Jump to content

Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?


Cedar Grove Seekers
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

There is always a way for a cacher to avail himself to the entire cache page log history. Limiting one’s self to only the last five logs is a common choice, but ultimately it is just that: a choice.
Are you referring to maintaining your own offline database in GSAK? GS TOU doesn't look kindly on that...
I have *NEVER* seen a case where lying did not affect someone else. Where is the example of someone lying that affects NOONE. (I don't have the patience to go back and re-read all 26 pages of this thread)
Sorry, neither do I.

 

Maybe TTJ does. He knows where it is. He and I discussed and agreed on two examples earlier, but I don't feel like looking for it.

 

Maybe he or someone else will find it for you. Otherwise I guess you're out of luck. I am out of patience too.

Here ya go, but read on afterwards...
(1) Cache owner posts a "Found It" to his own cache page each time he posts what would otherwise normally be considered only a note or a maintenance visit. I have seen this happen more than once. The cache owner is clearly posting a bogus find – how can one find one’s own cache? – yet there is no likelihood of the reader of the bogus logs being misled in such a way as to cause inconvenience.

 

(2) Cacher A finds a cache. While standing over the cache, he phones Cacher B and offers to write Cacher B’s name in the log so that Cacher B can then claim a find online. Cacher B then proceeds to post what is clearly a bogus log, yet one that can in no way cause any harm – at least not to anyone who does not possess over-delicate moral sensibilities or uncontrollable competitive urges.

Others have made some points as to why NO false log effects nobody:
Now, maybe that's because I personally believe that anybody with five thousand finds is either pumping their numbers, or they are in serious need of a life. ;) But, unless it makes hiders less willing to hide, I could care less.
So you see someone with 5000 finds as either pumping their numbers, or in serious need of a life? It seems to me that false logging has contributed to your diminished opinion of even legitimate cachers with many finds. That's unfair, yet another example of how false logs are causing the degradation of geocaching.
Can't a sufficient number of occurrences of even 'no impact' lies (and cultural acceptance thereof) serve to promote an environment in which more of the 'high impact' lies find the space they need to exist? Wouldn't this mean that in the extreme, no lie is truly 'benign'?
My nephew once told me that he had his 1991 Acura Integra up to 150 mph. That was clearly a lie and I wasn't affected.
I'm sure it affected how you viewed him though. What about the next time he tells you something. You'll probably remember that he lied to you about the Acura and maybe not believe him. It may affect your son when he wants to go for a drive him his cousin.

 

Lying is going to have an effect. The example you gave is clearly a small effect, but an effect none the less.

Most benign logs take up the space of good logs. I only get 5 in my PQ. Most folks only read a few when looking up the cache. Anytime a benign log gets in the way of a valid and good log, it' a problem.
Which brings us to where we are now...
Link to comment

Great, tozainamboku enticed me to re-read the OP.

 

Doing so, in my mind, negated about 90% of the argument that folks agreeing that bogus logs degrade the hobby made.

 

I have switched to unsweetened decafe. Thanks for the tip and recommendations.

 

The OP clearly seems to be directed solely at the numbers game.

 

I have added some numbers in parentheses and bolded them and some words for emphasis.

 

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

 

Examples are; (1)logging virtual caches by merely finding the additional logging requirements on the internet, (2)logging caches they happen to pass within a mile of on a road trip without even getting out of their car, (3)having a friend or another cacher log their name while they remain at home.

 

I’ve seen these false logs, and I’ve participated in many forum discussions on these issues, and while there are many people that object to the practice of ‘false logging’, there are also many with the opinion that “if it’s not directly affecting you, then you shouldn’t worry about what other people do”. I personally think that this latter attitude, as it relates to false logs, will ultimately have a very negative impact on geocaching.

 

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

 

A good analogy would be the game/hobby/sport/activity of golf. Could you imagine a person who routinely played golf by merely throwing or kicking the ball around the course? Do you think the other golfers in the foursome would allow this? Do you think the club would allow this? I guarantee nobody would be saying, “It’s not hurting anyone so don’t worry about it”.

 

One might say that golf is a bad analogy because golf is a competition, and geocaching is not. Well I’m not talking about the PGA or a golf tournament. I’m talking about how most people are involved with golf. Although golfers may play a round with other golfers, it’s primarily about how that golfer plays related to how they normally play. They are competing with themselves. However this still does not allow them to change the rules so much that they bastardize the game. Sure golfers might place friendly wagers on their game, but there is just as much friendly competition in geocaching.

 

I am not proposing that everyone must adhere to a very strict set of rules, but false logs are getting a little ridiculous. One of the basic notions of caching is that you actually visit the location. I am proposing that cache owners who agree with the premise of physically visiting the cache location, do their part to enforce it - don’t allow false logs on your caches, and don’t be embarrassed to enforce this basic notion of geocaching.

 

There was no mention of virtuals being archived because a cache owner was frustrated by German logs and decided to archive rather than a.) delete bogus logs or b.) let logs and the virtual stand. His decision.

 

There was no mention of the chance that a false log might cause a cache owner or cache hunter inconvenience or gas money or a wasted trip.

 

Examples 1 and 3 from the OP of how GC is degraded do not result in false trip or false indication that a missing cache is actually there. They are only complaints about someone having extra-unearned smilies.

 

(I agree that OP example 2 can result in inconvenience, confusion, wasted trips and gas).

 

OP does not complain about morality of lies, problems for cache owners, extra gas, missed opportunities for finding a cache; only that

...False logs degrade the game/hobby/sport/activity of geocaching, and what it means to be a geocacher.”, and

I fear that one day most geocaching will be done without leaving the computer” and

I won’t be such a proud geocacher then.

 

OP seems to be complaining mostly about boosted numbers of finds.

 

OP claims “an increase in what I’ll refer to as ‘false logs’”,and he nor anyone else have provided evidence that this is true.

 

That does not fit with the whole all lies or some lies are bad discussion.

 

Other posters after the OP added even more “benign lies” bogus logs examples that absolutely only involve complaints of inflated find numbers like team caching, double claims, CITO claims, event claims, and temp cache claims.

 

And in the end, after all these posts, no one has proposed a single practical enforcement remedy.

 

Ethical and long-time cachers have said they will not do paper to online audits and I do not blame them. Forcing them to do so will run many of them out of the cache hiding business and that will degrade the hobby.

 

As Shakespeare said in “MacBeth” this has all been …a bunch of …

“… full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing”.

Link to comment
There is always a way for a cacher to avail himself to the entire cache page log history. Limiting one’s self to only the last five logs is a common choice, but ultimately it is just that: a choice.

Are you referring to maintaining your own offline database in GSAK? GS TOU doesn't look kindly on that.

No, I'm referring to clicking on the link at the very bottom of the default version of each and every cache page, right there under the fifth oldest log, where it says:

 

There are more logs. View them all on one page

 

GS TOU not only doesn't seem to be troubled by that; I'm pretty sure they actually encourage it. ;)

Link to comment
Are you referring to maintaining your own offline database in GSAK? GS TOU doesn't look kindly on that.
No, I'm referring to clicking on the link at the very bottom of the default version of each and every cache page, right there under the fifth oldest log, where it says:

 

There are more logs. View them all on one page

 

GS TOU not only doesn't seem to be troubled by that; I'm pretty sure they actually encourage it. :)

True enough, but RK's complaint (it was RK, right?) was that PQ's only send 5 logs per cache. You can build up more if you keep them in GSAK, but the Terms Of Use frown on this process.
Which brings us to where we are now...
... which is the realization that each of those arguments you quoted was refuted in subsequent posts which you chose not to quote. ;)
You do realize that just because you think something has been refuted doesn't necessarily mean it is so, don't you? I mean, I think I've even seen you say that you aren't always right...
Link to comment
Are you referring to maintaining your own offline database in GSAK? GS TOU doesn't look kindly on that.
No, I'm referring to clicking on the link at the very bottom of the default version of each and every cache page, right there under the fifth oldest log, where it says:

 

There are more logs. View them all on one page

 

GS TOU not only doesn't seem to be troubled by that; I'm pretty sure they actually encourage it. ;)

True enough, but RK's complaint (it was RK, right?) was that PQ's only send 5 logs per cache. You can build up more if you keep them in GSAK, but the Terms Of Use frown on this process.

I wasn’t talking about GSAK. Trust me, I know next to nothing about GSAK.

 

I was referring to the fact that each cacher has many choices when researching a cache before seeking it.

 

Among the options:

  • Ignore all the logs
  • Accept the default display of only the last five logs
  • Click on the link at the bottom of the cache page and review the latest log, the oldest log, and every single log in between, thereby digesting the entire online history of the cache.

RK spoke of being restricted to only having the last five logs available, and correctly pointed out that any bogus logs within the last five would reduce the number of valid logs available within the last five. I was simply pointing out that limiting oneself to having only the last five logs available is a voluntary choice, not a forced restriction. Choosing the third option above eliminates RK's concern.

 

Which brings us to where we are now...
... which is the realization that each of those arguments you quoted was refuted in subsequent posts which you chose not to quote. :)

You do realize that just because you think something has been refuted doesn't necessarily mean it is so, don't you? I mean, I think I've even seen you say that you aren't always right...

In this debate so far I remain certain of my original position. For that I neither apologize nor boast; it is simply what I believe. I have read everything that has been posted and I have been careful to keep an open mind, but so far nobody has convinced me to think that all bogus logs are evil; neither has anyone convinced me to believe that bogus logging is degrading the game.

Edited by KBI
Link to comment

Great, tozainamboku enticed me to re-read the OP.

 

Doing so, in my mind, negated about 90% of the argument that folks agreeing that bogus logs degrade the hobby made.

 

I have switched to unsweetened decafe. Thanks for the tip and recommendations.

 

The OP clearly seems to be directed solely at the numbers game.

 

I have added some numbers in parentheses and bolded them and some words for emphasis.

 

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

 

Examples are; (1)logging virtual caches by merely finding the additional logging requirements on the internet, (2)logging caches they happen to pass within a mile of on a road trip without even getting out of their car, (3)having a friend or another cacher log their name while they remain at home.

 

I’ve seen these false logs, and I’ve participated in many forum discussions on these issues, and while there are many people that object to the practice of ‘false logging’, there are also many with the opinion that “if it’s not directly affecting you, then you shouldn’t worry about what other people do”. I personally think that this latter attitude, as it relates to false logs, will ultimately have a very negative impact on geocaching.

 

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

 

A good analogy would be the game/hobby/sport/activity of golf. Could you imagine a person who routinely played golf by merely throwing or kicking the ball around the course? Do you think the other golfers in the foursome would allow this? Do you think the club would allow this? I guarantee nobody would be saying, “It’s not hurting anyone so don’t worry about it”.

 

One might say that golf is a bad analogy because golf is a competition, and geocaching is not. Well I’m not talking about the PGA or a golf tournament. I’m talking about how most people are involved with golf. Although golfers may play a round with other golfers, it’s primarily about how that golfer plays related to how they normally play. They are competing with themselves. However this still does not allow them to change the rules so much that they bastardize the game. Sure golfers might place friendly wagers on their game, but there is just as much friendly competition in geocaching.

 

I am not proposing that everyone must adhere to a very strict set of rules, but false logs are getting a little ridiculous. One of the basic notions of caching is that you actually visit the location. I am proposing that cache owners who agree with the premise of physically visiting the cache location, do their part to enforce it - don’t allow false logs on your caches, and don’t be embarrassed to enforce this basic notion of geocaching.

 

There was no mention of virtuals being archived because a cache owner was frustrated by German logs and decided to archive rather than a.) delete bogus logs or b.) let logs and the virtual stand. His decision.

 

There was no mention of the chance that a false log might cause a cache owner or cache hunter inconvenience or gas money or a wasted trip.

 

Examples 1 and 3 from the OP of how GC is degraded do not result in false trip or false indication that a missing cache is actually there. They are only complaints about someone having extra-unearned smilies.

 

(I agree that OP example 2 can result in inconvenience, confusion, wasted trips and gas).

 

OP does not complain about morality of lies, problems for cache owners, extra gas, missed opportunities for finding a cache; only that

...False logs degrade the game/hobby/sport/activity of geocaching, and what it means to be a geocacher.”, and

I fear that one day most geocaching will be done without leaving the computer” and

I won’t be such a proud geocacher then.

 

OP seems to be complaining mostly about boosted numbers of finds.

 

OP claims “an increase in what I’ll refer to as ‘false logs’”,and he nor anyone else have provided evidence that this is true.

 

That does not fit with the whole all lies or some lies are bad discussion.

 

Other posters after the OP added even more “benign lies” bogus logs examples that absolutely only involve complaints of inflated find numbers like team caching, double claims, CITO claims, event claims, and temp cache claims.

 

And in the end, after all these posts, no one has proposed a single practical enforcement remedy.

 

Ethical and long-time cachers have said they will not do paper to online audits and I do not blame them. Forcing them to do so will run many of them out of the cache hiding business and that will degrade the hobby.

 

As Shakespeare said in “MacBeth” this has all been …a bunch of …

“… full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing”.

Since I'm to blame for you re-reading the original post let me give you my take on it.

 

The OP would like all logs on Geocaching.com to be a truthful representation of the cachers' experience. (He didn't give his opinion of liars caches so I don't know where he stands here. That discussion may shed light into whether it really is about the numbers). As it stands I take him at his word that the issue is he feels he has a right to expect the logs to be honest. This is not who can write the best tall tale about geocaching but a way for geocachers to share their experiences. For the system to work as the OP desires, most logs must be honest and the cache owner should delete any logs that are bogus, counterfeit, or not within the stated requirements. The OP simply calls on cache owners to do their part and delete bogus logs.

 

I pretty much summed up my response to the OP in post #7 where I complained that there is a bigger problem caused by people who do find the cache and never log it online. People who believe it is about numbers get very angry with me when I make this post. Apparently it is only cheating if you inflate your score but not if you deflate it. ;) So I had to come back in a later post and indicate that I was just trying to show that people are confusing geocaching with (b)logging about your geocaching on geocaching.com. The OP indicated that he believes that (b)logging about your geocaching, while not required, was still such an important part of geocaching that there should still be honest logs.

 

And why do false logs lead to the degradation of geocaching? The OP feels that the online log is such an important part of what he enjoys about geocaching that he feels his experience in reading logs is degraded when false logs are allowed to stand. He argues that if he showed these logs to non-geocachers he would have a hard time explaining why some people post a found it log when they never even looked for the cache. I can't really argue with how someone personally feels, and while I tried to offer suggestion on how I would explain the false found it logs to a non-geocacher or to a child, I accepted that some people might not be comfortable with these explanations.

 

Frankly I get really annoyed by people who feel that those who oppose allowing bogus logs are doing this because they feel it effects the numbers. I think they really expect the online logs to be honest.

 

Most people realize that you have to take everything you read on the internet with a grain of salt. Whether it is someone's golf score on mygolfscore.com or geocaching.com logs you can't stop all the lying. In addition, I feel that most of the false logs are people who honestly feel that you can post an online found it log for what ever reason they did. Certainly the armchair loggers of virtual caches fees that it is legitimate to log a found it if they can find the answer to the verification question. These people are not liars, they are just playing by alternative rules. The logs are generally benign. If you wish to play a purist game of geocaching, you are certainly able to use the online logging capability to keep track of your honest finds and DNFs. Except for a few instances you should be able to ignore (or disregard) most false found it logs.

Link to comment

I'm pretty sure that the same analogy was used several pages ago.

 

:laughing:

 

My bad.

 

Last thing I would want to do to this short, concise thread is to pad it out with repetition.

 

;-)

Future First Commissioner of Olympic GeoCaching...when I think of this person (who MIGHT actually become a reality some day), I imagine that person being a fair, open-minded type who makes remarks politely and helpfully? One who uses tact when making a point. One who isn't sarcastic with every comment...you know, a pleasant type person who isn't overly confrontational! I hope this happens some day. You'd know that Geocaching had come a long way!! Of course, THEN, false logging wouldn't be accepted!

Don't get all in a bunch. My post was speaking to his comment that it had taken so long for Godwin's Law to be 'proven'.
Link to comment

Great, tozainamboku enticed me to re-read the OP.

 

Doing so, in my mind, negated about 90% of the argument that folks agreeing that bogus logs degrade the hobby made.

 

I have switched to unsweetened decafe. Thanks for the tip and recommendations.

 

The OP clearly seems to be directed solely at the numbers game.

 

I have added some numbers in parentheses and bolded them and some words for emphasis.

 

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

 

Examples are; (1)logging virtual caches by merely finding the additional logging requirements on the internet, (2)logging caches they happen to pass within a mile of on a road trip without even getting out of their car, (3)having a friend or another cacher log their name while they remain at home.

 

I’ve seen these false logs, and I’ve participated in many forum discussions on these issues, and while there are many people that object to the practice of ‘false logging’, there are also many with the opinion that “if it’s not directly affecting you, then you shouldn’t worry about what other people do”. I personally think that this latter attitude, as it relates to false logs, will ultimately have a very negative impact on geocaching.

 

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

 

A good analogy would be the game/hobby/sport/activity of golf. Could you imagine a person who routinely played golf by merely throwing or kicking the ball around the course? Do you think the other golfers in the foursome would allow this? Do you think the club would allow this? I guarantee nobody would be saying, “It’s not hurting anyone so don’t worry about it”.

 

One might say that golf is a bad analogy because golf is a competition, and geocaching is not. Well I’m not talking about the PGA or a golf tournament. I’m talking about how most people are involved with golf. Although golfers may play a round with other golfers, it’s primarily about how that golfer plays related to how they normally play. They are competing with themselves. However this still does not allow them to change the rules so much that they bastardize the game. Sure golfers might place friendly wagers on their game, but there is just as much friendly competition in geocaching.

 

I am not proposing that everyone must adhere to a very strict set of rules, but false logs are getting a little ridiculous. One of the basic notions of caching is that you actually visit the location. I am proposing that cache owners who agree with the premise of physically visiting the cache location, do their part to enforce it - don’t allow false logs on your caches, and don’t be embarrassed to enforce this basic notion of geocaching.

 

There was no mention of virtuals being archived because a cache owner was frustrated by German logs and decided to archive rather than a.) delete bogus logs or b.) let logs and the virtual stand. His decision.

 

There was no mention of the chance that a false log might cause a cache owner or cache hunter inconvenience or gas money or a wasted trip.

 

Examples 1 and 3 from the OP of how GC is degraded do not result in false trip or false indication that a missing cache is actually there. They are only complaints about someone having extra-unearned smilies.

 

(I agree that OP example 2 can result in inconvenience, confusion, wasted trips and gas).

 

OP does not complain about morality of lies, problems for cache owners, extra gas, missed opportunities for finding a cache; only that

...False logs degrade the game/hobby/sport/activity of geocaching, and what it means to be a geocacher.”, and

I fear that one day most geocaching will be done without leaving the computer” and

I won’t be such a proud geocacher then.

 

OP seems to be complaining mostly about boosted numbers of finds.

 

OP claims “an increase in what I’ll refer to as ‘false logs’”,and he nor anyone else have provided evidence that this is true.

 

That does not fit with the whole all lies or some lies are bad discussion.

 

Other posters after the OP added even more “benign lies” bogus logs examples that absolutely only involve complaints of inflated find numbers like team caching, double claims, CITO claims, event claims, and temp cache claims.

 

And in the end, after all these posts, no one has proposed a single practical enforcement remedy.

 

Ethical and long-time cachers have said they will not do paper to online audits and I do not blame them. Forcing them to do so will run many of them out of the cache hiding business and that will degrade the hobby.

 

As Shakespeare said in “MacBeth” this has all been …a bunch of …

“… full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing”.

Since I'm to blame for you re-reading the original post let me give you my take on it.

 

The OP would like all logs on Geocaching.com to be a truthful representation of the cachers' experience. (He didn't give his opinion of liars caches so I don't know where he stands here. That discussion may shed light into whether it really is about the numbers). As it stands I take him at his word that the issue is he feels he has a right to expect the logs to be honest. This is not who can write the best tall tale about geocaching but a way for geocachers to share their experiences. For the system to work as the OP desires, most logs must be honest and the cache owner should delete any logs that are bogus, counterfeit, or not within the stated requirements. The OP simply calls on cache owners to do their part and delete bogus logs.

 

I pretty much summed up my response to the OP in post #7 where I complained that there is a bigger problem caused by people who do find the cache and never log it online. People who believe it is about numbers get very angry with me when I make this post. Apparently it is only cheating if you inflate your score but not if you deflate it. :laughing: So I had to come back in a later post and indicate that I was just trying to show that people are confusing geocaching with (b)logging about your geocaching on geocaching.com. The OP indicated that he believes that (b)logging about your geocaching, while not required, was still such an important part of geocaching that there should still be honest logs.

 

And why do false logs lead to the degradation of geocaching? The OP feels that the online log is such an important part of what he enjoys about geocaching that he feels his experience in reading logs is degraded when false logs are allowed to stand. He argues that if he showed these logs to non-geocachers he would have a hard time explaining why some people post a found it log when they never even looked for the cache. I can't really argue with how someone personally feels, and while I tried to offer suggestion on how I would explain the false found it logs to a non-geocacher or to a child, I accepted that some people might not be comfortable with these explanations.

 

Frankly I get really annoyed by people who feel that those who oppose allowing bogus logs are doing this because they feel it effects the numbers. I think they really expect the online logs to be honest.

 

Most people realize that you have to take everything you read on the internet with a grain of salt. Whether it is someone's golf score on mygolfscore.com or geocaching.com logs you can't stop all the lying. In addition, I feel that most of the false logs are people who honestly feel that you can post an online found it log for what ever reason they did. Certainly the armchair loggers of virtual caches fees that it is legitimate to log a found it if they can find the answer to the verification question. These people are not liars, they are just playing by alternative rules. The logs are generally benign. If you wish to play a purist game of geocaching, you are certainly able to use the online logging capability to keep track of your honest finds and DNFs. Except for a few instances you should be able to ignore (or disregard) most false found it logs.

 

tozainamboku, That is a pretty good summary of how I felt in the original post.

 

HopsMaltYeast, It has never been about the numbers for me. I'm not sure how you concluded that it is.

Link to comment
Great, tozainamboku enticed me to re-read the OP.

 

Doing so, in my mind, negated about 90% of the argument that folks agreeing that bogus logs degrade the hobby made.

 

I have switched to unsweetened decafe. Thanks for the tip and recommendations.

 

The OP clearly seems to be directed solely at the numbers game.

 

I have added some numbers in parentheses and bolded them and some words for emphasis.

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

 

Examples are; (1)logging virtual caches by merely finding the additional logging requirements on the internet, (2)logging caches they happen to pass within a mile of on a road trip without even getting out of their car, (3)having a friend or another cacher log their name while they remain at home.

 

I've seen these false logs, and I've participated in many forum discussions on these issues, and while there are many people that object to the practice of 'false logging', there are also many with the opinion that 'if it's not directly affecting you, then you shouldn't worry about what other people do'. I personally think that this latter attitude, as it relates to false logs, will ultimately have a very negative impact on geocaching.

 

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

 

A good analogy would be the game/hobby/sport/activity of golf. Could you imagine a person who routinely played golf by merely throwing or kicking the ball around the course? Do you think the other golfers in the foursome would allow this? Do you think the club would allow this? I guarantee nobody would be saying, 'It's not hurting anyone so don't worry about it'.

 

One might say that golf is a bad analogy because golf is a competition, and geocaching is not. Well I'm not talking about the PGA or a golf tournament. I'm talking about how most people are involved with golf. Although golfers may play a round with other golfers, it's primarily about how that golfer plays related to how they normally play. They are competing with themselves. However this still does not allow them to change the rules so much that they bastardize the game. Sure golfers might place friendly wagers on their game, but there is just as much friendly competition in geocaching.

 

I am not proposing that everyone must adhere to a very strict set of rules, but false logs are getting a little ridiculous. One of the basic notions of caching is that you actually visit the location. I am proposing that cache owners who agree with the premise of physically visiting the cache location, do their part to enforce it - don't allow false logs on your caches, and don't be embarrassed to enforce this basic notion of geocaching.

There was no mention of virtuals being archived because a cache owner was frustrated by German logs and decided to archive rather than a.) delete bogus logs or b.) let logs and the virtual stand. His decision.

 

There was no mention of the chance that a false log might cause a cache owner or cache hunter inconvenience or gas money or a wasted trip.

 

Examples 1 and 3 from the OP of how GC is degraded do not result in false trip or false indication that a missing cache is actually there. They are only complaints about someone having extra-unearned smilies.

 

(I agree that OP example 2 can result in inconvenience, confusion, wasted trips and gas).

 

OP does not complain about morality of lies, problems for cache owners, extra gas, missed opportunities for finding a cache; only that

-...False logs degrade the game/hobby/sport/activity of geocaching, and what it means to be a geocacher., and

-I fear that one day most geocaching will be done without leaving the computer and

-I won't be such a proud geocacher then.

 

OP seems to be complaining mostly about boosted numbers of finds.

 

OP claims 'an increase in what I'll refer to as 'false logs',and he nor anyone else have provided evidence that this is true.

 

That does not fit with the whole all lies or some lies are bad discussion.

 

Other posters after the OP added even more 'benign lies' bogus logs examples that absolutely only involve complaints of inflated find numbers like team caching, double claims, CITO claims, event claims, and temp cache claims.

 

And in the end, after all these posts, no one has proposed a single practical enforcement remedy.

 

Ethical and long-time cachers have said they will not do paper to online audits and I do not blame them. Forcing them to do so will run many of them out of the cache hiding business and that will degrade the hobby.

 

As Shakespeare said in MacBeth this has all been …a bunch of …

“… full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing”.

A couple of quick thoughts:

 

First, I'm not sure what the OP means when he states that "False logs degrade the game/hobby/sport/activity of geocaching, and what it means to be a geocacher.". I certainly haven't noticed any degradation of the game itself due to false logs. I'm also not sure what he thinks that it means to 'be a geocacher'. I define it as someone who likes to follow the arrow to find geocaches. My wife defines it as someone who likes to waste his time doing something stupid.

 

Second, to your statement that "after all these posts, no one has proposed a single practical enforcement remedy". This is untrue. In fact, the OP suggested the appropriate remedy when he posted this: "I am proposing that cache owners who agree with the premise of physically visiting the cache location, do their part to enforce it - don't allow false logs on your caches, and don't be embarrassed to enforce this basic notion of geocaching." It should also be noted that everyone has pretty much agreed with this statement.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Are you referring to maintaining your own offline database in GSAK? GS TOU doesn't look kindly on that.
No, I'm referring to clicking on the link at the very bottom of the default version of each and every cache page, right there under the fifth oldest log, where it says:

 

There are more logs. View them all on one page

 

GS TOU not only doesn't seem to be troubled by that; I'm pretty sure they actually encourage it. :laughing:

True enough, but RK's complaint (it was RK, right?) was that PQ's only send 5 logs per cache. You can build up more if you keep them in GSAK, but the Terms Of Use frown on this process.
I think that it should be noted that the Waypoint License Agreement (aka Terms of Use) does not ‘frown’ on the creation and maintenance of an off-line GSAK database. In fact, it specifically allows it:
Licensee may modify the Data and merge other data sets with the Data for Licensee's own internal use. The portions of the Data merged with other data sets will continue to be subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
Nothing in this license agreement precludes a geocacher from ‘building’ a GSAK database that includes as many logs as the geocacher wants. My personal GSAK database currently contains about five months of logs. If I were so inclined, I could build a database that includes years of logs, since I haven’t deleted the old PQ emails.

 

Of course, anyone that builds their GSAK database in this manner should understand that they won’t necessarily receive every log for every cache. Since only the last five logs are sent in each PQ, if the cache has received more than five logs since the last PQ, you will miss some. For this reason, TPTB have made it clear that one should access the live data if he/she needs to be sure to see all logs. (This may be the aforementioned frowning.)

 

Of course, there are still other ways to access all of the logs. One could simply look at them before heading out, print them off, view them on a wifi-enabled device, or pull them up on his/her celphone.

Link to comment

I'm pretty sure that the same analogy was used several pages ago.

 

:laughing:

 

My bad.

 

Last thing I would want to do to this short, concise thread is to pad it out with repetition.

 

;-)

Future First Commissioner of Olympic GeoCaching...when I think of this person (who MIGHT actually become a reality some day), I imagine that person being a fair, open-minded type who makes remarks politely and helpfully? One who uses tact when making a point. One who isn't sarcastic with every comment...you know, a pleasant type person who isn't overly confrontational! I hope this happens some day. You'd know that Geocaching had come a long way!! Of course, THEN, false logging wouldn't be accepted!

Don't get all in a bunch. My post was speaking to his comment that it had taken so long for Godwin's Law to be 'proven'.

Not aimed at you...or any ONE person actually. I saw the tag line and commented on how I figured the Future First Commissioner of Olympic GeoCaching would be. I then went on to point out that IF this ever did come about, there'd CERTAINLY be changes made to the guidelines (which would then be called RULES) to clarify what a find is, what is required for a find, how to handle certain situations (as false logs...which WOULD then be called cheating) etc. :laughing:

 

I don't actually blame the fake loggers for this, I blame those who allow this to continue and to an extent, I blame the PTB for not shutting down the chances at multi-logging (this is probably a whole different topic though). IF multi-logging were to be stopped (and don't worry about dredging up Jeremy's statements, I have them in my favorites), if cheating by logging from an armchair were nipped in the bud...if there were a bit more structered guidelines, we MIGHT have been able to keep Virts (and I know that Jeremy wants you to find a container w/logbook). Of course, for this to work, we'd need more honesty and we'd need more work from the cache owners (but hey, truly, cache owners already agreed to doing much of this, many just don't because they don't want to be "cache police"). If everyone knew going in that the guidelines will be enforced, we'd not have people worried about hurting someone's feelings and we'd see a LOT less cheating going on.

 

I will enforce the guidelines, I would HOPE that all would, but realize that ain't a goin' to happen though! I also realize that this is a game and many just want to have fun!!

 

Truly, if there were more structure to this sport, there'd CERTAINLY be less of these topics popping up from cachers as the OP!

 

I should have said I don't place ALL the blame on the false loggers...not say I don't blame them...sorry if this causes more bantering!

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to comment
The OP would like all logs on Geocaching.com to be a truthful representation of the cachers' experience. (He didn't give his opinion of liars caches so I don't know where he stands here. That discussion may shed light into whether it really is about the numbers). As it stands I take him at his word that the issue is he feels he has a right to expect the logs to be honest. This is not who can write the best tall tale about geocaching but a way for geocachers to share their experiences. For the system to work as the OP desires, most logs must be honest and the cache owner should delete any logs that are bogus, counterfeit, or not within the stated requirements. The OP simply calls on cache owners to do their part and delete bogus logs.

 

I pretty much summed up my response to the OP in post #7 where I complained that there is a bigger problem caused by people who do find the cache and never log it online. People who believe it is about numbers get very angry with me when I make this post. Apparently it is only cheating if you inflate your score but not if you deflate it. :laughing: So I had to come back in a later post and indicate that I was just trying to show that people are confusing geocaching with (b)logging about your geocaching on geocaching.com. The OP indicated that he believes that (b)logging about your geocaching, while not required, was still such an important part of geocaching that there should still be honest logs.

 

And why do false logs lead to the degradation of geocaching? The OP feels that the online log is such an important part of what he enjoys about geocaching that he feels his experience in reading logs is degraded when false logs are allowed to stand. He argues that if he showed these logs to non-geocachers he would have a hard time explaining why some people post a found it log when they never even looked for the cache. I can't really argue with how someone personally feels, and while I tried to offer suggestion on how I would explain the false found it logs to a non-geocacher or to a child, I accepted that some people might not be comfortable with these explanations.

 

Frankly I get really annoyed by people who feel that those who oppose allowing bogus logs are doing this because they feel it effects the numbers. I think they really expect the online logs to be honest.

 

Most people realize that you have to take everything you read on the internet with a grain of salt. Whether it is someone's golf score on mygolfscore.com or geocaching.com logs you can't stop all the lying. In addition, I feel that most of the false logs are people who honestly feel that you can post an online found it log for what ever reason they did. Certainly the armchair loggers of virtual caches fees that it is legitimate to log a found it if they can find the answer to the verification question. These people are not liars, they are just playing by alternative rules. The logs are generally benign. If you wish to play a purist game of geocaching, you are certainly able to use the online logging capability to keep track of your honest finds and DNFs. Except for a few instances you should be able to ignore (or disregard) most false found it logs.

Beautifully written, insightful and observant. :blink:

 

I agree that bogus find logs are silly. I agree that bogus find logs are ill-advised. I agree that cache owners should politely question and eventually delete any logs they know to be false. I agree that bogus find logs can cause very real problems in certain cases.

 

You say “The OP simply calls on cache owners to do their part and delete bogus logs.” I unite with the OP and join his call.

 

I agree with everything you say here, Toz, except that I don’t understand your annoyance at the hypothesis of numbers envy:

 

Frankly I get really annoyed by people who feel that those who oppose allowing bogus logs are doing this because they feel it effects the numbers. I think they really expect the online logs to be honest.

It is merely a hypothesis some of us have expressed as a possible explanation.

 

For each cacher who becomes annoyed at ALL bogus logs, either the hypothesis explanation applies or it doesn’t. If it applies then it explains why certain folks use the word “cheated” when they describe how “all” bogus logs make them feel. If it doesn’t apply then there is no reason for them to be annoyed by the hypothesis.

 

You say “I think they really expect the online logs to be honest.” You may be right. You say “The OP would like all logs on Geocaching.com to be a truthful representation of the cachers' experience.” I’m sure he would. So would I. I would also like all drivers to use their turn signals properly too, and I encourage such proper use, but I also understand that (1) It ain’t gonna happen, and (2) there are thousands of situations, every day, where improper use of one’s turn signal simply doesn’t matter anyway, and, where there is no harm or risk involved I simply don’t care whether it’s done “wrong.”

 

Same-same with Found It logs.

 

I, too, would prefer to live in a perfect world where all children are polite, all women say what they really mean and all men raise the seat when they go number onesies, but that ain’t gonna happen either. There are enough real and very serious things in life to either struggle with or bear painfully that I just don’t see the sense in volunteering to find artificial reasons to be upset about extra things that don’t matter. Things like benign counterfeit cache finds.

 

I disagree that bogus find logs lead to the "degradation" of geocaching. I simply can’t see it, and I think anyone who is feeling degraded by something which is really none of their business is choosing to feel degraded. I think overly judgmental cachers who worry too much about other’s behavior and see evil where there is none are far more degrading to the hobby than any back-dated, meaningless lie that some bozo makes to himself in his online caching diary.

 

You say “I can't really argue with how someone personally feels.” I understand your point, but: If I see that a person is feeling degraded, and if I truly believe the bad feeling is unnecessary, and especially when that person expresses his outrage in a public forum, I think it is plenty proper for others to help that person by attempting to explain away their unnecessary bad feeling.

 

As I explained in one of my earliest posts here, my very first experience with seeing a bogus find on a cache page caused an initial reflexive reaction to want to Do Something About It. It wasn’t my log and it wasn’t my cache, but at first blush it just seemed wrong. After a brief moment’s thought, however, I realized that the specific bogus log I was looking at was hurting nobody, and that the only legitimate reason for me to object would be if this hobby were a competition and the find represented a point toward a game score. It then became immediately and intuitively obvious to me that while the bogus log itself seemed pathetic to me, it also simply didn’t matter. I understood clearly that he wasn't cheating me or anyone else out of anything, and that if this guy had his reasons for logging bogus it wasn’t my place to umpire or question him. Who am I to judge his reasons, his standards, or his definition of a find?

 

As you say: “These people are not liars, they are just playing by alternative rules. The logs are generally benign.”

 

Geocaching is not a competition between players. It is simply a pastime in which people use GPS to find containers that others have hidden. That in itself is all the fun I need, and nobody robs me of even the tiniest bit of that fun when they lie to themselves in their own caching diary.

 

If I choose to go ahead and feel cheated anyway, that's my problem. :laughing:

Link to comment

28 pages???? Wow....

 

For all of the owners here who feel bogus logs are a "real" problem for geocaching, how would you intend on policing it? I can see when doing some periodic maintenance to check if you think it's a problem, but other then that, what would you do? Every time a log is entered, visit your cache to check it??????????

 

How do you determine if :

 

1 - A person signed someone else's name to a log sheet or pasted a GC sticker in the book for them and let them post a logged find on GC. Even if you checked the log sheet, their name/sticker would be there.

 

2 - A person posted a log entry for a nano cache where you can barely read anything for an entry on the sheet but they never visited it.

 

3 - A person entered a log entry for a cache that is many miles of hiking/biking/kayaking to access to check without visiting it.

 

4 - A person signed a log sheet and visited a cache but the log book is not structured so you can put the signatures in chronological order easily.

 

Especially if they entered a valid sounding log. Sounds like 28 pages of trying to solve a problem that at it's worst would be less of an inconvienience to the game of geocaching then many other things. There are owners out there who never visit their cache even when there's a problem, you really think you're going to get them to compare logs against signatures???? Yeah.... right..... :laughing:

Link to comment
The OP would like all logs on Geocaching.com to be a truthful representation of the cachers' experience. (He didn't give his opinion of liars caches so I don't know where he stands here. That discussion may shed light into whether it really is about the numbers). As it stands I take him at his word that the issue is he feels he has a right to expect the logs to be honest. This is not who can write the best tall tale about geocaching but a way for geocachers to share their experiences. For the system to work as the OP desires, most logs must be honest and the cache owner should delete any logs that are bogus, counterfeit, or not within the stated requirements. The OP simply calls on cache owners to do their part and delete bogus logs.

 

I pretty much summed up my response to the OP in post #7 where I complained that there is a bigger problem caused by people who do find the cache and never log it online. People who believe it is about numbers get very angry with me when I make this post. Apparently it is only cheating if you inflate your score but not if you deflate it. :laughing: So I had to come back in a later post and indicate that I was just trying to show that people are confusing geocaching with (b)logging about your geocaching on geocaching.com. The OP indicated that he believes that (b)logging about your geocaching, while not required, was still such an important part of geocaching that there should still be honest logs.

 

And why do false logs lead to the degradation of geocaching? The OP feels that the online log is such an important part of what he enjoys about geocaching that he feels his experience in reading logs is degraded when false logs are allowed to stand. He argues that if he showed these logs to non-geocachers he would have a hard time explaining why some people post a found it log when they never even looked for the cache. I can't really argue with how someone personally feels, and while I tried to offer suggestion on how I would explain the false found it logs to a non-geocacher or to a child, I accepted that some people might not be comfortable with these explanations.

 

Frankly I get really annoyed by people who feel that those who oppose allowing bogus logs are doing this because they feel it effects the numbers. I think they really expect the online logs to be honest.

 

Most people realize that you have to take everything you read on the internet with a grain of salt. Whether it is someone's golf score on mygolfscore.com or geocaching.com logs you can't stop all the lying. In addition, I feel that most of the false logs are people who honestly feel that you can post an online found it log for what ever reason they did. Certainly the armchair loggers of virtual caches fees that it is legitimate to log a found it if they can find the answer to the verification question. These people are not liars, they are just playing by alternative rules. The logs are generally benign. If you wish to play a purist game of geocaching, you are certainly able to use the online logging capability to keep track of your honest finds and DNFs. Except for a few instances you should be able to ignore (or disregard) most false found it logs.

Beautifully written, insightful and observant. :blink:

 

I agree that bogus find logs are silly. I agree that bogus find logs are ill-advised. I agree that cache owners should politely question and eventually delete any logs they know to be false. I agree that bogus find logs can cause very real problems in certain cases.

 

You say “The OP simply calls on cache owners to do their part and delete bogus logs.” I unite with the OP and join his call.

 

I agree with everything you say here, Toz, except that I don’t understand your annoyance at the hypothesis of numbers envy:

 

Frankly I get really annoyed by people who feel that those who oppose allowing bogus logs are doing this because they feel it effects the numbers. I think they really expect the online logs to be honest.

It is merely a hypothesis some of us have expressed as a possible explanation.

 

For each cacher who becomes annoyed at ALL bogus logs, either the hypothesis explanation applies or it doesn’t. If it applies then it explains why certain folks use the word “cheated” when they describe how “all” bogus logs make them feel. If it doesn’t apply then there is no reason for them to be annoyed by the hypothesis.

 

You say “I think they really expect the online logs to be honest.” You may be right. You say “The OP would like all logs on Geocaching.com to be a truthful representation of the cachers' experience.” I’m sure he would. So would I. I would also like all drivers to use their turn signals properly too, and I encourage such proper use, but I also understand that (1) It ain’t gonna happen, and (2) there are thousands of situations, every day, where improper use of one’s turn signal simply doesn’t matter anyway, and, where there is no harm or risk involved I simply don’t care whether it’s done “wrong.”

 

Same-same with Found It logs.

 

I, too, would prefer to live in a perfect world where all children are polite, all women say what they really mean and all men raise the seat when they go number onesies, but that ain’t gonna happen either. There are enough real and very serious things in life to either struggle with or bear painfully that I just don’t see the sense in volunteering to find artificial reasons to be upset about extra things that don’t matter. Things like benign counterfeit cache finds.

 

I disagree that bogus find logs lead to the "degradation" of geocaching. I simply can’t see it, and I think anyone who is feeling degraded by something which is really none of their business is choosing to feel degraded. I think overly judgmental cachers who worry too much about other’s behavior and see evil where there is none are far more degrading to the hobby than any back-dated, meaningless lie that some bozo makes to himself in his online caching diary.

 

You say “I can't really argue with how someone personally feels.” I understand your point, but: If I see that a person is feeling degraded, and if I truly believe the bad feeling is unnecessary, and especially when that person expresses his outrage in a public forum, I think it is plenty proper for others to help that person by attempting to explain away their unnecessary bad feeling.

 

As I explained in one of my earliest posts here, my very first experience with seeing a bogus find on a cache page caused an initial reflexive reaction to want to Do Something About It. It wasn’t my log and it wasn’t my cache, but at first blush it just seemed wrong. After a brief moment’s thought, however, I realized that the specific bogus log I was looking at was hurting nobody, and that the only legitimate reason for me to object would be if this hobby were a competition and the find represented a point toward a game score. It then became immediately and intuitively obvious to me that while the bogus log itself seemed pathetic to me, it also simply didn’t matter. I understood clearly that he wasn't cheating me or anyone else out of anything, and that if this guy had his reasons for logging bogus it wasn’t my place to umpire or question him. Who am I to judge his reasons, his standards, or his definition of a find?

 

As you say: “These people are not liars, they are just playing by alternative rules. The logs are generally benign.”

 

Geocaching is not a competition between players. It is simply a pastime in which people use GPS to find containers that others have hidden. That in itself is all the fun I need, and nobody robs me of even the tiniest bit of that fun when they lie to themselves in their own caching diary.

 

If I choose to go ahead and feel cheated anyway, that's my problem. :laughing:

I see this doesn't include me simply because I DON'T feel ALL logs are a problem...and because I DON'T worry about the numbers (in case ANYONE has missed this in this thread or several others). I DO get annoyed when someone decides to just lump us all together as if there's only ONE stance when complaining about the cheaters (yes, they are still cheating...themselves from the enjoyment of the find, cheat themselves from seeing a nice location in some cases AND even cheating the owners to an extent). I call them cheaters because that's exactly what they are doing! You can deny that if you want, but when someone skirts a rule or guideline, they are CHEATING! We might or might not agree on WHO is being cheated, but that doesn't change the fact that someone is sitting behind a desk or whatever and making false claims about their experience...they are lying. Lying about a game is cheating.

Link to comment

I'm sorry if someone's already pointed this out, but it's 23:57 my time and I want to go to bed (but want to make a point before I forget it, which I am wont to do):

 

Isn't it up to the cache owner to decide what's appropriate for his or her cache? I don't see the problem with people who do not care letting the log entries in their caches stand. I don't see the problem with people who do care deleting the logs (personally, I found Vinnie & Sue's suggestion in the other thread pretty funny).

 

I'd care. I mean, I put my caches where they are because I want people to go see those places. So I'd delete the logs. I wouldn't claim credit for a cache I didn't touch, either, unless that was specifically allowed (i.e., the occassional armchair cache designed specifically to be an armchair cache, tho I note that I am terrible at figuring these out so don't really do it).

 

Let the person who actually went and found the cache get the credit (for my caches. Both of them).

 

On the other hand again, if it's cool with the cache owner, then it's cool with the cache owner. If there can be said to be a "victim" here, that would be the victim -- the owner of the cache, who may (or may not) have a vested and/or emotional attachment to the cache and its upkeep.

 

I understand the argument about the game and about lying. People who care passionately about the ability to accurately compare their numbers against others' numbers are victims too, in that case. Though I'm afraid that I don't passionately care, and therefore...well, I'm sorry, I don't really care, because it's not about numbers for me (obviously. Check it out, I just got my TENTH find! Woot woot! ;) ), but rather finding neat new places I'd never have found on my own. Though I understand your point.

 

My two cents, for what it's worth.

Edited by Jackalgirl
Link to comment

28 pages???? Wow....

 

For all of the owners here who feel bogus logs are a "real" problem for geocaching, how would you intend on policing it? I can see when doing some periodic maintenance to check if you think it's a problem, but other then that, what would you do? Every time a log is entered, visit your cache to check it??????????

 

How do you determine if :

 

1 - A person signed someone else's name to a log sheet or pasted a GC sticker in the book for them and let them post a logged find on GC. Even if you checked the log sheet, their name/sticker would be there.

 

2 - A person posted a log entry for a nano cache where you can barely read anything for an entry on the sheet but they never visited it.

 

3 - A person entered a log entry for a cache that is many miles of hiking/biking/kayaking to access to check without visiting it.

 

4 - A person signed a log sheet and visited a cache but the log book is not structured so you can put the signatures in chronological order easily.

 

Especially if they entered a valid sounding log. Sounds like 28 pages of trying to solve a problem that at it's worst would be less of an inconvienience to the game of geocaching then many other things. There are owners out there who never visit their cache even when there's a problem, you really think you're going to get them to compare logs against signatures???? Yeah.... right..... :laughing:

 

Speaking for myself...IF I suspect a log to be faked, I WILL go check, it's what I agreed to do! I'm not going to make trips every time my caches are found (I do own something like 50 or so after all), BUT, if it's brought to my attention (as in if someone ELSE suspects there to be fraud and lets me know), I'm going to check and I'm going to enforce the guidelines. NOW...there are certain times when I WILL allow a find even w/o signature...certain times being the operative wording here.

 

I own the Cache Across America for Michigan, the requiremnets for this cache is that they take a picture AT the cache as proof of the find! Well, not all carry a camera (I don't, mine is $400+ and not about to be dragged through the woods on every hunt), so if they can give me details about the area (NOT already covered inmy description of the cache), I'll let the picture thing go! Same as the logbook...prove to me you were there and we're good to go!

 

If I read someone "found" my cache from Germany while sitting on their couch and eating chips, I'll delete and keep deleting. If I read someone found ALL my caches in a single day, I'll be out checking logs faster than you can say Swiss Cheese!

Link to comment
I call them cheaters because that's exactly what they are doing! You can deny that if you want, but when someone skirts a rule or guideline, they are CHEATING! We might or might not agree on WHO is being cheated, but that doesn't change the fact that someone is sitting behind a desk or whatever and making false claims about their experience...they are lying. Lying about a game is cheating.

Maybe, but not all cheating is bad, and therefore not all cheating is degrading.

 

I don’t post bogus cache finds, but I sometimes “cheat” at other pastimes:

 

My hometown newspaper (yes, I’m THAT old – I still read paper news) features a daily Sudoku puzzle with the solution printed nearby in the same day’s paper. I sometimes enjoy working the puzzle, but when I get really stuck and it stops being fun I sometimes peek at one or two free digits and then see if I can finish on my own from there. It doesn’t happen very often (I’m getting better at solving the puzzle) but: I cheat at Sudoku. I clearly understand I am cheating no one but myself, but I will happily agree my action qualifies as cheating. Were I playing competition Sudoku with someone else I wouldn’t dream of peeking – that would be wrong. I can tell the difference.

 

I keep an Electronic Yahtzee game in my bathroom. (They say men take maternity leave too – we just take it three minutes at a time.) I cheat at Yahtzee. If I don’t get an excellent score for the very first roll I hit New Game and start over. I’ve done this thousands of times, and it makes it more fun for me because I get higher scores for the games I choose to continue. I clearly understand I am cheating no one but myself, but I will happily agree my action qualifies as cheating. Were I playing standard competition Yahtzee with friends I wouldn’t dream of asking for more rolls than are allowed – that would be wrong. I can tell the difference.

 

Not all cheating is bad. I am not so dense or evil as to not be able to tell that cheating myself at a solo game is harmless while cheating my waitress out of a tip is just plain wrong. I think if I took the arguments of others here a little more personally it would be easy to become offended as people continue telling me that (1) I don’t know the difference, or (2) my cheating at things like Newspaper Sudoku or Electronic Yahtzee is somehow immoral or evil.

 

Not all cheating is bad, and therefore not all cheating is degrading. Just about everyone I have ever known can intuitively tell the difference between bad cheating and benign cheating, and I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt than to be blindly condemnatory, judgmental or accusatory on an unreasonably general basis.

Link to comment
Speaking for myself...IF I suspect a log to be faked, I WILL go check, it's what I agreed to do!
And not a bad policy, it's just I have some caches that would take an entire day of hiking or paddling to 'check' and if I spent a whole day checking one potential fake log and found out it was valid, I'd feel like I totally wasted a day. Not my idea of GC fun.

 

I'm not going to make trips every time my caches are found (I do own something like 50 or so after all), BUT, if it's brought to my attention (as in if someone ELSE suspects there to be fraud and lets me know), I'm going to check and I'm going to enforce the guidelines.
I can understand as I have+200 hides and it would have to be something really out of line for me to check or even suspect.

 

Well, not all carry a camera (I don't, mine is $400+ and not about to be dragged through the woods on every hunt)
I can totally relate to that comment as my new camera cost a ton (and so did my new lens). I'll drag my old Z3 along, but the A-100 doesn't go on long hikes or any paddles :laughing:

 

so if they can give me details about the area (NOT already covered inmy description of the cache), I'll let the picture thing go! Same as the logbook...prove to me you were there and we're good to go!
Could you not do this INSTEAD of checking the log book and save yourself a trip when you suspect foul play?????

 

If I read someone found ALL my caches in a single day, I'll be out checking logs faster than you can say Swiss Cheese!
LOL!!!! I think I still see a 'flaw' in the system. We run across many (and I mean MANY) log books that are signed all over the place, not in any chronological order, all over ands scribbled (and some blurred from getting wet) and sometimes a cacher replaces a wet one with a new one so history is gone. Nano logs are a scribble. And when we're caching I sign "infinitempg", when I hear wild hogs approaching thru the palmettos I sign "impg" and often that is a scribble across the page as I'd rather get the hide re-hidden quick then end up explaining my presence to a couple hundred pound tusked angry territorial boar. I would hate to think I spent the day tackling a massive 5/5 challenge but because I didn't sign the log book legibly or in the right spot that some owner is going to zap my find until I prove I was there.

 

I think it works best if you think a log is fake, email the logger and request validation. If they give it, end of story. If they don't, either check, warn, delete or whatever you want. Since someone else could of signed the log, someone else could of added a sticker, this might be a better validation. And if someone else gave them the hide specifics then for all practical purposes the log is valid as they went thru as much work faking their log as a legitimate cacher did finding it.

Link to comment

Not all cheating is bad, and therefore not all cheating is degrading. Just about everyone I have ever known can intuitively tell the difference between bad cheating and benign cheating, and I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt than to be blindly condemnatory, judgmental or accusatory on an unreasonably general basis.

 

I disagree.. *ALL* cheating IS bad. When you are playing a game by yourself, sitting on the pot, you get to set your own rules, therefore, if your rules state that resetting the game is OK, then resetting the game is OK. If your playing with someone else, then I would say both people would need to agree on what rules of the game are going to be followed. You you aren't really cheating at Yahtze, same with the sudoku puzzle. If the maker of the puzzle were so concerned about people cheating, they wouldn't have provided you with the answers, would they? Does it say anywhere on the page that you aren't allowed to look at the answers that they provided to you?

 

Even *I* would have a hard time making a connection between cheating at Yahtze while evacuating to somehow affecting anyone else... BUT - A connection was made between misleading cache logs and affecting others.

 

There is a distinct difference between your examples and geocaching.

Link to comment
For all of the owners here who feel bogus logs are a "real" problem for geocaching, how would you intend on policing it? I can see when doing some periodic maintenance to check if you think it's a problem, but other then that, what would you do? Every time a log is entered, visit your cache to check it??????????

 

No. I assume the best in people, so unless I'm given a reason to believe that someone is being untruthful I will not check signatures. There are certain flags that logs can raise that will cause me to check. Not a foolproof system but it's worked pretty well for me the past 6+ years.

Link to comment
... If your playing with someone else, then I would say both people would need to agree on what rules of the game are going to be followed. ...
That is exactly how it works in our game. Two people, the cache hider and cache seeker, need to agree on what a find is. If the cache seeker enters a find log that doesn't meet the cache owner's definition of a find, the cache owner is free to delete the log. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
I disagree.. *ALL* cheating IS bad. If your playing with someone else, then I would say both people would need to agree on what rules of the game are going to be followed.
Don't you mean playing AGAINST someone else? The examples are fine for competitive games but geocaching is not a competitive sport or game, it's a recreational game. And for the most part cheating at geocaching is not much different then cheating on your score during a fun round of golf. Not the 'right' thing to do but it would be a rare case that it would hurt the game of golf. And if it didn't hurt anyone but made the golfer feel better about himself, then you could almost perceive it as a good thing (at least for them, and if it was like what we often see, it's a good laugh for us... another good thing).

 

while evacuating to somehow affecting anyone else... BUT - A connection was made between misleading cache logs and affecting others.
In those rare circumstances yes, but I don't think anyone will be convinced to go validate logs for the sake of validating logs. The earlier connection given about someone hunting an MIA cache that had a bogus log is still suspect as you could only 'assume' the log was bogus because without the actual log sheet you couldn't prove it didn't go missing after their log.

 

I think everyone is in agreement that a posted find without a matching signed log would be deleted without question. What seems to be gray here is what extent people would go thru to determine that or even define that (some are against one person signing for the group when group caching or against people finding the cache without a GPSr). Even if I had several DNF's on a cache of mine and then someone posted a log stating only "TFTH" I might even write and ask "What was the condition of the hide since there were a bunch of DNF's?". If I didn't get an answer I expected a flag would go up. Everyone has things that would raise their personal red flags, but since every cache is unique (well, most of them are unique), and every cacher is unique, each and every hide/find/log needs to be evaluated on it's own merits and there will NEVER be a unified policy/rule/guideline to address them all the same.

Link to comment
No. I assume the best in people, so unless I'm given a reason to believe that someone is being untruthful I will not check signatures. There are certain flags that logs can raise that will cause me to check. Not a foolproof system but it's worked pretty well for me the past 6+ years.
Great summation there! Sounds like good caching folks up in Jersey (in Florida now but originally from East Orange). :laughing:
Link to comment
That is exactly how it works in our game. Two people, the cache hider and cache seeker, need to agree on what a find is. If the cache seeker enters a find log that doesn't meet the cache owner's definition of a find, the cache owner is free to delete the log.
I think that everyone is in agreement with GC defining a find as simply someone physically finding the cache and signing the log. The question here seems to be more of what extent an owner need to go to in order to determine if any and all logs are valid.
Link to comment
That is exactly how it works in our game. Two people, the cache hider and cache seeker, need to agree on what a find is. If the cache seeker enters a find log that doesn't meet the cache owner's definition of a find, the cache owner is free to delete the log.
I think that everyone is in agreement with GC defining a find as simply someone physically finding the cache and signing the log. The question here seems to be more of what extent an owner need to go to in order to determine if any and all logs are valid.

 

No, the issue (according to the OP) is whether geocachers logging false finds on caches is degrading the sport. I think we can all agree that, yes, it is degrading the sport, but not in any noticeable way at this time and that yes, there is a possibility that false logging can negatively affect individual cachers from time to time. Perhaps in the future things will be bad enough to warrant further debating this topic to the point of vomitting all over myself.

Edited by ReadyOrNot
Link to comment
No, the issue (according to the OP) is whether geocachers logging false finds on caches is degrading the sport. I think we can all agree that, yes, it is degrading the sport, but not in any noticeable way at this time and that yes, there is a possibility that false logging can negatively affect individual cachers from time to time. Perhaps in the future things will be bad enough to warrant further debating this topic to the point of vomitting all over myself.

Very agreed upon except for the part about vomitting all over ourselves!!!

 

But don't give up now... one more thread page and we'll match the number of pages to the introductory thread!!! 28 and counting.... hehehehe

Link to comment
That is exactly how it works in our game. Two people, the cache hider and cache seeker, need to agree on what a find is. If the cache seeker enters a find log that doesn't meet the cache owner's definition of a find, the cache owner is free to delete the log.
I think that everyone is in agreement with GC defining a find as simply someone physically finding the cache and signing the log. The question here seems to be more of what extent an owner need to go to in order to determine if any and all logs are valid.

 

No, the issue (according to the OP) is whether geocachers logging false finds on caches is degrading the sport. I think we can all agree that, yes, it is degrading the sport, but not in any noticeable way at this time. Perhaps in the future things will be bad enough to warrant further debating this topic to the point of vomitting all over myself.

I don't believe that we are all in agreement on this. In fact, I'm pretty sure that a number of people in this topic have posted that they don't believe that all bogus logs have a degrading effect (although most agree that some bogus logs can have a negative impact on others). I'm also pretty sure that some have posted that they believe that there has been noticeable degradation as a result of bogus logs.

Link to comment
That is exactly how it works in our game. Two people, the cache hider and cache seeker, need to agree on what a find is. If the cache seeker enters a find log that doesn't meet the cache owner's definition of a find, the cache owner is free to delete the log.
I think that everyone is in agreement with GC defining a find as simply someone physically finding the cache and signing the log. The question here seems to be more of what extent an owner need to go to in order to determine if any and all logs are valid.

 

No, the issue (according to the OP) is whether geocachers logging false finds on caches is degrading the sport. I think we can all agree that, yes, it is degrading the sport, but not in any noticeable way at this time. Perhaps in the future things will be bad enough to warrant further debating this topic to the point of vomitting all over myself.

I don't believe that we are all in agreement on this. In fact, I'm pretty sure that a number of people in this topic have posted that they don't believe that all bogus logs have a degrading effect (although most agree that some bogus logs can have a negative impact on others). I'm also pretty sure that some have posted that they believe that there has been noticeable degradation as a result of bogus logs.

 

Close enough for me :laughing:

Link to comment
Speaking for myself...IF I suspect a log to be faked, I WILL go check, it's what I agreed to do!
And not a bad policy, it's just I have some caches that would take an entire day of hiking or paddling to 'check' and if I spent a whole day checking one potential fake log and found out it was valid, I'd feel like I totally wasted a day. Not my idea of GC fun.

 

I'm not going to make trips every time my caches are found (I do own something like 50 or so after all), BUT, if it's brought to my attention (as in if someone ELSE suspects there to be fraud and lets me know), I'm going to check and I'm going to enforce the guidelines.
I can understand as I have+200 hides and it would have to be something really out of line for me to check or even suspect.

 

Well, not all carry a camera (I don't, mine is $400+ and not about to be dragged through the woods on every hunt)
I can totally relate to that comment as my new camera cost a ton (and so did my new lens). I'll drag my old Z3 along, but the A-100 doesn't go on long hikes or any paddles :laughing:

 

so if they can give me details about the area (NOT already covered inmy description of the cache), I'll let the picture thing go! Same as the logbook...prove to me you were there and we're good to go!
Could you not do this INSTEAD of checking the log book and save yourself a trip when you suspect foul play?????

 

If I read someone found ALL my caches in a single day, I'll be out checking logs faster than you can say Swiss Cheese!
LOL!!!! I think I still see a 'flaw' in the system. We run across many (and I mean MANY) log books that are signed all over the place, not in any chronological order, all over ands scribbled (and some blurred from getting wet) and sometimes a cacher replaces a wet one with a new one so history is gone. Nano logs are a scribble. And when we're caching I sign "infinitempg", when I hear wild hogs approaching thru the palmettos I sign "impg" and often that is a scribble across the page as I'd rather get the hide re-hidden quick then end up explaining my presence to a couple hundred pound tusked angry territorial boar. I would hate to think I spent the day tackling a massive 5/5 challenge but because I didn't sign the log book legibly or in the right spot that some owner is going to zap my find until I prove I was there.

 

I think it works best if you think a log is fake, email the logger and request validation. If they give it, end of story. If they don't, either check, warn, delete or whatever you want. Since someone else could of signed the log, someone else could of added a sticker, this might be a better validation. And if someone else gave them the hide specifics then for all practical purposes the log is valid as they went thru as much work faking their log as a legitimate cacher did finding it.

I never said this wasn't an option, and have done this a few times...sounds like we do much the same thing!

 

I said I'd KNOW someone was lying IF they logged all my caches in a day. This would be QUITE a feat! Then, I'd simply go check a few and would know fairly quickly (I know which ones to check, and the shortest way there...). This person could have signed some of the caches, but we'll sort that out when we come to that (give me the signed ones and I'll verify...).

 

As far as your flaw thing...nah, I said I'd have to suspect something before checking the log. If I had suspicion about the find, my first move is emailing you with specific questions. If you then were vague about your answers, I will be suspicious enough to ask you how you signed the log, then head out and verify. If I can't find your mark, you will be asked to change your log or delete. This might not always work as sometimes logbooks are damaged or whatever, so if I have doubt, I side with the finder.

 

Also, I don't mind walking to my caches, so I wouldn't mind doing this when I suspect something...just another chance to do some maintenance! I've visited most of our hides at one of the parks doing "tours" for cachers just in the last month or so!

Link to comment
I call them cheaters because that's exactly what they are doing! You can deny that if you want, but when someone skirts a rule or guideline, they are CHEATING! We might or might not agree on WHO is being cheated, but that doesn't change the fact that someone is sitting behind a desk or whatever and making false claims about their experience...they are lying. Lying about a game is cheating.

Maybe, but not all cheating is bad, and therefore not all cheating is degrading.

 

I don’t post bogus cache finds, but I sometimes “cheat” at other pastimes:

 

My hometown newspaper (yes, I’m THAT old – I still read paper news) features a daily Sudoku puzzle with the solution printed nearby in the same day’s paper. I sometimes enjoy working the puzzle, but when I get really stuck and it stops being fun I sometimes peek at one or two free digits and then see if I can finish on my own from there. It doesn’t happen very often (I’m getting better at solving the puzzle) but: I cheat at Sudoku. I clearly understand I am cheating no one but myself, but I will happily agree my action qualifies as cheating. Were I playing competition Sudoku with someone else I wouldn’t dream of peeking – that would be wrong. I can tell the difference.

 

I keep an Electronic Yahtzee game in my bathroom. (They say men take maternity leave too – we just take it three minutes at a time.) I cheat at Yahtzee. If I don’t get an excellent score for the very first roll I hit New Game and start over. I’ve done this thousands of times, and it makes it more fun for me because I get higher scores for the games I choose to continue. I clearly understand I am cheating no one but myself, but I will happily agree my action qualifies as cheating. Were I playing standard competition Yahtzee with friends I wouldn’t dream of asking for more rolls than are allowed – that would be wrong. I can tell the difference.

 

Not all cheating is bad. I am not so dense or evil as to not be able to tell that cheating myself at a solo game is harmless while cheating my waitress out of a tip is just plain wrong. I think if I took the arguments of others here a little more personally it would be easy to become offended as people continue telling me that (1) I don’t know the difference, or (2) my cheating at things like Newspaper Sudoku or Electronic Yahtzee is somehow immoral or evil.

 

Not all cheating is bad, and therefore not all cheating is degrading. Just about everyone I have ever known can intuitively tell the difference between bad cheating and benign cheating, and I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt than to be blindly condemnatory, judgmental or accusatory on an unreasonably general basis.

I merely gave you my def of a cheater. I never said anything about good bad or otherwise.

 

btw...cheater! B):laughing::blink: I cheat at many video games....but can you prove it?? :D:laughing:

Link to comment

I merely gave you my def of a cheater. I never said anything about good bad or otherwise.

 

btw...cheater! B):laughing::blink: I cheat at many video games....but can you prove it?? :D:laughing:

 

You will be hard pressed to show how cheating at a video game will affect anyone else. If you post your score on some high-score list or something, then it could possibly affect someone else, but otherwise, it's between you and the Almighty.

Link to comment

Not all cheating is bad, and therefore not all cheating is degrading. Just about everyone I have ever known can intuitively tell the difference between bad cheating and benign cheating, and I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt than to be blindly condemnatory, judgmental or accusatory on an unreasonably general basis.

 

And on that point hinges this argument that some of us will always disagree on.

 

Cheating (according to wikipedia):

 

Cheating is -- as an act of lying, deception, fraud, trickery, imposture, or imposition. Cheating characteristically is employed to create an unfair advantage, usually in one's own interest, and often at the expense of others.[1] Cheating implies the breaking of rules.

 

They didn't mention the good, harmless cheating (I looked). In general, they seemed to imply it was a "negative" thing.

 

Again, much as I said on page 2, it's that modern idea of ultra-permissiveness that bothers me... where nothing is "wrong", just "different". Whenever I hear "hey, it doesn't affect me, let 'em do whatever they want" it's like saying "society can just crumble so long as it doesn't affect me" and it brings to mind those immortal words, "be careful what you wish for..."

Link to comment
I'm pretty sure that quite a few posters in this thread are content to allow the degradation of geocaching exactly as the OP noted in his thread title. Excuses will vary and some are quite entertaining, but most as bogus as the logs.
de·grade (d¹-gr³d“) tr.v. de·grad·ed, de·grad·ing, de·grades. 1. To reduce in grade, rank, or status; demote. 2. To lower in dignity; dishonor or disgrace. 3. To lower in moral or intellectual character; debase. 4. To reduce in worth or value. 5. To impair in physical structure or function. 6. Geology. To lower or wear by erosion or weathering. 7. To cause (an organic compound) to undergo degradation. --de·grad“er n.

 

Guess I'd have to ask how fake logs degrade the game of geocaching any more then fake scores degrade the recreational game of golf or any other non-competitive activity? We spoke about problems they could cause in some remote circumstances and how owners would delete them if they were determined to be fake, but how does that degrade the game? Because everyone doesn't play perfectly????

Link to comment

I'm pretty sure that quite a few posters in this thread are content to allow the degradation of geocaching exactly as the OP noted in his thread title. Excuses will vary and some are quite entertaining, but most as bogus as the logs.

This is a fact....

Really? It looks like a totally unsupported opinion, to me.

Link to comment
I'm pretty sure that quite a few posters in this thread are content to allow the degradation of geocaching exactly as the OP noted in his thread title. Excuses will vary and some are quite entertaining, but most as bogus as the logs.
de·grade (d¹-gr³d“) tr.v. de·grad·ed, de·grad·ing, de·grades. 1. To reduce in grade, rank, or status; demote. 2. To lower in dignity; dishonor or disgrace. 3. To lower in moral or intellectual character; debase. 4. To reduce in worth or value. 5. To impair in physical structure or function. 6. Geology. To lower or wear by erosion or weathering. 7. To cause (an organic compound) to undergo degradation. --de·grad“er n.

 

Guess I'd have to ask how fake logs degrade the game of geocaching any more then fake scores degrade the recreational game of golf or any other non-competitive activity? We spoke about problems they could cause in some remote circumstances and how owners would delete them if they were determined to be fake, but how does that degrade the game? Because everyone doesn't play perfectly????

 

Your assuming that for degradation to occur, there needs to be a high level of degradation. That's just not true.. If just one person is affected, then there is at least some level of degradation. Is it to the point that action is required? That's debatable.

Link to comment

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.

:laughing: Oh Great, now I have coffee all over my keyboard! :laughing:

Edited by Neos2
Link to comment

Just in case no posts in this thread have so far yet invoked/evoked citations of Godwin's Law, here goes with the obligatory mention, per the forum guidelines:

 

~~~~~~~~

I must say that of the more strident and rigid folks on both sides of the issue are starting to sound like Nazis and would likely have loved geocaching under Hitler's regime in Nazi Germany.

~~~~~~~~

 

Thank you for reading the needful!

Link to comment

Good grief.

 

While it's true that any bogus logs on any cache anywhere might get you all bunched up and degrade your enjoyment of the game, I don't believe that this has been shown to degrade the game itself, as claimed by the OP.

 

Ones enjoyment of the game IS the game itself.. What would have to happen for the game to be degraded? Elimination of virtuals? That of course is never going to happen, let me try to come up with a better example. :anibad:

Link to comment
I disagree.. *ALL* cheating IS bad. If your playing with someone else, then I would say both people would need to agree on what rules of the game are going to be followed.
Don't you mean playing AGAINST someone else?
Believe it or not, rules are needed when playing with others, not just against.

 

Any pair of 5 year olds in a sandbox will discover this, if they don't know it already.

Link to comment

Just in case no posts in this thread have so far yet invoked/evoked citations of Godwin's Law, here goes with the obligatory mention, per the forum guidelines:

 

~~~~~~~~

I must say that of the more strident and rigid folks on both sides of the issue are starting to sound like Nazis and would likely have loved geocaching under Hitler's regime in Nazi Germany.

~~~~~~~~

 

Thank you for reading the needful!

 

Isn't there a Psycho Urban in Hitler's bunker yet?

 

:anibad:

 

DCC

Link to comment
Your assuming that for degradation to occur, there needs to be a high level of degradation. That's just not true.. If just one person is affected, then there is at least some level of degradation. Is it to the point that action is required? That's debatable.
I would have to state that IMHO, GC is degraded more by cachers who do not put the effort forth to rehide a cache as it was found often causing it to be unnecessarily muggled, cachers who have no clue how to log or handle trackable items, cachers (and muggles) who steal things from caches (such as trackable items and geocoins), cachers who do not maintain damaged or missing caches that they own, and things along those lines... but I don't see an outcry for some action to be done about it.

 

I would be more willing to put efforts into resolving these type issues with things like educating geocachers (both seekers and hiders) then I would be to put effort into tracking down someone who faked a log on a cache. These things directly affect the effort, expense and phsycal property of all owners of caches and trackable items where fake logs rarely have any direct affect and are mainly just an issue of pride in the purity of the game.

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