Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?

[+KBI]

I have seen cachers go weeks, sometimes months, before logging a find. I have seen some of these cachers fail to select the correct date from the pull-down menu (or even make a guess if they don’t remember); they instead post the find as if it occurred on whatever day they happened to post their belated log. This is a relatively common mistake.

 

When it comes to choosing a word to describe the effect these mis-dated logs have on me, "annoyed" just seems way too strong. "Bemused" might come close, but "indifferent" is much closer. "Degraded" isn’t even in the running.

 

Same with most other forms of bogus logs.

 

I have tried to see the degradation. Tried my best. I have looked deep within myself, into the farthest corners of my very caching soul, but ... sorry, no outrage.

 

Anyone who depends heavily on cache logs for critical information does so at his own risk of peril.

[Mushtang]

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...

Degrading is the ONLY word to use. It's the topic of the thread. Go read the first post. Read the title to the thread.

 

If you want to discuss whether or not fake logs are causing the make foul of geocaching, that should be a different thread.

[+ReadyOrNot]

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...

Degrading is the ONLY word to use. It's the topic of the thread. Go read the first post. Read the title to the thread.

 

If you want to discuss whether or not fake logs are causing the make foul of geocaching, that should be a different thread.

 

Are false logs molesting geocaching?

[+infiniteMPG]

Degrading is the ONLY word to use. It's the topic of the thread. Go read the first post. Read the title to the thread.

After 34 pages of posts I think everyone knows the title... by heart.

 

Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?

 

In reference to fake logs. In summary :

 

1 - Fake logs cause less problems for geocachers then any of a number of other much more tangible factors that we 100% know exist as we have experienced them first hand. Examples of actual problems from fake logs on regular caches either don't exist or are so rare no one can even point one out.

 

2 - Not a lot can be done about fake logs other then inspecting log books regularly and doing comparisons against internet logs and addressing them on an as-found basis. But since the problems from fake logs appear to be so rare, I doubt any cache owner would care to dedicate any time purely in this pursuit.

 

3 - If a log was found to be bogus everyone here agrees they would address it somehow. Either apporach the logger or just delete it. But everyone agrees on this point.

 

So are we "allowing" the degradation of geocaching from fake logs? It's been pretty much shown here that many other more tangible things are bigger problems for geocaching then fake logs, so any degradation from fake logs is insignificant. There may even be a lot of them, but they have not been shown to cause problems for geocachers. So the bottom line answer is "no".

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

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...

 

Yes, I agree, some of these things also contribute to the degradation of geocaching. The reason I focused on false logs in this thread was because I have seen recent forum discussions where some were either justifying false logs, or suggesting we ignore them. I haven't seen any forums discussions with people defending things such as not hiding caches back correctly, not closing containers tightly, not practicing stealth when seeking an urban cache.

[4wheelin_fool]

Are false logs molesting geocaching?

 

Yes !

I think "defile" would be more precise.

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?

 

So the bottom line answer is "no".

 

Good. I'm relieved.

[Mushtang]

Yes, I agree, some of these things also contribute to the degradation of geocaching. The reason I focused on false logs in this thread was because I have seen recent forum discussions where some were either justifying false logs, or suggesting we ignore them. I haven't seen any forums discussions with people defending things such as not hiding caches back correctly, not closing containers tightly, not practicing stealth when seeking an urban cache.

I haven't seen any discussions with people defending fake logs, or justifying fake logs.

[+tozainamboku]

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.

I assume that any place on the internet where users are allowed to post their own content a certain amount of the content is bogus. That is certainly true in online forums. In geocaching logs we are fortunate that the quantity of bogus logs is in fact very small. Therefore when we go looking for a cache we can generally rely on the logs. But we have to be aware that there may be a few bogus logs. Most false log are cause either by people making an error (selecting the wrong log type from the pull down menu), or by people who feel justified in using a 'found it' log within their interpretation of geocaching guidelines, or because a cache owner invited them to use a 'found it' log. Then number of people who post false logs because they have hallucinations of finding cache after licking the stomach of the devil frog is minuscule. False logs may cause distrust but that is part of any game that uses an honor system. It is up the to the players of the game to make judgments regarding how much trust should be put in each log. Perhaps if there were a significant number of false logs the game would be degraded, but this isn't the case.

 

Cache owners have gotten frustrated dealing with false logs. But the guidelines for cache ownership clearly place the responsibility for dealing with false logs on the cache owner. It may be frustrating to have to write each finder who looks like they may have accidentally posted a found it or who used the found it log in a manner the cache owner deems inappropriate to ask them to change the log and to have to delete the logs of those who won't fix them. It may be frustrating for owners who choose to take the extra step to check the names against the physical log in the cache. Most owners accept this as part of their responsibility and don't feel degraded by it. Some owners simply choose to ignore false logs on their caches and I will admit that forces other finders to have to judge the trustworthiness of a few more logs. In the case of a virtual owner dealing with armchair loggers, it is fairly easy to make the changes to prevent armchair logging. The fact that you have found virtual owners who felt that the effort need to fix their cache was too much so they archived their cache instead, only indicates that we have owners who choose not to meet the guidelines for cache ownership. Perhaps it is owners who don't follow the guidelines who degrade geocaching.

[+infiniteMPG]

Yes ! I think "defile" would be more precise.

As long as it's not "deflower"

[+ReadyOrNot]

Yes ! I think "defile" would be more precise.

As long as it's not "deflower"

 

If you want to know about what is 'deflowering' geocaching, just back into a parking spot at a highway rest stop.

[+infiniteMPG]

Perhaps it is owners who don't follow the guidelines who degrade geocaching.

If an owner keeps their cache active and secure, if they preform maintenance expidiciously when needed, keep the log book intact, and check on it occasionally or when needed, they're doing their job (and also doing a lot more then some other owners). And they're enhancing the game even if they don't ferret thru their log book for signature flaws.

[+tozainamboku]

I haven't seen any forums discussions with people defending things such as not hiding caches back correctly, not closing containers tightly, not practicing stealth when seeking an urban cache.

There have been threads where people have said that if a cache owner places a cache in high muggle area its his fault that he has to maintain it if someone sees a finder looking for or replacing a cache.

 

As far as justifying false finds, the problem is that you lump all "false" finds together. Some are mistakes, some are people playing a alternative game that they believe is within the guidelines, some are logged because the cache owner allows it (again because the cacher owner interprets the guidelines as allowing him to award a smiley for something less than a find, and a very few by people who simply are posting false finds presumably because they think that having a bigger number is the object. Nobody is justifying false finds in the final category. The issues have been: what is the best way to deal with accidental false logs, players using the website for alternate games, and cache owners who wish to award extra smileys; and whether these actions are really degrading the geocaching for those who want to use a purist interpretation of a find.

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

Yes, I agree, some of these things also contribute to the degradation of geocaching. The reason I focused on false logs in this thread was because I have seen recent forum discussions where some were either justifying false logs, or suggesting we ignore them. I haven't seen any forums discussions with people defending things such as not hiding caches back correctly, not closing containers tightly, not practicing stealth when seeking an urban cache.

I haven't seen any discussions with people defending fake logs, or justifying fake logs.

Maybe that's part of the reason you don't share my concern.

[+infiniteMPG]

If you want to know about what is 'deflowering' geocaching, just back into a parking spot at a highway rest stop.

Last time I checked the definition for "deflowering" had little to do with flowers.... So not sure I want to know about "backing into a parking spot".... hehehehe

[+KBI]

Yes, I agree, some of these things also contribute to the degradation of geocaching. The reason I focused on false logs in this thread was because I have seen recent forum discussions where some were either justifying false logs, or suggesting we ignore them. I haven't seen any forums discussions with people defending things such as not hiding caches back correctly, not closing containers tightly, not practicing stealth when seeking an urban cache.

I haven't seen any discussions with people defending fake logs, or justifying fake logs.

Maybe that's part of the reason you don't share my concern.

Can you post both a linkable quote of a cacher in the forums plainly and unmistakably justifying false logs AND a quote of a cacher specifically suggesting we ignore them?

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

I haven't seen any forums discussions with people defending things such as not hiding caches back correctly, not closing containers tightly, not practicing stealth when seeking an urban cache.

There have been threads where people have said that if a cache owner places a cache in high muggle area its his fault that he has to maintain it if someone sees a finder looking for or replacing a cache.

Didn't see that thread, but I agree it's the owners responsibility to do more maintenance on a 'high muggle area' cache. However as a finder I would still practice stealth. Regardless, not the discussion I want to start, I just repeated the first few examples provided in another post with the intention of excluding things such as snakes, snow, etc.

 

To address your concern, I will restate as follows:

 

I haven't seen any forums discussions, nor am even remotely aware of any, with people defending things such as not hiding caches back correctly, or not closing containers tightly.

[+infiniteMPG]

Maybe that's part of the reason you don't share my concern.

Concerns are fine. Proposed solutions are more readily accepted. What do you propose be done about fake logs? And remember you are addressing an audience that has yet to be shown a single verifiable problem on a regular cache caused by a fake log.

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

Yes, I agree, some of these things also contribute to the degradation of geocaching. The reason I focused on false logs in this thread was because I have seen recent forum discussions where some were either justifying false logs, or suggesting we ignore them. I haven't seen any forums discussions with people defending things such as not hiding caches back correctly, not closing containers tightly, not practicing stealth when seeking an urban cache.

I haven't seen any discussions with people defending fake logs, or justifying fake logs.

Maybe that's part of the reason you don't share my concern.

Can you post both a linkable quote of a cacher in the forums plainly and unmistakably justifying false logs AND a quote of a cacher specifically suggesting we ignore them?

I will have to find them, and then learn how to post links.

 

However, I will say that after well over 1600 replies to this thread, of which you are responsible for more than 10% of, it surprises me that it is only now that you are questioning one of the basic premises of my original post.

 

Edit: added the word 'of'

Edited February 19, 2008 by Cedar Grove Seekers

[+Renegade Knight]

...In reference to fake logs. In summary :

 

1 - Fake logs cause less problems for geocachers then any of a number of other much more tangible factors that we 100% know exist as we have experienced them first hand. Examples of actual problems from fake logs on regular caches either don't exist or are so rare no one can even point one out.

 

2 - Not a lot can be done about fake logs other then inspecting log books regularly and doing comparisons against internet logs and addressing them on an as-found basis. But since the problems from fake logs appear to be so rare, I doubt any cache owner would care to dedicate any time purely in this pursuit.

 

3 - If a log was found to be bogus everyone here agrees they would address it somehow. Either apporach the logger or just delete it. But everyone agrees on this point.

...

 

1) I'd be happy to point some out but alas I deleted them. That leaves you in the position of taking me up on my offer to introduce you to some people impacted. Then you can learn first hand instead of having to trust someone else. It's more accurate to say that the impact varies.

2) That's one way to identify fake logs. There are others. I'd point at some logs and describe how we all decided they were fake but they are deleted.

3) True enough. That's the amazing thing about this thread. 34 Pages of debating the opposite side of the same coin.

 

The bottom line answer isn't "no" or not even that other things are worse since that's not the topic. The best answer you can come up with is "YMMV".

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

Maybe that's part of the reason you don't share my concern.

Concerns are fine. Proposed solutions are more readily accepted. What do you propose be done about fake logs? And remember you are addressing an audience that has yet to be shown a single verifiable problem on a regular cache caused by a fake log.

My proposed solution is in post #1.

 

Many examples of problems resulting from fake logs have been shown.

 

Most have agreed that fake logs are not good and with the proposed solution, yet some don't agree with my concern of degradation.

 

I certainly don't intend on taking you, nor the audience, through 1600+ posts again.

 

I am merely offering one possible reason as to why Mushtang and I don't have similar concerns regarding 'degradation'.

[+infiniteMPG]

However, I will say that after well over 1600 replies to this thread, of which you are responsible for more than 10% of, it surprises me that it is only now that you are questioning one the basic premises of my original post.

Not going on a witch hunt spending countless hours validating every log posted on line precisely matches the date and signature of one in the log book, in no way condones, justifies or defends fake logs. It just means those owners don't see them as a problem so they do not see any reward in hunting them down. They have better things to do with their time... like geocaching.

[+infiniteMPG]

My proposed solution is in post #1.

Post #1 - I am proposing that cache owners who agree with the premise of physically visiting the cache location, do their part to enforce it - don’t allow false logs on your caches, and don’t be embarrassed to enforce this basic notion of geocaching

You have 11 hides. I, like many others, have many more then that. I have 218 active hides. Your proposed solution is to visit your caches and validate logs. I have single caches that take 11 miles of hiking to get to. Caches that take a whole day paddling to get to. How would you propose I police my caches? Or maybe I should remove 207 of my caches so I can police the logs properly?

 

Many examples of problems resulting from fake logs have been shown.

A couple of possible scenarios have been suggested on how fake logs may cause problems. The only single example given (and I think this is the 11th time I posted this) could never prove that the previous person entered the log after the cache went missing and not before because there is nothing to support the claim (the actual log is gone with the cache). Congecture. Assumption. Possibilities. No real "examples" at all.

 

Most have agreed that fake logs are not good and with the proposed solution, yet some don't agree with my concern of degradation.

I think everyone agrees fake logs are not good. But I also think almost everyone sees there is not much of a problem from them so why put effort into policing them?

 

I am merely offering one possible reason as to why Mushtang and I don't have similar concerns regarding 'degradation'.

- How often do you visit your caches to compare logs?

- How much time do you spend on doing this with your 11 caches?

- What is the greatest amount of time to acces your most remote cache?

- If you get a log entry stating TFTH do you immediately flag that as possibly being fake? What sets your flags off to check?

 

Inquiring minds want to know...

Edited February 19, 2008 by infiniteMPG

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

However, I will say that after well over 1600 replies to this thread, of which you are responsible for more than 10% of, it surprises me that it is only now that you are questioning one the basic premises of my original post.

Not going on a witch hunt spending countless hours validating every log posted on line precisely matches the date and signature of one in the log book, in no way condones, justifies or defends fake logs. It just means those owners don't see them as a problem so they do not see any reward in hunting them down. They have better things to do with their time... like geocaching.

???? I don't see how your response is at all related to my response to KBI?

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

My proposed solution is in post #1.

Post #1 - I am proposing that cache owners who agree with the premise of physically visiting the cache location, do their part to enforce it - don’t allow false logs on your caches, and don’t be embarrassed to enforce this basic notion of geocaching

You have 11 hides. I, like many others, have many more then that. I have 218 active hides. Your proposed solution is to visit your caches and validate logs. I have single caches that take 11 miles of hiking to get to. Caches that take a whole day paddling to get to. How would you propose I police my caches? Or maybe I should remove 207 of my caches so I can police the logs properly?

 

Many examples of problems resulting from fake logs have been shown.

A couple of possible scenarios have been suggested on how fake logs may cause problems. The only single example given (and I think this is the 11th time I posted this) could never prove that the previous person entered the log after the cache went missing and not before because there is nothing to support the claim (the actual log is gone with the cache). Congecture. Assumption. Possibilities. No real "examples" at all.

 

Most have agreed that fake logs are not good and with the proposed solution, yet some don't agree with my concern of degradation.

I think everyone agrees fake logs are not good. But I also think almost everyone sees there is not much of a problem from them so why put effort into policing them?

 

I am merely offering one possible reason as to why Mushtang and I don't have similar concerns regarding 'degradation'.

- How often do you visit your caches to compare logs?

- How much time do you spend on doing this with your 11 caches?

- What is the greatest amount of time to acces your most remote cache?

- If you get a log entry stating TFTH do you immediately flag that as possibly being fake? What sets your flags off to check?

 

Inquiring minds want to know...

Wow, something has set you off. Not really sure what, but I'm not interested in rehashing 1600+ posts. Once again I was merely offering one possible reason as to why Mushtang and I don't have similar concerns regarding 'degradation'.

[+Renegade Knight]

... it surprises me that it is only now that you are questioning one of the basic premises of my original post....

 

Heck, your OP was fine. False logs can and do "degrade" "debase" "make less than optimal" geocaching. So do a bunch of other things. I'd rather write on a dry log than a wet one, and so on. Each in turn takes away from geocaching as it could be.

 

Mostly the people defending fake logs as not degrading are merely debating the nuance of the degradation. Fake logs, Wet Logs, Broken Containers don't stop them from caching and having fun so things must be close enough to perfect. That's their argument in a nutshell. Their sticking point is in actually acknowledging that things could be better.

 

No the sky is not falling, caching won't stop as we know it, people will still have fun at 90% of what it could be given all things. The deeper issue is that cumulative effect of all things. It’s not just ½ % due to fake logs. It’s also the 2% due to Micro’s, 1% due to wet logs, 5% due to finders not putting containers back where they were hidden and so on. It adds up. So what do you do? Exactly what you tried to do in this forum. Encourage good folks to discourage bad practice. That helps keep things in check so the fun meter stays on the high side relative to where it could be if nobody cared. All with truly minimal effort.

[+infiniteMPG]

Wow, something has set you off. Not really sure what.

The implication that someone has offerred examples of how fake logs have caused problems with regular caches. Not saying there is not the potenital, but there's potential for a lot of things and a lot of them will never happen (or if they do they will be so subliminal they will go un-noticed). I'm not going to waste a good worry on fake logs but if they do rear their ugly head around my caches I will deal with them accordingly

[+infiniteMPG]

No the sky is not falling, caching won't stop as we know it, people will still have fun at 90% of what it could be given all things. The deeper issue is that cumulative effect of all things. It’s not just ½ % due to fake logs. It’s also the 2% due to Micro’s, 1% due to wet logs, 5% due to finders not putting containers back where they were hidden and so on. It adds up. So what do you do? Exactly what you tried to do in this forum. Encourage good folks to discourage bad practice. That helps keep things in check so the fun meter stays on the high side relative to where it could be if nobody cared. All with truly minimal effort.

Good points. With the issue of keeping geocaching the best it can be, the discussion time would be better spent discussing what can reasonably be done to deal with the issues that take away from geocaching rather then semantics of what constitutes "degrading" and fluff like that. Always believed that if you want to bring a problem to the table you better be setting your concept of a solution right beside it.

[Mushtang]

Their sticking point is in actually acknowledging that things could be better.

Nope. Several of the folks (including myself) that suggest fake logs are not causing the degradation of geocaching have plainly said, several times, fake logs are bad and should be deleted when determined to be fake.

 

Fake log bad.

 

Have no fake log better than have fake log.

 

Not all fake log cause problem.

 

Easy to ignore fake log and still have fun.

 

Fake log no bring degradation to game.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Wow, something has set you off. Not really sure what.

The implication that someone has offerred examples of how fake logs have caused problems with regular caches. Not saying there is not the potenital, but there's potential for a lot of things and a lot of them will never happen (or if they do they will be so subliminal they will go un-noticed). I'm not going to waste a good worry on fake logs but if they do rear their ugly head around my caches I will deal with them accordingly

 

I was driving into work today and on the radio they were talking about how a bunch of meth heads were climbing telephone polls and stealing copper wire. They found out because people were complaining that their telephone and internet service was not working. The city was concerned because, eventually, someone would need emergency medical attention, pick up the phone and die as a result of not being able to make phone calls...

 

Had it happened yet? No

Could it happen? Yes

Will it happen? Eventually, of course.

Is this an immediate concern for it happening, No, probably not.

Should something be done to stop the meth heads? YES! of course!

 

Perhaps they should grease all the telephone polls in town?

Edited February 19, 2008 by ReadyOrNot

[+infiniteMPG]

Had it happened yet? No

Could it happen? Yes

Has happened : http://www.kmbc.com/news/10621822/detail.html

 

Should something be done to stop the meth heads? YES! of course!

By the same account, could someone drive beside you and throw a brick thru your windshield causing you to fly across the road into head on traffic? Yes.

Has it happened yet? No.

Could it happen? Yes.

Should you do something to prevent someone from throwing a brick into your windshield? Have you gone out and bought brick-proof glass for your windshield and only drive where no one's in front of or beside you? Not many of us live in a paranoid world trying to prepare for things that are highly unlikely to happen.

 

Perhaps they should grease all the telephone polls in town?

Anything being done would be based on the chances of something happening, not on the possibility of it ever happening. And from what the world has shown, people don't do much of anything until something has definitely happened enough times for it to become an actual problem.

 

Dang people, muck up the works... hehehehe

[+tozainamboku]

 

Had it happened yet? No

Could it happen? Yes

Will it happen? Eventually, of course.

Is this an immediate concern for it happening, No, probably not.

Should something be done to stop the meth heads? YES! of course!

 

Perhaps they should grease all the telephone polls in town?

There seems to be a belief that

1. False logs are more common than in the past
   
2. Unless something is done, false logging will get worse
   

I don't think either of these claims have been proven.

Certainly with the growth in popularity of geocaching more people are logging more caches so in terms of absolute numbers there are probably more false logs. In addition that gives more opportunity for people to find examples of false logs to complain about in the forums. The actual percentage of false logs is if anything more likely going down.

 

Even if you made a case that a group of geocachers have taken over some virtual caches to use in their alternative game of armchair logging, and here I agree you can find certain virtual caches where most of the logs are now armchair logs, this one area is limited to certain virtual caches and the bogus logs have no effect on a geocacher who wants to actually visit the virtual in order to log it other than to expose the fact that a virtual cache owner is no longer maintaining their cache resulting in its archive. A virtual owner who wants to stop armchair logs can easily do so (and they don't have to archive their cache to do it).

 

The problem is not likely to get worse. Most people realize that the fun of geocaching is going out and finding caches. Most of the false logs are either made accidentally or by people who believe that they have done something to deserve a find. Generally that means they at least went to the cache site. If people are logging bogus logs only because they think they will be rewarded for getting their find count up, they will soon realize otherwise. The people who do this often are known to the local geocaching community. They don't get certificates or congratualotry threads because there would enough people know what is going on to protest. Nobody who logs bogus finds often will stay in this game very long. If a case were egregious enough, Geocaching.com could ban that account.

 

Do false logs effect other cachers? Yes or at least they potentially can.

Does this effect result in degrading the experience of the cachers involved? Only if they let it. It's easy enough to take the attitude that there will always be some level of false logs and learn to live with it, particularly when it would be hard to prove that it was a false log.

Does this degrade geocaching? I'm proud to say that I believe that geocachers on the whole are more honest than golfers and way more honest than anglers.

Should we do something about it? Beyond the current system of cache owners deleting logs they believe to be bogus and pointing out bogus logs to other geocachers what more needs to be done? Geocaching doesn't need a complicated verification system because it is not meant to be competitive; the honor system is sufficient to kept the number of false logs low.

Edited February 19, 2008 by tozainamboku

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

Always believed that if you want to bring a problem to the table you better be setting your concept of a solution right beside it.

 

Yup, see post #1.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Fake log bad.

 

Have no fake log better than have fake log.

 

Not all fake log cause problem.

 

Easy to ignore fake log and still have fun.

 

Fake log no bring degradation to game.

 

Logic: "Fake log bad" but "Fake log no degrade". Have gap. Add bad thing to system, system not get worse? Lucky system.

 

Reverse, "Get rid of fake log, caching not get better?" That just bad juju.

 

"Not all fake log cause problem" wrong. Fake log cause someone problem, just not all someones all times.

Easy to ignore fake log and still have fun also wrong. Easy to ignore log you know fake. No IgnoreLog you think real, if not know fake.

 

Grock Like Sventa, Write on Wall. Good log. Edna write Grock hate Sventa. Sventa not ignore. Sventa mad. Bad Log. I no Ignore. Bad Log Bad. Edna get no Banana.

Edited February 19, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+Renegade Knight]

...By the same account, could someone drive beside you and throw a brick thru your windshield causing you to fly across the road into head on traffic? Yes.

Has it happened yet? No.

Could it happen? Yes....

 

Think Overpass & Interstate. That happens.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Should you do something to prevent someone from throwing a brick into your windshield? Have you gone out and bought brick-proof glass for your windshield and only drive where no one's in front of or beside you? Not many of us live in a paranoid world trying to prepare for things that are highly unlikely to happen.

 

I'm not talking about Grandma Jane doing something to stop the meth heads.. Of course you shouldn't expect Grandma Jane to do anything, but you do expect the phone company to do something to prevent their customers from having problems because of the meth heads. Even if its just cleaning up the mess from when they fall and break their necks.

 

I suppose it Groundspeak would be in charge of the entire electrical grid. Cache owners would be in charge of single telephone polls. Fake-loggers are obviously the meth heads. Fake-logging would be like stealing copper wire off the telephone polls. Where am I going with this?

 

1) People wouldn't necessarily know that their phone wasn't working because a meth head stole their copper wire

2) People would be affected and may not even know why

3) The telephone company would be responsible for fixing the problem

4) The customer wouldn't be expected to fix the problem

5) Does the meth head stealing copper degrade the entire electrical system? No

 

Q) Should nothing be done about the meth head because the entire electrical system is not affected?

Edited February 20, 2008 by ReadyOrNot

[+ReadyOrNot]

Had it happened yet? No

Could it happen? Yes

Has happened : http://www.kmbc.com/news/10621822/detail.html

 

It's almost like you didn't read what I wrote? I said I was listening to the radio this morning and heard about it. And you give me a link as proof that it has happened? I'm well aware, I listened to the radio report...

 

CLEARLY I was talking about someone being killed due to the meth head as being unconfirmed, but likely in the future, not the theft itself... Can you re-read my thread with that thought in mind

[Mushtang]

Should you do something to prevent someone from throwing a brick into your windshield? Have you gone out and bought brick-proof glass for your windshield and only drive where no one's in front of or beside you? Not many of us live in a paranoid world trying to prepare for things that are highly unlikely to happen.

 

I'm not talking about Grandma Jane doing something to stop the meth heads.. Of course you shouldn't expect Grandma Jane to do anything, but you do expect the phone company to do something to prevent their customers from having problems because of the meth heads. Even if its just cleaning up the mess from when they fall and break their necks.

 

I suppose it Groundspeak would be in charge of the entire electrical grid. Cache owners would be in charge of single telephone polls. Fake-loggers are obviously the meth heads. Fake-logging would be like stealing copper wire off the telephone polls. Where am I going with this?

 

1) People wouldn't necessarily know that their phone wasn't working because a meth head stole their copper wire

2) People would be affected and may not even know why

3) The telephone company would be responsible for fixing the problem

4) The customer wouldn't be expected to fix the problem

5) Does the meth head stealing copper degrade the entire electrical system? No

 

Q) Should nothing be done about the meth head because the entire electrical system is not affected?

 

In your analogy 3 and 4 are wrong. Groundspeak isn't responsible for policing logs, the cache owners are. So to answer your Q - Heck yes, delete the fake logs as soon as you know it's fake. Stop the meth head from stealing copper wire.

 

But you were correct about number 5. Fake logs aren't degrading the entire game.

[+ReadyOrNot]

In your analogy 3 and 4 are wrong. Groundspeak isn't responsible for policing logs, the cache owners are. So to answer your Q - Heck yes, delete the fake logs as soon as you know it's fake. Stop the meth head from stealing copper wire.

 

But you were correct about number 5. Fake logs aren't degrading the entire game.

 

As long as we can agree that meth heads should be stopped, then we are in agreement.. I'm just trying to find some common ground with the other feller, but he's not making it easy.

Edited February 20, 2008 by ReadyOrNot

[Mushtang]

Logic: "Fake log bad" but "Fake log no degrade". Have gap.

The gap is the part you didn't quote, which is "no bring degradation to game".

 

The fake log is bad if it fakes someone out and causes them to spend time looking for a missing cache, but that's only bad on a local level. It's just not happening enough to have a degradation on the entire game.

[Mushtang]

There seems to be a belief that

1. False logs are more common than in the past
   
2. Unless something is done, false logging will get worse
   

I don't think either of these claims have been proven.

I wish I'd said that.

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

There seems to be a belief that

1. False logs are more common than in the past
   
2. Unless something is done, false logging will get worse
   

I don't think either of these claims have been proven.

I wish I'd said that.

Really? I thought it was a bit of an odd statement.

 

I don't think these claims have been disproven either? I'm not even sure it's possible to prove or disprove #2 at this time.

[+Mule Ears]

Look, guys, it's not necessary to do a 100% audit of all logbooks to keep fraudulent logging to a minimum. We had an outbreak of false logs in our area, and it wasn't long before we recognized that something was fishy. Finders, not owners, tracked down the phony logs. They took the evidence to the owners, who deleted them. Most of them, anyway.

 

Here's a practical exercise: Take a look at this cacher's finds for 15 September 2007 (about page 9 of the listing). Read the cache descriptions and the logs. Does it surprise you that the next finder on this cache did not find the previous cacher's signature in the logbook? Would it surprise you if other online logs from that date turned up not to have a corresponding entry in the logbook?

Edited February 20, 2008 by Mule Ears

[+Too Tall John]

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.

...Except that your "proof" relies heavily on nothing more than what has happened with you alone, especially in the case of cache owners getting upset about false logs. Just because you didn't get upset by false logs doesn't mean that others won't, especially when an example of a real cache owner archived a real cache because they were upset about false logs.

 

To disprove that cache owners will get upset at false logs you need to disprove that entire incident, it would seem to me.

[+TrailGators]

Look, guys, it's not necessary to do a 100% audit of all logbooks to keep fraudulent logging to a minimum. We had an outbreak of false logs in our area, and it wasn't long before we recognized that something was fishy. Finders, not owners, tracked down the phony logs. They took the evidence to the owners, who deleted them. Most of them, anyway.

 

Here's a practical exercise: Take a look at this cacher's finds for 15 September 2007 (about page 9 of the listing). Read the cache descriptions and the logs. Does it surprise you that the next finder on this cache did not find the previous cacher's signature in the logbook? Would it surprise you if other online logs from that date turned up not to have a corresponding entry in the logbook?

Good point. The community would alert each other if something like that happened.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Wow...when does this merry-go-round end?? Sheesh guys, I'm hoping SOMEONE is figuring something out...but seems as though you are all still spinning your wheels?

 

Good luck, it's been great reads so far!!

[+infiniteMPG]

Always believed that if you want to bring a problem to the table you better be setting your concept of a solution right beside it.

Yup, see post #1.

Post #1 stated this as the only solution :

 

I am proposing that cache owners who agree with the premise of physically visiting the cache location, do their part to enforce it - don’t allow false logs on your caches, and don’t be embarrassed to enforce this basic notion of geocaching.

 

That's like saying the solution to terrorism is to not allow terrorists to do anything bad. A little abiguous and totally vague. A solution is what people would actually do to fix the problem, not just saying "don't allow false logs". What is your proposal of HOW people would not allow false logs (and pick someone like me with over 200 hides that it would take me a month of vacation time to physically visit each one once)?

[+infiniteMPG]

Think Overpass & Interstate. That happens.

The point is what are you personally doing different in your life to prevent it from happening to you? Not driving under overpasses anymore? Putting armor on your windshield? Spending your evenings driving over overpasses being sure no rocks or debris are around that could be thrown?

 

Or are you just aware this has happened, it has been a problem for a few people but the chances of it happening to you directly are so slim you don't mind tuning in a radio station while passing under an overpass rather then slowing to a crawl and looking all around the overpass for someone that might do it to you? There is a difference between living your life and being cautious about things that might happen, or living in total paranoia thinking the sky is falling and everyone is out to get you.

 

Yes. People have throw things from overpasses. Yes. It does make driving a little less "fun". Does it make anyone change the way they drive or live? Probably only a very small paranoid people and probably not much different because the chances are so slim.

 

False logs are not a "good" thing, but unlike the overpass example, no one has brought any actual problem example to the thread so the chances of it causing a problem for anyone would be impossible to even calculate.

[+infiniteMPG]

This all still comes back to semantics.... False logs are not degrading the game any more or less then any of dozens of other actually verifiable problems so "allowing" them doesn't hurt the game except for the purist's pride who just don't like cheaters and those who play for high numbers. No one likes them or condones them or defends them. We will all deal with them or delete them if we find them, but you will find very few who will go out of their way to deal with them. If anyone feels that strongly against it and wants to spend (or waste) their time doing that... go for it. Just don't expect or demand anyone else to. But entertain the rest of us by popping in here and posting :

 

1 - How you have policed your caches for false logs.

2 - How much time it took (and how many caches you are checking)

3 - What are your results. How many false logs you found.

 

Then when we get shown results by example as you demonstrate that the time you are spending has shown results, we might start to listen. If you spend ten hours a week policing logs and over six months don't find a single false log, don't expect us to listen. I don't expect anyone else to be swayed by my opinion on this any more then anyone else should expect me to be swayed by theirs. We all have our beliefs and it appears we've hit an impasse. So unless someone wants to post some results I think this dog's tail has been thoroughly chased and the one dead horse lame example has been thoroughly beaten.

[+infiniteMPG]

As long as we can agree that meth heads should be stopped, then we are in agreement.. I'm just trying to find some common ground with the other feller, but he's not making it easy.

Lots of common ground and no problem agreeing the meth heads should be stopped, it's just the question if you going to go out there and personally do it?