Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?

[+infiniteMPG]

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

Good firm example... I can see how these would alert someone and hopefully it is handled before it causes an issue. Looks very armchairish and if it were my caches I'd check into it. I don't anyone in here said they would do "nothing" if it showed up on their caches, but I don't think people will go out specifically looking for it. A good responsible cacher posted the alert and kudos to them!

 

I got two alerts yesterday from similar responsible cachers who notified me of a camo job failing and a hiding spot falling vicitim to age. I will handle it. Would I of run out and checked just for chuckles? Probably not. But now it will be dealt with. I would bet more maintenance issues come to an owner's attention from other cachers then from the owner themself checking on their caches. Same from the sound of this cache example. And as with any other maintenance issue, when it comes to light, it will be handled (by a responsible owner).

 

My personal comment on the cache is that the supposed false log if from September 15, 2007. The alert is from January 1, 2008. It's now been over 6 weeks since the alert and the supposed false log is still on the cache page. If we're professing an owner should handle these things is this also an example of an owner not dealing with a supposed false log?

[+Rockin Roddy]

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

Good firm example... I can see how these would alert someone and hopefully it is handled before it causes an issue. Looks very armchairish and if it were my caches I'd check into it. I don't anyone in here said they would do "nothing" if it showed up on their caches, but I don't think people will go out specifically looking for it. A good responsible cacher posted the alert and kudos to them!

 

I got two alerts yesterday from similar responsible cachers who notified me of a camo job failing and a hiding spot falling vicitim to age. I will handle it. Would I of run out and checked just for chuckles? Probably not. But now it will be dealt with. I would bet more maintenance issues come to an owner's attention from other cachers then from the owner themself checking on their caches. Same from the sound of this cache example. And as with any other maintenance issue, when it comes to light, it will be handled (by a responsible owner).

 

My personal comment on the cache is that the supposed false log if from September 15, 2007. The alert is from January 1, 2008. It's now been over 6 weeks since the alert and the supposed false log is still on the cache page. If we're professing an owner should handle these things is this also an example of an owner not dealing with a supposed false log?

 

never mind

Edited February 20, 2008 by Rockin Roddy

[+JohnnyVegas]

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.

Regarding some are people playing a alternative game that they believe is within the guidelines so delete their logs, that is a way to bring to their attention.

 

Regarding some are logged because the cache owner allows it (again because the cacher owner interprets the guidelines How the cache owner iterprets the guidlindes, this is another way of saying the cacher owner does not care about the guidlines, my guess is that the cache owner has never read the guidlines

 

Regarding a very few by people who simply are posting false finds presumably because they think that having a bigger number is the object I know of a few people that do this, I have see logs on caches that have been archived for a long time, then someone logs a finding saying they forgot to log it when they found it.

 

Regarding what is the best way to deal with accidental false logs, Delete them

 

Regarding players using the website for alternate games, The web site is for a game called "geocaching" if they want to play an alternate game let them start their own web site for their own game.

Edited February 20, 2008 by JohnnyVegas

[Mushtang]

Regarding players using the website for alternate games, The web site is for a game called "geocaching" if they want to play an alternate game let them start their own web site for their own game.

I love answers like this. I wonder what the guy that owns the web site thinks about it? My guess is he'd rather people play their version of geocaching on his web site just like you do.

 

I can't help but picture in my mind my family playing Monopoly and one of us getting paid $500 for landing on Free Parking (not an actual rule), and you running into the house, grabbing the game board, and shouting, "This is for playing Monopoly, if you want to play an alternate game create your own board".

 

Or you watching little kids push a golf ball around the Putt-Putt course with their putter instead of putting it like you would. Maybe you'd run over, grab their putter, and say, "This putter is for playing Putt-Putt. If you want to play an alternate game go create a course somewhere else!"

 

I also wonder what the owner of the Putt-Putt course would think about it? My guess is he'd probably be okay with the kids playing an alternate game as long as it didn't keep you from playing your game, or bring an overall degradation to the game of Putt-Putt.

[+Mule Ears]

...

My personal comment on the cache is that the supposed false log if from September 15, 2007. The alert is from January 1, 2008. It's now been over 6 weeks since the alert and the supposed false log is still on the cache page. If we're professing an owner should handle these things is this also an example of an owner not dealing with a supposed false log?

 

Aye, there's the rub. The owner of that particular cache last logged in on Jan. 2nd. It appears that that particular confirmed-bad log won't be deleted. But there's a silver lining: the false log and the followup will remain on the page longer, alerting more cachers to the situation. Some may take an interest and check up on other Sept. 15th logs. If the owner had acted promptly, the evidence would have been lost. That's why I used an example other than the one I participated in--once the false logs are deleted, there's not much to see.

 

We (Team Mule Ears) are coming up on five years in Geocaching. We've had to find different areas of concentration in order to keep the game fresh for us. We went through the newbie phase, puzzle phase, various FTF dalliances, and favored scenic hikes throughout. Lately we've been adopting and preserving classic caches. Detecting and reporting bogus logs on significant caches is just another dimension to the hobby. It's interesting and fun.

[+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?

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.

I am not addressing your original post. I am not even challenging the claim you made in the post I quoted.

 

All I am asking is for you to show me where you saw "a recent forum discussion where some [cachers] were either justifying false logs, or suggesting we ignore them."

 

If you need help posting a quote, link, post number, or snapback to the specific thread you saw, let me know.

[+tozainamboku]

Regarding players using the website for alternate games, The web site is for a game called "geocaching" if they want to play an alternate game let them start their own web site for their own game.

I love answers like this. I wonder what the guy that owns the web site thinks about it? My guess is he'd rather people play their version of geocaching on his web site just like you do.

Of course the guy that owns this website has on various occasions referred to using Geocaching.com logs for alternative game play as "stupid", "silly", and "selfish". He has also state that he has no plans to change anything on the website to make it harder to play these games but that when he sees what he considers abuse he reserves the right to take action.

 

One reason you haven't seen the owner of the website or any of his lackeys post to this thread is because this is a non issue to him. Sure he worries about the degradation of Geocaching. His definition of degradation is probably somewhat different than what has been posted here. His accountant will probably let him know when Geocaching is degraded. So until that happens we won't likely be seeing a change in the status quo.

Edited February 20, 2008 by tozainamboku

[+KBI]

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.

I’m not here to prove or disprove anything. All I did was show that I have experienced no "degradation." The burden of proof falls upon those who wish to convince the rest of us that the "degradation" described in the OP actually exists.

 

I have a question for you, Too Tall: What is your position on this issue?

 

I don’t mean your position on my post; I mean what is your position on the central subject of this thread?

 

You have participated in this debate for several pages now, but unless I missed it somewhere, I don’t believe you have ever actually stated your own position or viewpoint. All you have done is pick at the arguments made by one side. Doing so implies that you have chosen a side, but as far as I know you have no real opinion at all, and are merely enjoying a little academic word-wrestling for its own sake.

 

I think it is always fair and valid to question another person's reasoning, and I don't think that's the same thing as trolling. If my guess is correct and you don’t really have a strong personal opinion either way then I’m not at all against what you’re doing; I’m just curious to know which it is:

 

Do you, Too Tall John, have a sincere opinion one way or the other in regards to the issue raised by the OP, or are you only debating for fun?

[+ReadyOrNot]

I can't help but picture in my mind my family playing Monopoly and one of us getting paid $500 for landing on Free Parking (not an actual rule), and you running into the house, grabbing the game board, and shouting, "This is for playing Monopoly, if you want to play an alternate game create your own board".

 

It's already been shown that family 'A' geocaching and playing it "Their Way" can have an affect on family 'B' playing it "Their Way".

 

A family playing monopoly in their private living room will have ABSOLUTELY NO AFFECT on a family playing monopoly down the street.

 

Here's a spectrum to consider:

 

1) While playing monopoly, we decide as a group that when we pass GO everyone will collect $500 instead of $200.

 

2) As a group, we decide that when we pass GO, everyone will collect $200 and run around the house banging pots and pans

 

3) As a group, we decide that when we pass GO, everyone will collect $200 and run around the neighborhood banging pots and pans

 

4) As a group, we decide that when we pass GO, everyone will collect $200 and run around the neighborhood at 2am banging pots and pans

 

You could argue that 1 & 2 do not affect anyone except those playing the game. But when you start affecting others (3 and 4), its no longer just about "Playing the game your own way".

 

Your example falls into the spectrum at #1. False logging is at #3 or #4. Banging pots and pans serves as an annoyance, but really doesn't harm anyone and probably won't degrade the monopoly game that's happening 2000 miles away... But for the people being woke up at 2am to the crazies banging pots and pans, its probably annoying as all heck.

Edited February 20, 2008 by ReadyOrNot

[Mushtang]

I can't help but picture in my mind my family playing Monopoly and one of us getting paid $500 for landing on Free Parking (not an actual rule), and you running into the house, grabbing the game board, and shouting, "This is for playing Monopoly, if you want to play an alternate game create your own board".

 

It's already been shown that family 'A' geocaching and playing it "Their Way" can have an affect on family 'B' playing it "Their Way".

 

A family playing monopoly in their private living room will have ABSOLUTELY NO AFFECT on a family playing monopoly down the street.

 

Here's a spectrum to consider:

 

1) While playing monopoly, we decide as a group that when we pass GO everyone will collect $500 instead of $200.

 

2) As a group, we decide that when we pass GO, everyone will collect $200 and run around the house banging pots and pans

 

3) As a group, we decide that when we pass GO, everyone will collect $200 and run around the neighborhood banging pots and pans

 

4) As a group, we decide that when we pass GO, everyone will collect $200 and run around the neighborhood at 2am banging pots and pans

 

You could argue that 1 & 2 do not affect anyone except those playing the game. But when you start affecting others (3 and 4), its no longer just about "Playing the game your own way".

 

Your example falls into the spectrum at #1. False logging is at #3 or #4. Banging pots and pans serves as an annoyance, but really doesn't harm anyone and probably won't degrade the monopoly game that's happening 2000 miles away... But for the people being woke up at 2am to the crazies banging pots and pans, its probably annoying as all heck.

Once again someone gives a great example to support this side of the debate without realizing it.

 

It's possible to get $500 instead of $200 without bothering the game down the street (It's possible to have a benign fake log)

It's possible to add a rule to Monopoly that will bother the game down the street (It's possible to have a harmful fake log)

I totally agree that you shouldn't bang pots and pans at 2am (or false log).

Anyone banging pots and pans at 2am should be stopped (delete any logs you know to be faked).

Even the banging at 2am is only a local problem, and doesn't degrade the Monopoly game 2000 miles away (fake logging might, at best, be a local nuisance, but it's not degrading the game overall).

No matter how many nights I annoy my neighbors with the pots and pans, nobody is going to ever think that Monopoly is that game where people make a lot of noise at 2am if they pass Go. (The original post suggested that we might be on our way to people thinking geocaching was the game where people log online that they've been to places they never really went).

 

Fake logs are bad.

Fake logs should be deleted.

Fake logs degrade the game, at most, on a local level.

Fake logs are not leading to the degradation of geocaching in general.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Check Fake logs are bad.

Check Fake logs should be deleted.

Check Fake logs degrade the game, at most, on a local level.

Check Fake logs are not leading to the degradation of geocaching in general.

 

So does this mean we can close this thread now

 

Noone is saying that the #1 or #2 monopoly game should be stopped by busting into their living room (at least I don't think thats being suggested).. But I think the argument has become "What should be done to stop #3 and #4 from happening". And I think everyone agrees that what should be done is the logs should be deleted when its determined that false logging has occured..

 

Am I missing something here?

Edited February 20, 2008 by ReadyOrNot

[+Too Tall John]

I have a question for you, Too Tall: What is your position on this issue?

 

I don’t mean your position on my post; I mean what is your position on the central subject of this thread?

 

You have participated in this debate for several pages now, but unless I missed it somewhere, I don’t believe you have ever actually stated your own position or viewpoint. All you have done is pick at the arguments made by one side. Doing so implies that you have chosen a side, but as far as I know you have no real opinion at all, and are merely enjoying a little academic word-wrestling for its own sake.

 

I think it is always fair and valid to question another person's reasoning, and I don't think that's the same thing as trolling. If my guess is correct and you don’t really have a strong personal opinion either way then I’m not at all against what you’re doing; I’m just curious to know which it is:

 

Do you, Too Tall John, have a sincere opinion one way or the other in regards to the issue raised by the OP, or are you only debating for fun?

I thought the fact that I, as you put it, have "pick(ed) at the arguments made by one side" would make my opinion clear. I think that false logs are a true concern. There are probably bigger issues coming down the road to "degrade" geocaching, including the laundry list put forth by infiniteMPG:

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.

I suppose we could start a thread for each of these, but until we start that list, the current topic addresses the problems of false logging.

 

My view is that we shouldn't back down because it is a "small problem." We start ignoring a bunch of "small problems" and they'll add up to one big mess.

 

Hope that sheds some light for ya.

[+KBI]

My view is that we shouldn't back down because it is a "small problem." We start ignoring a bunch of "small problems" and they'll add up to one big mess.

So from your point of view, false find logs constitute a "small problem."

 

Please clarify your position for me then: Do you (1) believe the "small problem" of false find logs has "degraded" the hobby already, or do you instead (2) speculate that false find logs might degrade the hobby if they become more than a "small problem" at some point in the future?

 

Or do you (3) see no degradation at all?

[+infiniteMPG]

Regarding some are logged because the cache owner allows it (again because the cacher owner interprets the guidelines How the cache owner iterprets the guidlindes, this is another way of saying the cacher owner does not care about the guidlines, my guess is that the cache owner has never read the guidlines

If owners should not interpret the guidelines but take them literally for what they actually state, the only thing referencing false logs states :

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

You feel that owners should not interpret the guidelines but accept them at literal face value, they state to delete logs that APPEAR to be bogus or counterfeit. At no place in the guidelines does it state to delete logs that ARE bogus regardless of how they APPEAR.

 

So if owners are not to interpret the guidelines away from their literal meaning, if you delete logs that are proven to be bogus BUT appeared to be valid, you would be BREAKING THE LITERAL MEANING OF THE GUIDELINES as they state to only delete logs that APPEAR to be bogus!!!

 

#1 FAKE LOG : Was a great hike and a nice adventure. Enjoy your caches and always like places like this. Thanks for bringing us here!

 

#2 REAL LOG : don't remember but marked found on gps

 

Now at the literal meaning of the guidelines, you should delete #2 because it APPEARS bogus, but you should leave #1 because it APPEARS valid, regardless of the FACT that #1 is faked and #2 is valid.

 

Yeah, that's where the LITERAL meaning of the guidelines get you when you do not allow the freedom to interpret the guidelines by owners.

Enjoy!

[+ReadyOrNot]

Yeah, that's where the LITERAL meaning of the guidelines get you when you do not allow the freedom to interpret the guidelines by owners.

Enjoy!

 

Fake logs should be deleted... Why is it hard to understand what a fake log is? If its clearly fake "Didn't actually find this one, but marking it found anyways" versus "Great place! TFTH!", if it's fake, its fake and should be deleted.

 

Your just arguing for the sake of arguing now.

[+tozainamboku]

#1 FAKE LOG : Was a great hike and a nice adventure. Enjoy your caches and always like places like this. Thanks for bringing us here!

 

#2 REAL LOG : don't remember but marked found on gps

 

Now at the literal meaning of the guidelines, you should delete #2 because it APPEARS bogus, but you should leave #1 because it APPEARS valid, regardless of the FACT that #1 is faked and #2 is valid.

Don't be ridiculous. #2 appears to be valid. If the person was spending the day power caching they could've easily forgotten which caches they found and only have the record of what they marked found on their GPS. #1 appears to be really bogus since that cache was a parking lot micro

 

I think everyone knows now that the guidelines for cache maintenance state that

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

So the issue comes down to how does an owner decide which logs appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements. Some are demanding that owners verify each log by checking the physical cache. But then what happens if the cache goes missing before you check? And should you give some slack to a cacher who forgot a pen or found a logbook to wet to write in? I suspect that some would find a strict puritanical view as degrading what is seen as a fun game. Others don't go that far but insist that owners don't allow certain logs to stand - such as armchair virtuals or questionable team logs. Here we have a debate as to whether giving cache owners the ability to allow alternative play is degrading or enhancing the game. It is certainly enhancing the game for the armchair loggers to find caches where the owner will allow it. Since these logs are generally benign, the only degradation may be for cache owners who don't allow these finds to have to do more maintenance on their caches.

 

"Didn't actually find this one, but marking it found anyways"

I'm not sure I'd call this fake. The logger is honestly telling what he is doing. Of course, as written there is no justification given for using a found it log so I would probably delete this log. But perhaps the finder gives a convincing argument (to me the cache owner) as to why he should use the found it log, I may decide its OK for him to play his silly or stupid alternative game. I want people to have a fun experience when looking for my cache and if they really need that smiley to have fun I might decide to let them have it. So long as the log is honest about what actually occurred and a convincing reason for claiming a found it is given, it's not bogus in my book.

Edited February 20, 2008 by tozainamboku

[+infiniteMPG]

Fake logs should be deleted...

I agree but that's not in the guidelines anywhere. People adopt that idea because they feel cheating is wrong and they choose to do that, not because the guidelines tell them to... because they don't.

 

Why is it hard to understand what a fake log is? If its clearly fake "Didn't actually find this one, but marking it found anyways" versus "Great place! TFTH!", if it's fake, its fake and should be deleted.Your just arguing for the sake of arguing now.

The statement was made that owners who interpret the guidelines are not following the guidelines and my comment was that if we are to follow the guidelines to a "T" then they need to be taken literally. And literally they do not state anywhere to delete a log for being bogus, only for appearing bogus. Edited February 20, 2008 by infiniteMPG

[+infiniteMPG]

Don't be ridiculous. #2 appears to be valid. If the person was spending the day power caching they could've easily forgotten which caches they found and only have the record of what they marked found on their GPS. #1 appears to be really bogus since that cache was a parking lot micro

Hehehehehe.... agreed. It was an example of how someone may interpret the literal meaning of the guidelines. And did you look up my cache named "#1 FAKE LOG CACHE - A regular parking lot cache in Anytown, USA"?

 

Can't really think of what someone could post in a log that would APPEAR BOGUS unless they flat out stated that they didn't find or visit the cache.

[+infiniteMPG]

Maybe if I post this by itself and it will be addressed by someone truly against allowing fake caches as the thread topic states... kind of a money where the mouth is thing.... and be sure what you suggest you're ready to start doing right now with your hides. And consider an average owner with dozens of hides who works a full time job and has a family, and they get a half dozen logged finds on each hide each week.

What is your proposal of HOW people would not allow false logs?

 

And please keep in mind owners like me who have over 200 hides that it would take me a month of vacation time to physically visit each one once. And if you make some statement like "If a log looked fake I'd check it out" be sure to give some examples of what one of these fake sounding logs would be.

[Mushtang]

Maybe if I post this by itself and it will be addressed by someone truly against allowing fake caches as the thread topic states... kind of a money where the mouth is thing.... and be sure what you suggest you're ready to start doing right now with your hides. And consider an average owner with dozens of hides who works a full time job and has a family, and they get a half dozen logged finds on each hide each week.

What is your proposal of HOW people would not allow false logs?

 

And please keep in mind owners like me who have over 200 hides that it would take me a month of vacation time to physically visit each one once. And if you make some statement like "If a log looked fake I'd check it out" be sure to give some examples of what one of these fake sounding logs would be.

Dude, it's bad form to hijack a thread into another topic. If you want to ask that question you should start a new thread.

 

This thread is to discuss, over and over and over until the cows come home and they're blue in the face, whether or not fake logs are causing a degradation to geocaching.

[+infiniteMPG]

Dude, it's bad form to hijack a thread into another topic. If you want to ask that question you should start a new thread.

I tried to hijack the thread but some disguised thread marshall tackled me in the aisle

 

This thread is to discuss, over and over and over until the cows come home and they're blue in the face, whether or not fake logs are causing a degradation to geocaching.

Nooooo.... this thread is to discuss, over and over until the cows, pigs and ferrets come home and they're blue in the face, whether or not ALLOWING fake logs is causing a degradation to geocaching. And the cows told me asking how anyone would go about policing fake logs was still on topic.... and then they turned purple in the face and passed out Edited February 20, 2008 by infiniteMPG

[+ReadyOrNot]

Anyone not trying to argue for the sake of arguing understands that the guidelines mean, "Delete logs that you determine to be false".. Gimme a break.

[+infiniteMPG]

Anyone not trying to argue for the sake of arguing understands that the guidelines mean, "Delete logs that you determine to be false".. Gimme a break.

The point is they don't say that. What you said is your interpretation of the meaning of the guidelines. And everyone has the right to have their own interpretation of them, none any more or less right then any other (ain't freedom great!). Geocaching was obviously developed as a non-competitive recreational fun activity with only guidelines that leave it up to each individual player exactly how to play, how to log, and how to manage, so everyone can take their own version of "fun" away from it. My version of "fun" doesn't include visiting all my hundreds of caches on a regular basis for the sole purpose of validating if the online logs match the written ones. If your version of "fun" is, then go for it! No one will stop you or even slow you down. But as stated in the guidelines :

 

Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity

 

If someone wants to dictact hard inflexible rules over their personal cache domain then that's their business. But it's not the intent of geocaching.

[+tozainamboku]

Dude, it's bad form to hijack a thread into another topic. If you want to ask that question you should start a new thread.

I tried to hijack the thread but some disguised thread marshall tackled me in the aisle

 

This thread is to discuss, over and over and over until the cows come home and they're blue in the face, whether or not fake logs are causing a degradation to geocaching.

Nooooo.... this thread is to discuss, over and over until the cows, pigs and ferrets come home and they're blue in the face, whether or not ALLOWING fake logs is causing a degradation to geocaching. And the cows told me asking how anyone would go about policing fake logs was still on topic.... and then they turned purple in the face and passed out

Since the topic is that by not deleting fake logs we are allowing the degradation of geocaching, asking what to do about fake logs is off-topic. Clearly we should delete fake logs. The question you should have asked is what to do about cache owners who don't delete fake logs.

 

The simple answer would be to archive the caches since the cache owner is not doing maintenance. I would propose that those who agree with the premise that a found it log where the finder has not physically visited the cache is a fake log, post a SBA on any cache with a fake log that an owner refuses to delete.

 

If this seems too harsh, I have an alternative proposal. Each log would have two icons next to it that anyone reading the log could click

Acceptable log .... Shenanigans!

If the majority voted Shenanigans! the log would be deleted.

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

If someone wants to dictact hard inflexible rules over their personal cache domain then that's their business. But it's not the intent of geocaching.

 

I'm not one for dictating hard inflexible rules over geocaching, but fake logging is simply not geocaching.

[+ReadyOrNot]

If someone wants to dictact hard inflexible rules over their personal cache domain then that's their business. But it's not the intent of geocaching.

 

Noone said you need to do that. Find one quote in this entire mess where anyone says you need to do compare the log to online logs?

[+Renegade Knight]

... as stated in the guidelines :

 

Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity...

 

Gack.

 

That explains it. Anytime those words are said. Someone is about to attempt to degrade caching by creating a buch of rules to impose on us all that fit their own view of how things should be.

[+Renegade Knight]

If someone wants to dictact hard inflexible rules over their personal cache domain then that's their business. But it's not the intent of geocaching.

 

Noone said you need to do that. Find one quote in this entire mess where anyone says you need to do compare the log to online logs?

My physical logs are normally stolen by the same cache maggot who has taken fake logs to a high art form.

[+infiniteMPG]

The question you should have asked is what to do about cache owners who don't delete fake logs. The simple answer would be to archive the caches since the cache owner is not doing maintenance.

I think every owner would be totally turned off of GC if they were told that if they didn't delete fake logs their cache would be archived. Especially without telling them HOW they're supposed to figure out if a log was fake short of visiting their hides to validate a log entry soon after the entry is made. Are you willing to do that yourself?????

 

Harsh...? No more harsh then a colonoscopy... and sounds about as much fun, too. Bet a lot of people would be signing up to play that game! Like maybe none.

[+infiniteMPG]

Noone said you need to do that. Find one quote in this entire mess where anyone says you need to do compare the log to online logs?

Anyone stating cache owners need to delete fake logs is also stating owners need to validate logs (and recent suggestions a cache be archived if they don't). Or do you have some other way to validate a log that we haven't been told????

[+infiniteMPG]

My physical logs are normally stolen by the same cache maggot who has taken fake logs to a high art form.

Wouldn't someone have to physically find your cache to steal the physical log? Bad to steal from a cache, but doesn't sound like they'd have a fake log...

[+ReadyOrNot]

Noone said you need to do that. Find one quote in this entire mess where anyone says you need to do compare the log to online logs?

Anyone stating cache owners need to delete fake logs is also stating owners need to validate logs (and recent suggestions a cache be archived if they don't). Or do you have some other way to validate a log that we haven't been told????

 

A friend of mine had to delete some logs. A perceptive cacher noticed that the persons name was not in the logbook but was logged online. He emailed the cacher and eventually deleted the log. He didn't have to compare the logs. In some cases, it would be obvious enough that you wouldn't need to verify against the log book.

[+Too Tall John]

My view is that we shouldn't back down because it is a "small problem." We start ignoring a bunch of "small problems" and they'll add up to one big mess.

So from your point of view, false find logs constitute a "small problem."

 

Please clarify your position for me then: Do you (1) believe the "small problem" of false find logs has "degraded" the hobby already, or do you instead (2) speculate that false find logs might degrade the hobby if they become more than a "small problem" at some point in the future?

 

Or do you (3) see no degradation at all?

Option #1. Anything that inconveniences me or other cachers in a way not intended by the cache owner** takes away from the game.

 

In my experience, if you let the small things go, they will roll into a bigger problem. We had a car. The seal on one of the doors was bad and leaked when it rained (gushed when it poured). The engine leaked a little bit of oil. The windshield wasn't cracked, but it was pitted enough to be annoying. The AC was starting to go. Suddenly, it was time to inspect the car. It needed $600 worth of suspension work. Adding on just the leaky head gasket and it was decided it wasn't worth fixing, it would cost more than the car was worth. Just one of the problems alone wasn't enough to make us decide to junk the car, but cumulatively, the problems outweighed the benefits. So, I may be speculating here, but I also think that while false logs may never get to be bigger than a small problem (they might, though), they, added to other problems will grow into a bigger mess in the future, meaning, in a way, I agree with the second option, as well.

 

I don't feel the third option at all.

 

**Why do I say "in a way not intended by the cache owner"? A cache owner making a cache a long hike, making the cache a puzzle, or simply not posting parking coords so you have to explore/investigate the area, are all inconveniences to me and other cachers, but are designed to be part of the experience, thus not degrading.

[+geomann1]

The question you should have asked is what to do about cache owners who don't delete fake logs. The simple answer would be to archive the caches since the cache owner is not doing maintenance.

I think every owner would be totally turned off of GC if they were told that if they didn't delete fake logs their cache would be archived. Especially without telling them HOW they're supposed to figure out if a log was fake short of visiting their hides to validate a log entry soon after the entry is made. Are you willing to do that yourself?????

 

Harsh...? No more harsh then a colonoscopy... and sounds about as much fun, too. Bet a lot of people would be signing up to play that game! Like maybe none.

 

I suspect that GC does not give a hoot about this issue. If it is important to an owner that he/she validate all the finds logged on his/her caches then he/she is free to do so as the owner of the cache. Cache owners also have the right not to care about the issue, and approach cache placement just as a nice way to allow others to have fun. Cachers also have the option to ignore the caches of owners whom they feel are too hard core to deal with. The great thing about the sport is that it has the flexibility to allow people to approach it as they feel best, irrespective of what some self styled purists may think.

[+Too Tall John]

Anyone not trying to argue for the sake of arguing understands that the guidelines mean, "Delete logs that you determine to be false".. Gimme a break.

The point is they don't say that.

Yes they do:

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

[+Too Tall John]

Regarding players using the website for alternate games, The web site is for a game called "geocaching" if they want to play an alternate game let them start their own web site for their own game.

I love answers like this. I wonder what the guy that owns the web site thinks about it? My guess is he'd rather people play their version of geocaching on his web site just like you do.

...Anyone can feel free to take the concept of hiding containers filled with goodies and posting them online... and create your own web site.

[Mushtang]

Regarding players using the website for alternate games, The web site is for a game called "geocaching" if they want to play an alternate game let them start their own web site for their own game.

I love answers like this. I wonder what the guy that owns the web site thinks about it? My guess is he'd rather people play their version of geocaching on his web site just like you do.

...Anyone can feel free to take the concept of hiding containers filled with goodies and posting them online... and create your own web site.

Cute. Of course he must have been talking about the same thing, your little quote couldn't have been taken out of context or anything.

 

BTW, he also said this in the same post:

However, you do not have and never will have the right to post

So it doesn't sound like you have the right to post. Why would you keep doing it?

[+ReadyOrNot]

So it doesn't sound like you have the right to post. Why would you keep doing it?

 

Cuz, that's how I play the forum game

[+infiniteMPG]

A friend of mine had to delete some logs. A perceptive cacher noticed that the persons name was not in the logbook but was logged online. He emailed the cacher and eventually deleted the log. He didn't have to compare the logs. In some cases, it would be obvious enough that you wouldn't need to verify against the log book.

Just want to be on the same page.... If a cacher alerts the owner that some logs exist online and not in the log book then the owner should investigate or delete them but the owner doesn't have to visit the cache and validate logs (unless it's done during routine maintenance). Right? I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but don't hold it against a cache owner if the cachers who visit their caches don't compare logs to listed logs.... it just looks like you've shifted the validation responsibilities to the cacher and not the owner.

 

Do you check this when you find someone else's cache? Just curious....

[+ReadyOrNot]

A friend of mine had to delete some logs. A perceptive cacher noticed that the persons name was not in the logbook but was logged online. He emailed the cacher and eventually deleted the log. He didn't have to compare the logs. In some cases, it would be obvious enough that you wouldn't need to verify against the log book.

Just want to be on the same page.... If a cacher alerts the owner that some logs exist online and not in the log book then the owner should investigate or delete them but the owner doesn't have to visit the cache and validate logs (unless it's done during routine maintenance). Right? I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but don't hold it against a cache owner if the cachers who visit their caches don't compare logs to listed logs.... it just looks like you've shifted the validation responsibilities to the cacher and not the owner.

 

Do you check this when you find someone else's cache? Just curious....

 

If a log is determined to be fake... I don't think it matters how the log was determined to be fake, it should be deleted. Noone is saying that the owner has a responsibility to actively seek out fake logs, but if it comes to the owners attention that a log is fake, they should delete it, whether the owner actively checks, or a cacher brings it to their attention, or the log is just blatantly fake... Make sense?

[+infiniteMPG]

Yes they do:

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

It does NOT say to delete bogus logs, it says to delete logs that APPEAR to be bogus. Same as saying shoot anyone that appears to be a terrorist or shoot anyone you've proven to be a terrorist.... big differenc between those two.... and the guidelines only refer to logs that APPEAR to be bogus. So if all the logs, fake or not, appear to be valid, the owner doesn't have to do a thing. Guidelines state that. Literally. You want to interpret them to something else then that's your option, but it's not what they literally say.

 

The guidelines state what they state, and the facts are they don't say it's an owner's responsibility to delete bogus logs if they think they don't appear bogus. If you WANT them to say that then you need to contact GC and have them edit that, because it's not what they say. I am sure anyone who has it brought to their attention that a log is bogus would deal with it, but they are not mandated to.

[+infiniteMPG]

Cuz, that's how I play the forum game

Actually. we're sending someone out to check you keystroke capture app we installed to validate if you actually posted that. If your post was actually a fake and the Groundspeak folks allowed it to remain online then we're going to have to archive this thread.... then again, that might not be such a bad idea regardless.... hehehehe

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

Yes they do:

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

It does NOT say to delete bogus logs, it says to delete logs that APPEAR to be bogus. Same as saying shoot anyone that appears to be a terrorist or shoot anyone you've proven to be a terrorist.... big differenc between those two.... and the guidelines only refer to logs that APPEAR to be bogus. So if all the logs, fake or not, appear to be valid, the owner doesn't have to do a thing. Guidelines state that. Literally. You want to interpret them to something else then that's your option, but it's not what they literally say.

 

The guidelines state what they state, and the facts are they don't say it's an owner's responsibility to delete bogus logs if they think they don't appear bogus. If you WANT them to say that then you need to contact GC and have them edit that, because it's not what they say. I am sure anyone who has it brought to their attention that a log is bogus would deal with it, but they are not mandated to.

Huh?

[+infiniteMPG]

If a log is determined to be fake... I don't think it matters how the log was determined to be fake, it should be deleted. Noone is saying that the owner has a responsibility to actively seek out fake logs, but if it comes to the owners attention that a log is fake, they should delete it, whether the owner actively checks, or a cacher brings it to their attention, or the log is just blatantly fake... Make sense?

Not only does it make sense, but I also agree with it. And I think you'd get pretty much total agreement across the board. If a cache log came to any owner's attention as a fake, they would deal with it. Some would contact the logger to see if it was an honest mistake. Some would just delete it and let the logger prove it. But I doubt any responsible owner would just turn away from it.

 

ACK!!! Did I just agree with a wrinkled sock? Dang... must be an eclipse or something (IMPG runs back outside to check the eclipse.... still cloudy dang-it!!!)

[+Too Tall John]

Yes they do:

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

It does NOT say to delete bogus logs, it says to delete logs that APPEAR to be bogus. Same as saying shoot anyone that appears to be a terrorist or shoot anyone you've proven to be a terrorist.... big differenc between those two.... and the guidelines only refer to logs that APPEAR to be bogus. So if all the logs, fake or not, appear to be valid, the owner doesn't have to do a thing. Guidelines state that. Literally. You want to interpret them to something else then that's your option, but it's not what they literally say.

 

The guidelines state what they state, and the facts are they don't say it's an owner's responsibility to delete bogus logs if they think they don't appear bogus. If you WANT them to say that then you need to contact GC and have them edit that, because it's not what they say. I am sure anyone who has it brought to their attention that a log is bogus would deal with it, but they are not mandated to.

Huh?

Yep...

 

[+KBI]

My view is that we shouldn't back down because it is a "small problem." We start ignoring a bunch of "small problems" and they'll add up to one big mess.

So from your point of view, false find logs constitute a "small problem."

 

Please clarify your position for me then: Do you (1) believe the "small problem" of false find logs has "degraded" the hobby already, or do you instead (2) speculate that false find logs might degrade the hobby if they become more than a "small problem" at some point in the future?

 

Or do you (3) see no degradation at all?

Option #1. Anything that inconveniences me or other cachers in a way not intended by the cache owner** takes away from the game.

 

**Why do I say "in a way not intended by the cache owner"? A cache owner making a cache a long hike, making the cache a puzzle, or simply not posting parking coords so you have to explore/investigate the area, are all inconveniences to me and other cachers, but are designed to be part of the experience, thus not degrading.

So, we have now established two things you believe:

 

(1) Anything that inconveniences you or other cachers in a way not intended by the cache owner takes away from the game.

 

(2) In the specific case of bogus find logs, you feel (as indicated by your choice of Option #1) they have truly "degraded" the hobby.

 

Based on those two premises, let me ask you this:

 

How, then, do you feel about the effect rainy weather has on the hobby?

 

Rainy weather can easily inconvenience you or other cachers in a way not intended by the cache owner. Rainy weather has inconvenienced my own attempts to enjoy geocaching many times -- and not once did I ever suspect a cache owner as having intended the rain-related inconvenience to occur. Does rainy weather therefore "take away from" the game? If so, then would it not follow that rainy weather "degrades" the hobby of geocaching?

[+tozainamboku]

 

How, then, do you feel about the effect rainy weather has on the hobby?

 

Rainy weather can easily inconvenience you or other cachers in a way not intended by the cache owner. Rainy weather has inconvenienced my own attempts to enjoy geocaching many times -- and not once did I ever suspect a cache owner as having intended the rain-related inconvenience to occur. Does rainy weather therefore "take away from" the game? If so, then would it not follow that rainy weather "degrades" the hobby of geocaching?

Rainy weather definitely degrades geocaching for me, but I have some friends who love to go out and find caches when it is raining. I think we could debate this in its own thread and it may even go on longer than this one

[+Renegade Knight]

...Fake logs are bad.

Fake logs should be deleted.

Fake logs degrade the game, at most, on a local level.

Fake logs are not leading to the degradation of geocaching in general.(Beyond the current level).

 

Added what I think is our sole difference.

[+Too Tall John]

How, then, do you feel about the effect rainy weather has on the hobby?

 

Rainy weather can easily inconvenience you or other cachers in a way not intended by the cache owner. Rainy weather has inconvenienced my own attempts to enjoy geocaching many times -- and not once did I ever suspect a cache owner as having intended the rain-related inconvenience to occur. Does rainy weather therefore "take away from" the game? If so, then would it not follow that rainy weather "degrades" the hobby of geocaching?

The cache owner for your average cache placed the cache knowing that it would rain on the cache occasionally. Here in New Hampshire, when we place caches we can be pretty sure that they'll get snowed on, too. While the cache owner may not place the cache with the intent that the cacher gets rained on (although I've seen a waterfall cache that came close...) they did place it with the understanding that it would be unreasonable to expect it not to rain on cachers hunting the cache from time to time.

 

This aside, even if I did see rain as degradation of the game, there is very little, short of moving to the desert, that I can do about it, so what's the point of discussing it? I do work for The Big Guy, but He doesn't show preferential treatment when it comes to preferences in weather, even for employees.

 

Besides, caching in the rain is part of the adventure.

[+KBI]

How, then, do you feel about the effect rainy weather has on the hobby?

 

Rainy weather can easily inconvenience you or other cachers in a way not intended by the cache owner. Rainy weather has inconvenienced my own attempts to enjoy geocaching many times -- and not once did I ever suspect a cache owner as having intended the rain-related inconvenience to occur. Does rainy weather therefore "take away from" the game? If so, then would it not follow that rainy weather "degrades" the hobby of geocaching?

The cache owner for your average cache placed the cache knowing that it would rain on the cache occasionally. Here in New Hampshire, when we place caches we can be pretty sure that they'll get snowed on, too. While the cache owner may not place the cache with the intent that the cacher gets rained on (although I've seen a waterfall cache that came close...) they did place it with the understanding that it would be unreasonable to expect it not to rain on cachers hunting the cache from time to time.

My point exactly. Thank you.

 

I own several caches. I placed them knowing it would rain on the cache occasionally. I also knew that my cache hides will very likely experience freeze damage, muggles, floods, wildlife intrusions, and especially blundering fellow cachers, some of whom will manage to damage the camouflage, move the container, screw up the logbook, take away the pen, take without trading fairly, take without trading at all, and then give hints, spoilers, fumbled dates, exaggerations and other misleading or unwanted info in their online logs.

 

I fix the problems I can fix and I don't cry about the rest. I certainly don’t point at the Geocaching home page and shout "DEGRADATION!" just because of a little rain or a questionable smiley.

 

"Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

the courage to change the things I can,

and the wisdom to know the difference."

 

- version of The Serenity Prayer, originally by Reinhold Niebuhr

 

This aside, even if I did see rain as degradation of the game, there is very little, short of moving to the desert, that I can do about it, so what's the point of discussing it? ...

 

... Besides, caching in the rain is part of the adventure.

My point exactly. Thank you.

 

Rain, snow, squirrels, ants, muggles, confused cachers, clumsy cachers, immature cachers, inconsiderate cachers, cachers in a hurry, and even the occasional dishonest cacher – it’s all part of the adventure. Short of abandoning the entire game there is little we can do about any of those things, so I agree with you: what's the point of discussing it?

 

"Into each life some rain must fall." - Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

 

Part of the adventure of Geocaching is the direct and indirect interaction we enjoy with our fellow hobbyists. Every last one of us is imperfect; that’s what makes it all so very interesting and fun (if you take my point of view) or annoying and "degrading" (if you prefer a much more negative viewpoint).

 

Before I saw some of the arguments in this thread it never occurred to me to feel that rain, snow, wildlife, or muggles might be causing "degradation" to me, the hobby, or "what it means to be a cacher" (as the OP phrased it). Same with incompetent fellow cachers. Humanity cannot be changed; inept fellow players are just as natural a part of the caching environment as the wind and the rain. As you say, it’s all part of the adventure.

 

Bogus logs are silly, infrequent, easily manageable and mostly harmless. While I do not excuse or encourage bogus find logs, neither do I encourage unneeded heartburn as a result of their mere existence. While the bogus logger might risk degradation of his own reputation, there exists no "degradation of the entire hobby" unless one chooses to imagine it.

 

Go ahead and sustain your soiled image of the hobby if that’s what you prefer; as for me, I’ll keep on enjoying hiding and finding caches – and not cursing the rain.