Jump to content

Cacher that refuses to sign logbooks


benh57

Recommended Posts

Are you saying that bogus logs aren't that big of a deal because a cache can go missing at any time. Because the last log could be bogus or legit and the cache is missing anyway so it doesn't matter?
Not at all, just saying in the MIA cache situation it's totally impossible to PROVE that the last log was bogus because the log book/sheet would be missing along with the cache. No proof, no case.

 

First of all, you're making exceptions of when it is alright to log a bogus log.
Never said it's okay to log a bogus/armchair log. Never will say it's okay. Just saying the vast majority would be so harmless that it's not really worth much effort on a cache owners part to hunt them down unless something raised a flag.

 

Because you can write a bogus log that doesn't cause someone undue effort, stress, or hardship then all bogus logs are okay? Malarkey. That's like saying lying is okay because sometimes you can get away with it. (Don't even claim a "benign bogus log" is on the level of a polite lie. A bogus logs only benefits the logger while a polite lie protects the feelings of the person being told the fib.)
Never a situation where logging a bogus find is okay, acceptable, condoned or approved. But by the same token lying is not okay but how much effort do you put into validating what people tell you around the water cooler Monday is true? And if you found it wasn't true, what do you do about it? Confront them? Expose them to all their co-workers? If it's something that would affect people like lying about finishing a job or billing a customer, yeah, that's serious stuff. If it's lying about some adventure they claim to of had over the weekend then who does it hurt so why investigate and expose them?

 

That should be the other way around. Because a bogus log can cause undue effort, stress or hardship then you shouldn't write false logs.
Correct.... never writing bogus logs is the correct way to live. Then again so is never lying. And like bogus logs you can proclaim that until the cows come home yet people will still write bogus logs and lie.

 

Personally, I find the argument of bogus logs being okay, because if a cache is missing it doesn't matter if the log is bogus or not, disconnected logic. Same kind of logic of not posting a DNF until you know whether the cache is missing--after all, you can't not find a cache that is not there.
Don't think anyone ever said bogus logs are "okay", just that there's not much gain in investigating them and not worth putting much effort into dealing with them. If something is blatent and raises a flag then deal with it, other then that time is much better spent creating new caches, maintaining existing caches or finding caches.

 

This site asks owners to delete logs that appear to be bogus. Proximity rules are in play partially because folks might find and sign the logbook of a different cache than intended and logged online. Most folks think lying in general is an ethically questionable practice at the very least.
If you were to be in town for a business meeting and it was far from the airport and you found one nearby cache and then later that evening found a dozen caches 500 miles away when you returned home. To many people that would "appear" bogus, so by the site guidelines that should be deleted as the site doesn't clarrify to "validate" the find, just delete it if it "appears" bogus. Doubt you'd be too happy about it. Most ethical people would validate first but the literal statement in the guidelines state to delete the ones that "appear" bogus, not just ones that "are". I'd rather err on the side of trusting that by nature, most people are honest and play by the rules then distrust people and assume everyone guilty until proven innocent.

 

Bogus logs can affect others in a negative way.
Other then the one impossible to prove scenario of seeking an MIA cache, what other significant way can they affect others other then just disliking them as one would dislike a lier?

 

Quite frankly, condoning bogus logs makes me wonder about one's moral compass.
Guess I missed that one. Haven't condoned them, just not willing to put the effort into validating every log on my hundreds of hides just as a matter of ethics. How much effort do you personally put into validating the logs entered on your caches are legit and the cache is still there? A bogus log can "sound" as legit as a real one and if you don't validate them all then by that argument, you're condoning the bogus logs that sound legit which could impact people on your own caches, correct?

 

If people see someone toss litter out their car window and they don't run them down or report them, are they "condoning" the act of littering and saying it's "okay" to litter? If they see a child riding a bike not wearing a helmet and don't call the police and report them, are they "condoning" it and saying it's "okay" for kids to ride bikes without helmets? Could come up with a thousand of examples like that that I would bet everyone in here disagrees with but has walked right on by. I don't think that just because someone doesn't actively do something to change a situation that they are saying it's okay to do or condone it. I agree with you that we don't agree with bogus logs and doubt anyone would defend them, it's more a matter of what do you actively do to stop them or what can be done?

Edited by infiniteMPG
Link to comment

:unsure:

 

When I am doing my "armchair logs", I make sure that all of them are .........BIG pile of sticks, under

a BIG tree, in the middle of a BIG field!

 

It is too much trouble finding an armchair 4/5 or one of those tricky puzzle caches! :laughing:

 

Or even one of those nasty multi caches! :laughing:

 

Ahhhhhhhhh........Gimmmeee the Simple Life! :laughing:

Link to comment
I don't think I have ever seen anything in this game that says thou shalt log every find online. Completely unenforceable and other reasons to boot. I didn't record the time of my last 3k run anywhere. Is that a sin?

My point exactly.

 

All the more reason to lay off someone whose personal logging standards happen to be a bit different .... in either direction.

 

You are not affected by false logs and we all know that. That's your choice and is fine but there are alot of people out there who are not willing to just turn their head and look the other way when they see wrong doing. No, i do not search for or scrutinize logs in an effort to find bogus entries. But if i do somehow come across one, then i'm going to do something about it. I have several geocaching friends in our area and i can tell you now that they would appreciate me letting them know of a problem such as potential bogus log. That of course, would be my obligation and after letting them know, it would be up to them as to how they wanted to proceed.

 

As far as posting a find as a note or not logging at all, you are correct sir in that it is still a lie. But these are, as you say, personal logging preferences and are not done to purposely to screw with someone else. Of course, like someone stated earlier in the thread, there would probably be some numbers hounds out there who might get upset.

 

Hmmmmm, we're back to that simple solution that would satisfy most everyone,,, That being, not to lie about any of this silly stuff in the first place! :unsure:

Link to comment
You are not affected by false logs and we all know that. That's your choice and is fine but there are alot of people out there who are not willing to just turn their head and look the other way when they see wrong doing.
Those same people busted me for 21 items in the 20 item or less lane at Wal-Mart!!! Dang them people that just don't turn a blind eye to my deceitful acts! Foiled again!!!!

 

No, i do not search for or scrutinize logs in an effort to find bogus entries. But if i do somehow come across one, then i'm going to do something about it. I have several geocaching friends in our area and i can tell you now that they would appreciate me letting them know of a problem such as potential bogus log. That of course, would be my obligation and after letting them know, it would be up to them as to how they wanted to proceed.
That's plain ol' common sense, right up there with alerting friends about a cacher who's been writing profanity on log sheets, or not hiding caches back the way they were found or closing containers properly, or stealing containers, or whining in their logs because a cache isn't what they think it should be, or someone logging more then one find on the same cache, or posting a find but their log says "Couldn't find this, maybe next time" or any number of a bazzilion things that you'd circulate with friends. Don't think anyone would have a blatently obvious bogus log on one of their hides hit them in the face and they just say "oh well", just don't know people willing to go hunt thru innocent sounding logs for them.

 

As far as posting a find as a note or not logging at all, you are correct sir in that it is still a lie.
This happens often as a mistake, hitting the wrong button and not noticing. Would call that an accident more then a lie.

 

But these are, as you say, personal logging preferences and are not done to purposely to screw with someone else. Of course, like someone stated earlier in the thread, there would probably be some numbers hounds out there who might get upset.
There are but that's they way they roll so let 'em. Can't please everyone.

 

Hmmmmm, we're back to that simple solution that would satisfy most everyone,,, That being, not to lie about any of this silly stuff in the first place! :laughing:
And as the white picket fence slowly closes behind us we settle down with our 2-1/2 children and watch all the wonderful uplifting stories on the news in our perfect wonderful world.... at least until the drugs wear off.... hehehehehee :unsure:
Link to comment

As far as posting a find as a note or not logging at all, you are correct sir in that it is still a lie. But these are, as you say, personal logging preferences and are not done to purposely to screw with someone else. Of course, like someone stated earlier in the thread, there would probably be some numbers hounds out there who might get upset.

 

Hmmmmm, we're back to that simple solution that would satisfy most everyone,,, That being, not to lie about any of this silly stuff in the first place! :unsure:

The world (and especially the Internet) is full of people would like to tell tall tales, exaggerate, or lie (whatever you like to call this). Of course lying about finding a cache may have an effect on others who rely on the logs to determine whether to search for a cache or not. Because of this, Geocaching.com has posted in the cache maintenance guidelines, instructions to cache owners to "delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements." The problem seems to be that not all cache owners agree on what is bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements - or they simple don't consider this a high priority maintenance item.

 

The vast majority of what get called bogus logs fall clearly into a debatable area. People are claiming finds when they did less than what the puritans feel is needed to claim the find. They may log a find if they forgot a pen or if the log was too wet to write on. They may have skipped signing to keep the cache location from being compromised when there are muggles around. They may have found the remnants of a muggled cache. They may have left a replacement cache. They may be claiming a find after a cache owner gives them permission for logging a missing cache. They may feel that taking the time to open a cache or sign the log is not necessary to claim a find. I've met many cachers that routinely don't sign nano logs because of the problems they have getting the log back into the cache.

 

Very few logs can be shows that are outright fabrication where the logger never even was at the cache site let alone looked for the cache. And it may be hard to decide if these appear bogus. The most obvious of these are armchair logs of virtuals. Many people feel that these are a legitimate alternate game and the logs are benign since they don't affect the ability of a cacher who wants to visit the virtual from actually going and visiting the virtual. Less obvious ones generally require cache owners check the log book and even this has problems. Cachers may have signed a different name in the log or simply forgot to sign their name and logs books sometimes go missing or become unreadable.

 

The debate is not over whether it's ok to log bogus finds. Bogus logs are going to happen on any online site. The site has a relatively good method to control these from getting out of hand by asking cache owners to delete these logs. In some cases, like the OP here, a discussion on the forums may help identify the logs as bogus (by showing a pattern by the logger for example). We are debating when a cacher owner is justified in letting an apparently bogus log stand. I think we are seeing that some people prefer to give the benefit of the doubt to the logger and they may argue as well that any inconvenience to others caused by apparently bogus logs that didn't get deleted is minor.

Link to comment
Haven't condoned them, just not willing to put the effort into validating every log on my hundreds of hides just as a matter of ethics. How much effort do you personally put into validating the logs entered on your caches are legit and the cache is still there?

I only audit logs on maintenance runs. Haven't done it in a while, but then again, I haven't seen the need to.

 

However, if there ever comes a time when I start seeing bogus logs I'll ramp up the efforts.

 

If your stance is to never audit logs or call someone on a bogus log then you're just as good as condoning it.

 

If people see someone toss litter out their car window and they don't run them down or report them, are they "condoning" the act of littering and saying it's "okay" to litter? If they see a child riding a bike not wearing a helmet and don't call the police and report them, are they "condoning" it and saying it's "okay" for kids to ride bikes without helmets?
If it's my yard into which they're throwing the trash or my child illegally riding a bicycle without a helmet, then you betcha. Additionally, you see someone dumping thrash where they're not suppose to, then yeah, you should--unless you don't care if your world is trashed up. You see kids doing something dangerous, yeah, you should.

 

No one is saying to go around a police someone else's cache. I know I'm saying don't write bogus logs on mine. I'm sure other folks are saying the same thing, "Don't do it on mine."

 

Oh, I know some jokers in this very thread would probably pipe up and say it's okay to log bogus logs on their caches. I'd be a little ticked at the owner if a bogus log caused me to go hunt a cache that is not there.

 

I jsut realized something. The time for some of us to make all of these posts could have been used to accurately audit each of our caches. Yet, there's not enough time to do so. It also occurs to me that one doesn't have to audit in the field. How many owners have filled logbooks stacked on their desks? Perfect time to audit some logs.

 

...unless you simply don't care.

Link to comment
I am suprised that briansnat did not tell the story of friends who spent a significant amount of time and money driving 100 miles to look for a cache after a false report of a find.

 

Why not just post a link to the thread where you brought this up the last time? Let it go. It will be better for everyone involved.

Link to comment
That's exactly what I mean by the issue of 'cheating' being strictly between the logger of the find and the owner of the cache, and it being nobody else's business.
Good perspective.... I like that. When it comes down to it GC is like Ebay, you have owners and cachers like buyers and sellers who use GC's or Ebay's website to link up. But when it comes down to it the transaction is between the buyer and the seller or owner and cacher. The GC site only provides the means for them to connect.... the "transaction" is between the owner and the cacher, GC just has the tools that allow that to happen and beyond the content of their site they pretty much stay out of it except for gross violations :laughing:

 

Okay, I am busy so I am going to take the easy way out. I agree with the post above 100% and don't feel the need to even expand on it one bit. This eBay analogy describes perfectly how I feel on this issue. If this post gets deleted for reasons of me not actually typing my own original version of this sediment, that is between me and the Moose Mob :unsure:

Link to comment
I only audit logs on maintenance runs. Haven't done it in a while, but then again, I haven't seen the need to.
Same here. If I am doing maintenance then I would be there because of someone reporting something so the last couple logs (and cachers) would be fresh on my mind but only the last 5 would be on my PDA from the PQ.
However, if there ever comes a time when I start seeing bogus logs I'll ramp up the efforts.
Agreed! Same as if someone was doing something else detrimental that came to my attention. Part of being a responsible cache owner.
...unless you simply don't care.
I think the effort we all put forth in making GC fun for people we'll probably never even meet, and the passionate discussions we get in to here trying to keep GC the best and most fun it can be for everyone shows that we definitely care.
Link to comment

 

These example cachers who only go after caches that have finds in the last several days seem like they would suffer terrible emotional anguish over a simple DNF regardless of the cause. What's the difference if they DNF a cache because they just couldn't find it? Or the last cacher didn't hide it back properly? Or the last logger was bogus and the cache is missing? Or the cache went missing AFTER the last person legitimately found it and logged it? Regardless of the reason, they got a DNF. How many people make a caching run and NEVER log a DNF???? Is a DNF that big a deal to some people???? Time to switch to de-caff....

You just don't get it. There are enough reasons, as you have just stated, to have a cache go missing causing a DNF. These are legitimate reasons and are part of the game. You seem to be saying that because these legitimate reasons exist then it is ok for someone to intentionally make another illegitimate reason. It isn't that someone can't stand a DNF they just don't want one caused by someone that gets their fun from armchair logging. There are enough reasons to DNF we don't need this one added to the list.

 

And the example of seeking a missing cache becuase of a bogus log entry is impossible to prove except in extremely remote circumstances like the bulldozer example. And even in that example the first person to seek the cache and find cleared land even without a bogus log, would still be looking for a missing cache, would still of driven the to site, would still be as disappointed. Not much difference in seeking a missing cache regardless of the last posting being bogus or not.

 

That is like saying that if you couldn't find your wallet because it was stolen it would be ok with you if you couldn't prove if it was stolen or just lost. It ok to steal stuff as long as you do it in a way that looks accidental.

 

If some joker wants to pad his find count go log as many as he wants on one of his own archived caches for all I care. Just no bogus logs that influence seeking decisions.
Until GC hits us with more hard line rules to assure a cache entry is valid (allow owners to have a code that needs to be emailed in to validate a find or something like that). the only way to resolve the potential of that occurring is every time a log entry is made online stating a cache is found, the owner would have to go out and validate the log entry and assure the cache is still there. GC must think it's not that bad a problem or it would be done already.

No one is talking about validating every log entry. You forget that this topic is about someone that appears to be armchair logging hundreds of caches. It is the idea of armchair logging hundreds of caches that you are supporting whether you mean to or not. If it becomes known to a cache owner that someone is armchair logging, it is their responsibility to delete the logs. I think Groundspeak has at least suggested it should be done that way.

Link to comment
I have a simple solution. When I check the logs when doing maintenance I cross out the names of anyone who didn't log a find online. :unsure:
Good solution but there are hides that have big log books and some that have not required a speck of maintenance in years. Bogus logs could sit idle for ages and when the maintenance run was made, I doubt anyone will sit there and try to validate 250 finds which would be signed all over the book (I have yet to see a popular cache's log book where every log entry was legible, dated, and sorted in chronological order, stickers have fallen off, etc). Not worth the effort IMHO as a bogus log that didn't cause a problem or raise a flag has already faded into time and you have a higher risk of just not reading an entry properly and deleting a valid find and unnecessarily slapping someone in the face...

Do you think this was meant tongue in cheek?

Link to comment
Are you saying that bogus logs aren't that big of a deal because a cache can go missing at any time. Because the last log could be bogus or legit and the cache is missing anyway so it doesn't matter?
Not at all, just saying in the MIA cache situation it's totally impossible to PROVE that the last log was bogus because the log book/sheet would be missing along with the cache. No proof, no case.

 

You are totally missing the point. This is not a court of law. This is about someone noticing that a cacher seemed to be armchair logging hundreds of caches and suggested that the logs should be deleted. A cache owner does not need proof to delete a log.

 

First of all, you're making exceptions of when it is alright to log a bogus log.
Never said it's okay to log a bogus/armchair log. Never will say it's okay. Just saying the vast majority would be so harmless that it's not really worth much effort on a cache owners part to hunt them down unless something raised a flag.

 

Well that is exactly what happened. Something raised a flag and someone said the logs should be deleted. Is this topic so long that no one can remember the OP.

 

Because you can write a bogus log that doesn't cause someone undue effort, stress, or hardship then all bogus logs are okay? Malarkey. That's like saying lying is okay because sometimes you can get away with it. (Don't even claim a "benign bogus log" is on the level of a polite lie. A bogus logs only benefits the logger while a polite lie protects the feelings of the person being told the fib.)
Never a situation where logging a bogus find is okay, acceptable, condoned or approved. But by the same token lying is not okay but how much effort do you put into validating what people tell you around the water cooler Monday is true? And if you found it wasn't true, what do you do about it? Confront them? Expose them to all their co-workers? If it's something that would affect people like lying about finishing a job or billing a customer, yeah, that's serious stuff. If it's lying about some adventure they claim to of had over the weekend then who does it hurt so why investigate and expose them?

 

If someone lies at the water cooler that he has logged over 200 caches that he never saw then I don't care and I don't think anyone else cares. If he comes on to this site and makes that same claim on over 200 found it logs then I do care. Do you really not see that there is a difference?

 

That should be the other way around. Because a bogus log can cause undue effort, stress or hardship then you shouldn't write false logs.
Correct.... never writing bogus logs is the correct way to live. Then again so is never lying. And like bogus logs you can proclaim that until the cows come home yet people will still write bogus logs and lie.

 

People will always do all things good and bad. So what we should give in and give up? It sure sounds like you are saying because they will always do it we should pretend it isn't there.

 

Personally, I find the argument of bogus logs being okay, because if a cache is missing it doesn't matter if the log is bogus or not, disconnected logic. Same kind of logic of not posting a DNF until you know whether the cache is missing--after all, you can't not find a cache that is not there.
Don't think anyone ever said bogus logs are "okay", just that there's not much gain in investigating them and not worth putting much effort into dealing with them. If something is blatent and raises a flag then deal with it, other then that time is much better spent creating new caches, maintaining existing caches or finding caches.

 

Again that is exactly what this topic is about. The flag was flying high. Over 200 logs logged online only. Not proof, but pretty obvious that something was a bit strange.

 

This site asks owners to delete logs that appear to be bogus. Proximity rules are in play partially because folks might find and sign the logbook of a different cache than intended and logged online. Most folks think lying in general is an ethically questionable practice at the very least.
If you were to be in town for a business meeting and it was far from the airport and you found one nearby cache and then later that evening found a dozen caches 500 miles away when you returned home. To many people that would "appear" bogus, so by the site guidelines that should be deleted as the site doesn't clarrify to "validate" the find, just delete it if it "appears" bogus. Doubt you'd be too happy about it. Most ethical people would validate first but the literal statement in the guidelines state to delete the ones that "appear" bogus, not just ones that "are". I'd rather err on the side of trusting that by nature, most people are honest and play by the rules then distrust people and assume everyone guilty until proven innocent.

 

And that is fine. You get to do what you want with the logs for the caches you own.

 

Bogus logs can affect others in a negative way.
Other then the one impossible to prove scenario of seeking an MIA cache, what other significant way can they affect others other then just disliking them as one would dislike a lier?

 

If I steal you wallet and you can't prove it, I guess you weren't harmed.

 

Quite frankly, condoning bogus logs makes me wonder about one's moral compass.
Guess I missed that one. Haven't condoned them, just not willing to put the effort into validating every log on my hundreds of hides just as a matter of ethics. How much effort do you personally put into validating the logs entered on your caches are legit and the cache is still there? A bogus log can "sound" as legit as a real one and if you don't validate them all then by that argument, you're condoning the bogus logs that sound legit which could impact people on your own caches, correct?

 

It is ok that you don't want to put effort into validating logs. Your cache, your call. You do seem to be willing to put a LOT of effort into telling others that they (shouldn't)?, (are wrong)? if they don't want bogus logs allowed. And whether you want to agree or not what you are posting in this forum DOES condone false logs. In case you aren't sure here is the defintion

 

:to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless

 

If people see someone toss litter out their car window and they don't run them down or report them, are they "condoning" the act of littering and saying it's "okay" to litter? If they see a child riding a bike not wearing a helmet and don't call the police and report them, are they "condoning" it and saying it's "okay" for kids to ride bikes without helmets? Could come up with a thousand of examples like that that I would bet everyone in here disagrees with but has walked right on by. I don't think that just because someone doesn't actively do something to change a situation that they are saying it's okay to do or condone it. I agree with you that we don't agree with bogus logs and doubt anyone would defend them, it's more a matter of what do you actively do to stop them or what can be done?

Well ok I agree that simply not making a citizens arrest on a litter bug is not condoning littering. However going on a forum and telling everyone that it is forgivable or harmless IS condoning it.

Link to comment

Those same people busted me for 21 items in the 20 item or less lane at Wal-Mart!!! Dang them people that just don't turn a blind eye to my deceitful acts! Foiled again!!!!

 

That's plain ol' common sense, right up there with alerting friends about a cacher who's been writing profanity on log sheets, or not hiding caches back the way they were found or closing containers properly, or stealing containers, or whining in their logs because a cache isn't what they think it should be, or someone logging more then one find on the same cache, or posting a find but their log says "Couldn't find this, maybe next time" or any number of a bazzilion things that you'd circulate with friends. Don't think anyone would have a blatently obvious bogus log on one of their hides hit them in the face and they just say "oh well", just don't know people willing to go hunt thru innocent sounding logs for them.

 

This happens often as a mistake, hitting the wrong button and not noticing. Would call that an accident more then a lie.

 

There are but that's they way they roll so let 'em. Can't please everyone.

 

And as the white picket fence slowly closes behind us we settle down with our 2-1/2 children and watch all the wonderful uplifting stories on the news in our perfect wonderful world.... at least until the drugs wear off.... hehehehehee :huh:

 

CONDONING :lol:

Link to comment

The debate is not over whether it's ok to log bogus finds. Bogus logs are going to happen on any online site. The site has a relatively good method to control these from getting out of hand by asking cache owners to delete these logs. In some cases, like the OP here, a discussion on the forums may help identify the logs as bogus (by showing a pattern by the logger for example). We are debating when a cacher owner is justified in letting an apparently bogus log stand. I think we are seeing that some people prefer to give the benefit of the doubt to the logger and they may argue as well that any inconvenience to others caused by apparently bogus logs that didn't get deleted is minor.

Not from what I have read. I have seen it posted many times that the inconvenience is to small to worry about the bogus logs. They keep saying that they agree that it is not ok to write bogus logs. It seems to me that the debate is about whether it is the duty of a responsible cache owner to delete bogus logs that have been brought to their attention and if armchair logging should be condoned or not.

Link to comment
You just don't get it. There are enough reasons, as you have just stated, to have a cache go missing causing a DNF. These are legitimate reasons and are part of the game. You seem to be saying that because these legitimate reasons exist then it is ok for someone to intentionally make another illegitimate reason. It isn't that someone can't stand a DNF they just don't want one caused by someone that gets their fun from armchair logging. There are enough reasons to DNF we don't need this one added to the list.
I NEVER said it's okay to log an armchair find and never will, but the question is WHAT ARE YOU OR ANYONE DOING ABOUT IT? Seems everyone agrees if something raises a flag or shows up during a maintenance run they'd deal with it, what is anyone saying they're doing beyond that and what results have they had? How many bogus logs have you deleted?

 

That is like saying that if you couldn't find your wallet because it was stolen it would be ok with you if you couldn't prove if it was stolen or just lost. It ok to steal stuff as long as you do it in a way that looks accidental.
NOT AT ALL.... for that example what I am saying is if your wallet is missing and you don't KNOW it was stolen because you might of just lost it or misplaced it, DO NOT RUN AROUND SCREAMING IT WAS STOLEN as that's just one theory of what might of happened! Same with MIA caches and logs posted up until it was pronounced gone, you have no proof the log entry was bogus so thinking it was bogus is only THEORY and always will be.

 

No one is talking about validating every log entry. You forget that this topic is about someone that appears to be armchair logging hundreds of caches. It is the idea of armchair logging hundreds of caches that you are supporting whether you mean to or not. If it becomes known to a cache owner that someone is armchair logging, it is their responsibility to delete the logs. I think Groundspeak has at least suggested it should be done that way.
With someone who states flat out they never signed the log you'd only be "assuming" they didn't find the cache so deleting their logs would be based on assumption and theory and not fact. There is also the possibility they did find the cache and they did sign the log but they're just baiting someone into assuming they're lying to stir the pot (and doing a good job of it). Just curious but other then the potential ethical issues, what harm comes from leaving the logs sit? After 5 more finds they're off the PQ radar anyway.
Link to comment
That's exactly what I mean by the issue of 'cheating' being strictly between the logger of the find and the owner of the cache, and it being nobody else's business.
Good perspective.... I like that. When it comes down to it GC is like Ebay, you have owners and cachers like buyers and sellers who use GC's or Ebay's website to link up. But when it comes down to it the transaction is between the buyer and the seller or owner and cacher. The GC site only provides the means for them to connect.... the "transaction" is between the owner and the cacher, GC just has the tools that allow that to happen and beyond the content of their site they pretty much stay out of it except for gross violations :huh:

 

Okay, I am busy so I am going to take the easy way out. I agree with the post above 100% and don't feel the need to even expand on it one bit. This eBay analogy describes perfectly how I feel on this issue. If this post gets deleted for reasons of me not actually typing my own original version of this sediment, that is between me and the Moose Mob :lol:

 

I don't know for sure but, I hope Ebay would get involved if a seller lied about what was being sold. I know if you commit to buying something and that turns out to be a lie you are likely to have problems with Ebay as well. My guess is that Groundspeak would not want someone armchair logging over 200 caches.

Link to comment

I NEVER said it's okay to log an armchair find and never will, but the question is WHAT ARE YOU OR ANYONE DOING ABOUT IT? Seems everyone agrees if something raises a flag or shows up during a maintenance run they'd deal with it, what is anyone saying they're doing beyond that and what results have they had? How many bogus logs have you deleted?

 

I understand. Condoning is not the same as "saying it is ok". What are we doing? Well it seems at this point all I can do is support the idea that it is not ok to armchair cache, and condone the idea that it is ok to delete bogus logs.

 

NOT AT ALL.... for that example what I am saying is if your wallet is missing and you don't KNOW it was stolen because you might of just lost it or misplaced it, DO NOT RUN AROUND SCREAMING IT WAS STOLEN as that's just one theory of what might of happened! Same with MIA caches and logs posted up until it was pronounced gone, you have no proof the log entry was bogus so thinking it was bogus is only THEORY and always will be.

 

Ok, but if over 200 wallets are misplaced and one person was around every time I sure am not going to leave my wallet alone with them.

 

With someone who states flat out they never signed the log you'd only be "assuming" they didn't find the cache so deleting their logs would be based on assumption and theory and not fact. There is also the possibility they did find the cache and they did sign the log but they're just baiting someone into assuming they're lying to stir the pot (and doing a good job of it). Just curious but other then the potential ethical issues, what harm comes from leaving the logs sit? After 5 more finds they're off the PQ radar anyway.

If the cache is still there then the false log would cause no harm that I care about. If the log gave any info that would cause a cacher to be misled, then it is a problem. I don't care about the smiley count. For me it is not the ethical issues but rather the practical effects of the lie. You can't say that because most of the time no one will be harmed it is ok. If you armchair find over 200 caches the chances go up that some time or sooner you will mislead the cachers that follow after you. Therefore it should not be done or condoned.

Link to comment
Well ok I agree that simply not making a citizens arrest on a litter bug is not condoning littering. However going on a forum and telling everyone that it is forgivable or harmless IS condoning it.
Allowing someone to log a bogus find and not doing anything about it is condoning them, allowing someone to litter and not doing anything about it is not condoning littering....? Hmmmm, me thinks that would be a tad hypocritical.

 

I have never stated bogus logging is forgivable, condoned, or acceptble and I have repeatably stated I would deal with any that came to my attention and IMHO needed dealing with. What seems to be missed is I don't see a need to hunt for them if they're not jumping out at me somehow. Do you?

 

As far as the OP is concerned it's totally up to the cache owner's personal believes of what to do with the logs of the cacher in question. If it were on my caches and if I felt concerned enough (which I don't as the logs sound entertaining) I would run out to a close by supposedly found cache and check the log sheet (they could be spewing BS in the logs and maybe they actually did find the cache and sign the log). Would be pretty quick to check. If no log exists I'd pick one (or a couple) and drop the cacher an email and diplomatically ask them some basic questions about the find(s) that anyone finding it would know. If they didn't respond then I'd reply stating that if they cannot validate their finds their logs would be deleted. If they didn't reply to that, then I'd scrub 'em. Not rocket science but it all starts with obtaining a belief that the logs are bogus and in some way harmful to my caches or the game of geocaching.

Link to comment
I don't know for sure but, I hope Ebay would get involved if a seller lied about what was being sold. I know if you commit to buying something and that turns out to be a lie you are likely to have problems with Ebay as well.
Ebay has hard rules and it is a legally binding contract between buyers and sellers, the example was given to show that Ebay provides a forum for buyers and sellers to get together for a sales transaction. Ebay would step in for violtaions but if you read Ebay, the rules are concise, clear and legally binding. GC has vague guidelines and is not legally binding and non-contractual. It's just a forum for bringing owners and cachers together for some recreational fun.

 

My guess is that Groundspeak would not want someone armchair logging over 200 caches.
I would assume so, too, if it was proven to them. But proving it to them might be tricky. Or they might sit back and claim no harm no foul and let the owners handle them if they think they don't harm the game. They dealt a death blow to virtuals over this issue and I am sure if they felt this was a serious problem they'd deal with these, too. Since nothing has been done can we assume they don't feel this is a serious issue?
Link to comment

You just don't get it. There are enough reasons, as you have just stated, to have a cache go missing causing a DNF. These are legitimate reasons and are part of the game. You seem to be saying that because these legitimate reasons exist then it is ok for someone to intentionally make another illegitimate reason. It isn't that someone can't stand a DNF they just don't want one caused by someone that gets their fun from armchair logging. There are enough reasons to DNF we don't need this one added to the list.

That's blaming the missing cache on the bogus log. The bogus log did not make the cache go missing. The overwhelming majority of the kind of bogus log you're talking about are made on caches that are still there or at least likely still there. Sure they may be some bogus logger who realizes if a cache has had several DNFs it might be missing and if the owner hasn't done maintenance on it, they might log it. Then if the owner does maintenance and the cache is missing they can always say they signed the log before it went missing. Of course the owner (or another cacher) just may find the cache and see that the bogus logger did not sign the log. And any cacher can read the logs and see that bogus log looks suspect and make their own determination of whether to hunt it. Think of it this way - someone can decide to hunt a cache with a suspect log. If they find it, they can prove that the log was bogus. If they don't find it, they can decide to believe the cache was missing when the bogus logger says he found and therefore convince themselves it really is a bogus log.

 

Of course you're more likely to search for a cache that was missing and the previous person didn't log a DNF. You've just "wasted" time searching for a cache that wasn't there because some was too embarrassed or lazy to log a DNF. This happens so much more often than a bogus log found it log that there is no doubt which is the bigger problem.

 

I have a simple solution. When I check the logs when doing maintenance I cross out the names of anyone who didn't log a find online. :huh:
Good solution but there are hides that have big log books and some that have not required a speck of maintenance in years. Bogus logs could sit idle for ages and when the maintenance run was made, I doubt anyone will sit there and try to validate 250 finds which would be signed all over the book (I have yet to see a popular cache's log book where every log entry was legible, dated, and sorted in chronological order, stickers have fallen off, etc). Not worth the effort IMHO as a bogus log that didn't cause a problem or raise a flag has already faded into time and you have a higher risk of just not reading an entry properly and deleting a valid find and unnecessarily slapping someone in the face...

Do you think this was meant tongue in cheek?

He doesn't pay attention when he reads your posts why should he pay attention reading mine. :lol:

 

The debate is not over whether it's ok to log bogus finds. Bogus logs are going to happen on any online site. The site has a relatively good method to control these from getting out of hand by asking cache owners to delete these logs. In some cases, like the OP here, a discussion on the forums may help identify the logs as bogus (by showing a pattern by the logger for example). We are debating when a cacher owner is justified in letting an apparently bogus log stand. I think we are seeing that some people prefer to give the benefit of the doubt to the logger and they may argue as well that any inconvenience to others caused by apparently bogus logs that didn't get deleted is minor.

Not from what I have read. I have seen it posted many times that the inconvenience is to small to worry about the bogus logs. They keep saying that they agree that it is not ok to write bogus logs. It seems to me that the debate is about whether it is the duty of a responsible cache owner to delete bogus logs that have been brought to their attention and if armchair logging should be condoned or not.

I think I said that the guidelines do specify that cache owners delete bogus logs. The issue for many cache owners is how to judge if a log is bogus. These cache owners don't go by the you must sign the log to claim a find. They accept the log book isn't always signed and look to other hints in the log the cache actually "found" the cache. Some owners are very forgiving. Some virtual owners even accept armchair logging and state so on their cache page. I don't know of any physical cache owners who accept the idea of an armchair log but some may read a log like the one quoted in the OP and think this guy actually found the cache and just doesn't sign logs on principle. What are you proposing to do with cache owners who are not maintaining the logs to your standard?
Link to comment

You just don't get it. There are enough reasons, as you have just stated, to have a cache go missing causing a DNF. These are legitimate reasons and are part of the game. You seem to be saying that because these legitimate reasons exist then it is ok for someone to intentionally make another illegitimate reason. It isn't that someone can't stand a DNF they just don't want one caused by someone that gets their fun from armchair logging. There are enough reasons to DNF we don't need this one added to the list.

That's blaming the missing cache on the bogus log. The bogus log did not make the cache go missing. The overwhelming majority of the kind of bogus log you're talking about are made on caches that are still there or at least likely still there. Sure they may be some bogus logger who realizes if a cache has had several DNFs it might be missing and if the owner hasn't done maintenance on it, they might log it. Then if the owner does maintenance and the cache is missing they can always say they signed the log before it went missing. Of course the owner (or another cacher) just may find the cache and see that the bogus logger did not sign the log. And any cacher can read the logs and see that bogus log looks suspect and make their own determination of whether to hunt it. Think of it this way - someone can decide to hunt a cache with a suspect log. If they find it, they can prove that the log was bogus. If they don't find it, they can decide to believe the cache was missing when the bogus logger says he found and therefore convince themselves it really is a bogus log.

 

No the bogus log did not cause the cache to go missing. It might cause someone to look for it and thereby cause a unnecessary search and a DNF. The assumption is that in this hypothetical case the cacher would avoid looking for the "missing" cache if it were not for the bogus log.

 

Of course you're more likely to search for a cache that was missing and the previous person didn't log a DNF. You've just "wasted" time searching for a cache that wasn't there because some was too embarrassed or lazy to log a DNF. This happens so much more often than a bogus log found it log that there is no doubt which is the bigger problem.

 

I guess this would be a false log of omission. I would agree that logging a DNF is part of the game and not doing so can mislead other cachers. Since there is pretty much no way to know it happened I guess all I can do is not condone it on the forum. Will everybody please always log a DNF if they DNF a cache.

 

I have a simple solution. When I check the logs when doing maintenance I cross out the names of anyone who didn't log a find online. ;)
Good solution but there are hides that have big log books and some that have not required a speck of maintenance in years. Bogus logs could sit idle for ages and when the maintenance run was made, I doubt anyone will sit there and try to validate 250 finds which would be signed all over the book (I have yet to see a popular cache's log book where every log entry was legible, dated, and sorted in chronological order, stickers have fallen off, etc). Not worth the effort IMHO as a bogus log that didn't cause a problem or raise a flag has already faded into time and you have a higher risk of just not reading an entry properly and deleting a valid find and unnecessarily slapping someone in the face...

Do you think this was meant tongue in cheek?

He doesn't pay attention when he reads your posts why should he pay attention reading mine. :huh:

OK :lol::huh:

The debate is not over whether it's ok to log bogus finds. Bogus logs are going to happen on any online site. The site has a relatively good method to control these from getting out of hand by asking cache owners to delete these logs. In some cases, like the OP here, a discussion on the forums may help identify the logs as bogus (by showing a pattern by the logger for example). We are debating when a cacher owner is justified in letting an apparently bogus log stand. I think we are seeing that some people prefer to give the benefit of the doubt to the logger and they may argue as well that any inconvenience to others caused by apparently bogus logs that didn't get deleted is minor.

Not from what I have read. I have seen it posted many times that the inconvenience is to small to worry about the bogus logs. They keep saying that they agree that it is not ok to write bogus logs. It seems to me that the debate is about whether it is the duty of a responsible cache owner to delete bogus logs that have been brought to their attention and if armchair logging should be condoned or not.

I think I said that the guidelines do specify that cache owners delete bogus logs. The issue for many cache owners is how to judge if a log is bogus. These cache owners don't go by the you must sign the log to claim a find. They accept the log book isn't always signed and look to other hints in the log the cache actually "found" the cache. Some owners are very forgiving. Some virtual owners even accept armchair logging and state so on their cache page. I don't know of any physical cache owners who accept the idea of an armchair log but some may read a log like the one quoted in the OP and think this guy actually found the cache and just doesn't sign logs on principle. What are you proposing to do with cache owners who are not maintaining the logs to your standard?

I don't set the standard. If the topic is discussed at Groundspeak, on the fourms and in meetings and events the community will hopefully come to a consensus about what the standard should be. Beyond that, all I can do is manage my caches and make sure I don't condone bad behavior.

Link to comment
I don't know for sure but, I hope Ebay would get involved if a seller lied about what was being sold. I know if you commit to buying something and that turns out to be a lie you are likely to have problems with Ebay as well.
Ebay has hard rules and it is a legally binding contract between buyers and sellers, the example was given to show that Ebay provides a forum for buyers and sellers to get together for a sales transaction. Ebay would step in for violtaions but if you read Ebay, the rules are concise, clear and legally binding. GC has vague guidelines and is not legally binding and non-contractual. It's just a forum for bringing owners and cachers together for some recreational fun.

 

I was not the one that offered Ebay as a example.

 

My guess is that Groundspeak would not want someone armchair logging over 200 caches.
I would assume so, too, if it was proven to them. But proving it to them might be tricky. Or they might sit back and claim no harm no foul and let the owners handle them if they think they don't harm the game. They dealt a death blow to virtuals over this issue and I am sure if they felt this was a serious problem they'd deal with these, too. Since nothing has been done can we assume they don't feel this is a serious issue?

No they don't need to have it proven to them in order to not want it. It might need to be proven before they would ban an account. I would tend to agree that this does not happen every few minutes. Just because it has not become a serious issue does not mean it is something we should all condone.

Link to comment
Well ok I agree that simply not making a citizens arrest on a litter bug is not condoning littering. However going on a forum and telling everyone that it is forgivable or harmless IS condoning it.
Allowing someone to log a bogus find and not doing anything about it is condoning them, allowing someone to litter and not doing anything about it is not condoning littering....? Hmmmm, me thinks that would be a tad hypocritical.

 

Since I am not the littering police your argument does not hold water. I am allowed, maybe required to police the logs on my cache. If someone armchair logs your cache what can I do about it. Do I put a gun to your head and make you delete the log? If I don't you say I am condoning it? Remember the defintion...

 

: to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless

I have never stated bogus logging is forgivable, condoned, or acceptble and I have repeatably stated I would deal with any that came to my attention and IMHO needed dealing with. What seems to be missed is I don't see a need to hunt for them if they're not jumping out at me somehow. Do you?

 

I have never even thought about verifying the logs on my caches. If I got a log that said they only log online I might do it for the first time. You may not have stated the bogus logging is condoned, you don't need to state it to do it. Condoning is a verb. It is not about saying you condone it. You condone it when you repeatedly say that it is harmless. Again, read the definition. It is clear to me from your words that you regard false logging as harmless or forgivable.

 

As far as the OP is concerned it's totally up to the cache owner's personal believes of what to do with the logs of the cacher in question. If it were on my caches and if I felt concerned enough (which I don't as the logs sound entertaining) I would run out to a close by supposedly found cache and check the log sheet (they could be spewing BS in the logs and maybe they actually did find the cache and sign the log). Would be pretty quick to check. If no log exists I'd pick one (or a couple) and drop the cacher an email and diplomatically ask them some basic questions about the find(s) that anyone finding it would know. If they didn't respond then I'd reply stating that if they cannot validate their finds their logs would be deleted. If they didn't reply to that, then I'd scrub 'em. Not rocket science but it all starts with obtaining a belief that the logs are bogus and in some way harmful to my caches or the game of geocaching.

 

I have no problem with this. Your cache, Your call. If you truly believe they are real you should leave them. If you decide to check them and find them bogus you should delete them. It is the suggestion that armchair caching is harmless that I disagree with.

Link to comment
Of course you're more likely to search for a cache that was missing and the previous person didn't log a DNF. You've just "wasted" time searching for a cache that wasn't there because some was too embarrassed or lazy to log a DNF. This happens so much more often than a bogus log found it log that there is no doubt which is the bigger problem.
Some people look at a DNF as a failure, not realizing how valuable a tool that can be to the owner. We go by the phylosophy that if we actually put some effort towards searching and we couldn't find it we log a DNF. If we got turned away by muggles, or a storm hit, or something prevented us from putting forth any decent effort to look then we post a note stating such. As an owner, any DNF that comes across is an immediately flag on the watch list to see if more follow suit as the cache gets more attention in case it is missing. A note saying something like "We parked but it started pouring before we could reach GZ, we'll be back" would be less of an alert since no real search occurred.
He doesn't pay attention when he reads your posts why should he pay attention reading mine. :lol:
And sometimes "he" is busy and "he" stumbles over "his" glasses in "his" haste to read a post. :huh: Sorry about missing that....
I think I said that the guidelines do specify that cache owners delete bogus logs.
Thought it said to delete posts that "appear" to be bogus? I think bogus logs should be deleted but someone could say that meant a log which "appears" valid but is bogus doesn't need to be deleted <---insert tongue in cheek here
Link to comment
Since I am not the littering police your argument does not hold water. I am allowed, maybe required to police the logs on my cache. If someone armchair logs your cache what can I do about it. Do I put a gun to your head and make you delete the log? If I don't you say I am condoning it? Remember the defintion...
If someone KNEW a bogus log existed on their cache and then they did NOTHING about it then they could be seen as CONDONING it. If someone does NOT know if any logs are bogus on their hides and they don't do anything to investigate it, they can be 100% AGAINST bogus logs, it's just they don't have knowledge of any to act upon. As stated before if a bogus log were to come to most cache owner's attention, they would deal with it, including myself. We are just not putting effort in to validating if a log is bogus or not unless something throws up a flag and appears to be. Are you stating if we don't actively investigate if a valid sounding logs are bogus then we're condoning bogus logs? Because if you're not, somehow we're kind of agreeing on this :lol:
Link to comment
Copy and paste logs bug me anyway. Cache owners go to a lot of time and trouble putting out their caches (at least most do) and enjoy hearing a little something about their effort. Unless you are finding 10 - 15 a day why not take the time to write a personal note? Even with 10 - 15 how long does it take to write a note?

 

I have had several days where I found 30 or more caches in a day. It may take a while, but I write a log for each cache. I try to mention something unique about the cache, the hide or the area. Also if a log is full and I don't have any with me, I at least put some sort of mark on the log sheet and note it in my log.

 

One thing that bugs me a little is when someone logs a find like this. "I saw where the cache container was supposed to be but it is missing." I have found many where the cache was obviously supposed to be but did not log those as a find with one exception. The owner of the cache was a local geocacher. Their cache had been muggled while a family member was sick. After swapping some e-mails with them, I went back to replace the cache to help them out and they told me to go ahead and log a find. (But I still signed a log!)

Link to comment
Since I am not the littering police your argument does not hold water. I am allowed, maybe required to police the logs on my cache. If someone armchair logs your cache what can I do about it. Do I put a gun to your head and make you delete the log? If I don't you say I am condoning it? Remember the defintion...
If someone KNEW a bogus log existed on their cache and then they did NOTHING about it then they could be seen as CONDONING it. If someone does NOT know if any logs are bogus on their hides and they don't do anything to investigate it, they can be 100% AGAINST bogus logs, it's just they don't have knowledge of any to act upon. As stated before if a bogus log were to come to most cache owner's attention, they would deal with it, including myself. We are just not putting effort in to validating if a log is bogus or not unless something throws up a flag and appears to be. Are you stating if we don't actively investigate if a valid sounding logs are bogus then we're condoning bogus logs? Because if you're not, somehow we're kind of agreeing on this ;)

I think we're kind of agreeing. As I state if a different post, I do not investigate logs unless there was something out of the ordinary. If I saw a post about a cacher logging online only and he had logged one of my caches I would check into it. I agree that you don't need to check every log no matter what. The only things that I see that is condoning this is coming on the forum and saying bogus logs don't matter.

Link to comment
I think we're kind of agreeing. As I state if a different post, I do not investigate logs unless there was something out of the ordinary. If I saw a post about a cacher logging online only and he had logged one of my caches I would check into it. I agree that you don't need to check every log no matter what. The only things that I see that is condoning this is coming on the forum and saying bogus logs don't matter.
I think most everyone in here ended up at the same destination, just took different paths to get there. Not going to be the GBI (Geocaching Bureau of Investigation) but we'll all deal with blatent bogus logs as much as we would any other issues as we defend and protect our property (our hides) as responsible cache owners should.

 

As far as the burning at the stake.... got any marshmallows? ;)

Link to comment
Since I am not the littering police your argument does not hold water. I am allowed, maybe required to police the logs on my cache. If someone armchair logs your cache what can I do about it. Do I put a gun to your head and make you delete the log? If I don't you say I am condoning it? Remember the defintion...
If someone KNEW a bogus log existed on their cache and then they did NOTHING about it then they could be seen as CONDONING it. If someone does NOT know if any logs are bogus on their hides and they don't do anything to investigate it, they can be 100% AGAINST bogus logs, it's just they don't have knowledge of any to act upon. As stated before if a bogus log were to come to most cache owner's attention, they would deal with it, including myself. We are just not putting effort in to validating if a log is bogus or not unless something throws up a flag and appears to be. Are you stating if we don't actively investigate if a valid sounding logs are bogus then we're condoning bogus logs? Because if you're not, somehow we're kind of agreeing on this ;)

I think we're kind of agreeing. As I state if a different post, I do not investigate logs unless there was something out of the ordinary. If I saw a post about a cacher logging online only and he had logged one of my caches I would check into it. I agree that you don't need to check every log no matter what.

 

Of course not, no one regularly audits their logbooks. That being said, I just pulled a cache for maintenance that has a big fat logbook dating back to 2004. I think I'm going to check it out. I'll bet I find at least 10 logs that never logged online, and zero bogus logs. I will say one thing I noticed while skimming it though, people always wrote nice, page long paper logs in 2004 on this cache, and they're logging about 5 to a single page now. :D

Link to comment
Of course not, no one regularly audits their logbooks. That being said, I just pulled a cache for maintenance that has a big fat logbook dating back to 2004. I think I'm going to check it out. I'll bet I find at least 10 logs that never logged online, and zero bogus logs. I will say one thing I noticed while skimming it though, people always wrote nice, page long paper logs in 2004 on this cache, and they're logging about 5 to a single page now. :D
Glad to see that occasionally I get a log email from someone who still writes a nice long adventure story. But that might go hand in hand with the kinds of hides today, too. We sometimes write a little in the cache log book but I know there have been times we've been literally getting eaten alive by our Florida state birds (the mosquito!) and it's all we can do to scribble something, re-hide it and RUN!!!!! ;) And we also look at the more you write, the sooner the log will fill and a maintenance run be required by the owner. Sometimes we see micro logs with BIG TEXT signatures or people that write their whole caching name on a nano log. We save most of our writing for the online log. Edited by infiniteMPG
Link to comment
Of course not, no one regularly audits their logbooks. That being said, I just pulled a cache for maintenance that has a big fat logbook dating back to 2004. I think I'm going to check it out. I'll bet I find at least 10 logs that never logged online, and zero bogus logs. I will say one thing I noticed while skimming it though, people always wrote nice, page long paper logs in 2004 on this cache, and they're logging about 5 to a single page now. :anitongue:
Glad to see that occasionally I get a log email from someone who still writes a nice long adventure story. But that might go hand in hand with the kinds of hides today, too. We sometimes write a little in the cache log book but I know there have been times we've been literally getting eaten alive by our Florida state birds (the mosquito!) and it's all we can do to scribble something, re-hide it and RUN!!!!! :ph34r: And we also look at the more you write, the sooner the log will fill and a maintenance run be required by the owner. Sometimes we see micro logs with BIG TEXT signatures or people that write their whole caching name on a nano log. We save most of our writing for the online log.

 

Ruh-roh, am I steering off-topic? :laughing: There have been several threads about lame online logging, but this is the first I've seen (or even thought about) paper logs becoming shorter. I'm not imagining this, there is an amazing transformation in this logbook from 2007 on. A Dozen or more signature only logs, whereas there was only one I can think of from '06 and earlier. I believe this can be attributed to many more caches to find (especially in my area, they were still pretty sparse in 2004), and people just scribbling their signature, and moving on to the next cache.

 

I also remember about two months ago, I was the 7th or 8th finder of a new regular cache with a good sized pocket notebook, and all the previous logs were signature only. I even remember commenting "the way people are signing, you'll have room for about 10,000 signatures". :lol:

 

To stay on topic, when is the offending, non-logbook signing German cacher going to show up in this thread? I had predicted by page 9?

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment

...I would assume so, too, if it was proven to them. But proving it to them might be tricky. Or they might sit back and claim no harm no foul and let the owners handle them if they think they don't harm the game. ...

Speaking from experience they can and do ban members for false logging. There flat out is no question that false logs are bad. I don't think you are debating that point.

 

For KBI: sure there are execptions. Sloof Lirpa being one that I can think of.

Link to comment

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

 

Back in the day, not all caches had log books to sign. That's a point worth remembering. Micro's often had no log book.

Huh! That's not how I remember it. Trades and little log scrolls. Remember it vividly. Why? Because of all the cussing trying to figure out the puzzle of getting everything back in.

 

Given we live in different parts of the country, I have no doubt we are both right as to what we vividly remember finding in the field.

Link to comment

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.

I come to favor the bird watching analogy. A birdwatcher in Germany post that while on a business trip to Los Angeles he saw a speckled winged albatross. A twitcher living in San Diego the gets in his car a drives the two and half hours to see the rare species. He's just wasted gas not to mention his time to look for a bird that hasn't been seen in 40 years because someone sitting in his armchair Googled a picture of it.

Very nice.

Link to comment
Quite frankly, condoning bogus logs makes me wonder about one's moral compass.

Can’t say for sure whether I agree with that. Too hypothetical. If I ever hear about anyone actually condoning bogus logs, however, I’ll let you know.

 

I do wonder, however, about people who constantly fret over everyone else’s moral compass – people who insist on seeing evil where there is none.

 

My own moral compass tells me not to go around judging other people, and to mind my own business – especially in a non-competitive and informal hobby like Geocaching.

 

My entertainment compass, on the other hand, points steadily toward the never-ending supply of amusing people who wring their hands in distress while worrying about the morals, ethics, and motivations of their fellow hobbyists. My social compass tells me that these folks tend to be the ones who are the most insecure about their own internal motivations, and who cover for that insecurity by questioning other people's morals.

 

I’m sure you’re not one of those insecure types, Coyote. Just generalizing.

 

Like I said: If I ever hear about anyone actually condoning bogus logs, I’ll let you know my reaction.

Edited by KBI
Link to comment

...I’m not saying bogus logs are right. I’m not saying bogus logs are morally praiseworthy. I’m not saying bogus logs are what the trendy right-thinking moralite should be wearing this season. I’m simply saying that they don’t matter, and that there is no reason for me to let them bother me...

They do matter. You just chose to ignore the salient reasons as to why.

I say they don't matter. You say they do. As far as I can tell I have not chosen to ignore any counter-reasoning, but anything is possible.

 

Were you planning to leave it at that, or can you please also help me to understand the "salient reasons as to why?"

 

If you believe I am missing something important, I would very much like to hear what it is. If I am wrong about this, I do no wish to continue being wrong. I promise you I have an open mind. I don't really care who is right. I am far more interested in what is right. Anything less open-minded would be intellectually dishonest of me, don't you think?

 

I recently invited another participant in this thread to go beyond simply saying "you're wrong, KBI" and to persuade me with something convincing. The response was a raspberry. While I enjoyed the raspberry, it nevertheless failed to convince me to change my mind.

 

Can YOU change my mind, RK?

Guess not. :laughing:

Link to comment

 

I’m not saying bogus logs are right. I’m not saying bogus logs are morally praiseworthy. I’m not saying bogus logs are what the trendy right-thinking moralite should be wearing this season. I’m simply saying that they don’t matter, and that there is no reason for me to let them bother me.

 

I’ve already explained this; all you have to do is read what you quoted: "For someone to claim they found a cache when they didn’t is silly, but silly is ALL it is – a bogus cache log is neither a cultural crisis, nor a sin, nor a crime against humanity."

 

I am somewhat baffled by your continued defense of this position. IF you are saying that the total amount of bogus or armchair logs is so small that in the overall Geocaching world they don't amount to more than a fly speck. then maybe I can agree that the problem is not pervasive and doesn't require everyone to do an immediate and complete log audit. The game of Geocaching is not going to collapse under the weight of false logs. In this sense maybe I can agree that they don't matter.

 

If you are saying as quoted above that any individual bogus cache log is only silly, then you can't claim you are not condoning false logs. It seems that you are ignoring the definition of the word. Maybe you could give us your definition of the word "condoning" so we could substitute that one in when ever you use the word. When ever I have seen anyone give you salient reasons why it matters, you twist the argument and try to make it about something else. I think you have been given many salient reasons why false logging is wrong, should not be done, and should be discouraged by all, and should not be condoned in the forums.

Link to comment
If you are saying as quoted above that any individual bogus cache log is only silly, then you can't claim you are not condoning false logs. It seems that you are ignoring the definition of the word. Maybe you could give us your definition of the word "condoning" so we could substitute that one in when ever you use the word.

I’ve already said what I mean. You even quoted me.

 

I said:

I’m not saying bogus logs are
right
. I’m not saying bogus logs are
morally praiseworthy
. I’m not saying bogus logs are what the trendy right-thinking moralite should be wearing this season. I’m simply saying that they
don’t matter
, and that there is no reason for me to let them bother me.

(Why are so many people bothered by the fact that I’m not bothered?)

 

I think you have been given many salient reasons why false logging is wrong ....

I agree that false logging is wrong, and have explained why I neither do it nor encourage it.

 

.... should not be done ....

I agree that false logging should not be done, and have explained why I neither do it nor encourage it.

 

.... and should be discouraged by all ....

I disagree that false logging needs to be discouraged by all, and have explained my reasons.

 

.... and should not be condoned in the forums.

If you disagree with my use of any particular word, then maybe you should tell me which different word you think I should be using in its place. Otherwise I think I have already babbled a sufficient amount to make my position clear, and I see no reason to repeat myself any further.

 

You should already be plenty familiar with my point of view. I have used a variety of words. I make heavy (maximum, serious, frequent, big-time) use of my thesaurus. I have repeated myself enough already. If you don’t understand my position by now, I doubt any further babbling on my part will help.

Link to comment
I can guess that he left his hotel in the morning and went to Will Rogers State Historic Park where he hiked for what would have been the better part of the day. He found most of the caches in that park (skipped a multi that really isn't a multi and a cache down an overgrown trail that requires some bushwhacking) and some in the neighboring park area that can be reached by trails from WRSHP.

I think this thread has moved on from its original topic, but I did want to add to this point anyway.

 

To me, the most damning part of his itinerary was that he "found" GC10ATG A Small Circle Of Friends but not the two nearby caches (Chicken Ridge Bridge by some other name, and More Inspiration). All require a hike with several hundred feet of elevation gain. The one he "found" requires by far the most bushwhacking of the three, and is in the middle in terms of where one leaves the trail. Now I suppose it's possible that the other two owners deleted his finds before I had a chance to look, but I looked pretty quickly because I was watching a couple of the caches he "found". It simply doesn't make any sense to hike all the way up there and then look for that cache and not the others. Oh, and the other two are basically impossible to DNF; the one he "found' is easy too but not quite as easy.

 

That and the skull photo on his profile ...

 

Edward

Link to comment

 

I’ve already said what I mean. You even quoted me.

 

I said:

I’m not saying bogus logs are
right
. I’m not saying bogus logs are
morally praiseworthy
. I’m not saying bogus logs are what the trendy right-thinking moralite should be wearing this season. I’m simply saying that they
don’t matter
, and that there is no reason for me to let them bother me.

(Why are so many people bothered by the fact that I’m not bothered?)

 

So you are saying that you are not bothered by things that you yourself say are immoral and not praiseworthy and wrong?

 

 

.... and should not be condoned in the forums.

If you disagree with my use of any particular word, then maybe you should tell me which different word you think I should be using in its place. Otherwise I think I have already babbled a sufficient amount to make my position clear, and I see no reason to repeat myself any further.

 

You say you don't condone false logging. I disagree with your use of the word "don't". I think your position would be better illustrated by the use of the word "do". As in, you do condone false logging. You think it is no big deal and doesn't matter. That is the definition of condone. It seems that you wish to simply go along as though you don't understand what I am saying so I guess I will just have to let it go at this.

Link to comment
You say you don't condone false logging. I disagree with your use of the word "don't". I think your position would be better illustrated by the use of the word "do". As in, you do condone false logging. You think it is no big deal and doesn't matter. That is the definition of condone.

Suit yourself. You already know my opinion. You are far more worried about this definition thing than I am.

 

I’ve already said what I mean. You even quoted me.

 

I said:

I’m not saying bogus logs are
right
. I’m not saying bogus logs are
morally praiseworthy
. I’m not saying bogus logs are what the trendy right-thinking moralite should be wearing this season. I’m simply saying that they
don’t matter
, and that there is no reason for me to let them bother me.

So you are saying that you are not bothered by things that you yourself say are immoral and not praiseworthy and wrong?

False logging is wrong. Why else would I be calling it “false?”

 

There are lots of things that, while technically “wrong,” simply don’t bother me. The fact that those things bother other people is something I find amusing.

 

Okay .... I wasn’t going to start repeating myself, but apparently that’s what it’s going to take.

 

Here is a recap of my position. Please read these repeats and tell me which parts trouble you.

 

Okay, so you interpret that as "support." I don’t see it that way at all. I call it "tolerance." Or how about "lenience." Or "acceptance." Or "patience."

 

You don’t have to like something, or agree with it, or modify your opinion that it is, in fact, wrong, in order to tolerate it. You can peacefully coexist with a thing without "supporting" it.

 

Just because I believe a thing is wrong doesn’t mean it is necessarily worth my time or energy to fight against it. Wrong is a relative thing. Why do so many people here seem to think in absolutes? Has no one here ever heard of 'picking your battles?'

Maybe the person who logs online without signing the paper log feels he has gained something. So what if he does?

 

I think a far more important question is this: Why would that bother you, or affect your enjoyment of the hobby? What does that person take away from you when he logs that find? What does he take away from anybody? What *tangible* loss do you automatically suffer as a result of a bogus log? If you can show that a tangible loss has taken place – prove that there is a victim – then I agree: we now have something to possibly be concerned about. This of course happens in those rare cases where a falsified log causes unnecessary confusion or frustration to an innocent cacher. I have never denied that point.

 

If, however, you CANNOT demonstrate or prove any tangible loss, then there is no victim. If there is no victim, then there is no crime. The bogus logger did a silly thing, and that’s ALL he did. It was wrong, but it was only as wrong as, say, putting the wrong date on a legitimate online log. It is incorrect, it is inaccurate, it is improper, it is not ideal, it is NOT RIGHT – but unless it causes some practical problem, what the heck does it matter? You call it a lie; I call it a big nothing.

... And when I posted this one I was under the impression that we had finally agreed we were of the same point of view:

“Differing geocaching standards” is the very essence of this discussion.

 

I was referring to the now well-established fact that people have very different ideas about what constitutes an acceptable ‘Found it’ log. Some cachers consider armchair logging to be perfectly fine. Others regard armchair logging as incorrect, yet nothing more than a pitiable oddity – as long as they cause no tangible harm. To some cachers the act ALWAYS constitutes an outrageous ethical crime no matter WHAT the circumstance.

 

We have apparently now established that you and I are both in the second group. As long as the false log results in no practical, “tangible” damage, then you and I agree, as you put it, that “I can't be misled by the false log, therefore I don't care.” Am I correct?

 

Unless I’m still missing something, then you and I are no longer opposed on this issue – and probably never were in the first place. :D

Please note that nowhere in any of those self-quotes did I use the verb “condone” in any of its conjugated forms.

 

Is that satisfactory now?

Link to comment

 

 

You say you don't condone false logging. I disagree with your use of the word "don't". I think your position would be better illustrated by the use of the word "do". As in, you do condone false logging. You think it is no big deal and doesn't matter. That is the definition of condone. It seems that you wish to simply go along as though you don't understand what I am saying so I guess I will just have to let it go at this.

Link to comment

 

 

You say you don't condone false logging. I disagree with your use of the word "don't". I think your position would be better illustrated by the use of the word "do". As in, you do condone false logging. You think it is no big deal and doesn't matter. That is the definition of condone. It seems that you wish to simply go along as though you don't understand what I am saying so I guess I will just have to let it go at this.

 

Darn now I am repeating myself.

Edited by traildad
Link to comment

When a person states that something doesn't cause any problems, doesn't affect him, and then tells others that it shouldn't bother them, then that person is pretty much saying that the something is ok. This comes across that the person is condoning that something...

Link to comment
When a person states that something doesn't cause any problems, doesn't affect him, and then tells others that it shouldn't bother them, then that person is pretty much saying that the something is ok. This comes across that the person is condoning that something...

... especially if you choose to ignore the many, many posts in which that same person has carefully explained that he does not do the something, sees no rational reason to do the something, believes doing the something is incorrect, and neither promotes nor encourages others to do the something.

 

I have stated my position. You are free to misinterpret it any way you please. Knock yourself out.

Link to comment

When a person states that something doesn't cause any problems, doesn't affect him, and then tells others that it shouldn't bother them, then that person is pretty much saying that the something is ok. This comes across that the person is condoning that something...

It is almost funny. Imaging someone is caught pickpocketing someone. They are caught red handed and arrested. They tell the judge they think stealing is wrong. They would never encourage it, they don't agree with it, they don't support it and they would never do it. They were only borrowing some money. When told that what they were doing was stealing they reply, I have said over and over that I do not agree with stealing and I would never do it, I think it is wrong. What more do you want me to say. This person feels that if he says over and over that he doesn't agree with stealing, what he was doing therefore can't be stealing. He thinks that it doesn't matter what he does, only what he says about it. Of course the judge would have to give him the bad news. Just because you say you are against it, doesn't mean it wasn't stealing.

Link to comment

When a person states that something doesn't cause any problems, doesn't affect him, and then tells others that it shouldn't bother them, then that person is pretty much saying that the something is ok. This comes across that the person is condoning that something...

It is almost funny. Imaging someone is caught pickpocketing someone. They are caught red handed and arrested. They tell the judge they think stealing is wrong. They would never encourage it, they don't agree with it, they don't support it and they would never do it. They were only borrowing some money. When told that what they were doing was stealing they reply, I have said over and over that I do not agree with stealing and I would never do it, I think it is wrong. What more do you want me to say. This person feels that if he says over and over that he doesn't agree with stealing, what he was doing therefore can't be stealing. He thinks that it doesn't matter what he does, only what he says about it. Of course the judge would have to give him the bad news. Just because you say you are against it, doesn't mean it wasn't stealing.

Traildad, can you tell me why is it that YOU refuse to sign logbooks and only log online????

Link to comment

When a person states that something doesn't cause any problems, doesn't affect him, and then tells others that it shouldn't bother them, then that person is pretty much saying that the something is ok. This comes across that the person is condoning that something...

It is almost funny. Imaging someone is caught pickpocketing someone. They are caught red handed and arrested. They tell the judge they think stealing is wrong. They would never encourage it, they don't agree with it, they don't support it and they would never do it. They were only borrowing some money. When told that what they were doing was stealing they reply, I have said over and over that I do not agree with stealing and I would never do it, I think it is wrong. What more do you want me to say. This person feels that if he says over and over that he doesn't agree with stealing, what he was doing therefore can't be stealing. He thinks that it doesn't matter what he does, only what he says about it. Of course the judge would have to give him the bad news. Just because you say you are against it, doesn't mean it wasn't stealing.

:rolleyes:

A person logs an armchair found it log - they never were at the cache. Their intent was not to cause anyone to go look for a cache that wasn't there. In fact they may have chosen a cache that was probably still there or log an already archived cache. Or they may even come right out and state they didn't find cache - as some virtual armchair loggers do. KBI says that while he would never armchair log a cache because he doesn't believe that was the intent of the online logs, he doesn't get upset that someone else did. If the person who did it actually intended to deceive somebody to believe a cache was there when it wasn't it would be a serious problem. Perhaps, they were careless and logged a cache that was actually missing. That is bad if his negligence causes someone harm - but in most cases there has been no evidence that anyone was harm. Even in the one case that briansnat assures us happened to a friend of his, the harm was minor (maybe not all that minor given the price of gas). Instead of getting up in arms about the fact that someone is silly enough to think that inflating their count justifies lying about what cache are found he is simply says he doesn't let it bother him.

 

I just looked up the dictionary definition of condone and it does seem that he is condoning the action of bogus loggers, in that he can disregard or overlook a bogus log (for the reasons given). Condone does not always mean approve. I think many people use definition 2 below more often than definition 1.

 

con·done /kənˈdoʊn/

–verb (used with object), -doned, -don·ing.

1. to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like).

2. to give tacit approval to: By his silence, he seemed to condone their behavior.

3. to pardon or forgive (an offense); excuse.

4. to cause the condonation of.

5. Law. to forgive or act so as to imply forgiveness of (a violation of the marriage vow).

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