Cacher that refuses to sign logbooks

July 14, 2008

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

The cacher in question says it's okay with him if his online logs are deleted....

"if that is not enough for you, you can delete my log. it´s no problem for me."

If it were my cache, I'd delete the find, and allow his to re-log it after he'd signed the log book.

I'm still amazed at how much press can be generated by one fake cacher or one troll. (OOPS. I just contributed to that total, didn't I?)

Edited July 14, 2008 by WebChimp

1k · July 14, 2008

To the "no sign no smilie" camp, do you actually validate EVERY log that people enter online on your caches? And what if someone signed on the wrong page, or between someone else's signatures, or what if someone signed just their initials? Or what if you couldn't legitimately validate a signature because of a damp log? And what about caches that are paddle only or take a whole day to hike to? And what if one cacher signed someone else's name to a log who wasn't actually there? PUH-lease... what about people with hundreds of finds on their caches every week???? You'd need a team of log validators just to keep up. If that was what owning a cache meant we'd have about 1% of the hides we currently have.

You have to either validate all of them or don't validate any because validating "some" is just a bit of geocaching prejudice. Even what looks like a valid log entry could be as bogus as the next. And someone posting that they're not signing logs surely wouldn't be the mark of a bogus cacher as that is drawing a bit of attention to the tune of (so far) over 1,300 reads to this thread! Unless you're into competitive numbers then find count for someone else shouldn't matter one spit. The only thing a bogus logger does is cheat themselves and if they're having fun posting bogus logs then you've brought joy to someone in a way you didn't expect.

And we shouldn't re-start the "They might make people think a missing cache is still there when it's MIA" thread because without the log sheet of a missing cache you'd have abolutely no evidence to prove their log was bogus so you couldn't prove that it didn't go missing after they found it, and if it was verified missing by the owner before they logged it then that's an issue of the owner not disabling it and making people go after a missing cache.... whipped that dead horse until there was nothing left.

I say let 'em have their fun, but if someone else's idea of fun is inspecting and validating log entries for fake finds and deleting people's log entries, then they're into this "game" for a completely different reason then I am.

1.1k · July 14, 2008

For a few of the caches around here the container itself is a puzzle you must solve in order to open and sign the log. In this case I disagree that finding the container is really a find, but most caches are not like this.

9.3k · July 14, 2008

After reading threads like this, I sometimes wonder if I am not an errant hider. While I love sitting down with the logs from my caches, reading what folks have written, I've never considered comparing the signatures to the on-line logs to verify who has actually found the caches. I am firmly in the "No sign/no smiley" camp for my own finds, but I haven't reached a point where I'm willing to apply that standard to other people. As for false logs causing hardships for others, I suppose it could happen, but because of how I go about my every day caching, it could never cause a hardship for me. I.e: I operate under the assumption that a cache is either there, or it is not, and that this status can change in the blink of an eye. I would never make the assumption that, just because BillyBobNosePicker "found" a cache, it would still be there upon my arrival. If I opt to hunt a cache, I take full responsibility for my decision. If I don't find the cache, I won't blame someone else's "Found" log for my choice to expend time & money on the quest.

8k · July 14, 2008

To the "no sign no smilie" camp, do you actually validate EVERY log that people enter online on your caches?

There is a difference between someone who forgot to sign the log, or forget pencil, or couldn't sign because the log was soaked, or doesn't sign nanos because they have trouble getting the log back into the container, or even finds caches and doesn't bother signing; and someone who simple posts logs for caches they didn't find and possibly didn't even go to look for.

It is possible that this cacher's work takes him over the hole (sic.) world. So perhaps he was in Alaska when he says he was and in Los Angeles when he says he was. The best one can hope for is that when visiting some city for his job he takes a day or two vacation to do some caching. He seems to plan his cache route just like any other visitor trying to find a lot of caches in one day - except that he includes a mixture of easy park and grabs and significant hiking caches some with terrain of 3.5 or 4. Since I'm familiar with the area he cached in on Friday, 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. Afterward he drove around to several park and grab types of hides in Pacific Palisades and Santa Monica. I see some cache owners have already deleted his finds so I can't put together the entire route he took. I know some of the cache are difficult to find. He may have been lucky or very good and actually found these caches. There may have been some caches he DNF'd and did not record (like the one requiring bushwhacking). But my guess is that he either hiked or drove past each location (maybe he even got out of the car) and "saw all that you would show me." Clearly, if he was in the area he wasn't looking for caches but instead went to visit some locations where they may have been a cache nearby and is claiming a find for this. I guess this is one way of playing the game. I would think if you are just going to visit places that someone would show you, you'd be better off Waymarking than geocaching. Of course many waymark owners would delete your log if you don't post a picture.

So my question is, if he really is visiting the locations where the caches were, why just post a log with or name or a cut and paste log explaining that you don't sign the log? The purpose of the online log is to inform the cache owner and the community that you found the cache and perhaps to tell us a little about your experience. If he chooses to play some game where he doesn't actually find the cache but left an honest record of what he did instead, I would consider letting the log stand. Even a log in German that talked about what he saw would be more satisfying than what he posted. Had he actually found the caches, a log with just his name or TFTC would be a record that he found the cache. As it stands now, it seems he didn't find any caches and his log is just wasting space and may confuse someone who is trying to tell whether the cache was found recently or not. I'd delete these logs but offer to let him re-log with if he posted a more complete (and honest) description of what he did.

4.7k · July 14, 2008

I totally agree with Konnarock Kid & Marge. This is a game!! You play how YOU want to play. Who are we to go around deleting other ppl's finds because they didnt sign the book. WHO CARES! If to you its important to sign the log then sign it. If you dont want to sign then don't. Yes you may have put that cache out there, but you put it out there for others to ENJOY! Dont go around ruining the game for other ppl. I think its rude to go around deleting his progress, who are you... your not geocaching police. If you dont like the fact that ppl arent signing your 1 dollar log book then maybe you need to re evaluate whats really important here. The fact that geo caching gets ppl out, its fun and those who do sign the log WANTED to sign your log. Why would you want someone to sign your log that doesn't really want to and are begrudding the fact they HAVE to. There log wont be genuine and will probably just be a mess. Geocaching is what it is, its a game that we all enjoy in our own way. Some ppl like the thrill of collecting a coin or trading something really cool and others just like the fact that they could even FIND the cache. It is what you make it, so please dont ruin other ppls games, play your own game and dont worry about other ppl.

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

it's a game. it doesn't matter how you play.

that's it. i get a free kick and $500 for passing "go" on my way to the finish line on the fourcross course. and because i rolled a 7 i get to log any cache in west virginia.

i'll tell you who we are to delete bogus logs: we are playing a game according to its generally accepted rules and practices.

all of you folks who think that games by their definition do not require players to observe rules and conventions have a screw loose. when you play poker, do you allow certain players to look at the cards being dealt? that's a game. would you mind a little cheating?

would you mind if a soccer player picked up the ball in both hands and scored a goal by running the ball in? that's a game. should rules not apply?

if i go bowling, can i walk to the end of the lane and kick the pins over? that's a game. why can't i play it the way i want?

would you mind if a player on a tee-ball team hip-checked the first-baseman? why can't he play the game by whatever rules he wants?

i would like to enter a j2 race with a cigarette boat. why can't i just enjoy the game the way i want?

your (sic) not the swim meet police. if you don't like the fact that people are using fins, you are begrudding (sic) the fact that they want to. (whatever that means).

if people are enjoying themselves, who are you to apply rules to games? why can't everybody just play their own way?

if you'll excuse me, i have to go geocaching now. i have decided that for my maximum enjoyment today i am going to log two caches i didn't find, not log two caches i will have found, and move several of them twenty feet to the west, each time hiding them much, much better than i found them.

additionally, because i'm playing the game the way i want, i'm going to be swapping a few of the containers and painting a few others.

It is what you make it, so please dont ruin other ppls games, play your own game and dont worry about other ppl. (sic)

this is my game; i'll play it as i please.

24.7k · July 14, 2008

...

** 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 spotted one of those rock climbing caches. Never could get near the thing to open it. I think you at least need to count coop and leave a fingerprint on the cache if you are going to be claiming the find.

9.3k · July 14, 2008

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.

1.7k · July 14, 2008

I say let 'em have their fun, but if someone else's idea of fun is inspecting and validating log entries for fake finds and deleting people's log entries, then they're into this "game" for a completely different reason then I am.

If someone decided to do armchair caching and then made a point of rubbing my nose in the fact that they didn't bother to go find the caches, just claim the smilie, I'd do some prompt armchair deleting of my own. You're right - generally, cachers tend to assume that finds are legitimate, and people are honest, and don't bother to go check. I know I don't. But that doesn't mean I'd let something like this pass, if it happened to me. I wouldn't call it fun, I'd call it keeping the records straight.

8k · July 14, 2008

would you mind if a soccer player picked up the ball in both hands and scored a goal by running the ball in? that's a game. should rules not apply?

William Webb Ellis probably would've thought different.

Edited July 14, 2008 by tozainamboku

6.7k · July 14, 2008

To the "no sign no smilie" camp, do you actually validate EVERY log that people enter online on your caches? And what if someone signed on the wrong page, or between someone else's signatures, or what if someone signed just their initials? Or what if you couldn't legitimately validate a signature because of a damp log? And what about caches that are paddle only or take a whole day to hike to? And what if one cacher signed someone else's name to a log who wasn't actually there? PUH-lease... what about people with hundreds of finds on their caches every week???? You'd need a team of log validators just to keep up. If that was what owning a cache meant we'd have about 1% of the hides we currently have.

You have to either validate all of them or don't validate any because validating "some" is just a bit of geocaching prejudice. Even what looks like a valid log entry could be as bogus as the next. And someone posting that they're not signing logs surely wouldn't be the mark of a bogus cacher as that is drawing a bit of attention to the tune of (so far) over 1,300 reads to this thread! Unless you're into competitive numbers then find count for someone else shouldn't matter one spit. The only thing a bogus logger does is cheat themselves and if they're having fun posting bogus logs then you've brought joy to someone in a way you didn't expect.

And we shouldn't re-start the "They might make people think a missing cache is still there when it's MIA" thread because without the log sheet of a missing cache you'd have abolutely no evidence to prove their log was bogus so you couldn't prove that it didn't go missing after they found it, and if it was verified missing by the owner before they logged it then that's an issue of the owner not disabling it and making people go after a missing cache.... whipped that dead horse until there was nothing left.

I say let 'em have their fun, but if someone else's idea of fun is inspecting and validating log entries for fake finds and deleting people's log entries, then they're into this "game" for a completely different reason then I am.

A couple of points here...

Seek, Trade, Sign aren't rules, but they are the standard practice accepted by the majority of the caching community.

No signee no smilie is not a Groundspeak guideline, but it is the standard practice of the game.

Groundspeak does expect cache owners to maintain and moderate online logs; what owner's do with paper cache logs is of little concern.

Part of the cache owner's responsibility for maintaining online logs is to delete bogus logs. To determine 'bogus' means checking the online logs against the cache log. If the signature is not on the paper log it is okay... in fact it is the cache owner's responsibility, to delete the online log or have it changed to a note.

There is obviously a lot of flexibility here. I have never compared a paper log to the online logs on my caches. Unless I have reason not to I trust cachers and take online logs at face value.

Twice over the years bogus arm-chair online logs have appeared in many caches in my area, they've been discovered both times because the cacher did silly crap like log caches here and some in England on the same day, somebody noticed, and they have been discussed in our local forum. Some of us checked our paper logs, some deleted the bogus logs, some, myself included, left them. I left them because I could care less, if someone wants to claim they've found my cache when they didn't, big deal, karma will catch up to them, I don't need to get worked up over it.

You have to either validate all of them or don't validate any because validating "some" is just a bit of geocaching prejudice.

Not prejudice at all! Some things stick out as questionable and get questioned, you don't have to police every log to find the bogus ones.

I say let 'em have their fun, but if someone else's idea of fun is inspecting and validating log entries for fake finds and deleting people's log entries, then they're into this "game" for a completely different reason then I am.

I don't compare logs, some people compare all of them, thankfully this game is flexible enough that we can all, within the Guidelines, play it our way for the reasons we each have! :blink:

1k · July 14, 2008

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

If it's not competitive and just for fun then you're right, there are no rules except what we feel like. If we play Monopoly by seeing who can toss the board across the yard and then get the most hotels to land on it by shooting them up in the air with a slingshot then so be it. Doesn't hurt how someone else wants to play Monopoly (unless it's someone else's board and tore up playing our way).

it's a game. it doesn't matter how you play.

Exactly! People who take games too seriously are the people that ruin the game. Same would go for Monopoly.

"AHA! Your dice stopped partially off the board, it's MY TURN and you don't get to move!!! MUH-HA-HA-HA!!!"

In most all your examples you're comparing competitive games to GC which is NOT competitive (unless you make it that way). You'd be better off comparing it to recreation golf with some buddies. If your friend didn't take a stroke for his shot in the water on a Saturday afternoon hack session you gonna go complain to the clubhouse and tear up his scoresheet????? You'd probably get a putter in the face and no beer at the 19th.

i go bowling, can i walk to the end of the lane and kick the pins over? that's a game. why can't i play it the way i want?

If you don't tear up the lanes they could give a flying you-know-what how you keep score or play. They don't allow you to walk ON the lane, that's a rule to protect their property and their liability if you slipped and got hurt. And even if you went past the line and they saw you they'd probably just laugh as you crash down by slipping on the oil. As long as you don't impact other bowlers and it's not a league or competitive play of some type, throw the ball between your legs, spin three times and kick it down the lane, they don't care, change all your splits to strikes, they still only care about you having FUN. Hmmm.... I'm seeing a connection here.

additionally, because i'm playing the game the way i want, i'm going to be swapping a few of the containers and painting a few others.

Now you've moved into the realm of damaging someone's property and physically affecting other people's enjoyment of GC. A fake log doesn't affect how someone else has fun with GC as the GC website is a database for each of us to enter info we want to keep track of, the act of geocaching happens outside (except for some puzzle caches).

If someone likes spending their time visiting hides to analyize signatures and compare them to logs, hunting down potential fake logs and deleting them then they should go for it. But if anyone signed a log but the owner couldn't clearly identifiy their signature and they deleted their log I doubt seriously they'd ever hunt another of that owner's caches again. I don't, have not, and never will condone fake logs and if something specifically came to my attention I would deal with it. But the day I feel distrust enough in people and the GC community to validate a bunch of logs (because even the most legit sounding could be fake), that's the day I find another hobby.

1k · July 14, 2008

No signee no smilie is not a Groundspeak guideline, but it is the standard practice of the game.

Agreed, but there are times when I was signing a log and getting eaten alive by prehistoric skeeters, or drowned in a torrential rainstorm or ever signing a nano log with a cr*ppy pen, and I doubt seriously I could even identify my own signature.

Part of the cache owner's responsibility for maintaining online logs is to delete bogus logs. To determine 'bogus' means checking the online logs against the cache log. If the signature is not on the paper log it is okay... in fact it is the cache owner's responsibility, to delete the online log or have it changed to a note.

I, as I am sure most cache owners, would address anything that came to our attention. But after several years of caching, several hundred hides, and several thousand log entries I have yet to see that question arise. Just don't see a need to police it or even spot check it.

There is obviously a lot of flexibility here. I have never compared a paper log to the online logs on my caches. Unless I have reason not to I trust cachers and take online logs at face value. Twice over the years bogus arm-chair online logs have appeared in many caches in my area, they've been discovered both times because the cacher did silly crap like log caches here and some in England on the same day, somebody noticed, and they have been discussed in our local forum. Some of us checked our paper logs, some deleted the bogus logs, some, myself included, left them. I left them because I could care less, if someone wants to claim they've found my cache when they didn't, big deal, karma will catch up to them, I don't need to get worked up over it.

Excatly my point and the karma or fate will get them in the end. I have deleted a total of one log in my history with GC and that was because the cacher wanted to hide a cache in the spot I did and I guess felt hurt in some way. They blasted me and lashed out with some very derogatory comments in the log. I offerred them to post a find again which after they calmed down they did. And even with a bogus log unless I saw what they entered was detrimental to the hide or the game I doubt I'd do much about it. Their loss for missing out on a good hide :blink:

July 14, 2008

I search for a cache to find it and sign a log and I place a cache for others to find it and sign a log. If signing a log is not important why would it be a requirement of placing a cache? Anyone could see the area a cache was placed and see what the area looks like by going online and putting the coordinates into things like Google Earth. One of the things geocaching promotes is outside activity. If there are no guidlines and we allow people to play the way they want then we also have to include the hider that feels the log should be deleted, as they are playing the way they want. There is another thread I have read about a person going around and taking the caches, should that be allowed as again they are playing the way they want. Theses are a couple of reasons there has to be guidlines and if people do not like them they should not play the game. Now with all that being said I know there may be reasons at times a person is unable to sign a log but they explain the reason in the log and it is not what they usually do. I have signed with a stick before and generally have paper or an extra log sheet in case there are issues with the log in the cache.

1k · July 14, 2008

If signing a log is not important why would it be a requirement of placing a cache?

Guess I missed where something says there's "requirements" as all I find are guidelines. And last I checked (which was right now) on the GC guielines about finding a cache it states :

Usually you take an item and leave an item, and enter your name and experience you had into the log book. Some people prefer to just enter their name into the log book. It’s an accomplishment enough to locate the cache.

Hmmm, I just noticed that word "usually", did anyone else? And for those of you playing the wording game and saying it's talking that "usually" is only for trading items and signing the log sheet is madatory, by that logic you can also say that it means you "usually" take an item but it's madatory to leave an item and sign the log book :blink: I really admire the way it states that the accomplishment is locating the cache and that what you do when you find it is open to personal preferences.

How does it hurt someone else, detrimentally hurt the game, or do anything to anyone if someone finds a cache, doesn't sign the log but enters a find if they don't say anything bad in their entry???? How is that different then signing illegibly, having the log book get wet, signing on the wrong place on the log sheet, forgetting your pen, signing a scribble on a nano log, etc?

I guess I'm missing what harm is done by not signing the log book. Sounds like it's just a difference of opinion on how to play. That same argument would have logs deleted by people who used Google Earth to find a cache rather then a GPSr, or someone who had someone in a group sign for them, or someone who got an additional hint from another cacher, or someone who put down the wrong date, or someone who used a sticker rather then signing the log (anyone could have someone else's stickers with them), and the list of interpretations goes on and on, but thankfully so does the fun (for those of us who don't take this too seriously).

A - Have fun

B - Don't impact someone else's way of playing (including damaging or stealing caches)

I like it simple.

Edited July 14, 2008 by infiniteMPG

4.7k · July 14, 2008

what defines a game is tkign a set of rules (or guidelines or common practices) and then playing by them. you don't have to be hyper competitive to play within a set of rules and expect other people to do so as well.

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.

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.

July 14, 2008

I disagree with the notion that you either have to perform a 100% audit or none at all. Why? If an online log looks bogus to me, I check the physical logbook on my next maintenance visit and delete the bogus log if need be. Easy. Cachers who submit bogus online logs generally do so more than once, and they generally have a "tell" that will set off a sensitive BS-detector.

Why do it? For the satisfaction of catching a liar, I suppose. Some of my caches are fairly tough, backcountry hikes and finders regard them as significant accomplishments. I like that. So I try to preserve that status by striking from the honor roll anybody who claims an undeserved find.

bogus finds deserve deletion

Exactly.

July 14, 2008

what defines a game is tkign a set of rules (or guidelines or common practices) and then playing by them. you don't have to be hyper competitive to play within a set of rules and expect other people to do so as well.

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.

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.

I think that pretty much hits it right on the head.

DCC

8k · July 14, 2008

Guess I missed where something says there's "requirements" as all I find are guidelines. And last I checked (which was right now) on the GC guielines about finding a cache it states :

Usually you take an item and leave an item, and enter your name and experience you had into the log book. Some people prefer to just enter their name into the log book. It’s an accomplishment enough to locate the cache.

Hmmm, I just noticed that word "usually", did anyone else? And for those of you playing the wording game and saying it's talking that "usually" is only for trading items and signing the log sheet is madatory, by that logic you can also say that it means you "usually" take an item but it's madatory to leave an item and sign the log book I really admire the way it states that the accomplishment is locating the cache and that what you do when you find it is open to personal preferences.

You need to look at the right guidelines where it states

For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit.

I guess you might be able to get an exception - after all it's just a guideline - but I doubt it.

I agree with you that the three rules in the FAQ are meaningless. A bit of research would reveal that these are almost verbatim the instructions that Dave Ulmer posted in USENET to explain what he wanted you to do if you found his cache. What should be noted is that there is nothing about online logging in these instruction. Online logging was something Jeremy added later on when he set up Geocaching.com. Its purpose was to allow geocachers who wished to to write about their geocaching hunt and whether or not they found the cache. It isn't required to log online to be a geocacher, but if you do a "found it" log is meant to report that you found the cache and a "Couldn't find" log is to report that you looked and did not find the cache. Jeremy realized from the start that the site couldn't police how people used the online log so he left it up to the cache owners to control the quality of posts to their cache. He asked that cache owners delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements. It's up to cache owners to determine what that means. Online logs and the find count were never meant to be a score to turn geocaching into some kind of competition. Jeremy's biggest mistake was showing this count next to every log.

I don't really care what someone uses the online logs for - so long as they are honest about it. The issue that most people have is not that someone is inflating their numbers, but that many people use the most recent log to help filter caches they are looking for. Some people will choose not to look for caches that have not been found in a while. While a cache can go missing at anytime, it is clear that the more time has past since the last find the higher the chance that a cache is missing. Some people will choose not to look for a cache that has several DNFs in row. That cache is either missing or hard to find. It's really hard to say that bogus logs don't effect anybody when people are relying on PQs and GSAK filters that simply check on when a cache was last found or how many DNFs there were in the last 4 logs. Cache owner who delete logs that appear to be bogus and do other cachers a favor in doing so. While I disagree with the puritans who delete legitimate logs where the cacher has a good reason for not signing the log, I don't see it as a problem to delete logs like the one this cacher has left. He may be playing his own game, but it clearly is interfering with the way other people are playing.

Edited July 14, 2008 by tozainamboku

July 15, 2008

(To DCC) A-MEN to that!!!

Thought of something. Start a troll thread like this.....(and yes, in this case it means puttin' out bait & seein' what'll rise).....and watch for what I can't call anything but the "bleeding heart liberals" who spout the "Let him play any way he wants" lines. Then go to THEIR profile & armchair-log every blasted one of their hides. A couple weeks diligence, clickety-click with the mouse pastin' in a cookie-cutter fake "find".....and WHEEEEE-E-E-E-E-E!! I'm in my state's Top 10 Cachers Of All Ti-i-i-i-i-m-m-m-me!!!!!!!!!!!

And my butt never left this chair.

I'd bet the "if it feels good" responders here are among those who think there shouldn't be any scoring in baseball, right? Why get out of the house & even show up at the soccer field.....just sit home & say "we won"!

Of COURSE he's free to play the game any way he wants!!!

He just ain't gonna play it in MY ballpark.

& I'm done with this.

~*

Edited July 15, 2008 by Star*Hopper

1.4k · July 15, 2008

For those that say let them play the game their way, my way is to delete logs I know are bogus. If as a cache owner you let a log stay that you know is bogus that is your way to play. That is between you and the bogus logger.

However, don't tell me on one hand that we can all play whatever way we want, then tell me I cannot play my way.(deleting bogus logs.) :huh:

This is not a solo game. There are always at least two players. Cache seeker and cache owner. On any given cache they both have to agree with whatever rules where used to find, sign and log the cache. While I am usually flexible on how someone else plays the game when finding my cache, there are those that insist you play their way on their cache. Remember the cache owner has the ultimate power to decide which logs to allow and which to delete. That means you do have to follow their rules if you want to log their cache. :huh:

10.2k · July 15, 2008

It is possible that this cacher's work takes him over the hole (sic.) world. So perhaps he was in Alaska when he says he was and in Los Angeles when he says he was. The best one can hope for is that when visiting some city for his job he takes a day or two vacation to do some caching. He seems to plan his cache route just like any other visitor trying to find a lot of caches in one day - except that he includes a mixture of easy park and grabs and significant hiking caches some with terrain of 3.5 or 4. Since I'm familiar with the area he cached in on Friday, 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. Afterward he drove around to several park and grab types of hides in Pacific Palisades and Santa Monica. I see some cache owners have already deleted his finds so I can't put together the entire route he took. I know some of the cache are difficult to find. He may have been lucky or very good and actually found these caches. There may have been some caches he DNF'd and did not record (like the one requiring bushwhacking). But my guess is that he either hiked or drove past each location (maybe he even got out of the car) and "saw all that you would show me." Clearly, if he was in the area he wasn't looking for caches but instead went to visit some locations where they may have been a cache nearby and is claiming a find for this. I guess this is one way of playing the game. I would think if you are just going to visit places that someone would show you, you'd be better off Waymarking than geocaching. Of course many waymark owners would delete your log if you don't post a picture.

Yeah Toz, I looked at some of the areas he's "been" in that I'm familiar with; Rochester, N.Y., Bradford, Pa., and New York City. Everything seems very feasable. Finding 20 caches in Toronto the day after finding 13 in NYC seems a bit of a stretch. I suppose he could have had a 6:00 AM flight or something. As does finding caches in Alaska 3 days after caches in Italy. Maybe someone can tell him he's the subject of a forum thread, and he can explain? :huh:

7.9k · July 15, 2008

I totally agree with Konnarock Kid & Marge. This is a game!! You play how YOU want to play. Who are we to go around deleting other ppl's finds because they didnt sign the book. WHO CARES! If to you its important to sign the log then sign it. If you dont want to sign then don't. Yes you may have put that cache out there, but you put it out there for others to ENJOY! Dont go around ruining the game for other ppl. I think its rude to go around deleting his progress, who are you... your not geocaching police. If you dont like the fact that ppl arent signing your 1 dollar log book then maybe you need to re evaluate whats really important here. The fact that geo caching gets ppl out, its fun and those who do sign the log WANTED to sign your log. Why would you want someone to sign your log that doesn't really want to and are begrudding the fact they HAVE to. There log wont be genuine and will probably just be a mess. Geocaching is what it is, its a game that we all enjoy in our own way. Some ppl like the thrill of collecting a coin or trading something really cool and others just like the fact that they could even FIND the cache. It is what you make it, so please dont ruin other ppls games, play your own game and dont worry about other ppl.

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

it's a game. it doesn't matter how you play.

that's it. i get a free kick and $500 for passing "go" on my way to the finish line on the fourcross course. and because i rolled a 7 i get to log any cache in west virginia.

i'll tell you who we are to delete bogus logs: we are playing a game according to its generally accepted rules and practices.

all of you folks who think that games by their definition do not require players to observe rules and conventions have a screw loose. when you play poker, do you allow certain players to look at the cards being dealt? that's a game. would you mind a little cheating?

would you mind if a soccer player picked up the ball in both hands and scored a goal by running the ball in? that's a game. should rules not apply?

if i go bowling, can i walk to the end of the lane and kick the pins over? that's a game. why can't i play it the way i want?

would you mind if a player on a tee-ball team hip-checked the first-baseman? why can't he play the game by whatever rules he wants?

i would like to enter a j2 race with a cigarette boat. why can't i just enjoy the game the way i want?

your (sic) not the swim meet police. if you don't like the fact that people are using fins, you are begrudding (sic) the fact that they want to. (whatever that means).

if people are enjoying themselves, who are you to apply rules to games? why can't everybody just play their own way?

if you'll excuse me, i have to go geocaching now. i have decided that for my maximum enjoyment today i am going to log two caches i didn't find, not log two caches i will have found, and move several of them twenty feet to the west, each time hiding them much, much better than i found them.

additionally, because i'm playing the game the way i want, i'm going to be swapping a few of the containers and painting a few others.

It is what you make it, so please dont ruin other ppls games, play your own game and dont worry about other ppl. (sic)

this is my game; i'll play it as i please.

Thanks, flask, you saved me a lot of superheated steam here.

If we play Monopoly by seeing who can toss the board across the yard and then get the most hotels to land on it by shooting them up in the air with a slingshot then so be it.

That's fine if all the players involved agree to play that way.

If you, I, and some other friends are enjoying a game (based on the accepted standard 'rules'), and you suddenly decide to 'see who can toss the board across the yard and then get the most hotels to land on it by shooting them up in the air with a slingshot', you are going to find yourself sitting on the sidewalk!

what defines a game is tkign a set of rules (or guidelines or common practices) and then playing by them. you don't have to be hyper competitive to play within a set of rules and expect other people to do so as well.

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.

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.

Thanks again, at least another 50 PSI saved on my part.

8k · July 15, 2008

(To DCC) A-MEN to that!!!

Thought of something. Start a troll thread like this.....(and yes, in this case it means puttin' out bait & seein' what'll rise).....and watch for what I can't call anything but the "bleeding heart liberals" who spout the "Let him play any way he wants" lines. Then go to THEIR profile & armchair-log every blasted one of their hides. A couple weeks diligence, clickety-click with the mouse pastin' in a cookie-cutter fake "find".....and WHEEEEE-E-E-E-E-E!! I'm in my state's Top 10 Cachers Of All Ti-i-i-i-i-m-m-m-me!!!!!!!!!!!

And my butt never left this chair.

I'd bet the "if it feels good" responders here are among those who think there shouldn't be any scoring in baseball, right? Why get out of the house & even show up at the soccer field.....just sit home & say "we won"!

Of COURSE he's free to play the game any way he wants!!!

He just ain't gonna play it in MY ballpark.

& I'm done with this.

~*

I'm not sure what you mean. benh57 didn't starting a troll thread. He saw the log from this guy that says he doesn't sign the physical and doesn't care if the cache owner deletes his log. benh57 suggests that some of the local owners should get busy deleting logs. Some are deleting log and others are saying it does matter to them that some logs might be faked so they will let them stand so that other cachers can decide for themselves if they are bogus. The responses to thread show there is a wide opinion even in the geocaching forums. Some people agree with the "let them stay" while others are espousing the "if you didn't sign the log you can't log online". I find that this later stance, which I can't call anything but "puritanical witch hunting", does not help answer "what to do about truly bogus logs?" and detracts from the debate on whether these logs effect other cachers. Perhaps it's my "bleeding liberal heart", but calling everyone who ever forgot to sign the log, or didn't have a pen, or found a soaking wet log they couldn't write on, a cheater is something I'll never understand. When you start to argue that this is done to inflate their find count so they can be in their state's Top 10 cachers, I have to question your motivation. Why do care? Do you really think this is a competition? If you think we can decide the number 1 cacher based on find counts you will soon be disappointed. You're free to delete logs on your caches that appear to you to be bogus. You're not free to dictate that everyone follows your rules.

It might be fun to see who are the one who say let the bogus logs stand and then log their caches. Guess what, then there will be proof that you are the one who cares more about the score and we can all see it. I don't think you are going to do this nor will benh57.

Edited July 15, 2008 by tozainamboku

38.2k · July 15, 2008

would you mind if a soccer player picked up the ball in both hands and scored a goal by running the ball in? that's a game. should rules not apply?

William Webb Ellis probably would've thought different.

Sure, but once he did that, he was playing a different game. These armchair loggers might be having whale of a time, but they aren't geocaching. Maybe one of them can create a www.log.com website so they can play their game and not mess with ours.

If you don't tear up the lanes they could give a flying you-know-what how you keep score or play. They don't allow you to walk ON the lane, that's a rule to protect their property and their liability if you slipped and got hurt. And even if you went past the line and they saw you they'd probably just laugh as you crash down by slipping on the oil.

Actually walking on the lanes can affect other bowlers. Serious bowlers spend considerable time studying oil patterns and how bowling balls react to them. I've seen a newbie pin boy nearly get strung up because he walked on the lane to retrieve a pin. Walk out on the lane and you mess with other bowler's games. Log phony finds and you mess with other geocacher's games. I don't see what why that point is so hard for some people to understand.

Edited July 15, 2008 by briansnat

July 15, 2008

Time for Dooley to chime in...

Ben started this thread after we had a discussion about this guy, since he claimed to find about 10 of my caches, and another 4-5 that were on my "watchlist"

I emailed the guy to ask what the story was, and he never wrote back. I waited about 24 hours, and then his logs all went bye-bye... He has no active "Finds" on any of my caches.

*** Asking For Trouble ***

Let me start by saying that he is ASKING for trouble. If he simply posted a log online that read "Got it, thanks for the cache" then his logs would still be posted, and this thread wouldn't exist. Why? Because I don't go out of my way to police the logbooks. This game is on the honor system. I can't fathom what joy someone would have to log finds and increase their numbers, except for the joy of seeing the ACTUAL number of caches found go up. Otherwise, you can buy a calculator from Radio Shack, click "1 + 1 =" and keep hitting the = button and watch the number get higher and higher. Big whoop.

***Play the game the way you want to***

Now, to the argument that everyone should play the game the way they want to -- Well, that's just fine. He can play the game the way he wants to - by logging all the caches he wants online. However, I'm going to play the game the way that I want to -- And that includes deleting his logs on my caches. That's how I play.

***How it could affect cachers***

Last week, I took a VERY long trip throughout the state of California, in an attempt to find a cache in every county. (I have now completed all but 7 counties) This cost me a lot of money in gas, car rentals (I rented a Prius so I wouldn't have to take my gas-guzzling Jeep) and hotels. I had a GREAT time doing it, but I also had some troubles with some harder-to-find caches on some out-of-the-way roads. I could EASILY have stayed home, picked 1 or 2 caches in each county, and faked a log. But, instead, I drove for six days and 2600 miles, and when I had DNF's I simply looked for more in the county before I moved on. What made me choose which caches to look for? I looked for caches that have had RECENT FINDS. If this guy had logged the caches I was looking for, it would have really put a damper on my road trip.

So, the bottom line is, in MY humble opinion, is that he can play the game any way he wants to, but as a cache owner, so can I. And the way I play it, is I deleted his logs.

3.7k · July 15, 2008

In this particular case I'd delete any such logs without a second thought. The wording he's used invites you to do this, and infers that he doesn't feel the need to visit the cache, nor to have an on-line record of his log.

A couple of other, more interesting, points come to mind though.

Those that are supposedly 'fundamentalist' cachers insist that all on-line logs have to be matched by an identifying mark in the physical log book. I wonder how they cope when the cache is muggled?

Possibly there could be weeks or months of logging which has all been lost - are all the GC.com logs to be deleted since the last maintenance visit? This is not a rare situation, and rather undermines the principle of 'no physical log, no find'.

Personally, I don't question a cache find unless there is some indication of a problem: in which case I'll e-mail the 'finder' (e.g. they found a small plastic box with no log book, and this was actually a red herring).

Those that compare caching with soccer, golf etc. are barking up the wrong tree: the flaw has been pointed out, in that caching is not a competitive sport (generally!).

Perhaps a better analogy would be that you turn up to a photography class where you've been asked to bring along prints of photos you've taken, so that the teacher can offer advice. And you bring along a selection of professional photos you printed from various web sites. Your ruse will be spotted soon enough - but does it affect others in the class? Not directly: you'd just be cheating yourself. If you kept on doing this every week though, you'd probably be asked to leave as it would become uncomfortably distracting.

In other words, if someone wants to log a handful of caches in your area without visiting: who cares, delete them or leave them as you see fit. If they decide to bombard the area with hundreds of bogus finds, then get them all deleted and the account closed.

1k · July 15, 2008

You need to look at the right where it states
For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit.

The guidelines I quoted were for people finding caches, the guidelines you quoted were for people hiding caches. I never said their shouldn't be a log book in the cache, just that the guidelines don't say someone finding the cache HAS to sign it. Just because there is a guest book on the table, or a blank comment card at the restaurant, or a suggestion button on a web page doesn't mean anyone HAS to sign it or fill it out. The guideline you stated was telling cache owners to put a log book in a cache for a finder to sign but I have yet to see anywhere that states they HAVE to sign it.

1k · July 15, 2008

So, the bottom line is, in MY humble opinion, is that he can play the game any way he wants to, but as a cache owner, so can I. And the way I play it, is I deleted his logs.

Very true, you can.... but how do you know a sticker on a log sheet is a valid find? Or if one person signed the log sheet for 10 friends? Or how do you validate signatures on a nano log sheet? And IMHO a good portion of the logs I sign there are signatures scattered all over the place where people just find a blank spot and sign it. If it's a couple year old cache with a few hundred signatures, how much time do you spend studying the log sheet to find a particular cacher's signatures? And another good portion of the signatures I can't read at all... sloppy writing, only initials, wet bled log sheets, multiple signatures all in the same handwriting, do you delete any log you can't match to a unique valid signature?

I think I could snag a few finds in the same amount of time it takes to validate one signature from one log entry on anything other then a PAG... but it's true, if that what gives you joy and pleasure, then go for it! But I still haven't seen a guidelines/rule/law/statement saying a cacher HAS to sign the log sheet. And if they could validate they found the hide by telling you exactly where it is, what the container was and what was in it BUT they didn't sign the log sheet would you still delete their log???? Because then that would be your personal interpretation of a "find" and not the guideline's as they state a find is finding the cache, not finding the cache AND signing the log sheet.

I agree it's standard practice to sign the log sheet and most cachers play that way, but I don't see justification for a witch-hunt to track down people who don't. And as far as looking for caches with potentially bogus recent finds, if a cache is missing there is no log sheet to prove that a log was made before or after the cache went missing so you would never have one ounce of proof to show that the find was posted AFTER the cache went missing not before. And you'd not even know if it was missing or you just couldn't find it and DNF's and MIA's happen all the time... part of the risks of playing this game.

4.7k · July 15, 2008

I agree it's standard practice to sign the log sheet and most cachers play that way, but I don't see justification for a witch-hunt to track down people who don't.

there's no witch hunt, no tracking down. bogus loggers aren't being pursued. it isn't a passive practice. they have to come out and actively log a cache they haven't found. the cache owner's proper reaction is to disallow it by deleting it.

if you don't make bogus logs, nobody will delete them.

38.2k · July 15, 2008

I agree it's standard practice to sign the log sheet and most cachers play that way, but I don't see justification for a witch-hunt to track down people who don't.

Witch hunt? What a load of hyperbole. I think most cache owners trust our fellow gecachers and only check the logs when they see something suspicious. If you want to call that a witch hunt, go ahead.

This guy is obviously no geocacher, he's a fraud. I think cache owners have the perfect right to delete his logs. If you want to call that a witch hunt, go ahead.

You certainly have as much right to call what is going on here a witch hunt, as the phony in question has to call what he does geocaching. Doesn't make either of you accurate though.

July 15, 2008

It still surprises me that so many folks are buying into the "I'm caching for the joy of the hunt so I don't sign the log" line that this guy is selling. If it's just the joy of finding it, why does he log it online?

Couch caching brings up so many questions:

How do you decide which caches to pretend to visit?

Do you log false DNFs for the joy of an extra tough virtual hunt?

Is it harder to log a false find on Micros compared to Regulars?

It boggles the mind.

1k · July 15, 2008

I can see if a cacher logs a load of finds in one day and some are so far apart that they could not of possibly been to them, like maybe even different countries, then the flag goes up. What else would raise that flag? If someone has a 10 mile hike or a long paddle to get to a hide and someone does that trip for the sole purpose of validating a log entry, then yeah, I'd put that into the category of a "witch hunt". As stated earlier, other then PAG's, how much effort is put into validating a find or is it the "I'm deleting your log entry because I just don't believe you and it's up to you to prove you actually found it!" phylosophy? How many bogus logs has anyone found, what raised the flag and what was done to prove they were bogus?

If the GC database somehow corrupted tomorrow and all find number totals disappeared from exitence, would it change how much fun people had finding caches they found? I think for many people the GC data is just a personal recording of their experiences and nothing to be used to prove themselves better or lesser then others.

1k · July 15, 2008

It boggles the mind.

Probably as boggling as people who play SIMS games.... "Hey, today I'll pretend to have a family and pretend to go to work and pretend to have friends who can pretend to come to my pretend house with this video game." Maybe someone should come out with "SIMS Geocaching" or a geocaching game for the WII and then armchair cachers would be distracted from the real game... :huh:

But boggling or not, some people get their kicks that way.... to the tune of million$ spent on that stuff.

July 15, 2008

Usually you take an item and leave an item, and enter your name and experience you had into the log book. Some people prefer to just enter their name into the log book. It’s an accomplishment enough to locate the cache.

I'm so glad you pointed that out.

Yes sir, that's a great guideline to bring up. Glad you like that one.

The two situations they describe are

1. Enter name and experience in log book, or

2. Enter name only into log book.

Finding the cache is an accomplishment, and maybe you want to record your experience, or maybe leaving your name as proof is enough.

Yes, great guidelines.

I notice both the "usual" situations they describe in the guideline involve signing the log book. Neither involve not signing the log book.

Let's stick to the guidelines, and sign the log books.

That's what you meant, wasn't it? Follow the guidelines? Record name and experience, or record only the name?

July 15, 2008

Maybe someone should come out with "SIMS Geocaching"

That's essentially what the fake logs are, simulated geocaching.

Good point there, IMPG. Glad you brought that up.

Edited July 15, 2008 by WebChimp

July 15, 2008

I can see if a cacher logs a load of finds in one day and some are so far apart that they could not of possibly been to them, like maybe even different countries, then the flag goes up. What else would raise that flag? If someone has a 10 mile hike or a long paddle to get to a hide and someone does that trip for the sole purpose of validating a log entry, then yeah, I'd put that into the category of a "witch hunt". As stated earlier, other then PAG's, how much effort is put into validating a find or is it the "I'm deleting your log entry because I just don't believe you and it's up to you to prove you actually found it!" phylosophy? How many bogus logs has anyone found, what raised the flag and what was done to prove they were bogus?

If the GC database somehow corrupted tomorrow and all find number totals disappeared from exitence, would it change how much fun people had finding caches they found? I think for many people the GC data is just a personal recording of their experiences and nothing to be used to prove themselves better or lesser then others.

I'm not exactly opposing you, in that I don't think anybody ought to be required to audit or validate online logs of the caches he owns, but I have a question about the part of your post that I've bolded: Are you saying that if I see a hinky online log on one of my far-flung caches, and my curiosity is piqued to the extent that I make an all-day hike to visit the cache and check it out, that's somehow a bad thing?

Suppose I stipulate that I'll give the suspicious log every benefit of the doubt, that if the logbook is missing or ruined I'll let the online log stand. But if the log is intact, and the suspect cacher's name is missing, I'll delete the online log. That's a "witch hunt?"

I don't see it. I'd have some problems with a cache owner who, from the comfort of his chair, deleted logs that he felt were improbable. But I have nothing but respect for one who heaves himself out of his chair to go and discover the truth. I've done this in the past, and I'll continue to do it. On my next maintenance trip to one of my more difficult/prestigious caches, I plan to check to see whether there's a paper log entry corresponding to an odd online log. I emailed the cacher to clarify the issue and got no reply.

38.2k · July 15, 2008

It boggles the mind.
Probably as boggling as people who play SIMS games.... "Hey, today I'll pretend to have a family and pretend to go to work and pretend to have friends who can pretend to come to my pretend house with this video game." Maybe someone should come out with "SIMS Geocaching" or a geocaching game for the WII and then armchair cachers would be distracted from the real game...

But boggling or not, some people get their kicks that way.... to the tune of million$ spent on that stuff.

A pretend world is the entire point of SIMS. The point of geocaching is to find geocaches.

How many bogus logs has anyone found, what raised the flag and what was done to prove they were bogus?

I've found about a half dozen on my caches by two different "geocachers" and know of more on friend's caches. In each case what raised a flag was a cookie cutter description of a hunt that didn't jib with the actual cache. Things like mentioning taking the trail right to the cache, where there was no trail, or a "short, easy hike" for a cache I knew was long and difficult.

What I did to prove that they were bogus was to check the logs the next time I was there for a maint visit.

I guess that makes me one of these:

10.2k · July 15, 2008

I can see if a cacher logs a load of finds in one day and some are so far apart that they could not of possibly been to them, like maybe even different countries, then the flag goes up. What else would raise that flag? If someone has a 10 mile hike or a long paddle to get to a hide and someone does that trip for the sole purpose of validating a log entry, then yeah, I'd put that into the category of a "witch hunt". As stated earlier, other then PAG's, how much effort is put into validating a find or is it the "I'm deleting your log entry because I just don't believe you and it's up to you to prove you actually found it!" phylosophy? How many bogus logs has anyone found, what raised the flag and what was done to prove they were bogus?

I don't want to pile on InfiniteMPG, but I thought the "witch hunt" thing was way too much hyperbole. If this guy's logs and profiles didn't have such an "in your face" agenda, no one would ever check the logbooks. Who audits paper logbooks?

As far as the flag going up, I (and Toz) probably spent way too much looking at the finds. I know this sounds like I'm the self-appointed geo-police, but hey, I love looking at cache descriptions, especially out of town ones. :huh: They are generally very do-able, but for crying out loud, if you were going to do something like this from behind a computer screen in Munich, don't you think you'd try to make it slightly realistic? I know I could pull this scam off no problemo. And as I said in an earlier post, I'm still not buying 13 caches in Manhattan in July 2007, followed by 20 in Toronto the next day. If he travels the hole (sic) world for work, there was no work going on those days.

1k · July 15, 2008

That's what you meant, wasn't it? Follow the guidelines? Record name and experience, or record only the name?

I am 100% for the following the guidelines including signing the logs, I merely was questioning the means of enforcement.

That's essentially what the fake logs are, simulated geocaching. Good point there, IMPG. Glad you brought that up.

Kind of like we owners actually own the checkers boards and the question comes in if we let someone play by stacking the checkers up and knocking them down with marbles or do we require them to play right even if it doesn't affect anyone else playing checkers.

Are you saying that if I see a hinky online log on one of my far-flung caches, and my curiosity is piqued to the extent that I make an all-day hike to visit the cache and check it out, that's somehow a bad thing?

Not at all of that's what you want to spend your time doing but no one should frown towards an owner who doesn't do that and prefers to spend their time hiding new caches or finding others rather then tracking down potentially bogus log entries.

Suppose I stipulate that I'll give the suspicious log every benefit of the doubt, that if the logbook is missing or ruined I'll let the online log stand. But if the log is intact, and the suspect cacher's name is missing, I'll delete the online log. That's a "witch hunt?"

Nope, the witch hunt is the act of spending an entire day hiking or kayaking solely hunting for that one bogus log entry. But that's just MHO though as if someone wants to do that then so be it but I think I have better, more enjoyable ways to spend my time.

I don't see it. I'd have some problems with a cache owner who, from the comfort of his chair, deleted logs that he felt were improbable.

It has happened and some threads have included owners who feel they should delete any questionable log and make the finder prove they found it to regain the smilie.

But I have nothing but respect for one who heaves himself out of his chair to go and discover the truth. I've done this in the past, and I'll continue to do it. On my next maintenance trip to one of my more difficult/prestigious caches, I plan to check to see whether there's a paper log entry corresponding to an odd online log. I emailed the cacher to clarify the issue and got no reply.

Point well taken and I see no problem on a regular "maintenance run" checking the log sheet but the topic of "witch hunting" is making the trip just to validate a log entry.

A pretend world is the entire point of SIMS. The point of geocaching is to find geocaches.

You mean "The point of geocaching is to find geocaches AND SIGN THE LOG BOOKS", right? :huh:

But pretend worlds are pretty popular, SIMS, Fantasy sports, RPG, and other things where people spend their time in a pretend world rather then the real one. I prefer the real one myself.

A I've found about a half dozen on my caches by two different "geocachers" and know of more on friend's caches. In each case what raised a flag was a cookie cutter description of a hunt that didn't jib with the actual cache. Things like mentioning taking the trail right to the cache, where there was no trail, or a "short, easy hike" for a cache I knew was long and difficult.

I am sure there are dumb deceivers in all realms of life who are easy to catch, the people that armchair quarterback and cut-and-paste "TFTH!" as their online entries would be much harder to catch.

What I did to prove that they were bogus was to check the logs the next time I was there for a maint visit.

Once again checking logs when doing a regular maintenance run is no problem at all. I like reading the logs but can't say I have ever carried a printout of all the online log entries along and then sit there for 30 minutes comparing each log entry with a signature but it sounds like some people do (PQ's only have the last 5 entires so to check more you'd have to have a list somehow) and you still couldn't validate that the person in question actually signed the name you're reading or placed their sticker, they could of had a friend do it for them. Some log books are in such disarray that would be a long task to do in the field and you could be missing out on some good finds nearby

3.9k · July 15, 2008

"This guy is logging phony logs and they should be deleted"

Agreed. I'll delete any logs I know to be bogus. If I'm not 100% sure I'll check the log book the next time I'm at the cache. It doesn't sound like this guy is trying to force any owner to keep his log.

"This guy is playing a different game than geocaching"

Disagree. He's playing his own way, and he's apparently accepted the fact that most people don't like what he's doing and will be deleting his logs. There are different ways to play almost every game. The rules you use in your basement poker game might not be acceptable at the tables in Vegas, but since you're not playing there it really doesn't matter. It's still poker. As long as he's not destroying the game pieces or being harmful to other cachers I can't see how it matters.

"The way he's playing is harmful to other cachers"

Disagree. A cache can go missing after a real find and not be there when someone looks for it too. It's an accepted risk when looking for a cache that it might not be there.

1.4k · July 15, 2008

Perhaps a better analogy would be that you turn up to a photography class where you've been asked to bring along prints of photos you've taken, so that the teacher can offer advice. And you bring along a selection of professional photos you printed from various web sites. Your ruse will be spotted soon enough - but does it affect others in the class? Not directly: you'd just be cheating yourself. If you kept on doing this every week though, you'd probably be asked to leave as it would become uncomfortably distracting.

Believe me, you wouldn't have to do this every week to be asked to leave. Any teacher worth their salt, wouldn't put up with that more then once.

"This guy is playing a different game than Geocaching"
Disagree. He's playing his own way, and he's apparently accepted the fact that most people don't like what he's doing and will be deleting his logs. There are different ways to play almost every game.

If this guy is really finding these caches and just not signing them, you would be right, he is just playing his own way.

However, if he is sitting at home logging caches he has never been to, he is playing a different game then Geocaching.

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.

July 15, 2008

Don't want to clutter the post with a bunch of quoted material, so this is in regard to InfiniteMPG's response to my question regarding "witch hunting" and log-checking:

Thanks for the clarification. I don't mind revisiting my caches, whether for routine maintenance or to check out a suspicious log, because my caches are in great locations. If it weren't for the quirk that makes it necessary to have a mission of some sort before heading out the door, I'd go to these places for no reason at all. Cache maintenance (and I regard checking out humbug logs to be a form of maintenance) does not compete with placing new caches or hunting other caches--it's just another facet of the activity.

I like to think of myself as a cache owner who runs a tight ship. Eliminating bogus logs from the record is one aspect of this. I don't do 100% audits, but neither does the IRS. I understand that some cachers, for whatever reason, don't make the effort to delete phony logs. That's OK, though I think the game would be better for it if more did.

1k · July 15, 2008

Believe me, you wouldn't have to do this every week to be asked to leave. Any teacher worth their salt, wouldn't put up with that more then once.

That would be classified as "Plagiarism" (the practice of claiming or implying original authorship of (or incorporating material from) someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgement) and it will get you immediately expelled from just about any educational facility in the country. That's a hard standing violation of a set in stone rule, not a guideline or a game.

If this guy is really finding these caches and just not signing them, you would be right, he is just playing his own way. However, if he is sitting at home logging caches he has never been to, he is playing a different game then Geocaching.

Other then conducting an interview with them you'd be hard pressed to prove one way or another if they actually found the cache. Most people really wouldn't care.

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?????

8k · July 15, 2008

In a few of the old threads about armchair logging of virtuals I have taken the stand that is it doesn't really manner if someone wants to play that game. If a virtual owner doesn't want to allow virtual armchair logging he can delete these logs. Virtual owners that don't delete the log are signaling that their cache is available for this alternative game playing. So long as I can tell that this is someone sitting in their armchair in Munich and not actually visiting the cache, I'm not competing with anyone. Getting upset about "cheating" in geocaching is even sillier than playing SimCaching.

However, is illustrating to me how briansnat's friends could be fooled into wasting gas and time because of a bogus log. I routinely log my DNFs. I also add these caches to a bookmark list to see if someone comes along and finds the cache after I didn't. This often happens. Just over one week ago, I had gone looking for the cache that was linked to in the OP. It was given a high terrain and from the description it was obviously hidden in a tree. When I got to the spot I looked around in the tree and saw nothing. So I checked previous logs. The FTF group (which included benh57) indicated that the neighborhood kids may have already found this cache and scribbled in the log - already a bad sign. A later finder indicated that he what he believed to be the container on the ground and not in the tree. He placed a new log in a baggie and returned the cache to the tree. I was the next person to look and did not find the cache. For me the possibilities were

The original cache was still in the tree and both rammd and I didn't find it. In which case I also didn't find rammd's replacement.
rammd found the original cache and put it back in the tree and I didn't find that
The original cache is really missing

Of course I was very curious to see whether the cache was still there so I could go back and find it. Last Friday I got the email notification that the cache was found. But the log seemed a bit fishy when the finder indicated that he doesn't write in the log book. Then I saw some notifications on other caches that I had found and had added to my watchlist. I sometimes add caches I have found to my watchlist because they were interesting caches or were especially tough finds. I was surprised to see the same cacher had logged the same strange log on these caches. Now I was really suspicious. That probably lead me to conclude that this is probably a bogus find and so I ignored his log and didn't run out to look for this cache again. Had the cacher just logged his name as he was doing up to last Friday, I may have decided to look for the cache again.

I suspect that some of the "witch-hunters" had deleted his logs in other cities when they didn't find his signature in the cache. The new logs which he started on Friday are probably a response to this - almost a dare to delete his logs. If I could tell that this person actually "found" something I would say it's fine if he doesn't feel it necessary to sign the log. But this cacher is doing a poor job at convincing anyone that he was even in the area let alone finding caches. At least say something about the area you were in and tell us if you enjoyed the hike. Posting just a name or worse telling us not to bother checking log books because you don't feel you need to write in them is rather rude. Physical cache owners have hidden their cache for people to look for. There are some physical cache owners who hide caches only because they want to share some special location with you and they could care less if you found their cache. (My opinion is that these people should be posting their locations as waymarks instead of hiding caches) If a cache owner doesn't care whether someone looks for their cache they may choose to take this cacher's logs here at their word that he "saw all that you would show me." Cache owners that have hidden cache in order for people to find them are correct in deleting these logs, whether these owners are "puritan witch-hunters" who always check the log books or simply cachers who want make sure that people are actually looking for their caches.

38.2k · July 15, 2008

If this guy is really finding these caches and just not signing them, you would be right, he is just playing his own way. However, if he is sitting at home logging caches he has never been to, he is playing a different game then Geocaching.
Other then conducting an interview with them you'd be hard pressed to prove one way or another if they actually found the cache. Most people really wouldn't care.

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?????

At a certain point you can change a game to where it's no longer recognizable. Minor variations in recreational golf rules such as "mulligans" don't change the the essential nature of the game, which is to use a golf club to hit the ball into a hole. The rules of soccer require 11 players on a team, but if I'm playing 9 vs. 9 the game is still identifiable as soccer as long as I'm using my feet to move the ball and scoring by kicking the ball into the goal. Once I pick up the ball and run with it, it's no longer soccer.

There are numerous minor variations in in the way people participate in geocaching. Some are controversial, but at minimum they should involve hunting for a geocache for them to be called geocaching. This guy may be having fun but he isn't geocaching.

1k · July 15, 2008

At a certain point you can change a game to where it's no longer recognizable. Minor variations in recreational golf rules such as "mulligans" don't change the the essential nature of the game, which is to use a golf club to hit the ball into a hole.

If someone got info from GC, used their GPSr and went out and tackled the challenge and found the cache, but didn't sign the log sheet I would say they executed the essentials of the game of geocaching. I think the issue is more that the general concensis is the person in question doesn't even do that.

The rules of soccer require 11 players on a team, but if I'm playing 9 vs. 9 the game is still identifiable as soccer as long as I'm using my feet to move the ball and scoring by kicking the ball into the goal. Once I pick up the ball and run with it, it's no longer soccer.

Soccer doesn't require 11 players on the pitch, if you don't have enough players you can still play or a if player gets red carded (or double yellowed), the goalie can and does pick up the ball and run with it, and it's still soccer... (former ref yakkin') but yeah, I get your point. The difference is soccer on any level is competitive and the rules are in place to keep the competition fair between the competitors. GC isn't competitive.

There are numerous minor variations in in the way people participate in geocaching. Some are controversial, but at minimum they should involve hunting for a geocache for them to be called geocaching. This guy may be having fun but he isn't geocaching.

Some people will argue that finding a cache with Google Earth isn't, either, but I think the prime rule should be if you don't impact how others play, then play on! I do agree a proven bogus log should be deleted but I don't agree that someone playing a slightly different version of GC then others shouldn't equate to automatic log deletion or GC would of put tighter and clearer rules in place rather then vague guidelines. But those vague guidelines also grant owners the right to intrepret them as they see fit. We don't all have to agree on anything except that we're in this to have fun and make it fun for others. When it stops being fun and gets all hard line, dramatic and serious, many people will find something else to do

3.9k · July 15, 2008

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.

I agree that the examples are silly, but they're extreme to try and make a point. A more believable example of rules variations are: In Monopoly, landing on Free Parking gives you an extra $500. While playing poker, the dealer calls that one eyed Jacks are wild cards. Etc. None of these "house rules" are acceptable in sanctioned tournament play, but people in neighborhood basement games use them all the time. They're still playing Monopoly or Poker, they're just playing their way.

At a certain point you can change a game to where it's no longer recognizable. Minor variations in recreational golf rules such as "mulligans" don't change the the essential nature of the game, which is to use a golf club to hit the ball into a hole. The rules of soccer require 11 players on a team, but if I'm playing 9 vs. 9 the game is still identifiable as soccer as long as I'm using my feet to move the ball and scoring by kicking the ball into the goal. Once I pick up the ball and run with it, it's no longer soccer.

So if you're playing soccer on one field, and another guy, in a different park, is playing a game with other people and they're picking up the ball with their hands but still calling it soccer, what the hell does it matter?

There are numerous minor variations in in the way people participate in geocaching. Some are controversial, but at minimum they should involve hunting for a geocache for them to be called geocaching. This guy may be having fun but he isn't geocaching.

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?

4.2k · July 15, 2008

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.
I agree that the examples are silly, but they're extreme to try and make a point. A more believable example of rules variations are: In Monopoly, landing on Free Parking gives you an extra $500. While playing poker, the dealer calls that one eyed Jacks are wild cards. Etc. None of these "house rules" are acceptable in sanctioned tournament play, but people in neighborhood basement games use them all the time. They're still playing Monopoly or Poker, they're just playing their way.

At a certain point you can change a game to where it's no longer recognizable. Minor variations in recreational golf rules such as "mulligans" don't change the the essential nature of the game, which is to use a golf club to hit the ball into a hole. The rules of soccer require 11 players on a team, but if I'm playing 9 vs. 9 the game is still identifiable as soccer as long as I'm using my feet to move the ball and scoring by kicking the ball into the goal. Once I pick up the ball and run with it, it's no longer soccer.
So if you're playing soccer on one field, and another guy, in a different park, is playing a game with other people and they're picking up the ball with their hands but still calling it soccer, what the hell does it matter?

There are numerous minor variations in in the way people participate in geocaching. Some are controversial, but at minimum they should involve hunting for a geocache for them to be called geocaching. This guy may be having fun but he isn't geocaching.
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 called Neil, Alex and Geddy and they all agreed. No log signature, no smiley.

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.

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.

3.9k · July 15, 2008

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.

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.

So because the paper log serves to prove that the cacher was there, how does that make it matter that someone might choose not to use it but still call what he's doing "caching"?

Again, if some cacher in some other player's cache decides to not sign the log book (and raise valid suspicion that he was even there), and the owner doesn't care, what does it matter if the "finder" is calling it geocaching or not? Are we back to the claim that it degrades the game somehow?

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.

There's no need to play the game by strict rules that someone else insists is the "right" way to cache. Drop a mulligan, land on Free Parking and collect $500, declare one eyed Jacks are wild, go nuts! Have fun!

Or, follow the rules that someone else decided you should, have fun that others decide you should have, don't try to do anything the priests haven't approved.

Look around this world we made

Equality our stock in trade

Come and join the brotherhood of man

Oh what a nice contented world

Let the banners be unfurled

Hold the red star proudly high in hand

Cacher that refuses to sign logbooks

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment