Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?

[+Renegade Knight]

...1)TFTH!

2)Nice hide

3)Had fun!

4)TNLN!

5)Thanks for the tour.

 

So how did those make you act differently?????...

 

I'm assuming that each of your examples is a

 

That means each is a find. That confirms the cache is still there and still viable.

the all buy itself tells you something about the cache. If the last log is bogus. Nobody has a clue there may be a problem. I have had caches that one DNF is a non issue. It's hard enough to where they are expected. I have others that a DNF would mean it's gone..

 

Logs tell a story. Part of that story is about the cache even if the log itself is nothing more than "#1 of 300 for the day".

[Mushtang]

...1)TFTH!

2)Nice hide

3)Had fun!

4)TNLN!

5)Thanks for the tour.

 

So how did those make you act differently?????...

 

I'm assuming that each of your examples is a

 

That means each is a find. That confirms the cache is still there and still viable.

the all buy itself tells you something about the cache. If the last log is bogus. Nobody has a clue there may be a problem. I have had caches that one DNF is a non issue. It's hard enough to where they are expected. I have others that a DNF would mean it's gone..

 

Logs tell a story. Part of that story is about the cache even if the log itself is nothing more than "#1 of 300 for the day".

You're assuming the fake logger was honest enough to put todays date when he logged it. What if he checked the dates and logged his find 3 months ago to ensure it wasn't in the 10 most recent logs?

 

Seems pretty benign to me, and no degradation that I can see. Of course, I don't see any degradation happening now with however the fake loggers are doing it either.

[+KBI]

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.

Since RK was talking about logs sent in a Pocket Query, not reading logs on a cache page, your solution does not address the issue at all. The only reason I'm even bothering to continue with this part of the discussion is to point out that you have taken your own interpretation of what was posted and started arguing against it.

RK spoke of his self-imposed limitation (choosing to read logs from his PQ instead of directly off the cache pages) as if it were someone else’s fault that he couldn’t read past the fifth log. I was merely pointing out that he chose the limitation -- it did not choose him -- and that he was therefore not a victim. That is where my observation directly addresses the issue he raised. YOU were the one who tried to make it into something completely unrelated (GSAK) in order to have something to argue against.

[+KBI]

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.

I, on the other hand, am pretty sure that quite a few posters in this thread see no degradation at all, and wonder why those who do report experiencing degradation seem to have chosen to be anguished over something that need not bother them.

 

Excuses will vary and some are quite entertaining, but most are as empty and meaningless and bogus as the logs.

[+KBI]

I've only been caching for 3 years or so.. I have not personally been affected by false logs at all. But I do not like them, Sam I Am.

I don't like them either. Some of them don't affect me unless I choose to let them, however: I therefore see no reason to conclude that ALL fake logs are "degrading."

 

I do not like them in an ammo box,

I do not like them in fake rocks.

If they were in micros, i'd never know,

because I think micros blow.

While some fake logs may be a pox,

Others do not deserve such knocks.

What IS degrading this thread, though,

Is off topic agendas, Bro.

 

[+KBI]

Geocaching is not being degraded by fake logs

We've already shown that it is, but just not badly enough for you to care. The golf analogy is bad because someone else cheating does not affect the people golfing behind them.. A fake log can affect those caching behind them.

 

This has already been established, we just disagree on the "level" of degradation.

Yes, A fake logger CAN affect those caching behind them. Just because it CAN, however, does not mean it WILL.

 

This has already been established, we just disagree on how many dozens and dozens of times it must be re-established, re-stated, reiterated, repeated, re-posted, and redundantly repeatedly restatedly reiteradedly repostedly re-said.

[+KBI]

And since I don't see GC even posting how or why anyone enters info on the log page for a geocache I sure don't see their mere existence causing a degradation of geocaching.

Is it too late for another analogy?

 

Professional Baseball and steroid use. Back in the very beginning when it started to become a problem, the excuse was always that it was not a widespread problem. And it really didn't affect anyone in any meaningful way. It was left unchecked.. Look where we are now..

Is it too late to point out (again) that Geocaching, unlike Baseball, is NOT a competition?

[+Renegade Knight]

...You're assuming the fake logger was honest enough to put todays date when he logged it. What if he checked the dates and logged his find 3 months ago to ensure it wasn't in the 10 most recent logs?...

 

Your assuming the fake logger has enough interegety to fake log in a higher fashion.

[Mushtang]

...You're assuming the fake logger was honest enough to put todays date when he logged it. What if he checked the dates and logged his find 3 months ago to ensure it wasn't in the 10 most recent logs?...

 

Your assuming the fake logger has enough interegety to fake log in a higher fashion.

You're avoiding the question by being snarky.

[+Renegade Knight]

...You're assuming the fake logger was honest enough to put todays date when he logged it. What if he checked the dates and logged his find 3 months ago to ensure it wasn't in the 10 most recent logs?...

 

Your assuming the fake logger has enough interegety to fake log in a higher fashion.

You're avoiding the question by being snarky.

You avoided the counter by accusations of snarkyness. But I have to thank you. The normal accusation is much worse.

 

You also didn't comment on my simple test (simple in theory hard to actually measure). If the logs create more enjoyment than harm, they are a beneift. Vice Versa. A detriment. Neither...Benign.

[+sbell111]

...You're assuming the fake logger was honest enough to put todays date when he logged it. What if he checked the dates and logged his find 3 months ago to ensure it wasn't in the 10 most recent logs?...

 

Your assuming the fake logger has enough interegety to fake log in a higher fashion.

You're avoiding the question by being snarky.

You avoided the counter by accusations of snarkyness. But I have to thank you. The normal accusation is much worse.

 

You also didn't comment on my simple test (simple in theory hard to actually measure). If the logs create more enjoyment than harm, they are a beneift. Vice Versa. A detriment. Neither...Benign.

Isn't that the same as the previous good lie, bad lie, benign lie position?

 

known knowns, unknown knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns

[+Renegade Knight]

...RK spoke of his self-imposed limitation (choosing to read logs from his PQ instead of directly off the cache pages) as if it were someone else’s fault that he couldn’t read past the fifth log....

 

Sorry, but the limitation is imposed. Not chosen. My PQ is limited to the last 5 because that's how the system works. The fake log is also imposed. Not chosen.

 

The end result is that it impacts what I do choose. Which is to read the cache logs from the PQ just before hunting the cache. Someone else made the decision that that PQ can only have 5 logs and someone else makes the decsion to create a fake log that can impact my perception of that cache.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Isn't that the same as the previous good lie, bad lie, benign lie position?...

 

I must have missed that post. Some made a case that a white like was good and I showed I showed that it was merely ok, that there was a better result to be had by using the truth.

[+sbell111]

...RK spoke of his self-imposed limitation (choosing to read logs from his PQ instead of directly off the cache pages) as if it were someone else’s fault that he couldn’t read past the fifth log....

 

Sorry, but the limitation is imposed. Not chosen. My PQ is limited to the last 5 because that's how the system works. The fake log is also imposed. Not chosen.

 

The end result is that it impacts what I do choose. Which is to read the cache logs from the PQ just before hunting the cache. Someone else made the decision that that PQ can only have 5 logs and someone else makes the decsion to create a fake log that can impact my perception of that cache.

Even though that limitation is imposed on us, there are perfectly acceptable and easy-to-accomplish ways to get around it.

[+KBI]

If the logs create more enjoyment than harm, they are a benefit.

This is neither true nor relevant.

 

One, I don’t think anyone has suggested that bogus find logs are a benefit to the hobby.

 

Secondly, even if a bogus log benefits lots of people, it may still, in my opinion, be reasonable judged to be unacceptable even if it harms only one person.

 

Vice Versa. A detriment.

This has been firmly established.

 

If certain bogus find logs create more harm than enjoyment, then what matters is that they create any harm at all – which is unacceptable in my opinion, an opinion which does not seem to be in dispute.

 

 

Neither...Benign.

Not exactly.

 

If bogus find logs create the same amount of harm as enjoyment, then they still create harm – which is unacceptable in my opinion, an opinion which does not seem to be in dispute.

 

The happiness of a happy liar does not make up for or excuse the chagrin of a bogus log victim.

 

If a bogus find log causes no harm, however, then it is, by definition, benign .... which brings us to the point that I have been making all along:

 

Some bogus find logs are benign;

Therefore not all bogus find logs are bad;

Therefore it cannot be said that "all" bogus find logs are "degrading" to the sport.

 

The OP finally accepted the logic of this line of reasoning some time ago; it only remains for a few of the hard-core stragglers to grasp the reasoning in order that we can finally lay the premise of the Original Post to rest.

[+KBI]

...RK spoke of his self-imposed limitation (choosing to read logs from his PQ instead of directly off the cache pages) as if it were someone else’s fault that he couldn’t read past the fifth log....

Sorry, but the limitation is imposed. Not chosen.

Sorry, but it’s exactly the other way around:

 

My PQ is limited to the last 5 because that's how the system works.

Yes it is, but YOU are limited to the last five because YOU chose the PQ system over the read-the-entire-cache-page system.

 

The fake log is also imposed. Not chosen.

That may be, but it only limits your available info if it appears in the last five logs AND if you choose some option which limits you to seeing only the last five logs. PQs, for one example. The default cache page, for another.

 

Someone else made the decision that that PQ can only have 5 logs and someone else makes the decsion to create a fake log that can impact my perception of that cache.

... and then YOU made the conscious decision to forego reading deeper into the cache page history in favor of restricting yourself to what you obviously know to be a limitation of the PQ system.

 

The full cache page log history of every single geocache you may ever want to consider is available for your reading convenience right on the website. Choosing the PQ system instead for its convenience is a reasonable choice, but all choices come with compromises.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Yes it is, but YOU are limited to the last five because YOU chose the PQ system over the read-the-entire-cache-page system...

 

No matter how you slice it and dice it. I'm forced to work with the tools that I have. Those limitations can make the impacts of fake logs worse, but they don't change that the problem is the fake logs.

[+Renegade Knight]

If the logs create more enjoyment than harm, they are a benefit.

This is neither true nor relevant....

 

Since it actually backs up one of your own arguments I'm going to have to question your sanity.

[+Renegade Knight]

...

The fake log is also imposed. Not chosen.

That may be, but it only limits your available info if it appears in the last five logs AND if you choose some option which limits you to seeing only the last five logs. PQs, for one example. The default cache page, for another....

 

That's only if the log is one you called benign. Or you know it's bogus. If it's actually a fake log that tells a false story like the cache is there when it's MIA it doesnt' matter if it's on a PQ or on the Cache page.

 

My intent was to show that a benign log can cause a problem with the current system. I have done that. Your argument that it's only an issue because I'm actually using the current system simply helps me make my point.

[+sbell111]

...Yes it is, but YOU are limited to the last five because YOU chose the PQ system over the read-the-entire-cache-page system...

 

No matter how you slice it and dice it. I'm forced to work with the tools that I have. Those limitations can make the impacts of fake logs worse, but they don't change that the problem is the fake logs.

If you set GSAK to not delete the old database when you add the new PQs, it will 'build' the number of logs and you will no longer be tied to the 5 log limit.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Even though that limitation is imposed on us, there are perfectly acceptable and easy-to-accomplish ways to get around it.

 

I can print reams of paper complete with all the logs. This gets messy.

I can buy a mobile broadband connection and a laptop to cache with. Expensive.

I can use PQ's on a PDA. 5 Log Limit.

I can buy a data plan for my cell phone. Too much squinting, and Expensive.

I can cache blind. May miss important cache info.

I can consolodate PQ's in GSAK. Requires a laptop for field use. Expensive.

 

Every variation of how to go about caching has it's own advantages and drawbacks.

The one created by a seemingly benign log in a PQ that replaces a real log is one that doesn't need to exist. Even without bogus logs the 5 log limit in a PQ is a drawback. I like reading more than the last five.

Edited February 15, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+sbell111]

...Even though that limitation is imposed on us, there are perfectly acceptable and easy-to-accomplish ways to get around it.

 

I can print reams of paper complete with all the logs. This gets messy.

I can buy a mobile broadband connection and a laptop to cache with. Expensive.

I can use PQ's on a PDA. 5 Log Limit.

I can buy a data plan for my cell phone. Too much squinting, and Expensive.

I can cache blind. May miss important cache info.

I can consolodate PQ's in GSAK. Requires a laptop for field use. Expensive.

 

Every variation of how to go about caching has it's own advantages and drawbacks.

The one created by a seemingly benign log in a PQ that replaces a real log is one that doesn't need to exist. Even without bogus logs the 5 log limit in a PQ is a drawback. I like reading more than the last five.

You are free to cache however you want. Why should I care?

 

That being said, you are incorrect about only being able put 5 logs on your pda. When I go caching locally, I routinely have dozens of logs for each cache on my pda.

[+tozainamboku]

If the logs create more enjoyment than harm, they are a benefit.

This is neither true nor relevant....

 

Since it actually backs up one of your own arguments I'm going to have to question your sanity.

I've been able to follow KBI's argument without questioning his sanity. He has always said that there are some bogus logs that are bad. The OP claimed that any "false" found it log degraded geocaching. KBI argues that many do not degrade geocaching, these logs have no effect on anyone's ability to enjoy finding a geocache. If someone posts a false log that a geocacher couldn't tell if it was a lie, it might affect the geocacher's decision to hunt or maintain the cache and might degrade that cacher's enjoyment of the game.

[+sbell111]

If the logs create more enjoyment than harm, they are a benefit.

This is neither true nor relevant....

 

Since it actually backs up one of your own arguments I'm going to have to question your sanity.

I've been able to follow KBI's argument without questioning his sanity. He has always said that there are some bogus logs that are bad. The OP claimed that any "false" found it log degraded geocaching. KBI argues that many do not degrade geocaching, these logs have no effect on anyone's ability to enjoy finding a geocache. If someone posts a false log that a geocacher couldn't tell if it was a lie, it might affect the geocacher's decision to hunt or maintain the cache and might degrade that cacher's enjoyment of the game.

If the same false logger back dates his log past the five newest, it would be unlikely that the false log would ever inconvenience anyone. It would be benign. Would it be right? Of course not (assuming that the cache owner wasn't complicit), but it wouldn't degrade anything.

[+Renegade Knight]

...That being said, you are incorrect about only being able put 5 logs on your pda. When I go caching locally, I routinely have dozens of logs for each cache on my pda.

 

If you copy your PQ onto your PDA you have 5 logs, plus your own logs.

 

If you use GSAK, and do the work to maintain that database, then use GSAK to export a GPX to use on your PDA then you can have more logs on your PDA. Nothing changes. You solve one problem by in turn creating more work and adding more steps to the process of getting out to go caching. That's not bad if you don't mind. It is however not as simple as just copying your PQ to your PDA.

 

There are a lot of ways to skin the cat. Each has problems. Each has advantages. None of them really have anything at all to do with bogus logs.

 

Your example (and Mushtangs) example of how a bogus log made so as to not impact a PQ are correct. If all bogus loggers can agree to pre-date their logs out of consideration for their fellow man, then you have now solved my issue with benign bogus logs.

[+sbell111]

...That being said, you are incorrect about only being able put 5 logs on your pda. When I go caching locally, I routinely have dozens of logs for each cache on my pda.

 

If you copy your PQ onto your PDA you have 5 logs, plus your own logs.

 

If you use GSAK, and do the work to maintain that database, then use GSAK to export a GPX to use on your PDA then you can have more logs on your PDA. Nothing changes. You solve one problem by in turn creating more work and adding more steps to the process of getting out to go caching. That's not bad if you don't mind. It is however not as simple as just copying your PQ to your PDA.

 

There are a lot of ways to skin the cat. Each has problems. Each has advantages. None of them really have anything at all to do with bogus logs.

 

Your example (and Mushtangs) example of how a bogus log made so as to not impact a PQ are correct. If all bogus loggers can agree to pre-date their logs out of consideration for their fellow man, then you have now solved my issue with benign bogus logs.

What were the more steps? The only additional step that I have now that I didn't have before is that I delete any caches that didn't update with my most recent PQs. I'm pretty sure that other people have GSAK set up to do that automagically.

[+Renegade Knight]

....What were the more steps? The only additional step that I have now that I didn't have before is that I delete any caches that didn't update with my most recent PQs. I'm pretty sure that other people have GSAK set up to do that automagically.

 

What you just described is at least two more steps than what I used to do when I would just copy the PQ to my PDA.

 

The purchase of Windows Vista so vastly complicated that process though that I got rid of my PDA since it no longer served any purpose. Now I don't even get my 5 logs and I'm back to Paper. Woo Hoo! Vista The Great leap forward!

 

Come to think of it. Vista has done more to degrade my caching than even our local cache maggot who does do BS logs to wreak havok. Reality is what it is.

Edited February 15, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+KBI]

...Yes it is, but YOU are limited to the last five because YOU chose the PQ system over the read-the-entire-cache-page system...

No matter how you slice it and dice it. I'm forced to work with the tools that I have.

Forced? Really? How do you figure that?

 

When I research potential cache hunts I sometimes click where it says: "There are more logs. View them all on one page"

 

What prevents you from doing the same?

[+KBI]

If the logs create more enjoyment than harm, they are a benefit.

This is neither true nor relevant....

Since it actually backs up one of your own arguments I'm going to have to question your sanity.

Which argument of mine do you think it backs up?

 

I have never suggested that a harmful bogus log is okay as long as it generates "more enjoyment that harm." (I haven't seen anyone else make that claim either, at least not until you posted it.)

 

Quite the contrary: I have repeatedly confirmed that I am against any bogus logs that would cause practical problems of any kind. I don't care who it benefits; if a bogus log is harmful, then it is bad. Such logs shouldn't be tolerated.

[+KBI]

...Even though that limitation is imposed on us, there are perfectly acceptable and easy-to-accomplish ways to get around it.

 

I can print reams of paper complete with all the logs. This gets messy.

I can buy a mobile broadband connection and a laptop to cache with. Expensive.

I can use PQ's on a PDA. 5 Log Limit.

I can buy a data plan for my cell phone. Too much squinting, and Expensive.

I can cache blind. May miss important cache info.

I can consolodate PQ's in GSAK. Requires a laptop for field use. Expensive.

 

Every variation of how to go about caching has it's own advantages and drawbacks.

The one created by a seemingly benign log in a PQ that replaces a real log is one that doesn't need to exist. Even without bogus logs the 5 log limit in a PQ is a drawback. I like reading more than the last five.

If you choose to limit yourself to a five-log history, then a bogus find is not the only type of log that can rob you of available information. How do you deal with Notes and other cache page entries which take up one or more of the five slots without providing you with useful information? Are you against Travel Bug notes as well? Are Travel Bug notes also causing a "degradation" of the hobby?

[+KBI]

Your example (and Mushtangs) example of how a bogus log made so as to not impact a PQ are correct. If all bogus loggers can agree to pre-date their logs out of consideration for their fellow man, then you have now solved my issue with benign bogus logs.

Then you agree that it is possible for bogus finds to be logged without causing harm. You agree that benign false finds exist.

 

Do you still agree, then, with the OP's (original) position that ALL bogus logs are degrading to the hobby, and "what it means to be a Geocacher?" If not, then you and I have no further difference in viewpoint.

[+Too Tall John]

Are you against Travel Bug notes as well? Are Travel Bug notes also causing a "degradation" of the hobby?

I am, yes.

 

If I forget to add my travel bug onto my "Found It" log, or even if I'm dropping off a bug in a cache I've already found, I always try to remember to delete the Note after posting it.

 

I actually read early on in the forums that this is proper etiquette.

[+KBI]

Are you against Travel Bug notes as well? Are Travel Bug notes also causing a "degradation" of the hobby?

I am, yes.

 

If I forget to add my travel bug onto my "Found It" log, or even if I'm dropping off a bug in a cache I've already found, I always try to remember to delete the Note after posting it.

 

I actually read early on in the forums that this is proper etiquette.

Wow.

 

My definition of "degrade" is apparently much different than the definition many other people are using.

 

That would sure explain a lot.

[+Too Tall John]

Are you against Travel Bug notes as well? Are Travel Bug notes also causing a "degradation" of the hobby?

I am, yes.

 

If I forget to add my travel bug onto my "Found It" log, or even if I'm dropping off a bug in a cache I've already found, I always try to remember to delete the Note after posting it.

 

I actually read early on in the forums that this is proper etiquette.

Wow.

 

My definition of "degrade" is apparently much different than the definition many other people are using.

 

That would sure explain a lot.

If that's a nice way of saying I'm obsessive, thanks.

 

I know.

 

 

The fact that you were obviously asking the question and not expecting a "Yes" answer should remind all of us that we're all coming at the discussion from different places with different perspectives.

 

I think I've said it before (maybe even in this thread). If we could remember to try to look at it from someone else's perspective, we wouldn't have 32 page threads.

[+KBI]

Are you against Travel Bug notes as well? Are Travel Bug notes also causing a "degradation" of the hobby?

I am, yes.

 

If I forget to add my travel bug onto my "Found It" log, or even if I'm dropping off a bug in a cache I've already found, I always try to remember to delete the Note after posting it.

 

I actually read early on in the forums that this is proper etiquette.

Wow.

 

My definition of "degrade" is apparently much different than the definition many other people are using.

 

That would sure explain a lot.

If that's a nice way of saying I'm obsessive, thanks.

 

I know.

 

 

The fact that you were obviously asking the question and not expecting a "Yes" answer should remind all of us that we're all coming at the discussion from different places with different perspectives.

 

I think I've said it before (maybe even in this thread). If we could remember to try to look at it from someone else's perspective, we wouldn't have 32 page threads.

"Degrade" is a very strong word, especially when used to describe a light, wholesome (and non-competitive) excuse for playing outside like Geocaching.

 

Many people in this thread, including you apparently, are reporting feeling "degraded" by things that would have only ever caused me to feel, at the very most, inconvenienced.

 

Others have reported feeling "degraded" by things that would have never even bothered me at all.

 

Those in this thread who report experiencing this degradation aren't just talking about inconvenience; they also use all kinds of ethics-based and morality-flavored language to describe their "degradation."

 

I just don’t get it – and I hope I never do. There are plenty of truly nasty, unjust, offensive and indecent things in the real world to be genuinely bothered by; I don’t need to go looking for new problems that either don’t exist or don’t matter. Watching some cacher lie to himself, bend the definition if a find, or clutter up recent logs with bug-drop notes just isn’t worth me bunching my skivvies over.

 

The question:

Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?

 

My answer:

No ... even though a few people have unnecessarily chosen to feel strangely and morally corrupted, defiled, tainted, besmirched, despoiled and ruined anyway.

[Trinity's Crew]

I don't recall a lot of people saying "they" felt degraded. There is a difference between the degradation of the hobby and feeling personally degraded by the experience of it.

[CoyoteRed]

My definition of "degrade" is apparently much different than the definition many other people are using.

Apparently so.

 

There are different definitions of "degrade" and unless one tries to use the same one as the previous person to who one is replying, it can get confusing.

 

I think the way the OP was using it--the way I read it, anyway--is false logging was making the hobby less than what it could be. If false logging became so rampant, and I'm not saying it is, then folks wouldn't be able to trust the logs. That would certainly degrade the hobby, or put another way, make one aspect of the hobby have less worth.

 

Of course, to some false logging is degrading as in disgraceful and I think those folks are entitled to their opinion. I don't feel it is degrading to the hobby in this respect as much as to the person who does it--again, my opinion.

 

I do feel if folks didn't try to "hold the line" on acceptable behavior then the hobby would simply disintegrate unless another site stepped to the plate with firmer guidelines or this site did so.

[+Too Tall John]

I don't recall a lot of people saying "they" felt degraded. There is a difference between the degradation of the hobby and feeling personally degraded by the experience of it.

This point has been made before.

 

I must say I'm glad you made it again, because some people still haven't grasped the difference.

 

Hopefully it doesn't have to be made again.

 

 

But it probably will...

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

I think the way the OP was using it--the way I read it, anyway--is false logging was making the hobby less than what it could be. If false logging became so rampant, and I'm not saying it is, then folks wouldn't be able to trust the logs. That would certainly degrade the hobby, or put another way, make one aspect of the hobby have less worth.

CoyoteRed, you read it exactly how I intended it.

 

I do feel if folks didn't try to "hold the line" on acceptable behavior then the hobby would simply disintegrate unless another site stepped to the plate with firmer guidelines or this site did so.

I also completely agree.

 

I'm not saying that geocaching is significantly degraded, but rather if we don't "hold the line" then it will become degraded.

[+Rockin Roddy]

My definition of "degrade" is apparently much different than the definition many other people are using.

Apparently so.

 

There are different definitions of "degrade" and unless one tries to use the same one as the previous person to who one is replying, it can get confusing.

 

I think the way the OP was using it--the way I read it, anyway--is false logging was making the hobby less than what it could be. If false logging became so rampant, and I'm not saying it is, then folks wouldn't be able to trust the logs. That would certainly degrade the hobby, or put another way, make one aspect of the hobby have less worth.

 

Of course, to some false logging is degrading as in disgraceful and I think those folks are entitled to their opinion. I don't feel it is degrading to the hobby in this respect as much as to the person who does it--again, my opinion.

 

I do feel if folks didn't try to "hold the line" on acceptable behavior then the hobby would simply disintegrate unless another site stepped to the plate with firmer guidelines or this site did so.

Well said!!

[+Rockin Roddy]

Are you against Travel Bug notes as well? Are Travel Bug notes also causing a "degradation" of the hobby?

I am, yes.

 

If I forget to add my travel bug onto my "Found It" log, or even if I'm dropping off a bug in a cache I've already found, I always try to remember to delete the Note after posting it.

 

I actually read early on in the forums that this is proper etiquette.

Wow.

 

My definition of "degrade" is apparently much different than the definition many other people are using.

 

That would sure explain a lot.

If that's a nice way of saying I'm obsessive, thanks.

 

I know.

 

 

The fact that you were obviously asking the question and not expecting a "Yes" answer should remind all of us that we're all coming at the discussion from different places with different perspectives.

 

I think I've said it before (maybe even in this thread). If we could remember to try to look at it from someone else's perspective, we wouldn't have 32 page threads.

"Degrade" is a very strong word, especially when used to describe a light, wholesome (and non-competitive) excuse for playing outside like Geocaching.

 

Many people in this thread, including you apparently, are reporting feeling "degraded" by things that would have only ever caused me to feel, at the very most, inconvenienced.

Others have reported feeling "degraded" by things that would have never even bothered me at all.

 

Those in this thread who report experiencing this degradation aren't just talking about inconvenience; they also use all kinds of ethics-based and morality-flavored language to describe their "degradation."

 

I just don’t get it – and I hope I never do. There are plenty of truly nasty, unjust, offensive and indecent things in the real world to be genuinely bothered by; I don’t need to go looking for new problems that either don’t exist or don’t matter. Watching some cacher lie to himself, bend the definition if a find, or clutter up recent logs with bug-drop notes just isn’t worth me bunching my skivvies over.

 

The question:

Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?

 

My answer:

No ... even though a few people have unnecessarily chosen to feel strangely and morally corrupted, defiled, tainted, besmirched, despoiled and ruined anyway.

So, even if only inconvenienced, you agree that this behavior has SOME affect on you and your fun while caching?? You'll likely say NO, but these words seem to point otherwise...

[+KBI]

I don't recall a lot of people saying "they" felt degraded. There is a difference between the degradation of the hobby and feeling personally degraded by the experience of it.

I think the way the OP was using it--the way I read it, anyway--is false logging was making the hobby less than what it could be. If false logging became so rampant, and I'm not saying it is, then folks wouldn't be able to trust the logs. That would certainly degrade the hobby, or put another way, make one aspect of the hobby have less worth.

 

I do feel if folks didn't try to "hold the line" on acceptable behavior then the hobby would simply disintegrate unless another site stepped to the plate with firmer guidelines or this site did so.

I don't recall a lot of people saying "they" felt degraded. There is a difference between the degradation of the hobby and feeling personally degraded by the experience of it.

This point has been made before.

 

I must say I'm glad you made it again, because some people still haven't grasped the difference.

 

Hopefully it doesn't have to be made again.

Fair enough.

 

I'll change my wording:

 

The question:

Are we allowing the "degradation" of geocaching?

 

My answer:

No ... even though a few people have unnecessarily chosen to feel that their favorite hobby has been strangely and morally corrupted, defiled, tainted, besmirched, despoiled and ruined anyway.

[+KBI]

Of course, to some false logging is degrading as in disgraceful and I think those folks are entitled to their opinion. I don't feel it is degrading to the hobby in this respect as much as to the person who does it--again, my opinion.

I agree with the Crimson WolfMan. Benign bogus logging only makes the dishonest logger look silly – nothing more.

 

My ability to enjoy Geocaching is not affected by benign bogus logs.

 

While it is possible I might be inconvenienced at some point by a non-benign bogus log, I have seen nothing worthy of using the word "degrade" to describe the effect these logs have had on the overall game, if any.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Of course, to some false logging is degrading as in disgraceful and I think those folks are entitled to their opinion. I don't feel it is degrading to the hobby in this respect as much as to the person who does it--again, my opinion.

I agree with the Crimson WolfMan. Benign bogus logging only makes the dishonest logger look silly – nothing more.

 

My ability to enjoy Geocaching is not affected by benign bogus logs.

 

While it is possible I might be inconvenienced at some point by a non-benign bogus log, I have seen nothing worthy of using the word "degrade" to describe the effect these logs have had on the overall game, if any.

How about tarnished? Truly, what word would you use to describe the effect these logs have?

 

I think everyone knows and understands what the OP was trying to convey, some are just stuck on the wording. As I said before, some have to have things defined just so...

Edited February 16, 2008 by Rockin Roddy

[+KBI]

So, even if only inconvenienced, you agree that this behavior has SOME affect on you and your fun while caching?? You'll likely say NO, but these words seem to point otherwise...

My answer is not "no." It has never been "no."

 

My answer is to remind you (again, and for perhaps the 37th time) that I have agreed, from the very beginning, that it is possible for some bogus logs to cause very real practical problems.

 

Your point?

[+KBI]

Of course, to some false logging is degrading as in disgraceful and I think those folks are entitled to their opinion. I don't feel it is degrading to the hobby in this respect as much as to the person who does it--again, my opinion.

I agree with the Crimson WolfMan. Benign bogus logging only makes the dishonest logger look silly – nothing more.

 

My ability to enjoy Geocaching is not affected by benign bogus logs.

 

While it is possible I might be inconvenienced at some point by a non-benign bogus log, I have seen nothing worthy of using the word "degrade" to describe the effect these logs have had on the overall game, if any.

How about tarnished? Truly, what word would you use to describe the effect these logs have?

The effect they have on me? Logs that cause me inconvenience, you mean? How about "annoying?" As it hasn't happened to me yet, however, for now I think I'll just stick with "unobserved."

 

The effect they have on the hobby in general? If that is what you're asking, then I suppose I would have to go with "miniscule." I hope, and fully expect, that it will stay that way.

[+Rockin Roddy]

So, even if only inconvenienced, you agree that this behavior has SOME affect on you and your fun while caching?? You'll likely say NO, but these words seem to point otherwise...

My answer is not "no." It has never been "no."

 

My answer is to remind you (again, and for perhaps the 37th time) that I have agreed, from the very beginning, that it is possible for some bogus logs to cause very real practical problems.

 

Your point?

I guess my point is that this does affect just about everyone in one way or another, you're continual "unnecessarily chosen" comment is off the mark.

[+KBI]

I think everyone knows and understands what the OP was trying to convey, some are just stuck on the wording. As I said before, some have to have things defined just so...

The definition of "degrade," you mean? The definition I’ve been using, for the purposes of this discussion, is the one that was rather plainly put forth by the Original Poster:

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

He speaks of outright shame to himself: "I won’t be such a proud geocacher then."

 

He speaks of moral indecency: "...change the rules so much that they bastardize the game."

 

He then uses the word "degrade" interchangeably with those other expressions in such a way as to make it clear which definition of "degrade" he is using.

 

If I misinterpreted his post then I will happily admit my mistake, because that would mean I have no disagreement with his characterization of my favorite hobby. If I correctly understood his meaning, on the other hand, then I find it interesting, on an academic level, that someone would take personal offense in the way he has chosen to do. I find such a viewpoint odd, but if choosing to be morally offended is his preference, then I suppose that doesn’t bother me any more than the benign bogus logs do.

[+KBI]

So, even if only inconvenienced, you agree that this behavior has SOME affect on you and your fun while caching?? You'll likely say NO, but these words seem to point otherwise...

My answer is not "no." It has never been "no."

 

My answer is to remind you (again, and for perhaps the 37th time) that I have agreed, from the very beginning, that it is possible for some bogus logs to cause very real practical problems.

 

Your point?

I guess my point is that this does affect just about everyone in one way or another, you're continual "unnecessarily chosen" comment is off the mark.

You are still confusing my opinion on harmful bogus logs with my opinion on benign bogus logs.

 

No need for me to repeat my position yet again; it’s all right here in this brief little thread.

[Trinity's Crew]

 

You are still confusing my opinion on harmful bogus logs with my opinion on benign bogus logs.

 

No need for me to repeat my position yet again; it’s all right here in this brief little thread.

I think I'll just delete ALL verifiable bogus logs. It's a lot easier than trying to determine the level of harm/annoyance/inconvenience they might or might not cause.