Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?

[Mushtang]

 

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.

I don't think anyone in this thread would suggest you do otherwise. I've said in multiple posts that deleting verifiable bogus logs is the action that a cache owner should take.

[Trinity's Crew]

I know. That's why I put a little guy at the end of my post. However I DO like to re-post it every now and again so that the message doesn't get lost among the various debate points.

[+KBI]

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.

Same here.

 

I will delete ALL the verifiably bogus logs that befall my own caches (after first giving each offending logger a chance to make good on his own), and I will ignore ALL the bogus logs, verifiable or not, that appear elsewhere.

 

In five years as a cache owner and with over 800 smileys logged to my caches I have only had to delete a bogus log once – and that was sort of a special case anyway. I don’t see it becoming a problem.

[+geomann1]

I will question no ones integrity and will seek professional help if I ever reached a point in life where it was important enough to me that I would bother to cross-check a logbook versus electronically logged finds to seek out bogus smilies.

 

Folks it just not that important to worry about

[+Jedi Cacher]

KBI, if at some point in time that if I am ever in need of an attorney, you are hired!

[+KBI]

KBI, if at some point in time that if I am ever in need of an attorney, you are hired!

I think that would be a very smart move on your part.

 

After several hours of me babbling my endless verbal diarrhea, and thereby putting the judge, jury, bailiff and everyone else into a deep sleep, you could simply walk out of the courtroom and escape. Assuming you manage to stay awake yourself, that is.

[+Renegade Knight]

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....

 

If they cause more good than harm, or are exactly neutral, then yes, I'm willing to say they exist. They still knock a real log off the PQ so they better be funny or have some other useful thing about them. Other wise they fail my personal test.

 

Back up a ways I posted a link to what could be a few Benign logs under the Profile of Neila.

[+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.

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.

 

The one about the theoretical existence of benign logs. I proposed a simple test. More harm, the log is crap. More good, 'benign'. Neutral, it's just taking up space..

[+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.

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?

 

Forced. Try to work with things you don't have and don't have access too. You have to work with the tools you have. Try to choose to work with tools you don't have and don't have access to. Life forces you to work within the limits you are given. It's by definition.

 

As for your Show all logs method. Works great reading a cache page. It doesn't work all that well with PQ on your PDA.

 

Your confusion over my method of caching is really one of preference. I can choose to spend more work and get all logs, or less work and live with 5. I've made a choice. One of the problems with the choice is the 5 log limit. One of the issues with a 5 log limit is that a fake log knocks a real one off the list. One of the other problems with fake logs is that I have to read them at all to deal with them. You can't change that unless you are psychic. Probably not even then.

[+Renegade Knight]

 

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.

I don't think anyone in this thread would suggest you do otherwise. I've said in multiple posts that deleting verifiable bogus logs is the action that a cache owner should take.

That's what I do.

[Mushtang]

 

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.

I don't think anyone in this thread would suggest you do otherwise. I've said in multiple posts that deleting verifiable bogus logs is the action that a cache owner should take.

That's what I do.

Then you da man!

[+infiniteMPG]

TFTH as fake log also says "This cahe is here and in good enough shape to find". If that's not the case and you waste yoru time seeking a cache that's MIA tha'ts a problem.

A vague bogus example that would be impossible to prove even if it ever did happen. (For some reason I am posting this for about the tenth time). If the cache is missing, you have NO LOG BOOK to prove it went missing BEFORE the last person logged it rather then AFTER. It is impossible to prove their log was fake!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This example seems to be the only leg anyone stands on trying to show fake logs cause problems yet it's an example that would be impossible to prove if it happened.

 

Have you even looked for a cache with several previous DNF's that sounded like it had a good chance of not being there? What if the DNF's were FAKE log entires???? How could you prove that????????? So now it's only FIND fake logs that are problems but DNF fake logs are not? And how would you EVER prove a DNF was fake???? And fake DNF logs might keep people from going for an existing cache that's NOT missing. But since you couldn't prove someone DIDN'T find a cache then you'd never prove the log was fake.

 

I think you have a better chance of winning the lottery then seeking a cache that was missing but had a fake log last.

[+infiniteMPG]

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

Not at all. A cache can go missing at any time. You have a better chance of it being there if there's a bunch of finds but the cache has as much a chance of getting muggled after a real log entry as it does after a fake one. And if the cache is missing there is NO WAY to prove it went missing before the last log listing rather then after.

 

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..

And we have searched for caches that were miles out and hadn't been found in almost a year and had a dozen DNF's and we FOUND IT. I don't think many people search for just one cache and if they get a DNF when searching an area it doesn't ruin their day.

 

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".

Still a mute point as if there are no DNF's and the owner determines the cache is missing, there is (once again) NO WAY to prove it went missing before or after the last log entry.

 

When you seek a cache and can't find it and you enter a DNF, do you DEMAND the owner go see if it really is missing? If you DNF a cache then what feedback do you expect? If it is missing and the next couple people DNF it then the owner will probably check it. If it is missing then there's no log book to see if the last one or one hundred log entries were fake.... no proof!

 

This is all congecture and couldn't be proven. I think that Judge Signal would toss that case out if that was the only evidence that fake logs on regular caches cause problems for other cachers.

[+infiniteMPG]

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?

Good point!!! In the untold dozens of log entries I got emailed this past weekend I got several that were finds from the end of last year. People that missed logging one of their finds.... if they were fake, no harm, no foul.

 

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.

Very benign.... except for the purists who seem to have more fun in exposing someone entering fake logs then they do in geocaching. Nope, don't condone fake logs, but still haven't seen an actual example given proving a fake log caused a problem in a regular cache for other cachers.

[+infiniteMPG]

Same here.I will delete ALL the verifiably bogus logs that befall my own caches (after first giving each offending logger a chance to make good on his own), and I will ignore ALL the bogus logs, verifiable or not, that appear elsewhere.

I think every cache owner on this thread would agree with that, including myself.

 

In five years as a cache owner and with over 800 smileys logged to my caches I have only had to delete a bogus log once – and that was sort of a special case anyway. I don’t see it becoming a problem.

Nor do I see it causing the degradation of geocaching....

 

Oh no.... too much agreement here

[+infiniteMPG]

KBI, if at some point in time that if I am ever in need of an attorney, you are hired!

Not me... I used to work for Klockner Bartelt Incorporated (KBI) and it would just be too freaky hehehehehe

[+blb9556]

How do you guys tell whats fake?? I just had my first cache published (Visit Link)

[+infiniteMPG]

How do you guys tell whats fake?? I just had my first cache published (Visit Link)

Actually I think this thread is (hopefully) winding down. The only real way to tell if a log is fake is compare the signatures in the actual log book to the logs listed online. And even this has some 'issues' as sometimes people don't sign the log books orderly and you could mistake a fake log for someone who signed it in the wrong place, or have trouble reading it, or used initials, or forgot a pen, or the log books gets wet and faded, or other circumstances... IMHO it's a pretty major task keeping up with cache maintenance and if you stumble across a fake log then deal with it, but hunting them down doesn't have much merit (unless you enjoy doing that).

 

Good work on putting that much effort into your cache, uploading the pictures, adding the hint, etc. Keep an eye on the container, Altoids cans rust and when they start rusting the lids tend to freeze in place and then people bend the you-know-what out of them trying to get them open. And a little plastic bag for the log sheet always helps (Ebay has 'em) unless it's in a spot not exposed to rain or moisture. Just my 2-cents but good work!

Edited February 18, 2008 by infiniteMPG

[+tozainamboku]

TFTH as fake log also says "This cahe is here and in good enough shape to find". If that's not the case and you waste yoru time seeking a cache that's MIA tha'ts a problem.

A vague bogus example that would be impossible to prove even if it ever did happen. (For some reason I am posting this for about the tenth time). If the cache is missing, you have NO LOG BOOK to prove it went missing BEFORE the last person logged it rather then AFTER. It is impossible to prove their log was fake!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This example seems to be the only leg anyone stands on trying to show fake logs cause problems yet it's an example that would be impossible to prove if it happened.

 

Have you even looked for a cache with several previous DNF's that sounded like it had a good chance of not being there? What if the DNF's were FAKE log entires???? How could you prove that????????? So now it's only FIND fake logs that are problems but DNF fake logs are not? And how would you EVER prove a DNF was fake???? And fake DNF logs might keep people from going for an existing cache that's NOT missing. But since you couldn't prove someone DIDN'T find a cache then you'd never prove the log was fake.

 

I think you have a better chance of winning the lottery then seeking a cache that was missing but had a fake log last.

Of course you can't prove a fake log if the cache is missing, but there are circumstances that would make a log seem highly suspicious. For example if a cache hasn't been found in a while and the last couple of logs were DNF. A bogus logger may in fact look for a cache like this especially if the cache owner hasn't logged on in a while. Here's a cache that likely is no longer being maintained and the owner isn't about to delete fake logs. Seems like a good one to log a bogus found it on. If others are looking for the cache and still can't find it, I would say that the found log is suspicious. Perhaps someone will email the "finder" for a hint (or even ask for one at the event where the "finder" is receiving accolades for their high find count). The "finder" might just say they don't remember, but they might try to make up a story about how the cache was hidden and get caught by inconsistencies with the actual location. And of course, it is possible the cache is still there, and a later finder will find the cache and see that the "finder" didn't sign the log. Doesn't prove that the log is bogus; the "finder" may have just forgotten to sign. But it sure would look suspicious.

 

The current system works pretty well because the only thing we have is our reputations. If a person is logging fake finds to bump up their find count they are likely to be serial bogus loggers. Eventually, you'd find enough suspicious logs from the same person that they will get a reputation for lying. Usually by then, these people have quit "geocaching" after seeing that bumping up numbers for little or no reward is too much hard work. Actually finding geocaches before you log them online is more fun. Because of this the number of false logs as a percentage of all logs will always remain low. There is no danger in geocaching being degraded and the chances for someone to wind up wasting gas looking for a missing cache like briansnat's friend is very low.

[+infiniteMPG]

Of course you can't prove a fake log if the cache is missing, but there are circumstances that would make a log seem highly suspicious.

The only example people seem to come back with is the one of a fake log making a missing cache look like it's still there yet no one can prove that happens / happened / or may happen. We could only ASSuME.

 

For example if a cache hasn't been found in a while and the last couple of logs were DNF. A bogus logger may in fact look for a cache like this especially if the cache owner hasn't logged on in a while.

I think a bogus logger would tend to avoid caches like that as they would attract suspicion. But any low life that would try to get around the fun of geocaching just to inflate their numbers has to remember that they'll be staring at an @sshole every morning in their bathroom mirror

 

The current system works pretty well because the only thing we have is our reputations. If a person is logging fake finds to bump up their find count they are likely to be serial bogus loggers. Eventually, you'd find enough suspicious logs from the same person that they will get a reputation for lying.

Definitely! Faking a log would be an expression of that type of person and I would bet that type behavior would be displayed in other phases of their lives. Not someone I'd want to hang with or be friends with, let alone cache with.

 

Usually by then, these people have quit "geocaching" after seeing that bumping up numbers for little or no reward is too much hard work. Actually finding geocaches before you log them online is more fun. Because of this the number of false logs as a percentage of all logs will always remain low. There is no danger in geocaching being degraded and the chances for someone to wind up wasting gas looking for a missing cache like briansnat's friend is very low.

We've wasted gas and time on many things in geocaching and have yet to look at any of that as anything except a learning experience. Now if we can just find a way to justify bad picked numbers in the lottery as a learning experience.... Edited February 18, 2008 by infiniteMPG

[+ReadyOrNot]

The only example people seem to come back with is the one of a fake log making a missing cache look like it's still there yet no one can prove that happens / happened / or may happen. We could only ASSuME.

 

Yeah, ok I could make the statement, "It's raining SOMEWHERE in the world right now".. That's more than likely a correct statement. I agree, the percentage of people that do this is probably fairly small. Let's make an assumption of 1/2 percent of geocachers fake smileys to increase their find counts. That's 500 logs out of every 100,000 logs. or 5,000 out of every 1,000,000 logs. That's going to affect someone, somewhere. What exactly are you looking for as proof? It's 100% that it MAY happen. I think its fair to say that it has happened and its not a stretch of logic to also say that its currently happening.

 

I don't understand your point?

[+infiniteMPG]

Yeah, ok I could make the statement, "It's raining SOMEWHERE in the world right now".. That's more than likely a correct statement.

Big difference is we could prove one way or the other if it was raining somewhere in the world. Would not be an assumption, would be a fact with proof.

 

I don't understand your point?

If you can't "prove" something has ever happen (i.e. fake logs in regular caches have affected other cachers in a bad way) then debating if those fake logs have degraded the game of caching is pointless.

 

M: I came here for a good argument.

A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.

M: An argument isn't just contradiction.

A: It can be.

M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

A: No it isn't.

M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.

A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'

A: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

 

Monty Python to the rescue....

[+ReadyOrNot]

[if you can't "prove" something has ever happen (i.e. fake logs in regular caches have affected other cachers in a bad way) then debating if those fake logs have degraded the game of caching is pointless.

 

Briansnat provided evidence of his friend wasting gas. Is that not good enough for you? Again I ask, what proof do you need? Plenty has been provided for you.

[+infiniteMPG]

Briansnat provided evidence of his friend wasting gas. Is that not good enough for you? Again I ask, what proof do you need? Plenty has been provided for you.

Eleventh time posting this, if the cache was MISSING then there was NO LOG BOOK to prove if the cache went missing BEFORE or AFTER the last people logged their find. Congecture. Assumption. Not even close to a valid debating point let alone proof.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Briansnat provided evidence of his friend wasting gas. Is that not good enough for you? Again I ask, what proof do you need? Plenty has been provided for you.

Eleventh time posting this, if the cache was MISSING then there was NO LOG BOOK to prove if the cache went missing BEFORE or AFTER the last people logged their find. Congecture. Assumption. Not even close to a valid debating point let alone proof.

 

Ok then. On one of my caches, it had not been found for about 3 months. A friend of mine did a bug drop and was not able to find the cache. Someone logged it as found about a week after he had been to the cache. When he saw that the cache was logged, he went back to the cache site to drop the bug off, only to find the cache was still not there.

 

Good enough? (Probably not)

[+infiniteMPG]

Ok then. On one of my caches, it had not been found for about 3 months. A friend of mine did a bug drop and was not able to find the cache. Someone logged it as found about a week after he had been to the cache. When he saw that the cache was logged, he went back to the cache site to drop the bug off, only to find the cache was still not there.Good enough? (Probably not)

If your friend was doing a bug drop I'd assume he knew where the cache should of been, and since he knew it was missing, why was it left online? And why did he return, did he expect it to magically re-appear? What's the GC code for this cache? Did you confront the person who entered the log? What did that say? If you have evidence by all means present it and convince us these are causing the degredation of caching.

 

Also, from history on this thread :

 

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

 

briansnat - Feb 7 2008, 11:02 AM

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

 

As he said it was very unlikely the cache went missing prior to the log entry.... but still a possibility, as stated by brainsnat himself. And proof isn't in the probabilities, it's in the facts.

 

And the point of this thread is if fake logs are causing the degradation of geocaching and my point is that it is not. If you think it is then by all means every time some posts a log to one of your caches, immediately run out and check it against the log pages and do what you feel just for the preservation of the sanctity of geocaching. I'd rather trust in people for the most part and have fun with this cool recreational activity.

[+ReadyOrNot]

If you have evidence by all means present it and convince us these are causing the degredation of caching.

 

The story was made up, but it illustrates a point. The level you are requiring to be called "Evidence" is beyond what anyone can provide for you.

[Mushtang]

If you have evidence by all means present it and convince us these are causing the degredation of caching.

 

The story was made up, but it illustrates a point. The level you are requiring to be called "Evidence" is beyond what anyone can provide for you.

So we're allowing the "degradation of geocaching" because of what someone *might* be doing, not because of what is happening all over the place to the point that it's having an adverse effect on the game?

 

That doesn't make sense. Are you sure it's supposed to be a made up story just to illustrate a point?

[+ReadyOrNot]

If you have evidence by all means present it and convince us these are causing the degredation of caching.

 

The story was made up, but it illustrates a point. The level you are requiring to be called "Evidence" is beyond what anyone can provide for you.

So we're allowing the "degradation of geocaching" because of what someone *might* be doing, not because of what is happening all over the place to the point that it's having an adverse effect on the game?

 

That doesn't make sense. Are you sure it's supposed to be a made up story just to illustrate a point?

 

Are we back here again? Do you really believe that its not happening? I never said its happening all over the place. infiniteMPG said that there is no evidence that its happening at all, not that its happening at a high level. If your argument is that you don't think its happening AT ALL, then I'm going to have to pull out the cow-excrement card.

 

1) It's already been demonstrated that false logging occurs

2) It's been demonstrated that degradation "could" occur given false logging

3) It's been demonstrated that someone has suffered because of at the least, incorrect logging.

 

In most cases, the victim of the false logging probably isn't even aware that its occured... This doesn't make the wasted gas any less real, they just can't attribute it to exactly what caused it.

 

You want proof, but you're unwilling to specify what constitutes proof. My little story wasn't proof enough for you, even though the conditions in the story should have been... It just shows that your motivation is not for proof, but to bolster your argument... There's no winning in a situation like that.

[+ReadyOrNot]

So we're allowing the "degradation of geocaching" because of what someone *might* be doing

 

So your saying that something can't be degraded because of perception? If a problem is perceived, it might as well be real. The terror alert system, for instance... At red alert, there is a perceived danger, which may or may not exist, but people's lives are degraded FOR REAL, even though the danger may or may not be real.

 

The false logging does not have to create a REAL problem for the perception to create a REAL problem.

[+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?

The one about the theoretical existence of benign logs. I proposed a simple test. More harm, the log is crap. More good, 'benign'. Neutral, it's just taking up space..

I have a better test: ANY harm, the log is crap.

 

In my opinion, if a bogus log causes ANY harm to ANY cacher, it doesn't matter how much it may benefit someone else – it cannot be characterized as benign.

 

This has always been my position on the matter.

[+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?

Forced.

Really? Who forces you to use PQs?

 

I can choose to spend more work and get all logs, or less work and live with 5. I've made a choice. One of the problems with the choice is the 5 log limit.

NOW you’re talkin’. That was my point. When you choose to use PQs you make a voluntary choice to live with the five-log limit – nobody forces you.

[Mushtang]

Do you really believe that its not happening?

If your argument is that you don't think its happening AT ALL, then I'm going to have to pull out the cow-excrement card.

Okay, I never said I didn't think it's happening at all. Where did you get that?

 

My post wasn't even an argument, it was a question. I'll restate it so you'll understand what I was trying to ask.

 

If you've got such a rock solid case that degradation is occurring enough to have an effect on the entire game, and not only at the local level of some caches, why make up stories to use as evidence?

 

I'd think at this point you'd have a plethora of actual examples. So far we've seen a link to one virtual that could have been saved if the owner had done his job, and we've heard "stories" about people that have wasted gas driving to caches they thought were back in service (at least one of these stories was made up but there's been no evidence for the others either).

 

1) It's already been demonstrated that false logging occurs

2) It's been demonstrated that degradation "could" occur given false logging

3) It's been demonstrated that someone has suffered because of at the least, incorrect logging.

What has still NOT been demonstrated is that any of this is occurring on a level high enough to cause a degradation of the entire game. Only the degradation of a cache's logs, or a person's day, but not of geocaching as a whole (which is what the OP was suggesting).

[+infiniteMPG]

The story was made up, but it illustrates a point. The level you are requiring to be called "Evidence" is beyond what anyone can provide for you.

So in other words the only problems that fake logs have ever caused are theoretical problems. 33 pages of thread on if something that has never had an actual problem with a regular cache is degrading the game.... ::sigh::

[+tozainamboku]

I guess I just ASSuME that any time you have a few hundred thousand logs being posted under an honors system on the Internet each week a few may be false. Some of these are just people making a error either just not being careful selecting the "right" log or perhaps they are under some misconception about when you can claim a find. A very tiny number may even be because the logger intended to cause briansnat's friend to waste gas or foist some other degradation on an unsuspecting cacher. These log I attribute to Satan. I have been thinking about Satan today because I read where scientists have discovered a fossil of a giant toad that ate dinosaurs which they have named Beelzebufo. I have also noticed some modern frogs seem to have strong resemblance to Beelzebufo, including a devil's horn on their head.

 

[+infiniteMPG]

Do you really believe that its not happening? I never said its happening all over the place. infiniteMPG said that there is no evidence that its happening at all, not that its happening at a high level.

Please quote me correctly, I didn't say fake logs were not happening as I believe 100% that they are. What I said was they are not causing problems with regular caches as there has been no evidence given of a single problem caused on a regular cache by a fake log.

 

2) It's been demonstrated that degradation "could" occur given false logging

As in the same way we could demonstrate that degradation "could" occur from cachers magnetizing ammo cans causing GPS's to point away from them and PDA's suddenly powering off....

 

3) It's been demonstrated that someone has suffered because of at the least, incorrect logging.

Missed that one. Where was that demonstrated? The example given was no proof of anything as it was "assumed" that the log referenced was entered after the cache disappeared but had just as much possibility of having been entered prior to the cache disappearing.

 

In most cases, the victim of the false logging probably isn't even aware that its occured... This doesn't make the wasted gas any less real, they just can't attribute it to exactly what caused it.

Back to the same old flawed example that's based on the assumption that the log was entered prior to the cache disappearing. Holds no water.... none. Beating that same dead horse is getting old.

 

You want proof, but you're unwilling to specify what constitutes proof. My little story wasn't proof enough for you, even though the conditions in the story should have been... It just shows that your motivation is not for proof, but to bolster your argument... There's no winning in a situation like that.

Proof - the means by which something is shown to be true or correct with convincing evidence.

 

Assumption - to take for granted without proof

 

Not hard to figure out what consitutes proof. Factual examples of the situation where fake logs caused actual problems for cachers on regular caches. Not assuptions that the problem "may" occur.

Edited February 19, 2008 by infiniteMPG

[+infiniteMPG]

I have also noticed some modern frogs seem to have strong resemblance to Beelzebufo, including a devil's horn on their head.

So are you saying that the resemblence of Signal to Beelzebufo is causing the degradation of geocaching especially in the anti-beelzebufo sect of modern post-scientology religious geocachers? I mean in just a perceived kind of way.... not a factual one.

 

Neat article. Pacman frogs???? Whoa.... And just who picked the frog for Signal???? hehehehe

Edited February 19, 2008 by infiniteMPG

[+Too Tall John]

...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?

Forced.

Really? Who forces you to use PQs?

I can choose to spend more work and get all logs, or less work and live with 5. I've made a choice. One of the problems with the choice is the 5 log limit.

NOW you’re talkin’. That was my point. When you choose to use PQs you make a voluntary choice to live with the five-log limit – nobody forces you.

RK's point, when boiled down, is that bogus logs harm those cachers who have chosen to use PQs while in the field. The alternative, by the way, to using PQs in the field, is either a whole lot of printouts or a laptop with a cellular modem (unless you only cache at wireless hotspots). That is getting away from my point, however. KBI made my point for me, actually. PQ users are harmed by bogus logs because it restricts the number of past logs they have access to, and...

...if a bogus log causes ANY harm to ANY cacher ... it cannot be characterized as benign...

... so there really isn't any such thing as a benign bogus log.

 

BOGUS!

[+Too Tall John]

Please quote me correctly, I didn't say fake logs were not happening as I believe 100% that they are. What I said was they are not causing problems with regular caches as there has been no evidence given of a single problem caused on a regular cache by a fake log.

All this nit-picking over what is benign and who has proof aside, here's the reaction I got from someone I described the initial concept of the thread to:

• The fact that false logs exist cause cachers to look at other's logs with at least a hint of distrust. This is a form of degradation of the caching community.
   
  
• Those cache owners who have to deal with false logs have an increased chance of being frustrated with said logs. This degrades the level of fun for those cache owners who are effected.
  

The fact that so many people in this forum are upset about false logs demonstrates that there is a level of distrust.

 

We have at least one example of a cache owner who was frustrated enough with false logs, they archived their cache. Threads pop up on a regular basis with cache owners asking what to do with false logs.

 

If you can disprove the lack of trust caused by false logs and that cache owners won't get upset at false logs, then you are on your way to proving there is no degradation caused by fake logs.

 

If either can be proved to exist, then degradation exists.

Edited February 19, 2008 by Too Tall John

[+Okiebryan]

[+cache_test_dummies]

The fact that so many people in this forum are upset about false logs demonstrates that there is a level of distrust.

There is no question that some cachers distrust some logs, so you are correct in saying that there is "a level of" distrust. The question is whether or not that level of distrust is significant enough to be reasonably considered to represent an overall degradation to the game. My opinion is that it is not. Not by a long shot.

 

edit: fixed bad grammar

Edited February 19, 2008 by cache_test_dummies

[+Okiebryan]

I had a guy come through and claim FTF on two of my caches, and additionally he logged finds on 2 others. He said in his logs that his pen was frozen and wouldn't work. i gave him a week to go sign the log before I checked. He hadn't signed anything, so i deleted his logs.

 

However, I'm not about to go auditing logs just because I can. I have better things to do.

[+KBI]

Forced.

Really? Who forces you to use PQs?

I can choose to spend more work and get all logs, or less work and live with 5. I've made a choice. One of the problems with the choice is the 5 log limit.

NOW you’re talkin’. That was my point. When you choose to use PQs you make a voluntary choice to live with the five-log limit – nobody forces you.

RK's point, when boiled down, is that bogus logs harm those cachers who have chosen to use PQs while in the field.

Correction: Bogus logs may harm those cachers who have chosen to accept the risk of using PQs while in the field. As has been pointed out, there are many other risks present when one chooses to limit oneself to the most recent five logs. Bogus finds represent only one of those many hazards.

 

The alternative, by the way, to using PQs in the field, is either a whole lot of printouts ...

An alternative I happen to choose regularly. Just ask my brother. Works good, lasts a long time. Just before I print each printout I make a quick glance at the last five logs, and if there is more than one DNF or if the last five list is cluttered with notes and such I will consider looking deeper into the log history. Sometimes I print more logs, sometimes I don’t. It’s my choice, and I never claim victimhood or blame anyone else when I annoy myself as a direct result of my own choice.

 

... so there really isn't any such thing as a benign bogus log.

Yes there is. You’ve been skimming over the thread again without reading all the posts, haven’t you?

[+infiniteMPG]

PQ users are harmed by bogus logs because it restricts the number of past logs they have access to, and...

Some people thing it's not true to the game of geocaching to use the hint unless in desperate need... now we're sounding like we all rely on the previous logs to make a find. What happened to the old text on the webpage stating :

 

Warning. Spoilers may be included in the descriptions or links.

 

We could just mandate that cache owners have to tell us exactly where the hides are with explicite directions on how it's camo'ed and be done with the worry that logs might be fake.

 

And how in the h3ll would you ever get a FTF...? There are NO LOGS at all.....

[+KBI]

Please quote me correctly, I didn't say fake logs were not happening as I believe 100% that they are. What I said was they are not causing problems with regular caches as there has been no evidence given of a single problem caused on a regular cache by a fake log.

All this nit-picking over what is benign and who has proof aside, here's the reaction I got from someone I described the initial concept of the thread to:

• The fact that false logs exist cause cachers to look at other's logs with at least a hint of distrust. This is a form of degradation of the caching community.
  

What? How does that constitute "degradation?"

 

Yes, I DO look at other people’s logs with a very slight suspicion. I’m not suspicious of other’s logs because of any concern over malice or deceit, however. I’m minutely distrustful of everything I read. I take everything with a grain of salt, but I’m no more wary of cache page logs than I am of cache page descriptions, owner’s coordinates, Travel Bug inventories or the true experience level behind a high find count. My suspicion stems from my experience with general humanity and the tendency of people, including cachers, to be clumsy, illogical, vague, irresponsible, flippant, and to not take the hobby seriously. If you can imagine.

 

Intelligent people are always cautious about how much they depend on any form of printed information. How does that constitute "degradation?"

 

• Those cache owners who have to deal with false logs have an increased chance of being frustrated with said logs. This degrades the level of fun for those cache owners who are effected.
  

This whole debate has been entirely academic as far as I can see. The problem you describe is something I have never observed. The OP describes a rampant bogus log epidemic, but I haven’t seen even a hint of one. Do you see evidence of a bogus log epidemic?

 

The fact that so many people in this forum are upset about false logs demonstrates that there is a level of distrust.

The fact that so many people in this forum are upset about false logs only demonstrates that those people have nothing better to do than to try to make themselves feel superior by finding meaningless ways to judge others, and that those people will jump in on any trendy gripe-fest, no matter what it is.

 

If you can disprove the lack of trust caused by false logs and that cache owners won't get upset at false logs, then you are on your way to proving there is no degradation caused by fake logs.

 

If either can be proved to exist, then degradation exists.

I'll take that challenge.

 

Disprove lack of trust caused by false logs:

Lack of trust by itself does not indicate degradation. The lack of trust is always there, and cannot be eliminated. I am a cache owner, and every single time a [LOG] email comes in I am fully aware that the logger may not have signed the paper log, may not have been the one who spotted the cache, may have waited in the car while someone else accomplished the find, may have never even left the house. Just because I'm mildly wary doesn't mean I distrust that stranger enough to care, however. I prefer to keep in mind what's really important about this game. I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, and so far cachers have rarely let me down. I see no general "lack of trust caused by false logs," and I have perceived no general degradation.

 

Disprove cache owners [will] get upset at false logs:

I am a cache owner. I had to delete a false log once. Didn’t upset me a bit. I emailed the logger; I gave him a chance to make good; he never answered; I deleted his log; I never heard from him again. My cache, his choice. No upset, no degradation, no more bogus log.

 

There. I met your challenge. By your own logic, since both conditions have been proven not to exist, then degradation has not been proven to exist.

 

I will further challenge your underlying premise by pointing out that just because someone chooses to be either distrustful and/or upset about something doesn’t mean that the person’s choice was rational, valid, or necessary. If I wanted to I could choose to be distrustful and/or upset about the stars in the night sky. No matter how real my disgruntlement may be, however, my choice does not "degrade" the sky, the stars, or astronomy as a hobby; my choice merely makes me look silly.

[4wheelin_fool]

1) It's already been demonstrated that false logging occurs

2) It's been demonstrated that degradation "could" occur given false logging

3) It's been demonstrated that someone has suffered because of at the least, incorrect logging.

What has still NOT been demonstrated is that any of this is occurring on a level high enough to cause a degradation of the entire game. Only the degradation of a cache's logs, or a person's day, but not of geocaching as a whole (which is what the OP was suggesting).

 

Degrading is the incorrect word to use. And a bit strong.

 

Try these:

 

abuse, adulterate, abase, animalize, assault, befoul, blaspheme,besmirch, bastardize, blemish, contaminate, corrupt, debase, deflower, desecrate, dirty, discolor, disgrace, dishonor, damage, debauch, deceive, decay, decompose, deface, defile, deform, demean, demoralize, depreciate, despoil, disfigure, filthify, hurt, harm, impair, infect, injure, mangle, mutilate, maltreat, mar, mistreat, misuse, make foul, mess up, molest, pollute, pillage, pervert, putrefy, reduce, rot, ruin, spoil, subvert, taint, warp, shame, skank, sleaze up, smear, soil, stain, stigmatize, sully, tar, tarnish, trash, undermine, violate, vitiate...

Edited February 19, 2008 by 4wheelin_fool

[+KBI]

The fact that so many people in this forum are upset about false logs demonstrates that there is a level of distrust.

There is no question that some cachers distrust some logs, so you are correct in saying that there is "a level of" distrust. The question is whether or not that level of distrust is significant enough to be reasonably considered to represent an overall degradation to the game. My opinion is that it is not. Not by a long shot.

Exactly.

 

(Man, I wish I could learn to be that succinct. )

[+KBI]

1) It's already been demonstrated that false logging occurs

2) It's been demonstrated that degradation "could" occur given false logging

3) It's been demonstrated that someone has suffered because of at the least, incorrect logging.

What has still NOT been demonstrated is that any of this is occurring on a level high enough to cause a degradation of the entire game. Only the degradation of a cache's logs, or a person's day, but not of geocaching as a whole (which is what the OP was suggesting).

 

Degrading is the incorrect word to use. And a bit strong.

 

Try these:

 

abuse, adulterate, abase, abuse, animalize, befoul, besmirch, bastardize, blemish, blight, contaminate, corrupt, debase, deflower, desecrate, dirty, discolor, disgrace, dishonor, damage, debauch, decay, decompose, deface, defile, deform, degrade, demean, demoralize, depreciate, despoil, disfigure, filthify, hurt, harm, impair, infect, injure, maltreat, mar, mistreat, misuse, make foul, mess up, molest, pollute, putrefy, reduce, rot, ruin, spoil, subvert, taint, warp, pollute, shame, skank, sleaze up, smear, soil, stain, subvert, sully, taint, tar, tarnish, trash, undermine, violate, vitiate...

Um ... some of those words are a LOT stronger than "degrade."

 

Molest?

 

Putrefy?

[+infiniteMPG]

We have at least one example of a cache owner who was frustrated enough with false logs, they archived their cache.

A virtual....

 

If you can disprove the lack of trust caused by false logs and that cache owners won't get upset at false logs, then you are on your way to proving there is no degradation caused by fake logs. If either can be proved to exist, then degradation exists.

By the same token degradation exists from cachers not hiding caches back correctly, not closing containers tightly, not practicing stealth when seeking an urban cache, not entering anything more then TFTH in the log, delayed log entry, theft of geocoins, inability to properly log trackable items, by bad weather affecting hiding places and preventing people from seeking, by people littering around a previously beautiful cache location, by flooding, by insects, by critters, by poison ivy, by construction and urban spread, by snakes, by lawn maintenance crews, by apathetic cache owners, by cloud and tree cover, by humidity, by traffic, by pens running out of ink, by website traffic issues, by a million things that we all have "experienced" first hand and know what they do to the game.

 

And anyone could make a federal case out of any one of those items. But I don't think any of these "inconvieniences" are enough to warrant any change in our caching activities any more or less then fake logs, which seems to be less of a problem then any of the items above. Yeah, they all cause degradation but the amount is so insignificant it shouldn't matter...

[+infiniteMPG]

Degrading is the incorrect word to use. And a bit strong. Try these: abuse, adulterate, abase, abuse, animalize, assault, befoul, blaspheme,besmirch, bastardize, blemish, contaminate, corrupt, debase, deflower, desecrate, dirty, discolor, disgrace, dishonor, damage, debauch, deceive, decay, decompose, deface, defile, deform, degrade, demean, demoralize, depreciate, despoil, disfigure, filthify, hurt, harm, impair, infect, injure, mangle, mutilate, maltreat, mar, mistreat, misuse, make foul, mess up, molest, pollute, pillage, pervert, putrefy, reduce, rot, ruin, spoil, subvert, taint, warp, shame, skank, sleaze up, smear, soil, stain, stigmatize, sully, tar, tarnish, trash, undermine, violate, vitiate...

::printing out that post:: Cool, I can use these in some upcoming cache names.... THANKS! hehehehe