices.

Bogus Find, back dated into actual Finds, doesn't effect anyone

Bogus Find on existing cache, makes some other cachers feel bad about their own numbers

Cache found but not logged online, no information about cache given

Moved cache, takes longer to find and changes intended cache experience

Clues left in field to show where cache is, such as ribbons on trees

Bogus Find on missing cache, resulting in cost of time or money

Bogus Find on missing cache, resulting in cost of time and money

Muggled cache

Harmful

 

That's a first attempt, I'm sure I'd be able to add more, and might rearrange it if I sat and looked longer, but it still shows that even though some behavior is bad, it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to cause harm. For me, the top three examples on the harmless end of the spectrum don't bother me at all, and so far I can't see that they contribute to the degradation of geocaching.

Interesting list, Mushtang. Reminds me of Markwell's famous 'shades of gray' illustration and Corp of Discovery's "How do you cache?" thread.

 

In the context of this topic, it might have been clearer to limit the list to just logging behaviors, rather than including other types of behavior. My first pass at such a list (using your list as a starting point, and Markwell's graphic idea for presentation) looks like this:

 

[+FlyingLead]

What I don't like is that around here there are a lot of people using the "phone-a friend" method. so if they can't find a cache this call a friend.

[+briansnat]

By the bye, I am new and I have found at least one cache that had several DNF's as the last logs. Two of the DNF's stated that the cache was MIA and had been muggled. They were wrong. If I had believed them and failed to give it a look I would have been denied the opportunity to find a cache.

 

If those DNFs were logged even though the searchers actually found the cache, then that would be as wrong as

logging bogus finds.

 

The importance of my smiley count to others as a way to judge me, or to make themselves feel better about their own activities in comparison, if I read this right.

 

You read it wrong. I really don't give a clam's patootie about anybody's smiley count. I do care about honesty in logging. If there were people going around logging bogus DNFs on caches they actually found, I'd argue just as emphatically against it as I do against phony found it logs.

Edited February 10, 2008 by briansnat

[Mushtang]

What I don't like is that around here there are a lot of people using the "phone-a friend" method. so if they can't find a cache this call a friend.

What is it about others using this method that causes you a loss, or degrades your caching experience?

[+cache_test_dummies]

What I don't like is that around here there are a lot of people using the "phone-a friend" method. so if they can't find a cache this call a friend.

Different topic altogether. The OP defines false logs as "cachers logging finds when they didn’t even come anywhere close to the cache". If someone uses the PAF method, but still finds the cache and signs the log, the cache was found, and the log isn't "false".

[+HopsMaltYeast]

By the bye, I am new and I have found at least one cache that had several DNF's as the last logs. Two of the DNF's stated that the cache was MIA and had been muggled. They were wrong. If I had believed them and failed to give it a look I would have been denied the opportunity to find a cache.

 

If those DNFs were logged even though the searchers actually found the cache, then that would be as wrong as

logging bogus finds.

True, but I'm not saying they are good or bad. I just don't put a ton weight on the comments of strangers on the Internet. (I was born at night, but I was not born last night.)

 

In my area, in a short time I have come to recognize the names of a few frequent cachers and have developed an opinion about their reports, regardless of the number of their claimed finds, after I have found caches with their names on the logs. For most of them I respect their reports. Most of them are members of the local GeoCaching Group and that carries extra weight for me.

 

For others I do not place much weight on their online logs.

 

I put almost zero weight on the reports of cachers I do not recognize regardless of their numbers.

Edited February 10, 2008 by HopsMaltYeast

[+ADKcachers]

The actions of others degrade the hobby for me only if I allow it to. I don't waste my time worrying about the legitimacy of someone else's entries. If I was aware of someone using substandard components while they were building aircraft, then my panties would be in the requisite bunch.

 

Put it in perspective people. Go ahead, run to Mommy and cry because Billy isn't playing fair.

[+Renegade Knight]

The actions of others degrade the hobby for me only if I allow it to. I don't waste my time worrying about the legitimacy of someone else's entries. If I was aware of someone using substandard components while they were building aircraft, then my panties would be in the requisite bunch.

 

Put it in perspective people. Go ahead, run to Mommy and cry because Billy isn't playing fair.

Cheating at caching, cheating on aircraft. The thought process is similar. There may be some irony in that the FAA relies on logs and records to help ensure the integrity of the aircraft.

 

Billy the Cacher, Billy the A&P Mechanic either way Someone needs to be willing to point out when Billy has his head up his hind quarters. Else they are just helping Billy ply his trade.

 

Billy doesn't degrade you. Merely your experience.

Edited February 10, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+HopsMaltYeast]

The actions of others degrade the hobby for me only if I allow it to. I don't waste my time worrying about the legitimacy of someone else's entries. If I was aware of someone using substandard components while they were building aircraft, then my panties would be in the requisite bunch.

 

Put it in perspective people. Go ahead, run to Mommy and cry because Billy isn't playing fair.

 

Hear hear.

 

And for the competitive ones, none of the posters on this thread have ever claimed to have found a cache I have claimed to have found, so my numbers should mean nothing to you.

 

I can assure you that your numbers, even if all of them are false, would ever degrade the hobby for me.

 

I have no idea how tough your finds were compared to mine. The numbers do not matter to me.

 

Hops