Jump to content

Cacher that refuses to sign logbooks


benh57

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment

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

 

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

 

Good research! Good point!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sounds like you are automatically assuming that the finder who logged the smiley after the other 4 dnfs is lying. In otherwords, guilty until proven innocent. :D Sorry, but i still want to believe that most people who play our game are honest folk and since i do, i don't feel the need to question a log like this.

 

If the log was indeed bogus, then it was the person who filed that bogus log who may possibly cause problems for future finders. Yes, there's always a possibility that a cache may have problems or be missing, but is a chance we all take a when going after it. Being deceived by a liar is something that shouldn't enter into the equation.. :lol:

 

I can't think of many good reasons why a person wouldn't sign the physical log but made sure to log online. I would like to ask the person who was doing this and if they didn't provide a good reason, i'd probably delete logs they made on our caches! :D

Edited by Mudfrog
Link to comment
You may disagree, but you need a better example than that. How about if you go to the golf coarse, push the handles of your clubs into the ground, stand back and use a pistol to shoot the heads off of them??Just because you are on the golf coarse, and are using golf equipment doesn't mean you are playing golf.
Come up with an example that doesn't involve damaging property and only involves the scorekeeping part as we are just referring to signing the log sheet, everything else is still geocaching in everyone's book as the person gets the cache info from GC.com, uses a GPSr and finds the cache, then just doesn't sign the log sheet. We're not talking about people that drop napalm on a 1/2 mile area and then after the flames die down they can more easily find the steel ammo can. I think it's a dang good example to just say people are all playing golf on a golf course but someone's keeping their score differently.

 

If someone is sitting on a chair in his dark lonely basement, and wants to log caches all over the world. More power to him. If some cache owners, who are aware of what he is doing allow those logs that's fine. BUT BY NO STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION COULD THAT BE CALLED GEOCACHING!!! :lol::D
The imagination can be stretched pretty far.... first off GPS is Global Positioning System and not necessarily a GPSr Global Positioning System Receiver. That means anything that can get you a global position which could include a compass, stars, landmarks, maps, Google Earth, etc. Next we're talking "finding" a cache. Kind of in the way they "found" terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, if someone had a good enough global satallite imagining system to zone in and see the cache container which they located with a mapping system, then for that stretch of the imagination they legitimately used a "GPS" to "find" a cache from their dark lonely basement. I don't think anyone was yelling that in Afghanistan they didn't really "find" them because they were only looking at pictures :D

 

Haven't been on in a few days so my imagination needed a little stretching... don't agree with armchair caching and think the logs should be deleted if that's what they obviously are, but don't see how it hurts anyone else playing GC if the log is pretty much benign.

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

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

I agree.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

bogus finds deserve deletion.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

reaching rather far, aren't you? got tired of picking holes elsewhere?

Link to comment
Two questions for the "no rules" crowd.

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

Not in the totally no rules crowd, more in the "benign bogus logs don't really hurt anyone and have more fun things to do with my time then validate log entries" crowd but I'll bite. If someone logged that I would email them and congratulate them and then ask them to describe the hide. Being a paddle only cache it would be pretty easy to determine if they'd actually been there. If no reply or no correct answer.... deleted, pretty simple. And this from the owner of quite a few paddle only caches and a tough paddle only multi that was found within two days of being posted.

 

2. A while back I looked for a cache that from the hints, location, and description was obviously a LPC. It was missing. If it becomes common to see clearly missing caches such as that one logged as "found but not signed", would you keep looking for caches?
If it's a clearly missing cache that has not been flagged so by the owner, then that's bad on the owner. If they're not dilligent enough to maintain their cache or the cache listing then people are going after a missing cache because the owner hasn't handled it. Have you ever searched for a cache with a handful of DNF's before you go? We do all the time and take pride finding caches several others failed to find.

 

Remarks like these make it sound like a lot of people won't go for a cache even if just the last entry is a DNF because of fear that it might be missing. Some of our most fun finds have been long hike caches with a dozen DNF's that hadn't been found in almost a year. Of course there were not the only cache in the area, but finding them was pretty exciting.

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

 

When you place a cache are you not trying to challenge the finder to locate it? When you are hunting are you not trying to out-think the hider?

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.

 

I do not promote bogus logs.

 

I do not recommend lying in one’s online cache logs, but the job of defining a ‘lie’ as it applies here is a very tricky – if not impossible – business, and there is really no reason to stress over differences in interpretation. I’m happy to worry about my own standards and leave everyone else to theirs.

 

I also do not mean to suggest that a cache owner should be forced, shamed, or goaded into allowing ANY log to remain on his cache page if he has any reason to conclude that it needs to be deleted. If you own the cache, and are convinced that a cacher lied about his find on your cache page, then by all means delete his log. If you merely suspect the lie but are not sure, then how you choose to proceed is a judgment call, but it is your decision alone. It’s your cache. If I log a find that I feel is legitimate but you delete my find it is my right to appeal. If you refuse (or ignore) my appeal that’s your right as well, and it is then up to me whether to let the whole thing bother me or to move on and continue to enjoy the game elsewhere.

 

Groundspeak will probably step in in extreme cases of Terms of Service abuse (bad language, personal attacks, or other serious abuse), but, all in all, whether a log stays or gets deleted is purely between the hider and the finder – and nobody else.

 

Any perceived competition, or perceived "cheating," in the minds of any observers other than the hider and the finder is only that: perceived.

Link to comment

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

 

http://www.geocaching.com/faq/

 

What are the rules in Geocaching?

Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:

 

1. Take something from the cache

2. Leave something in the cache

3. Write about it in the logbook

Edited by Motorcycle_Mama
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.

A known risk.

 

Whose fault is it, then, that the San Diego birdwatcher chose to base his gas-burning and time-consuming decision on a single online entry posted by a stranger he doesn't know that he can trust? It may be a reasonable risk, but it is a risk nonetheless.

 

I might look to make sure there is not a most-recent DNF or two on a cache page before I commit time and resources toward hunting that cache, but nobody holds a gun to by head and makes me go for it. That’s my call, and I get the blame if my decision to take that risk goes sour. Besides, if failure to find a target cache means one’s entire caching trip has been a waste, then maybe one should re-examine one’s reasons for participating in this hobby in the first place.

 

Success is never guaranteed. The only thing that is guaranteed is human nature, which means that when you depend on others for your entertainment you will eventually find disappointment here and there. We can TRY to foist responsibility for our own decisions onto others, and in some cases a well-written case might have the ring of logic, but ultimately we’re responsible for our own actions.

Link to comment
reaching rather far, aren't you?

Am I? I don't think so, but perhaps you can convince me otherwise. If you could elaborate, then maybe I will agree with your points and retract my statements, or maybe I won't; either way, I'll be happy.

 

If you would be so kind as to provide you reasons for objecting to my comments I will be happy to discuss them with you. Simply saying “you’re wrong” doesn’t convince me of anything.

 

got tired of picking holes elsewhere?

That comes pretty close to making a personal attack on me in place of defending your position. If you object to posts I have made in other threads, please address them in those threads. Implying that I am some kind of troll while choosing not to defend your own post is pointless and irrelevant.

Link to comment

What are the rules in Geocaching?

Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:

 

1. Take something from the cache

2. Leave something in the cache

3. Write about it in the logbook

By that sense you CANNOT have a cache so small if cannot have trade items as this states it's as much a REQUIREMENT to take and leave something as it is to sign the log book. And if someone doesn't have something to LEAVE then they're not playing by the rules either??? :D

 

And from the Tips for Finding a Cache Page at GC

http://www.geocaching.com/about/finding.aspx

 

Step 4 – The Find

Huzzah! You found the cache! Congratulations! Now what?

 

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.

Make sure to seal the cache and place it back where you found it. If it had some rocks covering it, please replace them. It’s pretty straightforward.

Remember that waypoint we suggested you create where your car/trail was located? Use that now to get back! You’ll be glad you had it.

b]When you get home, email the person who hid the cache and let them know you found it! [/b] They’re always happy to know the condition of their cache and it’s nice to know that people are looking for them.

 

Amazing it doesn't say anything about logging the find online???? Only goes to prove there are vague guidelines leaving things up to a lot personal interpretation so every can have their own kind of fun.

 

And what the heck is Huzzah!..????

Link to comment
Two questions for the "no rules" crowd.

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

I don't think anyone is arguing that there are "no rules." As for me, my only objection is to those who try to impose 'competition morals' in a place where they do not apply.

 

Clearly, the owner of your hypothetical cache would be well justified in being suspicious of the find log, and would have good reason to consider a delete. That is among the accepted rules, and I have seen no posts arguing against that idea.

 

While we’re being hypothetical though, consider this: What if there happened to be another, unseen cacher nearby when the hider placed that cache? What if the other cacher remained unseen, waited for the hider to leave, found the container and then chose not to sign the logbook? Suppose he possessed a wireless device which allowed him to immediately log his find online? Wouldn’t you count that as a legitimate find? I might, especially if he could further convince me that he was really there, but your standards as a cache owner may differ. How, then, does the hider know the find log you describe isn’t legitimate unless he follows up? Isn’t it therefore dangerous for folks on either side of this question to make risky assumptions?

 

If you were the owner of that cache you would be well within your rights to delete that log, and, whether the logger likes it or not, you wouldn’t owe an explanation to anyone. Etiquette might indicate otherwise, but this website does not require an explanation, and this framework has been made clear by The Powers That Be. Does that sound like “no rules?” Sounds like a rule to me.

Link to comment
Come up with an example that doesn't involve damaging property and only involves the scorekeeping part as we are just referring to signing the log sheet, everything else is still geocaching in everyone's book as the person gets the cache info from GC.com, uses a GPSr and finds the cache, then just doesn't sign the log sheet.

 

Somehow I think you missed my point. I agree if "the person gets the cache info from GC.com, uses a GPSr and finds the cache, then just doesn't sign the log sheet", it would still be called Geocaching. My point is if someone gets the info, jumps right to logging it as a find without looking for it nor finding it, it ain't Geocaching.

 

As for another example. How about someone uses a baseball bat to knock the golf ball onto the green, and a pool cue to put it in the cup, keeping score on the back of a checker board. What game is he playing then? I guess if he said pool, that would be right? If he said baseball?

(as an aside, if I was shooting the heads off of my own golf clubs, that would not really be "damaging property" any more than shooting cans or bottles.)

 

That means anything that can get you a global position which could include a compass, stars, landmarks, maps, Google Earth, etc. Next we're talking "finding" a cache. Kind of in the way they "found" terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, if someone had a good enough global satellite imagining system to zone in and see the cache container which they located with a mapping system, then for that stretch of the imagination they legitimately used a "GPS" to "find" a cache from their dark lonely basement. I don't think anyone was yelling that in Afghanistan they didn't really "find" them because they were only looking at pictures

 

Your definition of "finding" the cache here is not the same as mine, nor would I think very many cache owners would agree with you.

You may very well find the exact spot the cache is located in, but you haven't found the cache. In most cases the government didn't find the terrorists with the satellite systems they only found the terrorist's location. They still had to go get them.

Link to comment

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

 

http://www.geocaching.com/faq/

 

What are the rules in Geocaching?

Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:

 

1. Take something from the cache

2. Leave something in the cache

3. Write about it in the logbook

 

Yet if someone wanted to look for caches listed on Geocaching.com and not ever sign their name in a physical log or trade any items, no one else would care a bit so long as they didn't log a 'found it' online. I'd guess that people would even accept if the person left a note on line tell about their cache hunt. Most people who saw someone with a GPSr looking for the container would say they were geocaching. But if you want to say they were looking for a cache but not geocaching that is OK too (does this make them muggles?).

Nowhere do the "3 rules" from the FAQ say anything about logging online. Must you have been geocaching per the "rules" in order to log a found it online? It doesn't say that anywhere. The only guideline is that cache owners should delete bogus logs. If TPTB want to state that a bogus log means that you didn't take something from the cache, or leave something in the caches, or write about it in the logbook; they could add that clarification. I suspect they won't do this. Most cache owners will allow logs to stand where no trade was made and most won't check the physical logs to verify the cacher wrote in it. Most cache owners will not delete online found logs when it reasonably looks like the cacher found the cache and just forgot to sign or forgot a pen or something to use if the log was too wet to write in. Some cache owners will not delete any logs.

Link to comment
reaching rather far, aren't you?

Am I? I don't think so, but perhaps you can convince me otherwise. If you could elaborate, then maybe I will agree with your points and retract my statements, or maybe I won't; either way, I'll be happy.

 

If you would be so kind as to provide you reasons for objecting to my comments I will be happy to discuss them with you. Simply saying “you’re wrong” doesn’t convince me of anything.

 

got tired of picking holes elsewhere?

That comes pretty close to making a personal attack on me in place of defending your position. If you object to posts I have made in other threads, please address them in those threads. Implying that I am some kind of troll while choosing not to defend your own post is pointless and irrelevant.

 

all right; here's a carefully considered response that i feel is truly worthy of your contribution:

 

pffft

 

*fingers in ears*

 

lalalalalalalalalala

Link to comment

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

 

http://www.geocaching.com/faq/

 

What are the rules in Geocaching?

Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:

 

1. Take something from the cache

2. Leave something in the cache

3. Write about it in the logbook

 

Yet if someone wanted to look for caches listed on Geocaching.com and not ever sign their name in a physical log or trade any items, no one else would care a bit so long as they didn't log a 'found it' online. I'd guess that people would even accept if the person left a note on line tell about their cache hunt. Most people who saw someone with a GPSr looking for the container would say they were geocaching. But if you want to say they were looking for a cache but not geocaching that is OK too (does this make them muggles?).

Nowhere do the "3 rules" from the FAQ say anything about logging online. Must you have been geocaching per the "rules" in order to log a found it online? It doesn't say that anywhere. The only guideline is that cache owners should delete bogus logs. If TPTB want to state that a bogus log means that you didn't take something from the cache, or leave something in the caches, or write about it in the logbook; they could add that clarification. I suspect they won't do this. Most cache owners will allow logs to stand where no trade was made and most won't check the physical logs to verify the cacher wrote in it. Most cache owners will not delete online found logs when it reasonably looks like the cacher found the cache and just forgot to sign or forgot a pen or something to use if the log was too wet to write in. Some cache owners will not delete any logs.

 

Oh, that's why I didn't see it in the guidelines, its in the FAQ.... lol

 

SO, if we're going to be technical, which I like to do.... Signing the log still doesn't count, you have to WRITE ABOUT YOUR TRADE, just signing your name is just as bad as doing nothing according to the "Rules..."

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 :D
Link to comment
As for another example. How about someone uses a baseball bat to knock the golf ball onto the green, and a pool cue to put it in the cup, keeping score on the back of a checker board. What game is he playing then? I guess if he said pool, that would be right? If he said baseball? (as an aside, if I was shooting the heads off of my own golf clubs, that would not really be "damaging property" any more than shooting cans or bottles.)
I think most people, if at a golf course and somehow getting a ball into a cup would consider it "golf" regardless of the instruments used to get it there. For "recreational" golf I have seen people use sticks and umbrellas for clubs, I have seen people tee off with putters, seen people kick the ball into the cup, seen a lot of people use the handle of their putter as a cue stick to putt the ball in and seen people use an empty beer bottle as a driver. Played many times with no score card at all (thankfully). Yeah, we all still called it "golf" and it was fun. Somepeople look at the world thru **** coloured glasses and everything is hard line and serious, some of us prefer the rose coloured ones and we smile and laugh a lot.

 

Your definition of "finding" the cache here is not the same as mine, nor would I think very many cache owners would agree with you.

You may very well find the exact spot the cache is located in, but you haven't found the cache. In most cases the government didn't find the terrorists with the satellite systems they only found the terrorist's location. They still had to go get them.

Find (f-i-nd) v. found (found), To discover or ascertain through observation, experience, or study

"Find" doesn't mean you have to touch, you can just observe. By that same reasoning above you'd be saying we never "found" other galaxies and we never "found" the moon until July 20, 1969. Comes down to personal interpretation, and just because you have your own interpretation doesn't make anyone who has a different one wrong. Try an tell the military folks they didn't "find" the terrorists until they went there and "got" them. They "found" them and then went and "got" them... but from a GC perspective it states to "find" the cache, not to "get" it :D

Link to comment
And what the heck is Huzzah!..????
That's Olde English for "dude!"
"Huzzah" is also the exclamation used by the slapstick villain Punch as he outwits the Devil in the finale of the classic version of the Punch and Judy show, which dates back to the 18th and 19th centuries in England..... learn somethin' new every day.

 

Huzzah!.... Wassup!!! :D

Link to comment
And what the heck is Huzzah!..????
That's Olde English for "dude!"
"Huzzah" is also the exclamation used by the slapstick villain Punch as he outwits the Devil in the finale of the classic version of the Punch and Judy show, which dates back to the 18th and 19th centuries in England..... learn somethin' new every day.

 

Huzzah!.... Wassup!!! :D

Neat little tidbit, but let's keep this topic on track, shall we?

Link to comment
Find (f-i-nd) v. found (found), To discover or ascertain through observation, experience, or study

"Find" doesn't mean you have to touch, you can just observe. By that same reasoning above you'd be saying we never "found" other galaxies and we never "found" the moon until July 20, 1969. Comes down to personal interpretation, and just because you have your own interpretation doesn't make anyone who has a different one wrong. Try an tell the military folks they didn't "find" the terrorists until they went there and "got" them. They "found" them and then went and "got" them... but from a GC perspective it states to "find" the cache, not to "get" it :D

 

Oh good grief. Time to go register telescopecaching.com.

 

If you don't put hands on the cache, for the purposes of geocaching you didn't find it in many people's interpretation.

Link to comment
Neat little tidbit, but let's keep this topic on track, shall we?
Huzzah is in the guidelines! hehehehe....

 

IMHO and in summary, GC provides a forum (so to speak) that brings cachers and cache owners together. What constitutes a "find" on someone's owned cache is up to that individual owner to decide. If the cacher doesn't follow that owner's personal rules then the owner can take action such as deleting the cacher's log. Owners are expected to follow the basic guidelines of GC but they have ultimate control over their hide, their log sheet, their swag and their cache's online log entries. The only means to which any owner has to try to push their personal intrepretation of a "find" on anyone else, is posting in threads such as this.

Link to comment

The lengths - the nitpickings some of you are going to in order to TRY to make some sort of intelligent sounding analogy simply boggles my mind. It's not about numbers. It's not about some inane way of 'having fun'. It's not about being a competition, or not. "IT" being the act of claiming a find & logging same, all while your a** is in a chair halfway 'round the world from the cache.

 

You all each and every one know exactly what's being talked about, so there's no need to try and nit-pick any points of this apart, or to sway it or make it anything else or something it's not.

 

It's simply a matter of someone taking credit for something he DID NOT DO. I don't care how you try to paint it, that's WRONG, pure & simple, by ANY stretch of the imagination! If there's a means of taking that credit away, that's the right thing to do. And to not do so, when presented with the knowledge of that transgression, violates the very sanctity of the game & all the players that make it what it was intended to be.

 

And it's notable that the vast majority of opinions expressed herein agree with that - the standpoint of it being wrong, rather than right. Only a very few keep harping over & over anything to the contrary. In case they haven't noticed, that doesn't increase your votes - it merely demonstrates you're here to argue, not come to any form of concensual agreement on the matter.

 

I.E., YOU LOSE!

~*

Edited by Star*Hopper
Link to comment
It's simply a matter of someone taking credit for something he DID NOT DO. I don't care how you try to paint it, that's WRONG, pure & simple, by ANY stretch of the imagination! If there's a means of taking that credit away, that's the right thing to do. And to not do so, when presented with the knowledge of that transgression, violates the very sanctity of the game & all the players that make it what it was intended to be.
I don't think anyone disagrees that armchair caching is wrong, the debate seems to be to what lengths one goes to in order to validate and find out if it even occurred, and if it did, is the harm it may cause worth that effort? Spending 4 hours hiking to a cache so someone can delete "TFTH" from their cache page because it was bogus doesn't seem like a lot of reward for the effort.

 

Maybe a better way to determine this is to ask how many armchair caches everyone debating in here has found, how they discovered them (what raised the flag on them), and what they did about it? I think this question was brought up before and only one person chimed in about just a couple of caches, so from those kind of results it's such a minuscule and insignificant problem that it hardly warrants debate.

 

Oh yeah, I'll chime in first. I own over 250 active hides of all flavors, I maintain them to the tune of a couple maintenance runs a week, have been caching for about 3 years and have not had a single armchair or bogus cache pop up to my attention. Deleted a grand total of one log entry because of the abusive verbal nature of the post.

Edited by infiniteMPG
Link to comment
By that sense you CANNOT have a cache so small if cannot have trade items as this states it's as much a REQUIREMENT to take and leave something as it is to sign the log book. And if someone doesn't have something to LEAVE then they're not playing by the rules either??

 

When I find a micro I TAKE the log from the container, sign it, then LEAVE it. The rules don't specify what to take and what to leave, nor do they say it can't be the same thing.

Link to comment
It's simply a matter of someone taking credit for something he DID NOT DO. I don't care how you try to paint it, that's WRONG, pure & simple, by ANY stretch of the imagination! If there's a means of taking that credit away, that's the right thing to do. And to not do so, when presented with the knowledge of that transgression, violates the very sanctity of the game & all the players that make it what it was intended to be.
I don't think anyone disagrees that armchair caching is wrong, the debate seems to be to what lengths one goes to in order to validate and find out if it even occurred, and if it did, is the harm it may cause worth that effort? Spending 4 hours hiking to a cache so someone can delete "TFTH" from their cache page because it was bogus doesn't seem like a lot of reward for the effort.

 

Maybe a better way to determine this is to ask how many armchair caches everyone debating in here has found, how they discovered them (what raised the flag on them), and what they did about it? I think this question was brought up before and only one person chimed in about just a couple of caches, so from those kind of results it's such a minuscule and insignificant problem that it hardly warrants debate.

 

Oh yeah, I'll chime in first. I own over 250 active hides of all flavors, I maintain them to the tune of a couple maintenance runs a week, have been caching for about 3 years and have not had a single armchair or bogus cache pop up to my attention. Deleted a grand total of one log entry because of the abusive verbal nature of the post.

This whole (or is it hole?) argument misses the point of the OP. A cacher posted that he found the cache but don't bother checking for his signature in the log book since he doesn't sign log books because he doesn't feel its necessary. He then goes on to say that if that is not enough you can delete his log. It's not a problem.

 

For the puritans the solution is easy. Didn't sign the log => delete the online find. For others this cacher has presented a difficult problem. Are his logs bogus? Should they be deleted if he actually did find the caches?

 

I probably have about 7 or 8 finds out of 4174 where I posted that I didn't sign the log because the log book was too wet or because there was no pen. And there are one or two others (based on what later cachers posted) where I simply forgot to sign (or I used a sticker that didn't stick very good). So far nobody has deleted any of my finds and my guess is that if the log appears to be genuine most cache owners are not going to be puritans about signing. The cacher in question here though doesn't provide any hints that the finds were genuine. He posted the same cut an paste logs on every cache. All of the cache are in same area and certainly one could find all these cache in one day, but the caches on last Friday in Los Angeles would have required a significant hike and then he still had time to find a number of park and grabs. Knowing the area I can either be impressed or I can have doubts that he ever found these. My guess is that looking at this guys patterns, most people are going to come to the conclusion that his finds are bogus and, even if he found the caches since he says it's not a problem, delete the logs. But some people are likely to not bother deleting his logs anyhow.

 

So the question comes up as to whether this harms other geocachers.

 

Because I had DNF'd one of the caches he says he found, I am of course curious as to whether I just missed the cache or is it really missing. If I go back now and find the cache I didn't find would that make me more confident that the guy was telling the truth? If I still can't find it will I be any more confident in assessing his logs as bogus? In theory, a bogus log could cause briansnat's friends to drive 100 miles to look for a cache. In practice, it seems that having to assess logs to see if they seem reasonable or not is just another part of the game.

 

Maybe these logs are bogus, maybe they are not. If a cache owner thinks they are bogus that owner should delete them (per the guidelines). If a cache owner doesn't delete the log, each cacher who looks at these logs must make their own assessment and decide whether to look for these caches or not based on the totality of all the logs. You can debate all you want about who is cheated by bogus log or whether not deleting apparently bogus logs is degrading geocaching or whether the "rules" state you must sign the log, but we have heard it all before.

Link to comment
It's simply a matter of someone taking credit for something he DID NOT DO. I don't care how you try to paint it, that's WRONG, pure & simple, by ANY stretch of the imagination! If there's a means of taking that credit away, that's the right thing to do. And to not do so, when presented with the knowledge of that transgression, violates the very sanctity of the game & all the players that make it what it was intended to be.

Sanctity? Sorry, but that’s a little too heavy-handed for me. Geocaching is not a holy sacrament – it’s just using GPS to find boxes for fun.

 

I don’t promote false logs, but neither do I let them trouble me. 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. Unless it’s my cache it is simply none of my business, and I don’t care. I am unable and unwilling to get as morally worked up about this issue as some people choose.

 

A cache owner can delete any log he chooses. Any log is legitimate as long as the cache owner says it is. If the cache finder and the cache owner are both happy with the log, then it is nobody else’s business, and there are therefore no victims. If there is no victim, then there is, by definition, no crime. Therefore any log the cache owner decides to allow is not a crime. If some third party nevertheless voluntarily chooses to be upset about any of those logs then he has actively chosen to be a voluntary victim, and can therefore blame no one but himself for his unnecessary anguish.

Link to comment
I think most people, if at a golf course and somehow getting a ball into a cup would consider it "golf" regardless of the instruments used to get it there. For "recreational" golf I have seen people use sticks and umbrellas for clubs, I have seen people tee off with putters, seen people kick the ball into the cup, seen a lot of people use the handle of their putter as a cue stick to putt the ball in and seen people use an empty beer bottle as a driver. Played many times with no score card at all (thankfully). Yeah, we all still called it "golf" and it was fun. Somepeople look at the world thru **** coloured glasses and everything is hard line and serious, some of us prefer the rose coloured ones and we smile and laugh a lot.

 

I smile and laugh a lot too. I've done my share of horsing around while playing different games, and it really doesn't matter to me what any one else does if they are out having fun. Doesn't matter if they are on the golf coarse or football field, or in the pool hall. That is not my point. The point is, I realize I can play pool, or I can horse around. But if I am horsing around I am not playing pool.

 

I think you are wrong if you think most people would consider what you describe as "golf". However, even if they do it still doesn't make it golf. you can call it what you like but IT AIN'T GOLF.

 

From the tone of your posts I really doubt if you do smile and laugh a lot, you seem to be argumentative, hard line and stubborn. Those rose colored glasses must have blinders on them.

Link to comment
And it's notable that the vast majority of opinions expressed herein agree with that - the standpoint of it being wrong, rather than right. Only a very few keep harping over & over anything to the contrary.

Please point me to a SINGLE post in this thread where anyone said logging fake finds was the right thing to do.

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Well you did suggest that if I read a log, and act as if it was written if good faith, that it would be my fault if I wasted my time. Did you hint that armchair logging is an acceptable practice? If you think it is an unacceptable practice it seems you are trying awful hard to not say it. In the real world of online communication we must live with a lot of anti-social behavior. You say the burden is mine not their's. My burden is to behave within the guidelines. Their burden is to do the same. If not then anything goes, ie. armchair hiding, armchair finding. Where do you draw the line?

Link to comment
It's simply a matter of someone taking credit for something he DID NOT DO. I don't care how you try to paint it, that's WRONG, pure & simple, by ANY stretch of the imagination! If there's a means of taking that credit away, that's the right thing to do. And to not do so, when presented with the knowledge of that transgression, violates the very sanctity of the game & all the players that make it what it was intended to be.
I don't think anyone disagrees that armchair caching is wrong, the debate seems to be to what lengths one goes to in order to validate and find out if it even occurred, and if it did, is the harm it may cause worth that effort? Spending 4 hours hiking to a cache so someone can delete "TFTH" from their cache page because it was bogus doesn't seem like a lot of reward for the effort.

 

Maybe a better way to determine this is to ask how many armchair caches everyone debating in here has found, how they discovered them (what raised the flag on them), and what they did about it? I think this question was brought up before and only one person chimed in about just a couple of caches, so from those kind of results it's such a minuscule and insignificant problem that it hardly warrants debate.

 

Oh yeah, I'll chime in first. I own over 250 active hides of all flavors, I maintain them to the tune of a couple maintenance runs a week, have been caching for about 3 years and have not had a single armchair or bogus cache pop up to my attention. Deleted a grand total of one log entry because of the abusive verbal nature of the post.

This whole (or is it hole?) argument misses the point of the OP. A cacher posted that he found the cache but don't bother checking for his signature in the log book since he doesn't sign log books because he doesn't feel its necessary. He then goes on to say that if that is not enough you can delete his log. It's not a problem.

 

For the puritans the solution is easy. Didn't sign the log => delete the online find. For others this cacher has presented a difficult problem. Are his logs bogus? Should they be deleted if he actually did find the caches?

 

I probably have about 7 or 8 finds out of 4174 where I posted that I didn't sign the log because the log book was too wet or because there was no pen. And there are one or two others (based on what later cachers posted) where I simply forgot to sign (or I used a sticker that didn't stick very good). So far nobody has deleted any of my finds and my guess is that if the log appears to be genuine most cache owners are not going to be puritans about signing. The cacher in question here though doesn't provide any hints that the finds were genuine. He posted the same cut an paste logs on every cache. All of the cache are in same area and certainly one could find all these cache in one day, but the caches on last Friday in Los Angeles would have required a significant hike and then he still had time to find a number of park and grabs. Knowing the area I can either be impressed or I can have doubts that he ever found these. My guess is that looking at this guys patterns, most people are going to come to the conclusion that his finds are bogus and, even if he found the caches since he says it's not a problem, delete the logs. But some people are likely to not bother deleting his logs anyhow.

 

So the question comes up as to whether this harms other geocachers.

 

Because I had DNF'd one of the caches he says he found, I am of course curious as to whether I just missed the cache or is it really missing. If I go back now and find the cache I didn't find would that make me more confident that the guy was telling the truth? If I still can't find it will I be any more confident in assessing his logs as bogus? In theory, a bogus log could cause briansnat's friends to drive 100 miles to look for a cache. In practice, it seems that having to assess logs to see if they seem reasonable or not is just another part of the game.

 

Maybe these logs are bogus, maybe they are not. If a cache owner thinks they are bogus that owner should delete them (per the guidelines). If a cache owner doesn't delete the log, each cacher who looks at these logs must make their own assessment and decide whether to look for these caches or not based on the totality of all the logs. You can debate all you want about who is cheated by bogus log or whether not deleting apparently bogus logs is degrading geocaching or whether the "rules" state you must sign the log, but we have heard it all before.

 

You mean all geocachers are responsible for their actions?? You mean cachers should actually read the cache page and check the logs instead of just blindly heading out? Say it ain't so!!! :rolleyes:

Link to comment

... You mean cachers should actually read the cache page and check the logs instead of just blindly heading out? Say it ain't so!!! :rolleyes:

OK... It ain't so! I doubt that I read the cache page first for 90% of my finds, I almost always follow the GPS to next nearest.

 

But then I like all sorts of caches, so whatever I find (or don't) makes me happy!

Link to comment
And it's notable that the vast majority of opinions expressed herein agree with that - the standpoint of it being wrong, rather than right. Only a very few keep harping over & over anything to the contrary.

Please point me to a SINGLE post in this thread where anyone said logging fake finds was the right thing to do.

 

I'll take this one.

 

If the cacher wants to find caches while sitting in front of the computer, that's fine, so long as he or she isn't making people think a missing cache is still there.

 

I also offer a few other posts that do not specifically condone armchair logging to offer a very soft interpretation of what constitutes a proper "found it" log and/or verge on support for logging armchair finds. Or at least appear to do so to me.

 

What's to be gained by deleting their logs?

 

Please, please don't delete his logs.

 

"Find" doesn't mean you have to touch, you can just observe. By that same reasoning above you'd be saying we never "found" other galaxies...

 

 

(Removed the names on the posts because it's not who posted these comments that matter but that they were posted. This isn't personal. I respect your opinions, I just don't agree.)

 

It comes down to this: Putting the issue of intentionally logging caches you never were even in the same time zone with aside, by definition the difference between a virtual cache, and a physical cache is the presence of the container and the log. If you aren't opening the container and signing the physical log then you are attempting to log the cache as a "backdoor" virtual. If you own the cache and are aware of this practice then you are also, in effect, attempting to maintain a "backdoor" virtual cache.

 

This website doesn't allow the listing of new virtual caches- this is not a guideline, this folks is an actual rule. In my view of things, if you are aware and condone the act of finders logging to your cache in this manner then you, the cache owner, are acting against the rules.

 

Also, I don't want to get into the practice of listing my caches as "?" types just because I, in one interpretation, insist on the "addition logging requirement" (ALR) of the finder writing in the physical log.

 

This is just my opinion, and I hold no ill will to anybody that thinks otherwise. Happy caching!

Link to comment
And it's notable that the vast majority of opinions expressed herein agree with that - the standpoint of it being wrong, rather than right. Only a very few keep harping over & over anything to the contrary.

Please point me to a SINGLE post in this thread where anyone said logging fake finds was the right thing to do.

 

by KBI: I don’t promote false logs, but neither do I let them trouble me. 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. Unless it’s my cache it is simply none of my business, and I don’t care. I am unable and unwilling to get as morally worked up about this issue as some people choose.

 

This is what i don't understand. You and KBI fight tooth and nails trying to say that false logging doesn't hurt anyone, that we should let people play the way they want, etc,,, but then you come back and say that you don't agree with false logging. If i am reading this right, you both think it is wrong. So why in the world do you condone it in any shape or form?

 

Your arguements that it doesn't affect anyone, play as you like, shouldn't even be here. This is black and white, false logging (ie: lying) is wrong,,,period!

Link to comment
And it's notable that the vast majority of opinions expressed herein agree with that - the standpoint of it being wrong, rather than right. Only a very few keep harping over & over anything to the contrary.

Please point me to a SINGLE post in this thread where anyone said logging fake finds was the right thing to do.

I'll take this one.

 

If the cacher wants to find caches while sitting in front of the computer, that's fine, so long as he or she isn't making people think a missing cache is still there.

That is NOT an example of a poster claiming that “logging fake finds is the right thing to do.” That is merely an example of a poster explaining why the occasional fake find log can be tolerated. There is a big difference.

 

Starhopper stated a fairly straightforward premise: he said “a very few” posters have “harped over and over” that “logging fake finds is the right thing to do.” Like Mushtang, I have also not seen that to be the case. Nobody here is arguing from the viewpoint that logging fake finds is the “right thing to do.”

 

Also, I don't want to get into the practice of listing my caches as "?" types just because I, in one interpretation, insist on the "addition logging requirement" (ALR) of the finder writing in the physical log.

That is a rather extreme exaggeration, don’t you think? It assumes not only that NOT signing logbooks while logging finds online will become the norm; it also further assumes that the new norm will be rigidly enforced. Somehow I don’t see that happening, and nobody else here has predicted that.

Link to comment
It comes down to this ...... by definition the difference between a virtual cache, and a physical cache is the presence of the container and the log. If you aren't opening the container and signing the physical log then you are attempting to log the cache as a "backdoor" virtual. If you own the cache and are aware of this practice then you are also, in effect, attempting to maintain a "backdoor" virtual cache.

 

This website doesn't allow the listing of new virtual caches- this is not a guideline, this folks is an actual rule. In my view of things, if you are aware and condone the act of finders logging to your cache in this manner then you, the cache owner, are acting against the rules.

Good point, and you make a good case – but ONLY IF the problem being discussed here were one of massive proportions; an uncontrollable eruption of false logging, with thousands of smiley-packed online cache pages associated with thousands of empty paper logs and missing containers confusing thousands of geocachers, and making the conventional version of the game impossible to conduct.

 

I don’t see that happening at all. Not now, nor in the future. As someone pointed out earlier: most folks are honest, and are happy to follow the convention: find the container, sign the logbook, and then document one’s find online.

 

Enforcement isn’t necessary, and it doesn’t really work anyway. All we can ever really ultimately depend on is the old honor system, which seems to be working fine. Geocachers don’t need a handful of self-important moralizers preaching from officious forum threads to tell us that bogus logging is silly; all we geocachers really need is our own internal logic, which, in almost 100% of cachers, prevents us from ever posting a bogus smiley with this one, obvious, intuitive and inescapable reason: What’s the point of logging a bogus smiley?

 

I will never log a bogus smiley. It wouldn’t net my anything of value. It would render my total find count meaningless. It would create the potential for bad feelings between me and the cache owner. It would be a waste of my time. Lots of negatives with absolutely no positives. What’s the point?

 

While the preceding logic predicts that nobody would EVER log a bogus find online, knowledge of real-world human nature also predicts that a very few pitiable and confused souls will somehow nevertheless bypass that logic and occasionally post bogus anyway. No matter what we say or do here in this thread that will not change, and I believe that ratio is set. It will never be enough to matter, but neither will it ever go away. Bogus logging is simply not a meaningful threat.

 

This issue of bogus logs makes for an interesting discussion, but it has never threatened to become an epidemic, and has never even risen above the level of occasional curiosity. With over a thousand finds and lots of hides to my credit, I have seen maybe two or three truly bogus online logs in my time at this hobby, and only two or three others that were even suspect. None of them caused me any inconvenience, pain, anguish, stress, or moral outrage. I simply rolled my eyes, and I went on about my day.

 

I don’t promote false logs, but neither do I let them trouble me.

Link to comment
And it's notable that the vast majority of opinions expressed herein agree with that - the standpoint of it being wrong, rather than right. Only a very few keep harping over & over anything to the contrary.

Please point me to a SINGLE post in this thread where anyone said logging fake finds was the right thing to do.

 

by KBI: I don’t promote false logs, but neither do I let them trouble me. 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. Unless it’s my cache it is simply none of my business, and I don’t care. I am unable and unwilling to get as morally worked up about this issue as some people choose.

This is what i don't understand. You and KBI fight tooth and nails trying to say that false logging doesn't hurt anyone, that we should let people play the way they want, etc,,, but then you come back and say that you don't agree with false logging. If i am reading this right, you both think it is wrong. So why in the world do you condone it in any shape or form?

Because we don’t think in absolutes like you apparently do. No personal offense intended; I’m just answering your question honestly. :rolleyes:

 

Just because I tolerate a thing doesn’t mean I have to promote it.

 

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."

 

You say you are seeing a contradiction. I can somewhat understand your confusion. Don’t worry; you’re not the first person to fail to see the distinction. For example – and I use this ONLY as an analogy, not as an attempt to take the discussion off-topic – there is an ongoing debate in these forums regarding the tolerability of certain caches. Lame, micro, lamp post ... whichever is trendy to ridicule at the moment. There are those of us who generally defend the existence of whatever it is being badmouthed, while simultaneously clarifying that we don’t necessarily prefer those hides ourselves. I, for one, defend all so-called “lame” caches. I do NOT, however, endorse, encourage, or promote them. See the difference?

 

Your arguements that it doesn't affect anyone, play as you like, shouldn't even be here. This is black and white, false logging (ie: lying) is wrong,,,period!

Please clarify: Are you saying that it doesn’t really matter whether or not there are any practical, real world consequences of false logs? Are you saying it is purely a moral matter? Are you saying false logs are “wrong,,,period” because they are inherently evil?

 

If so, please elaborate. With this issue I think people are looking for evil where there is none, but you might be able to convince me otherwise.

 

Also: Are you really challenging my right to express my opinion? Is that the way you meant for that first sentence to sound? Surely not. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
I smile and laugh a lot too. I've done my share of horsing around while playing different games, and it really doesn't matter to me what any one else does if they are out having fun. Doesn't matter if they are on the golf coarse or football field, or in the pool hall. That is not my point. The point is, I realize I can play pool, or I can horse around. But if I am horsing around I am not playing pool. I think you are wrong if you think most people would consider what you describe as "golf". However, even if they do it still doesn't make it golf. you can call it what you like but IT AIN'T GOLF. .
So if you don't follow the letter of the law (or rules) of a game then you are not playing the game? Or is there some gray area (and who would decide that gray area)? I guess in that same sense if you exceed the speed limit you're not driving either, you're just horsing around on the road with a car :rolleyes: I think you can play pool or your can play PBA tournament rules pool. I think you can play golf, or you can play PGA rules golf. I just think it's the other way around, the majority of people play the "game" but it's the professional handful of people in competitive situations that play the "professional rules game". If I'm playing pool, 99% of the time I'm goofing around, if it's highly competitive or for money then we're playing highly competitive hard line rules. Last I checked GC wasn't competitive at all but as soon as it is then I'm all for following the letter of the rules to a "t", until then I'm just having fun.

 

From the tone of your posts I really doubt if you do smile and laugh a lot, you seem to be argumentative, hard line and stubborn. Those rose colored glasses must have blinders on them.
Naw, my glasses are quite rosy :rolleyes: , I just like debating (you couldn't tell? hehehe). It just baffles me when I see people get so hard line about stuff that should be lighthearted and fun. I'd don't think anyone will change their views on this but I just don't see that perspective on things as being very much fun, and life is too short to be taken so seriously. Guess I'd rather be the kid sneaking out of the classroom then the hall monitor trying to defend the rules, but I do understand this world is full of all types of people. :rolleyes: Edited by infiniteMPG
Link to comment

KBI, you make good points and I agree a few of them.

 

I guess I am coming from a point of view that any false log does cause some small, tiny "damage" to the cache. To put it this way- if a single finder moves the container 1 foot to the west in the middle of an acre of flat land it doesn't cause any perceptable damage. The the potential for damage increases with every finder that follows suite.

 

That's just where I'm coming from. Yeah it's a little absolutist(sp?). (Note to self: can you be a "little" absolute...?) And you make a very good point that in the history of caching from your (and other's) perspective the actual frequency of false is very, very low and that the affects it has had is practically moot.

 

Understand, I'm not calling for the stormtoopers to parachute in on the houses of armchair loggers or anybody that doesn't log the physical cache. I'm with you on this.

 

But, when given the chance I will take the oppertunity to discourage it and to express my opinion that it doesn't belong within the normal accepted practices for the majority of cachers.

Link to comment
And it's notable that the vast majority of opinions expressed herein agree with that - the standpoint of it being wrong, rather than right. Only a very few keep harping over & over anything to the contrary.

Please point me to a SINGLE post in this thread where anyone said logging fake finds was the right thing to do.

 

I'll take this one.

 

If the cacher wants to find caches while sitting in front of the computer, that's fine, so long as he or she isn't making people think a missing cache is still there.

As KBI pointed out, this isn't a post saying (or even implying) logging fake finds was the right thing to do. It's saying that if someone chooses to do it that way it's acceptable to that cacher provided it's not a find on a cache that is actually missing.

 

This is what i don't understand. You and KBI fight tooth and nails trying to say that false logging doesn't hurt anyone, that we should let people play the way they want, etc,,, but then you come back and say that you don't agree with false logging. If i am reading this right, you both think it is wrong. So why in the world do you condone it in any shape or form?

 

Your arguements that it doesn't affect anyone, play as you like, shouldn't even be here. This is black and white, false logging (ie: lying) is wrong,,,period!

There's a BIG difference between something that you SHOULD do, and something that you shouldn't do but if you do it it's probably not that big of a deal.

 

Have you ever burped in public (either on accident or on purpose)? It's something that you probably shouldn't do because it's rude and it could smell bad (among other reasons). But... if someone does it what does it really matter? By saying that I'm not at all suggesting that people SHOULD burp in public, I'm not suggesting that society as a whole should suddenly accept that everyone will soon start burping in public, and I'm definitely saying that I will not burp in public myself. If, however, later today I'm walking in the mall and right behind me a teenager sends out a loud BRRRrraaaaAAAAP, I'm going to roll my eyes and keep walking.

 

If this were the Walking In Public forums and the topic was burping, I'd be suggesting that burping doesn't hurt anyone and if someone really wants to do it then so be it. That may be condoning it, but it doesn't mean that I think it's what people SHOULD do.

 

See the difference?

Link to comment
KBI, you make good points and I agree a few of them.

 

I guess I am coming from a point of view that any false log does cause some small, tiny "damage" to the cache. To put it this way- if a single finder moves the container 1 foot to the west in the middle of an acre of flat land it doesn't cause any perceptable damage. The the potential for damage increases with every finder that follows suite.

I found a certain cache many years ago. When I went to log it online I noticed something odd about one of the previous ‘Found it’ logs. Without going into detail I’ll just say it was conclusively obvious that the person who claimed the smiley didn’t deserve the find credit, and that the ‘Found it’ was bogus.

 

Contrary to what you’re telling me I should have felt, the provably bogus log I saw did not in any way decrease my enjoyment of the experience of seeking the cache, finding the cache, and logging my experience online

 

If I understand you correctly, then, you’re saying that even though the damage might not have been perceptible to me it was nevertheless measurable, a non-zero amount of evil, and that enough of those logs added together would have eventually caused me some form of suffering.

 

Sorry, but I just don’t see it. Even if that guy had logged the same log 500 more times on that cache page it would have been nothing more to me than an interesting curiosity, an entertaining oddity, a reason to ask myself “WTF?” Other than that, it would not harm me at all unless I CHOSE to try to force some moral outrage into it, or to otherwise CHOOSE to be upset about it. If anything, that one bogus log I saw that day made the caching experience even more entertaining for me.

 

Another example: I found and logged a virtual cache a few months back. I walked about two miles from my hotel to the coordinates in order to acquire the necessary information from a historical marker next to a very old log house with an interesting history. I enjoyed the experience, and would recommend the virtual to anyone – completely regardless of the fact that the cache currently sports well over a thousand ‘Found it’ logs from people, many of them from Germany, and many who freely admit to having Googled the information instead of visiting the coords. Again, that little oddity took nothing at all away from my enjoyment of that cache, my log, my hike, or the hobby as a whole. If anything, it made it MORE entertaining.

 

Sorry, but I’m still not convinced that I should be working up any outrage.

 

But, when given the chance I will take the oppertunity to discourage it and to express my opinion that it doesn't belong within the normal accepted practices for the majority of cachers.

I have not said anything to contradict to that viewpoint, but neither do I feel the need to preach to others what should be – and almost always is – self-evident to them already. Those (like me and you) who understand the concept don’t need to hear any preaching. Those very few who don't get the concept almost certainly don’t give a pantload what anyone is preaching to them.

 

Logging false logs is pointless – but so is sermonizing about it, and so is allowing oneself to be troubled by it.

Link to comment

Bogus logs are bad and wrong but so are billions of other minor things that we see (and do) every day. So regardless of the seemingly endless debates on how evil, damaging or bad bogus logs are, or can be, each cache is an owner's property and how they handle anything regarding that hide is totally up to them. If they leave bogus logs on the cache page, or don't maintain their hides, or don't repair or replace them when needed, or don't post proper terrain, difficulty or attributes, or describe it properly, or give helpful hints, or keep a useable log sheet in the cache, or don't deactivate them when missing, or anything that impacts that particular cache, then that is an individual situation with an individual cache and an individual owner. Other then implementing and enforcing more strict and more encompassing rules by GC, it is, and always will be, an owner's right to interpret the rules and deal with their hides as they see fit. GC brings cachers and owners together, after that it's up to the owner on how to handle everything except gross negligent violations. And it's totally up to a cacher to decide what caches to seek and accept the risks (and rewards) of doing it.

 

IMHO things that are bigger issues then bogus logs :

- Cachers who don't re-hide caches properly of close containers tightly

- People who trash what used to be beautiful hide locations

- Owners who don't maintain their hides

 

These things occur daily (if not more frequent then that), are verifiable problems and truly impact the fun of the game. Other the hypothetical situations, bogus caches seem to only be a problem because they occasionally exist. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

 

If the cacher wants to find caches while sitting in front of the computer, that's fine, so long as he or she isn't making people think a missing cache is still there.

As KBI pointed out, this isn't a post saying (or even implying) logging fake finds was the right thing to do. It's saying that if someone chooses to do it that way it's acceptable to that cacher provided it's not a find on a cache that is actually missing.

 

I'll agree that they are saying that logging a find that isn't there is wrong. I would also say that they aren't rulling out logging a find that wasn't made in person. Isn't that also a "false" log?

Edited by Castle Mischief
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.

However you are 100% right that you don't have to let them bother you one whit.

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.

Okay, so you're saying bogus logs are not wrong?

 

...for you.

 

...but not anyone else.

 

...and there's no reason for them to bother you.

 

...and no reason for it to bother anyone else.

 

I'm wondering why it's so important to you that other folks not be bothered by something they think is wrong. This site thinks it's wrong as deleting bogus logs is part of a cache owner's responsibility for the cache to be listed here. It obviously does bother some folks. If no one got bothered by something they saw was wrong with some aspect of the hobby we'd have all kinds of issues. The guidelines are there for a reason.

 

Now, for the OP, a cacher that doesn't sign the logbook and yet logs online: not acceptable in my book. I'm speaking for our caches. If other owners want to make exceptions, that's on them, but let's explore these exceptions. A logger is able to falsely log a few caches and the owners don't care enough to delete those logs, there's not much of a problem. The problem comes when he goes to log one of our caches. We don't allow online logging without the widely accepted standard of signing the physical logbook first. So, this logger falsely logs one of our caches and we call him on it. He gets upset that we don't allow his smilie, after all he was able to do the same thing on other caches. "Who are you to be such a stickler? This is only a fun hobby. Other cache owners allow my to log without signing the logbook. I want my smilie!!!" It becomes a big issue and there's no need in it.

 

In general, things that other folks do in this hobby don't bother me until it starts to affect me. False logging is kind of like begging for hints. When someone gets so used to owners handing out spoilers--or other finders doing the same and especially when the seeker hasn't first made a decent effort--then I become the bad guy because I don't.

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