Jump to content

Cacher that refuses to sign logbooks


benh57

Recommended Posts

Personally, I play this game because it's fun for me, the way I play it. If I were to keep a running list of everyone who logged a find on one of my caches, to compare it with the physical log on my next maintenance visit, it would stop being fun. I know there are those who have fun verifying each and every log, and I know there are those who have fun just verifying the ones that look bogus, and that's kewl. You're playing the game your own way, and having fun doing it.

 

Something I did as a mental exercise is to ask myself what I would do if I saw a blatantly bogus log on one of my caches. Something along the lines of, "I wasn't even in your state, but I'm logging a find anyway, just 'cuz I can!" Would I let it stand so that others who look at the cache page could see just how ridiculous the guy was, or do I nuke the log? I'm not sure, as both have merit. I'm leaning toward deletion.

Link to comment

Boy, has this thread derailed from the OP.

 

A cacher is not required to sign the physical log if they wish not to. Them finding the cache is enough.

 

The issue comes into play is the online logging. Cache hiders have an obligation to remove "bogus" online logs, they agree to it every time they request a cache be published. There are only ways to determine this; A comparison between the electronic log and the paper one. Very few hiders do this due diligence. As a result, this cacher may never be discovered. The other is if in the online log the finder states they did not sign the log which would then justify the hider to question if it was the cache found or the location, which would then justify a deletion.

 

If you choose, for whatever reason, to not sign the paper log, expect that your online log will be deleted and there will be no surprises.

 

IMHO, I would suspect that if this cacher found one of mine, by admitting it up front in the online log they are somehow believing it will cause just enough doubt that the log will stay, even though they never looked for it.

Link to comment
It matters becuase we are all playing on the same field. We are all using the same cache pages, the same website and the same data. It's a simple matter of record retention. The physical signature supports the validity of the on-line log and serves as to document the stability of the cache itself for future hunters.
It matters because we are all playing golf on the same golf course, we are putting the balls into the same holes, we are teeing off from the same tee boxes, the physical score card total supports the validity of the score that one professes in the clubhouse and serves to document that the flag sticks are are all still there :D <jk>

 

This is a recreational activity and doesn't even have rules, it has guidelines. People that take things like golf (or geocaching) too serious when it's not meant to be, can tarnish the game more then the people who cheat on their score keeping (or cache finding). Last thing I want is someone coming up to me in the clubhouse and questioning my score on the third hole because he didn't see me putt out.... or questioning me because my signature was clear enough to verify, or my sticker fell off the sheet, or the cache went missing soon after I found the cache and my find is no longer varifiable.

 

If you don't put ink to paper you just open up holes and weaken the data. You increase the noise to signal ratio. Absalom, absalom, etc.
Can't readily validate signatures on nanos, can't validate signature on wet or damaged logs, or on missing caches, or on stickered log entries, or in cluttered disarrayed log books, and can't validate who actually signed the log... the data is already vague, easily flawed, tough to validate and of little value beyond people's diary of cache finds. Just like it's meant to be for a fun recreational light hearted activity like geocaching.
Link to comment

The whole things seems kind of fishy to me. I understand some people cache just for their own fun and don't log online. If you are going to take the time to find the cache and log it online why skip signing the paper log? I can understand skipping the online part, I can understand skipping both, but why take the extra step of signing online if you aren't going to sign the paper log? You are already there. You already have the cache in hand. Especially since it is kind of expected that cache finds and signed logs go hand in hand. I would delete the find if it was on my cache.

Link to comment
At what level would you allow it to be called geocaching? Should we all make sure we're playing the game in a BrianSnat approved way before we log any finds?

 

I think when the game no longer involves finding geocaches, then it's no longer eligible to be called geocaching.

I realize that I may be way out in left field with this line of thinking, but it's what I believe.

Link to comment

 

I think when the game no longer involves finding geocaches, then it's no longer eligible to be called geocaching.

I realize that I may be way out in left field with this line of thinking, but it's what I believe.

 

i love you.

Link to comment
It matters becuase we are all playing on the same field. We are all using the same cache pages, the same website and the same data. It's a simple matter of record retention. The physical signature supports the validity of the on-line log and serves as to document the stability of the cache itself for future hunters.
It matters because we are all playing golf on the same golf course, we are putting the balls into the same holes, we are teeing off from the same tee boxes, the physical score card total supports the validity of the score that one professes in the clubhouse and serves to document that the flag sticks are are all still there :D <jk>

 

This is a recreational activity and doesn't even have rules, it has guidelines. People that take things like golf (or geocaching) too serious when it's not meant to be, can tarnish the game more then the people who cheat on their score keeping (or cache finding). Last thing I want is someone coming up to me in the clubhouse and questioning my score on the third hole because he didn't see me putt out.... or questioning me because my signature was clear enough to verify, or my sticker fell off the sheet, or the cache went missing soon after I found the cache and my find is no longer varifiable.

 

Golf and Geocaching DO share some similarities, but I'd say they are generally poor metaphors for each other. What are you going to say when your golf buddy starts claiming to have shot a 54 while golfing with YOU last weekend? In a very small way, everyone who finds one of my caches is my 'caching buddy' for that find...they say they scored (a hole in one?) and I agree it happened.

 

If you don't put ink to paper you just open up holes and weaken the data. You increase the noise to signal ratio. Absalom, absalom, etc.
Can't readily validate signatures on nanos, can't validate signature on wet or damaged logs, or on missing caches, or on stickered log entries, or in cluttered disarrayed log books, and can't validate who actually signed the log... the data is already vague, easily flawed, tough to validate and of little value beyond people's diary of cache finds. Just like it's meant to be for a fun recreational light hearted activity like geocaching.

 

You keep coming back to this (flawed, in my opinion) premise: IF there are certain conditions when a log cannot be verified, THEN there is never a need to verify a log.

 

I think most of those who have posted here agree to give the MAXIMUM BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT to anyone who posts an apparently earnest log on our cache(s). There have been a few cases where I wondered if someone actually logged a cache that subsequently went missing, but I haven't lost any sleep over the issue.

 

If someone TELLS ME they didn't sign the physical log, and don't care if I delete their online log, then they are just challenging me to delete it. If they don't care, why should I? It's outta there!

 

I wish people would delete their own 'TB DROP' notes, too!

Edited by AZcachemeister
Link to comment
At what level would you allow it to be called geocaching? Should we all make sure we're playing the game in a BrianSnat approved way before we log any finds?

 

I think when the game no longer involves finding geocaches, then it's no longer eligible to be called geocaching.

I realize that I may be way out in left field with this line of thinking, but it's what I believe.

When you're in a group and someone else finds the cache first, do you hide your eyes and insist that they hide it again so you can find it, or can they hand it to you and it still be called geocaching even though you didn't find a cache?

 

If you spend hours creating a complicated multi cache and get it all set up in the field, then come home and create the cache page for submittal, have you been geocaching since you didn't find a cache?

 

Suppose you're out all day on a few really difficult caches and all you have to show for your troubles are a few DNFs that you proudly log online. Have you been geocaching since you didn't find a cache?

 

It seems to me that you would be, but the BrianSnat approved definition says not.

Link to comment
At what level would you allow it to be called geocaching? Should we all make sure we're playing the game in a BrianSnat approved way before we log any finds?

 

I think when the game no longer involves finding geocaches, then it's no longer eligible to be called geocaching.

I realize that I may be way out in left field with this line of thinking, but it's what I believe.

When you're in a group and someone else finds the cache first, do you hide your eyes and insist that they hide it again so you can find it, or can they hand it to you and it still be called geocaching even though you didn't find a cache?

 

If you spend hours creating a complicated multi cache and get it all set up in the field, then come home and create the cache page for submittal, have you been geocaching since you didn't find a cache?

 

Suppose you're out all day on a few really difficult caches and all you have to show for your troubles are a few DNFs that you proudly log online. Have you been geocaching since you didn't find a cache?

 

It seems to me that you would be, but the BrianSnat approved definition says not.

 

You're so funny sometimes.

Link to comment
Golf and Geocaching DO share some similarities, but I'd say they are generally poor metaphors for each other. What are you going to say when your golf buddy starts claiming to have shot a 54 while golfing with YOU last weekend? In a very small way, everyone who finds one of my caches is my 'caching buddy' for that find...they say they scored (a hole in one?) and I agree it happened.
We used to disc golf every day at lunch and each hole is basically a par 3. One of our group on his 2nd or 3rd throw would always be in the woods, you'd hear him toss a disc into a tree, cuss a bit, do it again, then again, then again. Then toss up close, then after 2 or 3 more tosses he's finally hit the basket. We'd ask him what he got and he'd rub his chin, look back down the fairway, think a minute and then say "Bogey". Well, bogey is 4 and he had 4 before he was within sight of the basket. We'd just chuckle and go to the next hole. No harm, no foul. It made him happy and gave us a laugh, didn't change our game. And we had fun watching him think we didn't know. It's a game for the fun of it, being played for the fun of it. No competition and if someone wanted to cheat their score they're just cheating themselves. If someone got all anal and blasted him for cheating, that's the person we'd stop inviting as the rest of us were having fun.

 

You keep coming back to this (flawed, in my opinion) premise: IF there are certain conditions when a log cannot be verified, THEN there is never a need to verify a log. I think most of those who have posted here agree to give the MAXIMUM BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT to anyone who posts an apparently earnest log on our cache(s). There have been a few cases where I wondered if someone actually logged a cache that subsequently went missing, but I haven't lost any sleep over the issue.
With something like 50 log entries made every minute of every day, I think you have better chances of winning the lottery then having a bogus log raise it's ugly head high enough to be noticed on one of your hides, so the entire debate is pretty much mute. And to give the maximum benifit of a doubt then it becomes like the law, innocent until proven guilty, and there can be a ton of mitigating circumstances that could make it difficult to prove (nano log, disorganized log book, fallen off stickers, illegible signatures, wet log sheets, etc) and to give that benifit then you'd still email the logger before deleting and give them a chance to plea their case. The things that would cause a log to be checked are :

 

- Cache finds posted on caches not physically able to of been found at one time

 

- Log entires that don't match hides (but even on this one I disagree as I have had many cache logs entered that people just plain old got the multiple caches they found mixed up and I have done this myself and had to go back and correct things)

 

What else????

 

If someone TELLS ME they didn't sign the physical log, and don't care if I delete their online log, then they are just challenging me to delete it. If they don't care, why should I? It's outta there!
Don't think they're challenging you, just think they actually don't care so deleting their logs is effort on your part and no skin off their back, they're having fun and enjoying what they're doing regardless of what the owner does, even if it means they are really armchair caching (which I do not agree with but I also believe they are cheating themselves more then anyone else).

 

Bottom line __________ if something slaps us in the face that it's a totally bogus log then deal with it. If we're maintaining a cache and we replace a log sheet or somehow notice a name online is missing on the log sheet, then email the logger, if no response or validation then delete. Other then that I think we stick with hiding and finding caches (and signing the log sheet).

Link to comment
When you're in a group and someone else finds the cache first, do you hide your eyes and insist that they hide it again so you can find it, or can they hand it to you and it still be called geocaching even though you didn't find a cache?
Have actually cached in groups to big preserves and when someone saw the container they just stepped back and watched, if asked they said they found it and waited for the remainder of the group to find it. Was a challenge to NOT be the last person with the rest of the group standing there chuckling as you bumped into the container over and over and ::sigh:: over.... hehehe

 

And thankfully I have learned that when I get those PHP timeout errors to check the thread before entering the message again as often the message is posted and posting again leads to that old "Deleting duplicate post"

Edited by infiniteMPG
Link to comment

I wish people would delete their own 'TB DROP' notes, too!

If you don't actually visit the cache how can you log a TB DROP note?

 

Well it use to be you could, but then TPTB decided that virtual travel bug logging was a no-no. They will actually lock a bug if someone is virtually logging it and the bug owner allows it. Maybe this is a sign that someday they will do the same with geocaches :D

Link to comment
Cache hiders have an obligation to remove "bogus" online logs, they agree to it every time they request a cache be published.

While I certainly agree with this concept in spirit, it can get complicated in practice. These forums represent a tiny segment of the caching community, yet even in here, we can't agree on what constitutes a find. Until there is something more solid from TPTB defining what is, and what is not a find, will we, as a microcosm of the community be able to agree on what constitutes a bogus log?

 

My personal standard for bogus would be any log entered with the intent to deceive the community. Other folks have different standards. Groundspeak would have a tough time consistently enforcing this particular guideline.

Link to comment

 

If you pee in a cache, you are harming others.

True

 

If you don't sign a log, you aren't harming anyone.

True, but if you snag a smiley when there is no cache and you cause me to drive 50 miles you are hurting me. This is one reason I have decided to find all the caches in my local State Rec and visit them once a month, I find it, I sign the log, I log it it, I'll revisit it and if it is missing then I'll post it MIA and nobody gets hurt because they waisted time and money searching for something that is not there.

 

If you force someone to play the way you want, just because you want them to do it your way, you are harming others.

Well boxing referees force people to do something somebodies way, same goes for football, base ball, blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda and yadda. The cache owner is the referee so the cache owner sets the ruls, you don't follow the refs rules by your standards you hurt the ref.

 

If you try to dream up and constantly repeat the same magical mystical situations which are seldom or never going to actually happen, for the sole purpose of providing fictitious proof of an indefensible point, what are you really doing?

Oh like your statement is doing? I read the post it is referring to, not only is it a potentiality but it has happened. Well it was not from posting online in a fishing forum or about lake. It was from my father and I BSing every fisherman we knew about crystal pond in Rosscommon. Most guys would get there, take one smell and head off to find a lake or go to the Au Sable river, come back and call us a few friendly profanities, but one told us he spent 3 day trying and didn't get a nibble. We where in tears over that, good thing gas was 3 bucks cheaper then.

 

Sign the log, then log the sign!

Link to comment
if you snag a smiley when there is no cache and you cause me to drive 50 miles you are hurting me.

No, you are hurting you. In this hypothetical scenario, you are the person who opted to drive the 50 miles, based upon an assumption. Any and all hypothetical responsibility for this hypothetical choice rests squarely on your shoulders. I'd venture a guess that caches getting muggled is an event which occurs far more frequently that someone electing to make a 50 mile drive based upon a single "Found it" log. According to my theory, any cache can be gone by the time you drive to it, regardless of the authenticity of the logs. Every time you fire up your car to drive to a cache, you are risking a DNF, yet this is a choice most of us make gladly, as the risk is usually worth the gain.

 

Does this make a DNF any easier to swallow? Probably not. Does this make deceptive logging practices OK? Definitely not.

But the burden is still yours, not their's.

Link to comment
if you snag a smiley when there is no cache and you cause me to drive 50 miles you are hurting me.

No, you are hurting you. In this hypothetical scenario, you are the person who opted to drive the 50 miles, based upon an assumption. Any and all hypothetical responsibility for this hypothetical choice rests squarely on your shoulders. I'd venture a guess that caches getting muggled is an event which occurs far more frequently that someone electing to make a 50 mile drive based upon a single "Found it" log. According to my theory, any cache can be gone by the time you drive to it, regardless of the authenticity of the logs. Every time you fire up your car to drive to a cache, you are risking a DNF, yet this is a choice most of us make gladly, as the risk is usually worth the gain.

 

Does this make a DNF any easier to swallow? Probably not. Does this make deceptive logging practices OK? Definitely not.

But the burden is still yours, not their's.

Awesome! I've tried to say this before but couldn't get the point across nearly as well as you just did. Good job.

 

I totally agree with deleting bogus logs if you know they're bogus... but if a bogus log remains on someone's cache, it's just not that big of a deal.

Link to comment

Two questions for the "no rules" crowd.

 

1. You create a tough cache. It required a boat ride, a long hike, and a good climb just to place it. An hour after it's published somebody logs a FTF and notes "I was in the area when this popped up, didn't sign the log because it was against my beliefs". Is that OK because it doesn't harm anyone?

 

2. A while back I looked for a cache that from the hints, location, and description was obviously a LPC. It was missing. If it becomes common to see clearly missing caches such as that one logged as "found but not signed", would you keep looking for caches?

Link to comment
Two questions for the "no rules" crowd.
I don't think I'm a member of the "no rules" crowd. In fact I don't think anyone in this thread is suggesting no rules. But I'll play along.

 

1. You create a tough cache. It required a boat ride, a long hike, and a good climb just to place it. An hour after it's published somebody logs a FTF and notes "I was in the area when this popped up, didn't sign the log because it was against my beliefs". Is that OK because it doesn't harm anyone?
It's absolutely okay. And it's absolutely okay for me to delete the log as soon as I can since it was obviously a bogus log.

 

2. A while back I looked for a cache that from the hints, location, and description was obviously a LPC. It was missing. If it becomes common to see clearly missing caches such as that one logged as "found but not signed", would you keep looking for caches?
Any log that states "found but not signed" that I see I'll assume is bogus and it won't enter into my decision to hunt the cache or not.
Link to comment
I called Neil, Alex and Geddy and they all agreed. No log signature, no smiley.
That's how I play too. Neil sent me a follow up email just now and told me that even though we don't play that way, he can see that other's might want to - and he couldn't care less. Then he asked when I could give him a few more tips on drumming.

 

Well I talked to Neil the other day during our regular practice and he said that he was getting tired of driving his bike all the way out to find a cache based on the find logs that other people had left only to find that it had been virtually cached from another country. He did mention it was rare, but that it sets a precident.

 

I then had to slap him around because he was using traditional grip again. Like I wouldn't have noticed.

 

True, there are no rules there are guidlines. But how soft do you want those guidelines to be? Heck let's soften the .1 mile guideline. How does 200 feet sound?

 

I don't agree that people supporting this opinion are "taking caching too seriously". It's a simple matter of this: if I go looking for a cache it's becuase I want to find a cache. Nice walk in the woods and a chance to be in nature (or a Wal-Mart parking lot) aside, when I'm hunting my desire is to be finding. Without the finding I'm just some 30-something guy poking around in tree trunks and under piles of bark.

 

What do I base my expectations on that a cache should be in the area I'm looking? The cache page and the find logs of previous cachers.

 

When somebody goes to the website and logs a find and never put their hands on the cache, never put ink to physical log they are misrepresenting their experiance with the cache.

 

I don't buy into the concept of somebody that would physically find a cache and not at least pick it up, open it and scribble on the log. I just don't believe that this happens. I don't believe that there exists a personality of human that cares enough about seeing the numbers on his/her computer screen that go up in increments that also would not want to see their mark on a physical log book- if they actually found the cache.

 

BTW, Neil said that everytime somebody quotes his lyrics on an interweb message board to prove a point, he dies just a little on the inside.

 

But... to sum up my point: Show me, don't tell me.

Edited by Castle Mischief
Link to comment
I called Neil, Alex and Geddy and they all agreed. No log signature, no smiley.
That's how I play too. Neil sent me a follow up email just now and told me that even though we don't play that way, he can see that other's might want to - and he couldn't care less. Then he asked when I could give him a few more tips on drumming.

 

Well I talked to Neil the other day during our regular practice and he said that he was getting tired of driving his bike all the way out to find a cache based on the find logs that other people had left only to find that it had been virtually cached from another country. He did mention it was rare, but that it sets a precident.

 

I then had to slap him around because he was using traditional grip again. Like I wouldn't have noticed.

 

True, there are no rules there are guidlines. But how soft do you want those guidelines to be? Heck let's soften the .1 mile guideline. How does 200 feet sound?

 

I don't agree that people supporting this opinion are "taking caching too seriously". It's a simple matter of this: if I go looking for a cache it's becuase I want to find a cache. Nice walk in the woods and a chance to be in nature (or a Wal-Mart parking lot) aside, when I'm hunting my desire is to be finding. Without the finding I'm just some 30-something guy poking around in tree trunks and under piles of bark.

 

What do I base my expectations on that a cache should be in the area I'm looking? The cache page and the find logs of previous cachers.

 

When somebody goes to the website and logs a find and never put their hands on the cache, never put ink to physical log they are misrepresenting their experiance with the cache.

 

I don't buy into the concept of somebody that would physically find a cache and not at least pick it up, open it and scribble on the log. I just don't believe that this happens. I don't believe that there exists a personality of human that cares enough about seeing the numbers on his/her computer screen that go up in increments that also would not want to see their mark on a physical log book- if they actually found the cache.

 

BTW, Neil said that everytime somebody quotes his lyrics on an interweb message board to prove a point, he dies just a little on the inside.

 

But... to sum up my point: Show me, don't tell me.

See post #117 above.

 

Sorry for not writing more, Neil keeps calling me and bugging me to finish my re-write of the lyrics for their next album. You wouldn't believe all the spelling errors this guy makes.

 

"You've figured out the score

I've heard it all before

I don't care what you say"

Link to comment
See post #117 above.

 

Sorry for not writing more, Neil keeps calling me and bugging me to finish my re-write of the lyrics for their next album. You wouldn't believe all the spelling errors this guy makes.

 

"You've figured out the score

I've heard it all before

I don't care what you say"

 

Don't make me whip out "I Think I'm Going Bald". We'd all like to forget that, but I will if I have to.

 

Happy caching!

Link to comment
Cache hiders have an obligation to remove "bogus" online logs, they agree to it every time they request a cache be published.

 

I sure am glad you made that point. I've read the guidelines before, but this line:

 

"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."

 

never really registered with me, I guess. I knew this was common sense, but had missed the part about it being the cache owner's obligation to remove bogus online logs.

 

Thanks for mentioning that!

Link to comment
QUOTE(uxorious @ Jul 15 2008, 09:09 AM)

All these silly examples of playing checkers by stacking the chips and shooting marbles at them, or tossing game boards out in the yard to see how they land are, of coarse, idiotic. If people were doing that, they may be playing a game, but it wouldn't be checkers, or monopoly!! Calling it that doesn't make it so.

 

Disagree, you can play golf but the rules of golf state you need to add a penalty stroke if you touch your club in the sand before swinging and other basic rules that 99% of the golfers playing recreationally violate. Doesn't mean they're playing a "different" game then "golf", does it?????

 

You may disagree, but you need a better example than that. How about if you go to the golf coarse, push the handles of your clubs into the ground, stand back and use a pistol to shoot the heads off of them??

Just because you are on the golf coarse, and are using golf equipment doesn't mean you are playing golf.

 

If someone is sitting on a chair in his dark lonely basement, and wants to log caches all over the world. More power to him. If some cache owners, who are aware of what he is doing allow those logs that's fine.

 

BUT BY NO STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION COULD THAT BE CALLED GEOCACHING!!! :D:D

Edited by uxorious
Link to comment
QUOTE(uxorious @ Jul 15 2008, 09:09 AM)

All these silly examples of playing checkers by stacking the chips and shooting marbles at them, or tossing game boards out in the yard to see how they land are, of coarse, idiotic. If people were doing that, they may be playing a game, but it wouldn't be checkers, or monopoly!! Calling it that doesn't make it so.

 

Disagree, you can play golf but the rules of golf state you need to add a penalty stroke if you touch your club in the sand before swinging and other basic rules that 99% of the golfers playing recreationally violate. Doesn't mean they're playing a "different" game then "golf", does it?????

 

You may disagree, but you need a better example than that. How about if you go to the golf coarse, push the handles of your clubs into the ground, stand back and use a pistol to shoot the heads off of them??

Just because you are on the golf coarse, and are using golf equipment doesn't mean you are playing golf.

 

If someone is sitting on a chair in his dark lonely basement, and wants to log caches all over the world. More power to him. If some cache owners, who are aware of what he is doing allow those logs that's fine.

 

BUT BY NO STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION COULD THAT BE CALL GEOCACHING!!! :D:D

 

Wow, looks like I have company out in left field.

 

 

No, you are hurting you. In this hypothetical scenario, you are the person who opted to drive the 50 miles, based upon an assumption. Any and all hypothetical responsibility for this hypothetical choice rests squarely on your shoulders. I'd venture a guess that caches getting muggled is an event which occurs far more frequently that someone electing to make a 50 mile drive based upon a single "Found it" log. According to my theory, any cache can be gone by the time you drive to it, regardless of the authenticity of the logs. Every time you fire up your car to drive to a cache, you are risking a DNF, yet this is a choice most of us make gladly, as the risk is usually worth the gain.

 

We all take various things into consideration when choosing to hunt a cache. #1 on many of our lists is the likelihood that the cache is actually there. Of course there are never guarantees as a cache can be found one minute and stolen an hour later. However checking the recent logs can provide us with the probable status of the cache. A recent find tells me that there is a good chance that the cache is there, while a series of DNFs tells me that it is likely missing.

 

By relying on logs we are at the mercy of other geocachers and assume that they are being honest.

 

If you say you found a cache but didn't, you are not only a liar, you're messing with our game. Play your own game on another website. This one is for geocachers.

 

Note: When I say "our game" I mean the segment of geocachers who believe the point of the sport is to hunt and hide geocaches.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
If someone is sitting on a chair in his dark lonely basement, and wants to log caches all over the world. More power to him. If some cache owners, who are aware of what he is doing allow those logs that's fine.
So doing this is fine with you, just as I've said it's fine with me, assuming it's fine with the cache owner.

 

BUT BY NO STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION COULD THAT BE CALLED GEOCACHING!!! :D:D
So I'll ask you the same question I've asked BrianSnat but didn't get an answer to: what the hell does it matter what it's called?

 

Apparently you're way more worked up about what it's called than you are about the practice itself.

Link to comment

well, i have to get suited up and head out to the race venue. apparently no matter how happy it would make me, they won't give me a start unless i actually show up.

 

i can't even get a DNF (Did Not Finish) if i don't show up.

 

there's no title at stake, but i've shown up every wednesday for thirteen years. and every wednesday i ride a bike and take a start.

 

if i stay at home they won't let me claim a start, let alone a finish, nevermind a win. if i show up at the venue and walk around the course, they won't give me a start, either.

 

who are they to judge who should get a start and who shouldn't?

 

that night it rained and snowed and sleeted and we had to carry our bikes through the labyrinth on account of chain suck and i got mud so far up my, uh, vent that i had to go dig it out because it was like having #10 sandpaper up in there and then went in the middle of the night to apply some soothing ointment but accidentally got the spare tube of toothpaste, it would have made me very happy to have called it in from home.

 

but DARN, if i try that, they delete me from the roster.

 

 

the nerve.

Link to comment
if you snag a smiley when there is no cache and you cause me to drive 50 miles you are hurting me.

No, you are hurting you. In this hypothetical scenario, you are the person who opted to drive the 50 miles, based upon an assumption. Any and all hypothetical responsibility for this hypothetical choice rests squarely on your shoulders. I'd venture a guess that caches getting muggled is an event which occurs far more frequently that someone electing to make a 50 mile drive based upon a single "Found it" log. According to my theory, any cache can be gone by the time you drive to it, regardless of the authenticity of the logs. Every time you fire up your car to drive to a cache, you are risking a DNF, yet this is a choice most of us make gladly, as the risk is usually worth the gain.

 

Does this make a DNF any easier to swallow? Probably not. Does this make deceptive logging practices OK? Definitely not.

But the burden is still yours, not their's.

Awesome! I've tried to say this before but couldn't get the point across nearly as well as you just did. Good job.

 

I totally agree with deleting bogus logs if you know they're bogus... but if a bogus log remains on someone's cache, it's just not that big of a deal.

 

I have to agree with all said here! Let me ask though....for those who say the bogus log gives the illusion of the cache being there...what difference does the bogus log really make?? Noticing a few DNF's and then a smiley would certainly be enough of a red flag for me to either ignore the cache in question OR investigate further, such as write the cache owner, check out who posted the find and where the person's from etc. It's really not all that hard...

 

I'm not saying let people do as they please, nor do I think others are (some seem to misunderstand that part), I'm just saying it's NOT the end of geocaching if a bogus log happens to find it's way onto the cache page!

Link to comment
By relying on logs we are at the mercy of other geocachers and assume that they are being honest.

Naturally. This game would devolve kwickly, if it twern't played by basically honest people. My post was simply arguing that wasted time, money, etc. is never the fault of the person who posted a bogus log. The decision to hunt is always mine, and with that decision comes the consequences of my choice, in this case, a potential DNF. I can crunch probabilities, making fairly accurate guesses as to whether or not a cache will be present, based upon the past logs, but I would never let the existence of a single log be the catalyst that makes me choose to hunt it. I prefer to blame myself for my own choices, instead of some faceless entity in a cache log.

 

If you say you found a cache but didn't, you are not only a liar, you're messing with our game.

If a log is posted with the intent to deceive, then I would agree that the person who posted it was lying. However, there are so many different definitions regarding what constitutes a "find", that I can't accept your blanket statement. I would venture a guess that you and I share beliefs regarding what is a find. (Hunt cache, locate cache, open cache, sign log, replace cache = found it. Anything else = DNF/note) When I encounter someone who doesn't feel all these steps are necessary, I won't go so far as to call them liars, so long as they accurately account for their actions at a cache site.

 

I.e: Let's say BillyBobNosePicker logged a "Found it" on one of my caches, stating the following; "After a lengthy bushwhack through your alligator infested swamp, I managed to locate the ammo can. The lid is rusted on tight, so I was unable to get to the log. I'm attaching a picture as proof that I survived the trek to ground zero. Thanx for the hide!". By my personal standard, that would not be a "find". If I went on a similar adventure, I would post a note, and come back once the container was repaired. However, BillyBobNosePicker told the absolute truth in his log, so I can't accept any claims that he lied. Just because his definition doesn't match mine, doesn't mean he's a liar.

Link to comment
See post #117 above.

 

Sorry for not writing more, Neil keeps calling me and bugging me to finish my re-write of the lyrics for their next album. You wouldn't believe all the spelling errors this guy makes.

 

"You've figured out the score

I've heard it all before

I don't care what you say"

 

Don't make me whip out "I Think I'm Going Bald". We'd all like to forget that, but I will if I have to.

 

Happy caching!

 

Nope, "I think I'm going bald" really happened. "In the mood" however, never happened.

 

Anyways, call me when this German guy shows up in the thread himself. That's gotta happen by page 7.

Link to comment
So I'll ask you the same question I've asked BrianSnat but didn't get an answer to: what the hell does it matter what it's called?

 

Apparently you're way more worked up about what it's called than you are about the practice itself.

 

Let me make this clear, you can call it anything you want to. If you eat a slice of bread and call it steak it really doesn't matter to me. :) You can call it whatever you like, still doesn't make it so. If I give you my opinion here, it is just that, my opinion.

 

If you want the truth, I do care more about what it's called than the practice itself. I don't care how some other cacher/cacheowner wants to play. I do care that people these days seem to feel words can mean whatever they want them to. :D

Edited by uxorious
Link to comment
\ I do care that people these days seem to feel words can mean whatever they want them to. :)

 

A rose by any other name............ (Attributed to Billy S.)

 

Words and labels don't change the substance of a thing. The words can be whatever one chooses, the nature of the thing discussed won't change. Calling a fake log a geocache find doesn't make it so, any more than putting long ears on a toad makes it a rabbit.

Link to comment

These are not magical mystical situations. They happen frequently enough. It's happened to me. It's happened to other cachers I know. It may well have happened with this cache with a phony find by the "geocacher" in question (we'd have to ask the two people who hunted the cache after the phony find).

 

I don't see why it should happen at all. Just so some Bozo can get his jollies? Sorry bud, your right to fun ends where you have the potential to affect others.

 

Good research! Good point!

Edited by weathernowcast
Link to comment

These are not magical mystical situations. They happen frequently enough. It's happened to me. It's happened to other cachers I know. It may well have happened with this cache with a phony find by the "geocacher" in question (we'd have to ask the two people who hunted the cache after the phony find).

 

I don't see why it should happen at all. Just so some Bozo can get his jollies? Sorry bud, your right to fun ends where you have the potential to affect others.

 

Good research! Good point!

 

Let me understand this....a 1/1 cache isn't found by 4 cachers and then found by one and the next people couldn't figure this was a bogus find and at least check with the owner? As for that, why didn't the owner check it out?? If I owned a 1/1 and 4 cachers claimed DNFs on it, I'd be posting a note and checking it out...but then, the cachers should be able to figure this out as well. It IS a 1/1 after all!

 

Seems the better research would have been to dig a bit deeper BEFORE putting faith in this one!! Sorry, this proves my point that cachers should do better jobs checking out the caches before heading for them!

 

I know....but I just download them to my PDA and then go....now who's fault would that be?? :)

Link to comment

Here’s my two cents on this topic;

 

First cent:

If I KNEW that someone logged a find on my cache without actually going there I would delete the log. Do I hunt for those? Nope. But as I said, if I knew I would. That’s the beauty with owning a couple of caches; you get to be the boss!

 

Second cent:

My daughter is quite the opposite; she signs the cache logs but do not log much of anything online, except for trackables. That’s the way she chooses to play the game. Personally it irritates me a little bit (oh don’t even start!) but it’s her call and she is a tad on the stubborn and persistant side. No clue where she got that from…

Link to comment
Let me understand this....a 1/1 cache isn't found by 4 cachers and then found by one and the next people couldn't figure this was a bogus find and at least check with the owner? As for that, why didn't the owner check it out?? I

 

If your game is playing Sherlock Holmes, that's great.

 

e: Let's say BillyBobNosePicker logged a "Found it" on one of my caches, stating the following; "After a lengthy bushwhack through your alligator infested swamp, I managed to locate the ammo can. The lid is rusted on tight, so I was unable to get to the log. I'm attaching a picture as proof that I survived the trek to ground zero. Thanx for the hide!". By my personal standard, that would not be a "find". If I went on a similar adventure, I would post a note, and come back once the container was repaired. However, BillyBobNosePicker told the absolute truth in his log, so I can't accept any claims that he lied. Just because his definition doesn't match mine, doesn't mean he's a liar.

 

As I stated in an earlier post I'm not talking about variations in the game, which though controversial, can still be seen as geocaching. They still involve hunting for geocaches. See the cache up in the tree and log a find? Some may disagree that its a find, but the cache is there. You aren't messing with other people if you log a find on it.

 

Sitting in your armchair and logging finds on caches that you've never been to is not just another way to play the game. It is not geocaching no matter how you slice it and it's absurd that you people are even arguing the point.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
if you snag a smiley when there is no cache and you cause me to drive 50 miles you are hurting me.

No, you are hurting you. In this hypothetical scenario, you are the person who opted to drive the 50 miles, based upon an assumption. Any and all hypothetical responsibility for this hypothetical choice rests squarely on your shoulders. I'd venture a guess that caches getting muggled is an event which occurs far more frequently that someone electing to make a 50 mile drive based upon a single "Found it" log. According to my theory, any cache can be gone by the time you drive to it, regardless of the authenticity of the logs. Every time you fire up your car to drive to a cache, you are risking a DNF, yet this is a choice most of us make gladly, as the risk is usually worth the gain.

 

Does this make a DNF any easier to swallow? Probably not. Does this make deceptive logging practices OK? Definitely not.

But the burden is still yours, not their's.

If a cache gets muggled right before I look for it, that's just part of the game. If someone logs a missing cache and claims that it is there when it is not, that is not part of my game. What's next? Armchair hides. We can all submit 50 phony hides, and it will be your fault if you waste time and gas looking for them. It seems sometimes people try to support any point of view just so they can argue the other side. :)

Link to comment
Let me understand this....a 1/1 cache isn't found by 4 cachers and then found by one and the next people couldn't figure this was a bogus find and at least check with the owner? As for that, why didn't the owner check it out?? I

 

If your game is playing Sherlock Holmes, that's great.

 

e: Let's say BillyBobNosePicker logged a "Found it" on one of my caches, stating the following; "After a lengthy bushwhack through your alligator infested swamp, I managed to locate the ammo can. The lid is rusted on tight, so I was unable to get to the log. I'm attaching a picture as proof that I survived the trek to ground zero. Thanx for the hide!". By my personal standard, that would not be a "find". If I went on a similar adventure, I would post a note, and come back once the container was repaired. However, BillyBobNosePicker told the absolute truth in his log, so I can't accept any claims that he lied. Just because his definition doesn't match mine, doesn't mean he's a liar.

 

As I stated in an earlier post I'm not talking about variations in the game, which though controversial, can still be seen as geocaching. They still involve hunting for geocaches. See the cache up in the tree and log a find? Some may disagree that its a find, but the cache is there. You aren't messing with other people if you log a find on it.

 

Sitting in your armchair and logging finds on caches that you've never been to is not just another way to play the game. It is not geocaching no matter how you slice it and it's absurd that you people are even arguing the point.

 

I have a lot of respect for you Brian, but let's be realistic, if people weren't in a hurry, we'd not be using the PQs and downloading every cache within 50 miles (or whatever might be the case), we wouldn't be in too much of a hurry to actually check out the cache BEFORE searching for it! :) I understand most people don't have a lot of time to spend checking out caches...but then, I'd rather waste a little time checking them out than a lot of time and money DNFing them!

 

I'm not knocking the fast-paced crowd nowadays...unless it comes to the complaint we're discussing now...if you can't take a second to read about the cache and check it out before heading after it, it's nobody's fault but your own! Not saying I like or accept bogus logging, just saying don't try blaming them for you being in a hurry! The example you posted took all of 5 seconds (after page opened) for me to check out and understand the possible problem! :D (you being generic here except for the "you posted" part as I think you did post the example)

 

Some of the best fun we had caching was when we first started (talking for myself and my teammates here)...printing out caches and loading the coords on the fly. We did just this a few weeks back during a road rally event...brought back the memories!! I actually remember LAUGHING about making mistakes causing us to DNF a cache on the first (or second or...) try...part of the fun! I also remember calling or emailing a cache owner to inquire about it before heading out to it, sometimes this meant a meeting with the owner and I LOVED that!

 

ETA: I still think you misunderstand what I'm discussing here, I also believe bogus logging is "absurd". Please don't confuse my comments with thinking armchair caching is OK, it's not caching.

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to comment

This is a new one, this cacher refuses to sign any physical logbooks, and only logs online:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...b7-7b7c34568491

 

Usually it's the other way around. :)

 

Exact same log on a ton of caches around here.

 

A lot of deletion work to be done by some of the local owners...

 

** he does claim to actually find the caches, though - i think he really does find them - just not open them... though, he sure has been 'finding' a lot of caches in los angeles.

 

I'm sure this one has been beaten to death but I would be likely to delete one like that. I have seen where someone couldn't sign a log that was too wet or too ful but that's a different story.

Link to comment

but DARN, if i try that, they delete me from the roster.

 

the nerve.

As they should.

 

BTW, I don't believe anyone in this thread is arguing that a cache owner should be forced to keep an armchair cacher's fake logs. A few have said they wouldn't care if a fake log was on their cache or not, but most of us have said we'd delete them off of our own if we knew about it.

 

The only point, I think, that is up for debate is if a fake log that gets left really does any harm. (and I guess some people are also arguing what to call it).

Link to comment

Sitting in your armchair and logging finds on caches that you've never been to is not just another way to play the game. It is not geocaching no matter how you slice it and it's absurd that you people are even arguing the point.

I agree wholeheartedly. Armchair caching is reprehensible. Who are the people arguing this point? I assume you have some reason for moving me into this camp, yet I didn't even realize that this camp existed. If someone were to argue that armchair logging could somehow be considered to be caching, then I would agree that such an argument would be absurd, but I don't see anyone making such an argument.

 

If a cache gets muggled right before I look for it, that's just part of the game. If someone logs a missing cache and claims that it is there when it is not, that is not part of my game. What's next? Armchair hides. We can all submit 50 phony hides, and it will be your fault if you waste time and gas looking for them. It seems sometimes people try to support any point of view just so they can argue the other side. :)

Is this an attempt to KBI my position? Have I ever, in any way, even hinted that something as asinine as what you are proposing is an acceptable practice?

Link to comment

Geocaching........

 

This is what it should be!

 

A beautiful sunny day with with grandkids rushing towards a big pile of sticks under a grand Oak tree in a field bursting with flowers!

 

Watching said grandkids "discover" the cache and sort through the treasures.

 

Feeling pride when grandkids leave better trade items than they take , or sweeten the cache with swag and take nothing for themselves.

 

But ALAS! Grandkids grow up and drift away. :)

 

Some cachers don't have grandkids. :D

 

Is it all about the smilies?

 

Maybe it is about smiles from days gone by.

Link to comment

Sitting in your armchair and logging finds on caches that you've never been to is not just another way to play the game. It is not geocaching no matter how you slice it and it's absurd that you people are even arguing the point.

I agree wholeheartedly. Armchair caching is reprehensible. Who are the people arguing this point? I assume you have some reason for moving me into this camp, yet I didn't even realize that this camp existed. If someone were to argue that armchair logging could somehow be considered to be caching, then I would agree that such an argument would be absurd, but I don't see anyone making such an argument.

 

If a cache gets muggled right before I look for it, that's just part of the game. If someone logs a missing cache and claims that it is there when it is not, that is not part of my game. What's next? Armchair hides. We can all submit 50 phony hides, and it will be your fault if you waste time and gas looking for them. It seems sometimes people try to support any point of view just so they can argue the other side. :)

Is this an attempt to KBI my position? Have I ever, in any way, even hinted that something as asinine as what you are proposing is an acceptable practice?

 

Using KBIs name in that way is a clear personal attack and a violation of the forum guidelines. Please stop.

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
by your reasoning, there are no rules to any game anywhere.

I'm not seeing that in their post. All I see is them opining that, in the case of Geocaching, TPTB opted not to have any rules, sticking to guidelines instead. While I am not privy to what Jeremy was thinking when he made that decision, it seems quite possible he did so to allow greater flexibility in how people played. Poker, soccer, bowling, and all the other activities you mentioned all have rigidly defined rules, that you can refer to at will, as the need arises. Geocaching has no rules. Perhaps that's one of the things that sets this game apart from all the others? What we have instead are guidelines. Players can invent whatever "rules" they want, to cover their own behavior, (such as my rule declaring that, if I don't sign the log I don't claim a smiley), but it can be a stretch to apply your own rules to others.

I agree.

 

The difference between the examples Flask listed and the ‘game’ of Geocaching is that her examples all have to do with competitive games, while Geocaching is, in its basic form, a purely non-competitive hobby. Geocaching only becomes a ‘game’ whenever a subset of participants chooses to make a competition out of it. Anything can be made into a competition. One could easily make a contest or race out of stamp collecting, Sudoku solving, TV watching or even sleeping. If there are any competition rules in Geocaching, they only exist in the minds of those in the ad hoc subset who have chosen to compete informally among themselves.

 

I believe Flask therefore committed a fallacy when she made the comparison. Failing to make the distinction is an easy mistake to make, one which I was guilty of myself at one time. She committed another fallacy when she expanded her analogy so as to imply that those who would flaunt the non-existent Rules of Geocaching Competition should also be expected to vandalize cache containers or commit other violations of common-sense conventions.

 

if there are no standards by which to measure even noncompetitive play, you might as well be pressing wildflowers and claim a smilie for it.

 

bogus finds deserve deletion.

Precisely. And wildflowers which later turn out not to be wildflowers might naturally be removed from the flower-pressing book.

 

Standards and competition rules are two different things. Having one’s own standards, when there is no competition, does not mean one must automatically feel cheated just because another person is using a different set of standards.

 

there's WAY too much "everybody should play in their own unique happy-feeling fashion and we should all embrace the differences and be thankful" trip being flung around here.

 

you find it or you don't. if you find it, you may log a find. if you don't, your lame find should be deleted regardless of how happy it makes you to lie in order to get a smilie, which is just a low-level brand of prostitution.

 

just because you CAN log a smilie on a cache you've never found and a cache owner may be too lazy to check doesn't mean you SHOULD.

That question is between the logger of the find and the owner of the cache, and is really nobody else’s business. I tend to agree with your standard, and I hold myself to the same rule, but someone else’s bogus log on someone else’s cache does not, in itself, cause me any consternation – unless I choose to let it.

 

The wildflower thing is a much better analogy to Geocaching. I can enjoy pressing wildflowers at my house without needing to worry about whether you’ve got any weeds pressed into your book over at your house.

Link to comment
True, but if you snag a smiley when there is no cache and you cause me to drive 50 miles you are hurting me.
ACK! Hypothetical situation that is impossible to prove! If someone logs a visit to a cache and then at some time the owner determines the cache is missing, since the log sheet that is in the cache is missing, too, it's TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE to prove if the cache went missing before or after the person logged a visit. And if the cache was known missing by the owner prior to the person logging the find then that's bad on the owner for not disabling it or noting so on the listing. ACK!!! People keep bringing up this situation and it's one you could NEVER prove happened!!!!

 

Have you ever DNF'ed a cache and the last person FOUND IT? Maybe you just couldn't find it. And if it turns out it WAS missing you could NEVER prove it went missing BEFORE the last person logged it. People keep throwing this example out there and it's about as provable as determinig if aliens kidnapped the cache and are running anal probes on it..... :D

 

And with gas at +$4/gallon it better be one special cache to drive 50 miles (averaging 20mpg that's +$20 in just gas and a couple hours driving for one find).....

Link to comment

I don't agree that geocaching isn't competitive on some level.

 

When you place a cache are you not trying to challenge the finder to locate it? When you are hunting are you not trying to out-think the hider? If anything you are competing with the elements.

 

True, there are a few caches that are listed in a manner that basically say: "HERE I AM. RIGHT HERE. BIG RED ARROW." But I don't think these are in the majority.

Link to comment
Even though the guidelines state to sign the log, they also state :

 

It’s an accomplishment enough to locate the cache.

 

Where do the guidelines state to sign the log? I just read them and it seems like all "log" mentions are talking about how the hider must provide a log to be signed, I've always been under the impression that it's the finders choice to sign or not, it's only the hider who is told they MUST do something, if I somehow missed it and it IS a RULE to sign the log I guess I'll have to start, we find the caches and if bigger then a nano even open them to see if Helen likes anything in there among the trade items, often take pictures with it, but almost never sign, I sign if it was a really fun cache, or if it's older then 2003 (I really like old caches), or if we're the first to find... other then that, it always seemed utterly pointless to sign it, we're not trying to prove to anyone that we "really found it," it's not a game of show as much as it's a fun way to live our lives, we geocache everyday, we met through caching and married and eat breathe and sleep caching, we don't care what people think about us because we're having so much fun!

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