Cheaters never profit...?

[+infiniteMPG]

Come to think of it, that's probably a good analogy. Your wife probably makes sure that you vacuum or dust or whatever at least weekly, rather than after each person walks across the floor. Similarly, you need not check the logbook after each find. You go out to each cache on occasion to verify signatures. This way, the logging habits of individual cachers don't make you have more or less work.

You actually check on caches just for the sole purpose of validating signatures? To add to this analogy, what if you had over 250 children? To vacuum even once a week you'd be vacuuming for about 168-1/2 hours which would leave you about 30 minutes for eating, working, caching, and other important or necessary parts of your life.

 

"Occasionally" (1.a. Occurring from time to time. b. Not habitual; infrequent. 2. Created for a special occasion. 3. Intended for use as the occasion requires.) I don't think my "occasion" has come up yet... hehehe

 

Cheaters???? I agree. Not really "cheaters". How about we call them "CACHE REGISTRARS"????

[+Six Little Spookies]

Around here though, I've seen several names signed onto the logbook that never signed online!

I'm wondering what folks think about their names being posted when they didn't log online.

If I were to post photos of the physical cache logs, those who didn't log online but signed the logs would have had their names crossed out.

 

Don't be so hasty to condemn those who don't log online. Believe it or not, there are some cachers out there who really don't care about the numbers and rarely log their finds online.

[+briansnat]

Don't be so hasty to condemn those who don't log online. Believe it or not, there are some cachers out there who really don't care about the numbers and rarely log their finds online.

 

A lot of people don't care about their numbers and still log online. Online logging isn't just for those who care about numbers. To many of us it's a simple courtesy. The cache owner spent the time. money and effort to place the cache. The least we can do is let the owner know we found the cache and enjoyed ourselves.

 

Logging online also makes running PQs minus your finds a lot easier.

[+Six Little Spookies]

Don't be so hasty to condemn those who don't log online. Believe it or not, there are some cachers out there who really don't care about the numbers and rarely log their finds online.

 

A lot of people don't care about their numbers and still log online. Online logging isn't just for those who care about numbers. To many of us it's a simple courtesy. The cache owner spent the time. money and effort to place the cache. The least we can do is let the owner know we found the cache and enjoyed ourselves.

 

Logging online also makes running PQs minus your finds a lot easier.

 

While I agree that it's nice to know when others visit your caches and what they thought, it's not that important to me. If someone doesn't log online I don't have any problem with it. I do consider logging online without logging in the logbook to be cheating.

[+Mudfrog]

There is something that a few people gain from logging falsely. Otherwise, they wouldn't waste their time doing it!

 

There's no profit to the cheater.

If there was no profit, then people wouldn't bother. There needs to be some sort of profit, whether perceived or real.

You guys are making an assumption.

 

You are assuming that the person who is doing this is intelligent, sane, and rational.

 

Actually, i had made an assumption. That assumption being that a person who logs falsely probably isn't too intelligent, sane, or rational. I'll also go ahead and assume that the profits and rewards must be awesomely and fantastically great,,, at least in these people's minds!

Edited August 4, 2008 by Mudfrog

[+tozainamboku]

While I agree that it's nice to know when others visit your caches and what they thought, it's not that important to me. If someone doesn't log online I don't have any problem with it. I do consider logging online without logging in the logbook to be cheating.

One could make a claim that following are all legitimate ways to "find" a geocache.

1. Locate the cache container
   
2. Do 1 then open the container and optionally take something, leaving something of greater or equal value.
   
3. Do 1 and 2, then write about it in the cache logbook
   
4. Do 1, 2, and 3, then log your experience online
   

Note that each method of play requires doing all the previous methods, but one could stop anywhere along the list without violating the "rules".

 

Of course the only way of knowing that someone who logs online actually did 1, 2, and 3 is to check the physical logbook. And then only if they wrote their name legibly in the logbook and the logbook or cache hasn't gone missing before you had a chance to check. Since this requires the cache owner to make this determination, it seems to be wide open for "cheating". This essentially is why I have objected to the addition to rules in the Geocaching FAQ to log your experience at www.geocaching.com. Prior to this being a stated rule, my interpretation was that the online log had nothing at all to do with finding a geocache. The ability to log online was simply a tool that Geocaching.com provided to geocachers to keep track of what caches they had found and to share their experiences with the cache owner and other geocachers. If someone misused the tool for some other purpose than intended - such as creating an artificial find count - they were simply a silly person who doesn't understand the real purpose of the online logs. For the most part, the misuse of the online log does not effect those who use them correctly. In a few rare instances, the cache owner or another cacher could make a decision to visit or not visit a cache based on a false log; but in reality many so-called bogus logs actually stated the true condition of the cache and simple misused Found It for Did Not Find. The rule change has elevated the online log to be a part of finding the cache, at least for those cacher who chose to log their experience online. You might not have to log online to go geocaching, but once you do you are declaring that you did all of the prerequisite activities before entering the Found It log. There will still be people who misuse the "found it" log; but now we can no longer dismiss this behavior as silliness, we must stand up to defend the "rules" of geocaching and expose these cheaters.

[Whitelaw's]

this is just a fun game.

it is up to us all to play the game properly and if you cheat you are only cheating yourself!

 

we should not be worrying about it although i do agree especially if they claim that they are first to find when they havent actually found it not cvalling any names.

 

We would not have this problem if everyone had to pay to create an account but then you would not have that many geocacher. you wouldnt have me thatsa for sure if it wasnt free so although its annoying we have to put up with it

 

thats what i think anyway

Whitelaw's

[+tigger2]

Hi folks,

 

Tigger2: The cache owner of a number of caches (including some of those I've found) archived them all and then dropped off the face of the geocaching planet. How would you propose we contact him?

 

Found is found, why shouldn't I be able to log it?

 

Tigger 2 here.

 

Well, in this case I call it Bad Cache Management and it is a problem. Personally, I would most likely not claim a find but I have no problem with someone that does. This is getting to be a problem with Geocaching that needs to be addressed; Caches that are abandoned. Some folks like to hide caches but hate to ever go back and maintain them. In my local are there are many caches that have been hidden by one player and then another player has to step in and do the maintenance for them. I don't understand that kind of attitude.

When archiving my caches, I have always removed my caches right after I archived them mostly because I wanted the log and the container.

 

Tigger 2

[+sbell111]

Come to think of it, that's probably a good analogy. Your wife probably makes sure that you vacuum or dust or whatever at least weekly, rather than after each person walks across the floor. Similarly, you need not check the logbook after each find. You go out to each cache on occasion to verify signatures. This way, the logging habits of individual cachers don't make you have more or less work.

You actually check on caches just for the sole purpose of validating signatures? To add to this analogy, what if you had over 250 children? To vacuum even once a week you'd be vacuuming for about 168-1/2 hours which would leave you about 30 minutes for eating, working, caching, and other important or necessary parts of your life. ...

Vacuuming your house once per week, it would take exactly the same amount of time, no matter how many children you had. Similarly, checking your caches will take the same amount of time, no matter how many 'cheaters' there are in your area. A cacher should never own more caches than he can maintain.

 

It will take you longer to vacuum a larger house, just like it takes longer to do routine cache maintenance if you choose to own more and more caches. If a cacher is serious about policing his caches, he needs to factor this in when he decides how many he can maintain.

Edited August 5, 2008 by sbell111

[+Driver Carries Cache]

Nobody "wins" at this game.

 

I've always had the feeling that everyone loses when we just allow poor behavior to go on un-called and un-checked.

 

It's sad that this topic comes up as often as it does.

 

DCC

[+infiniteMPG]

It will take you longer to vacuum a larger house, just like it takes longer to do routine cache maintenance if you choose to own more and more caches.

the amount of time to clean a house with 250 kids is more then 1 kid regardless of the size of the home. Duh....

If a cacher is serious about policing his caches, he needs to factor this in when he decides how many he can maintain.

Maintaining = replacing or repairing when needed or replacing a new log sheet when needed. I have +250 caches, I never set aside time to visit a cache for the sole purpose of validating logs. Even with that, maintenance take a lot of time. I put a LOT of effort into creativity and unique caches and doubt there's one I'd drop and I can keep up with them. If I were to add validating logs into the mix I'd have to limit myself to maybe 25 caches. Anyone wanting to poll locals and see what 225 caches they want archived so I can validate logs weekly then let me know so I can better allocate my time....

[Mushtang]

Nobody "wins" at this game.

 

I've always had the feeling that everyone loses when we just allow poor behavior to go on un-called and un-checked.

 

It's sad that this topic comes up as often as it does.

 

DCC

What is being lost by you (in California) when some guy (in NYC) is busily logging caches that he didn't really find (for whatever reason) and some of the cache owners don't delete the bogus logs?

 

I'm honestly trying to figure out why this is sad, not just for you, but for so many others too.

[+tozainamboku]

Nobody "wins" at this game.

 

I've always had the feeling that everyone loses when we just allow poor behavior to go on un-called and un-checked.

 

It's sad that this topic comes up as often as it does.

 

DCC

I've always had the feeling that you can only lose if you let it bother you too much. For the most part false logging has no effect on how anyone else should play the game. I'll accept in a few rare cases, a person may mistake a false log for the truth and make a decision to search for a cache he might not have looked for otherwise. But even in this case you have a choice of viewing it as wasting your time and money looking for a cache that might not be there or as having a adventure and perhaps learning a bit about how gullible you might be.

 

This being the internet, there will always be a few who take advantage of the anonymity and post bogus logs. I hope you don't believe every profile on MySpace is true. Perhaps the reason they do it is to show a bunch of people who use GPS to look for tupperware hidden in the woods and seem to want to use some meaningless find count in some way that was never intended how silly this is. Rather than letting them win by complaining that this ruins the game, I'd rather respond how silly they are for thinking they can ruin my fun by doing this. However, if you prefer you may decide you are a loser. It won't stop me from having fun.

[+TrailGators]

Perhaps the reason they do it is to show a bunch of people who use GPS to look for tupperware hidden in the woods and seem to want to use some meaningless find count in some way that was never intended how silly this is. Rather than letting them win by complaining that this ruins the game, I'd rather respond how silly they are for thinking they can ruin my fun by doing this. However, if you prefer you may decide you are a loser. It won't stop me from having fun.

For some reason your post reminded me of the Whos in Whoville....

[+chuckwagon101]

Why do "geocachers" post bogus logs? Notice that I use the term "geocachers" loosely........VERY loosely!

 

LOOK OUT NOW! Here comes the REAL REASON why "they" do it!!!

 

Because it takes a LOT of effort, time, sweat, thinking, gasoline to locate caches, physically SIGN the log, replace everything as it was, make a note of your experience to be used later when responding on line, respond on line with a unique, genuine statement about the cache using your field notes that you jotted down while at the cache site.

 

When you do the above, you have EARNED a "smiley"!

 

Now consider this..........a "cacher" thinks, Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, there must be an easier way.

 

I GOT IT! I will just sit at the computer and "find" a bunch of caches and log them! To save time, I will use a "bland" cut and paste statement! This will not arouse suspicion that I did not actually visit the cache site! This is sooooooo brilliant! Now I can get my smilie count WAY UP THERE! I can be a .............CONTENDER!!

 

HEY! Just for good measure, I will throw in an ACTUAL cache hunt once in awhile! Makes me feel better! Look at all the gas I am saving! Look at all the TIME I am saving! Look at all my SMILIES!

 

When people look at my profile (and I KNOW they do!) they will sit up and take notice at my HUGE number of finds!

 

Nobody pays any attention to somebody with 25 or 30 finds, but when you have HUNDREDS and maybe later even THOUSANDS of caches???? Respect Baby! Ya gotta respect all those smilies! I earned every single one of them with my trusty Office Supply computer chair, armrest model ARM-607!

 

Happy Caching!

[+sbell111]

It will take you longer to vacuum a larger house, just like it takes longer to do routine cache maintenance if you choose to own more and more caches.

the amount of time to clean a house with 250 kids is more then 1 kid regardless of the size of the home. Duh....

True, but the analogy didn't have much to do with 'cleaning your house', it was related to vacuuming the floors. The time it takes to vacuum is a product of square feet, not number of feet.

If a cacher is serious about policing his caches, he needs to factor this in when he decides how many he can maintain.

Maintaining = replacing or repairing when needed or replacing a new log sheet when needed. I have +250 caches, I never set aside time to visit a cache for the sole purpose of validating logs. ...

One would assume that a cacher who was 'serious about policing his caches' would have to visit the caches to verify signatures. Clearly, you are not among the people my post referred to. Edited August 5, 2008 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

Why do "geocachers" post bogus logs? Notice that I use the term "geocachers" loosely........VERY loosely!

 

LOOK OUT NOW! Here comes the REAL REASON why "they" do it!!!

 

Because it takes a LOT of effort, time, sweat, thinking, gasoline to locate caches, physically SIGN the log, replace everything as it was, make a note of your experience to be used later when responding on line, respond on line with a unique, genuine statement about the cache using your field notes that you jotted down while at the cache site.

 

When you do the above, you have EARNED a "smiley"!

 

Now consider this..........a "cacher" thinks, Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, there must be an easier way.

 

I GOT IT! I will just sit at the computer and "find" a bunch of caches and log them! To save time, I will use a "bland" cut and paste statement! This will not arouse suspicion that I did not actually visit the cache site! This is sooooooo brilliant! Now I can get my smilie count WAY UP THERE! I can be a .............CONTENDER!!

 

HEY! Just for good measure, I will throw in an ACTUAL cache hunt once in awhile! Makes me feel better! Look at all the gas I am saving! Look at all the TIME I am saving! Look at all my SMILIES!

 

When people look at my profile (and I KNOW they do!) they will sit up and take notice at my HUGE number of finds!

 

Nobody pays any attention to somebody with 25 or 30 finds, but when you have HUNDREDS and maybe later even THOUSANDS of caches???? Respect Baby! Ya gotta respect all those smilies! I earned every single one of them with my trusty Office Supply computer chair, armrest model ARM-607!

 

Happy Caching!

I suspect that more people log false finds after going out and looking for the cache and failing to find it.

[+tozainamboku]

Why do "geocachers" post bogus logs? Notice that I use the term "geocachers" loosely........VERY loosely!

 

LOOK OUT NOW! Here comes the REAL REASON why "they" do it!!!

 

Because it takes a LOT of effort, time, sweat, thinking, gasoline to locate caches, physically SIGN the log, replace everything as it was, make a note of your experience to be used later when responding on line, respond on line with a unique, genuine statement about the cache using your field notes that you jotted down while at the cache site.

 

When you do the above, you have EARNED a "smiley"!

 

Now consider this..........a "cacher" thinks, Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, there must be an easier way.

 

I GOT IT! I will just sit at the computer and "find" a bunch of caches and log them! To save time, I will use a "bland" cut and paste statement! This will not arouse suspicion that I did not actually visit the cache site! This is sooooooo brilliant! Now I can get my smilie count WAY UP THERE! I can be a .............CONTENDER!!

 

HEY! Just for good measure, I will throw in an ACTUAL cache hunt once in awhile! Makes me feel better! Look at all the gas I am saving! Look at all the TIME I am saving! Look at all my SMILIES!

 

When people look at my profile (and I KNOW they do!) they will sit up and take notice at my HUGE number of finds!

 

Nobody pays any attention to somebody with 25 or 30 finds, but when you have HUNDREDS and maybe later even THOUSANDS of caches???? Respect Baby! Ya gotta respect all those smilies! I earned every single one of them with my trusty Office Supply computer chair, armrest model ARM-607!

 

Happy Caching!

Oh that it would be so simple that the REAL REASON people log bogus online Found It logs was because this is an EASY way to get a bigger number. Of course EVERYONE KNOWS that the bigger your number the more RESPECT you will get from geocaching community. Why EVERYONE KNOWS that the real reason we geocache is for the NUMBERS.

 

DON'T BE FOOLED!!!! The overwhelming majority of geocachers don't cache for the numbers. Even those with the super high find counts are caching because they enjoy looking for hidden caches. In fact the really high number people enjoy finding caches so much that they cache every chance the get. That is why they have big numbers. Yes, some people may get a rush by trying to find as many caches as they can in 24 hours or meeting some other goal like that; others find it more fun to look for just one or two caches - perhaps that require a challenging hike or time spent solving a complicated puzzle. NO ONE REALLY BELIEVES that it is more fun to sit at a desk and select caches to post their cut and paste logs just so they can get RESPECT. After all, people will soon find out who is doing this and what kind of respect will they get for their effort then.

 

NO, I think there is some other reason that people log bogus finds. That reason is they want TO ANNOY YOU. They want to annoy the silly geocachers who spend time looking for actual caches ONLY so they can have a bigger number and get respect. BUT since the REAL REASON that you cache is not for the numbers but because you have fun looking for caches, this attempt to annoy you will FAIL. YOU CAN'T BE ANNOYED by cheaters because they don't have any effect on the fun you are having. Maybe on some rare occasion, the liar has done such a good job that you are fooled. You go and look for a cache because they said they found it when it really wasn't there. YOU MAY BE ANNOYED that you wasted time and gas to go look for something that wasn't there. OR you could just say, "There is always a chance that a cache is not there or that I just did not find it this time. I still had a good time going to look for this cache".

 

I AM AMAZED that people will allow some silly person spoil their fun. (However I am grateful that there are people who allow their fun to be spoiled and will expatiate on this malefaction in these forums to keep me entertained )

[+deb3day]

I've had a few instances where the cache was one of those tiny little magnetic nanos. It was the end of the day, I was tired, and NOT in the mood to have to roll up that little bugger. In another case, it was dark, I'd found it with a flashlight. I knew it would be difficult if not impossible to get that baby back inside the nano in these conditions. So I opted not to sign. Does that make me a cheater? I found it fair and square, just didn't sign.

 

Deb

[Mr.Yuck]

Why do "geocachers" post bogus logs? Notice that I use the term "geocachers" loosely........VERY loosely!

 

LOOK OUT NOW! Here comes the REAL REASON why "they" do it!!!

 

Because it takes a LOT of effort, time, sweat, thinking, gasoline to locate caches, physically SIGN the log, replace everything as it was, make a note of your experience to be used later when responding on line, respond on line with a unique, genuine statement about the cache using your field notes that you jotted down while at the cache site.

 

When you do the above, you have EARNED a "smiley"!

 

Now consider this..........a "cacher" thinks, Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, there must be an easier way.

 

I GOT IT! I will just sit at the computer and "find" a bunch of caches and log them! To save time, I will use a "bland" cut and paste statement! This will not arouse suspicion that I did not actually visit the cache site! This is sooooooo brilliant! Now I can get my smilie count WAY UP THERE! I can be a .............CONTENDER!!

 

HEY! Just for good measure, I will throw in an ACTUAL cache hunt once in awhile! Makes me feel better! Look at all the gas I am saving! Look at all the TIME I am saving! Look at all my SMILIES!

 

When people look at my profile (and I KNOW they do!) they will sit up and take notice at my HUGE number of finds!

 

Nobody pays any attention to somebody with 25 or 30 finds, but when you have HUNDREDS and maybe later even THOUSANDS of caches???? Respect Baby! Ya gotta respect all those smilies! I earned every single one of them with my trusty Office Supply computer chair, armrest model ARM-607!

 

Happy Caching!

Oh that it would be so simple that the REAL REASON people log bogus online Found It logs was because this is an EASY way to get a bigger number. Of course EVERYONE KNOWS that the bigger your number the more RESPECT you will get from geocaching community. Why EVERYONE KNOWS that the real reason we geocache is for the NUMBERS.

 

DON'T BE FOOLED!!!! The overwhelming majority of geocachers don't cache for the numbers. Even those with the super high find counts are caching because they enjoy looking for hidden caches. In fact the really high number people enjoy finding caches so much that they cache every chance the get. That is why they have big numbers. Yes, some people may get a rush by trying to find as many caches as they can in 24 hours or meeting some other goal like that; others find it more fun to look for just one or two caches - perhaps that require a challenging hike or time spent solving a complicated puzzle. NO ONE REALLY BELIEVES that it is more fun to sit at a desk and select caches to post their cut and paste logs just so they can get RESPECT. After all, people will soon find out who is doing this and what kind of respect will they get for their effort then.

 

NO, I think there is some other reason that people log bogus finds. That reason is they want TO ANNOY YOU. They want to annoy the silly geocachers who spend time looking for actual caches ONLY so they can have a bigger number and get respect. BUT since the REAL REASON that you cache is not for the numbers but because you have fun looking for caches, this attempt to annoy you will FAIL. YOU CAN'T BE ANNOYED by cheaters because they don't have any effect on the fun you are having. Maybe on some rare occasion, the liar has done such a good job that you are fooled. You go and look for a cache because they said they found it when it really wasn't there. YOU MAY BE ANNOYED that you wasted time and gas to go look for something that wasn't there. OR you could just say, "There is always a chance that a cache is not there or that I just did not find it this time. I still had a good time going to look for this cache".

 

I AM AMAZED that people will allow some silly person spoil their fun. (However I am grateful that there are people who allow their fun to be spoiled and will expatiate on this malefaction in these forums to keep me entertained )

 

Toz, I really don't see where anyone has said they are annoyed by this, and it's spoiling their fun. This is just a discussion. I think. I thought ChuckWagon's post was pretty funny, and hit the nail on the head. Just my opinion, of course.

[andylphoto]

 

On the other hand, I have found at least one archived cache recently. It was not listed as 'archived' when we left on the trip. We found it. When we logged it, it was listed as 'archived and removed.' Nope. Wasn't removed.

 

I've logged an archived cache once...about 3 miles from my house. I'd had it in the GPS for months and drive by it a couple times a week, but had just never stopped. The owner had long since left the game, and it was moved slightly by other cachers for good reasons. The problem was while the new coordinates were posted frequently in notes, nobody read previous logs before going out to find it. Eventually, it was archived due to the problem by site administrators. The same morning it was archived, I went out and found it, and logged it online. A few months later, I also went out and removed the cache container.

[+infiniteMPG]

Vacuuming your house once per week, it would take exactly the same amount of time, no matter how many children you had.

That would be assuming that 250 children make no more mess then 1 would. Don't know what kind of vacuum you have but I can imagine about a foot of dirt and debris on every square inch of the flooring in the house with 250 kids after a week and that's a little (a lot!) more work then a light run with the Hoover.

 

Similarly, checking your caches will take the same amount of time, no matter how many 'cheaters' there are in your area. A cacher should never own more caches than he can maintain. It will take you longer to vacuum a larger house, just like it takes longer to do routine cache maintenance if you choose to own more and more caches. If a cacher is serious about policing his caches, he needs to factor this in when he decides how many he can maintain.

So if I own one paddle cache that takes 4 hours to paddle to, and I also own 1 hiking cache that is a 12 mile hike, then I own too many caches because I cannot take the time to "maintain" my caches on a regular basis to validate logs (which is being implied is a necessary part of maintaining a cache)?

 

Maintaining caches -

- If several DNFs seem to imply a cache may be missing, check it and replace it if actually missing

- If a log is full or wet, visit the cache and replace it

- If the area changes impacting the hide, evaluate the situation and alter hide accordingly

- If a trackable is logged wrong, visit the cache to determine status of the item

 

Unlike the dentist I doubt most people make regular cache maintenance runs to caches with no apparent issues just for chuckles unless it happens to be along their route to hike/bike/paddle/drive. With these things done, caches remain valid, well hidden, and fun and challenging for others. These events cause a maintenance run to be done and that happens from what I have experienced, about once every six months per cache. No challenge maintaining hundreds of hides (if they are solid to start with).

 

Throwing regular visits to validate logs into the mix and having more then a couple of PAG's becomes impossible to accomplish. And for what goal? Defending the purity of the game and slapping a cheater on the wrist? Each owner has the right to maintain they caches the way they want as long as they do it within the realm of the guidelines, and the guidelines only state to delete logs that "appear" to be bogus, says nothing about validating signatures so if you choose to do that, go for it. If something looks like a blatant bogus log or someone circulates word of a bogus logging cacher in the area then I'll add it in with a normal maintenance run to check if I think it's worth checking.

 

I'm into GC for the "fun" of it and checking valid looking logs isn't "fun" to me. I guess to some people validating logs is "fun" but then again to some people logging bogus logs is probably "fun", too. Not in either of those camps and come to think of it, I don't care to much for vacuuming, either

[+infiniteMPG]

I've had a few instances where the cache was one of those tiny little magnetic nanos. It was the end of the day, I was tired, and NOT in the mood to have to roll up that little bugger. In another case, it was dark, I'd found it with a flashlight. I knew it would be difficult if not impossible to get that baby back inside the nano in these conditions. So I opted not to sign. Does that make me a cheater? I found it fair and square, just didn't sign.

It's a nano log, you think anyone could validate your signature even if you did sign it? Not cheating to me but to those in the hard line "no sign-no find", camp you would be. We've had situations trying to sign a log sheet in the rain with mosquitos eating us alive and I doubt I could read what I scribbled between smacking them out of my eyes....

[+sbell111]

Vacuuming your house once per week, it would take exactly the same amount of time, no matter how many children you had.

That would be assuming that 250 children make no more mess then 1 would. Don't know what kind of vacuum you have but I can imagine about a foot of dirt and debris on every square inch of the flooring in the house with 250 kids after a week and that's a little (a lot!) more work then a light run with the Hoover.

 

Similarly, checking your caches will take the same amount of time, no matter how many 'cheaters' there are in your area. A cacher should never own more caches than he can maintain. It will take you longer to vacuum a larger house, just like it takes longer to do routine cache maintenance if you choose to own more and more caches. If a cacher is serious about policing his caches, he needs to factor this in when he decides how many he can maintain.

So if I own one paddle cache that takes 4 hours to paddle to, and I also own 1 hiking cache that is a 12 mile hike, then I own too many caches because I cannot take the time to "maintain" my caches on a regular basis to validate logs (which is being implied is a necessary part of maintaining a cache)?

 

Maintaining caches -

- If several DNFs seem to imply a cache may be missing, check it and replace it if actually missing

- If a log is full or wet, visit the cache and replace it

- If the area changes impacting the hide, evaluate the situation and alter hide accordingly

- If a trackable is logged wrong, visit the cache to determine status of the item

 

Unlike the dentist I doubt most people make regular cache maintenance runs to caches with no apparent issues just for chuckles unless it happens to be along their route to hike/bike/paddle/drive. With these things done, caches remain valid, well hidden, and fun and challenging for others. These events cause a maintenance run to be done and that happens from what I have experienced, about once every six months per cache. No challenge maintaining hundreds of hides (if they are solid to start with).

 

Throwing regular visits to validate logs into the mix and having more then a couple of PAG's becomes impossible to accomplish. And for what goal? Defending the purity of the game and slapping a cheater on the wrist? Each owner has the right to maintain they caches the way they want as long as they do it within the realm of the guidelines, and the guidelines only state to delete logs that "appear" to be bogus, says nothing about validating signatures so if you choose to do that, go for it. If something looks like a blatant bogus log or someone circulates word of a bogus logging cacher in the area then I'll add it in with a normal maintenance run to check if I think it's worth checking.

 

I'm into GC for the "fun" of it and checking valid looking logs isn't "fun" to me. I guess to some people validating logs is "fun" but then again to some people logging bogus logs is probably "fun", too. Not in either of those camps and come to think of it, I don't care to much for vacuuming, either

Then why do you keep replying to my posts if they don't pertain to you?

 

As you've stated, you are not in the game to police logs and you are not in the hard line "no sign-no find" camp . Therefore, my post has nothing to do with your gameplay.

Edited August 5, 2008 by sbell111

[+infiniteMPG]

Then why do you keep replying to my posts if they don't pertain to you? As you've stated, you are not in the game to police logs and you are not in the hard line "no sign-no find" camp . Therefore, my post has nothing to do with your gameplay.

Trying to know what myself as a cacher may face with other's interpretations of the rules. I think that an innocent cacher who runs across a hard-liner's hide and doesn't sign the log legibly enough to be validated is risking having their "fun" negatively impacted by potentially having their log deleted. The above post about not signing the nano.... delete or not? She could probably validate the hide location and assure she found it, but she didn't sign the log.

 

I don't deny the hard-liner's the right to their perspective as that's how they choose to play, but since there are many interpretations to the "rules" maybe GC should provide a way to disclose or post an owner's expectations to the general public (or maybe entered in the text by the owner). If I was about to attempt a hide of someone who I knew validates logs, doesn't want one person signing for the group, doesn't want people using stickers or stuff like that and I had the potential of having my log deleted because of it I'd either be more careful when signing or just pass on the hide.

Edited August 5, 2008 by infiniteMPG

[+Mule Ears]

I've never encountered or heard of a cache owner who audits logbooks and has wrongfully deleted a legitimate find because of an illegible logbook or log entry. Can anyone provide an example (that isn't just an unreasonable ALR, or some kind of owner-vs-cacher vendetta)? This strikes me as a straw-boogeyman. Or a boogeystrawman. Or a chupacabra. Some kind of mythical beast at any rate.

[+BlueDeuce]

Sorry, wrong thread. Thought I clicked the Religious materials.

Edited August 6, 2008 by BlueDeuce

[+Too Tall John]

It will take you longer to vacuum a larger house, just like it takes longer to do routine cache maintenance if you choose to own more and more caches.

the amount of time to clean a house with 250 kids is more then 1 kid regardless of the size of the home. Duh....

True, but the analogy didn't have much to do with 'cleaning your house', it was related to vacuuming the floors. The time it takes to vacuum is a product of square feet, not number of feet.

You aren't the one who vacuums in your house, are you?

 

The amount of time needed to vacuum is directly related to the amount of dirt in the carpet. If I spent equal amounts of time on 2 equal areas of carpet, one that was lightly used and one that had seen heavy use, there would be a difference. Assuming I spent the amount of time needed to clean the lightly used carpet, the heavily used carpet would still be quite full of dirt.

 

If there's enough traffic, you might even have to get the shampooer out!

[+chuckwagon101]

It will take you longer to vacuum a larger house, just like it takes longer to do routine cache maintenance if you choose to own more and more caches.

the amount of time to clean a house with 250 kids is more then 1 kid regardless of the size of the home. Duh....

True, but the analogy didn't have much to do with 'cleaning your house', it was related to vacuuming the floors. The time it takes to vacuum is a product of square feet, not number of feet.

You aren't the one who vacuums in your house, are you?

 

The amount of time needed to vacuum is directly related to the amount of dirt in the carpet. If I spent equal amounts of time on 2 equal areas of carpet, one that was lightly used and one that had seen heavy use, there would be a difference. Assuming I spent the amount of time needed to clean the lightly used carpet, the heavily used carpet would still be quite full of dirt.

 

If there's enough traffic, you might even have to get the shampooer out!

 

[/quote

 

I agree with TT John! Those kids can put out a LOT of dirt. And that is not EVEN counting if you should run across a BIG PILE OF STICKS somewhere in the room! That has GOT to count for something!!!

 

Kids! You just can't trust them with carpet and big piles of sticks!

 

Soooooooooo .......am I correct in surmising that TT John's enlightenment here has proven, once and for all.............IT IS ALL ABOUT THE SMILIES!! No matter HOW you gettum!! and an occasional Big Pile Of Sticks!

[+sbell111]

It will take you longer to vacuum a larger house, just like it takes longer to do routine cache maintenance if you choose to own more and more caches.

the amount of time to clean a house with 250 kids is more then 1 kid regardless of the size of the home. Duh....

True, but the analogy didn't have much to do with 'cleaning your house', it was related to vacuuming the floors. The time it takes to vacuum is a product of square feet, not number of feet.

You aren't the one who vacuums in your house, are you?

 

The amount of time needed to vacuum is directly related to the amount of dirt in the carpet. If I spent equal amounts of time on 2 equal areas of carpet, one that was lightly used and one that had seen heavy use, there would be a difference. Assuming I spent the amount of time needed to clean the lightly used carpet, the heavily used carpet would still be quite full of dirt.

 

If there's enough traffic, you might even have to get the shampooer out!

You know, I'm noticing that you guys are fighting the analogy pretty hard, but not the underlying point.

 

These forums really were much better when all analogies were about beans.

[+tozainamboku]

These forums really were much better when all analogies were about beansice cream.

This week I was notified by another ice cream maker that his flavor had been web-logged on www.icecreamflavors.com by someone that did not actually eat the ice cream, or even taste it, so it would be implied. As this ice cream taster had also logged my flavors as well, I checked and sure enough, he did not eat my ice cream, but did log his vote on these flavors.

 

As a geocacher, belonging to several extreme geocaching clubs where (for many of these clubs) your word is taken for granted as to whether or not you found the 5 star cache, in other words an honor system is in place- I find this lack of personal integrity egregious. This is a game/sport, after all. But, like all endeavors in life, a person's true character is illuminated in the spot light of their actions.

 

I did email the person in question, and I am allowing them the oppurtunity to set things right. I know that some ice cream makers would just delete the logs and be done with it, but I thought that the person should have a chance to make amends.

 

I am new to ice cream tasting, and to making my own flavor ice cream, but I have never had this happen before. It is disappointing. Good news is, most everyone that I have come across in this sport is really of a superior character.

 

-----

 

And don't tell me that it doesn't matter if someone lies about tasting an ice cream flavor on www.favoriteicecreamflavor.com. Someone might see that someone voted for an ice cream flavor and even though they only wrote TFTIC (Thanks for the ice cream), I might decide I should try this. I might drive 100 miles out of my way to find brussels sprout ice cream and taste it to find out it is really awful and that I've wasted my time and the gas because of the false vote. The makers of ice cream flavors should delete bogus logs like it says on the favoriteicecreamflavor.com guidelines so that people won't be fooled by these cheaters. To not do so is degrading ice cream flavor voting.

 

-----

 

People should be especially careful when eating ice cream in a cone at home. Some of the more exotic flavors - like pinto bean ice cream - can stain your carpets.

 

-----

 

Doesn't the ice cream eating Signal look like a nazi?

[+KBI]

Cheaters never profit...?

That's true. People that cheat at their Find count in geocaching never profit.

 

But then neither do those that are honest about their Find count.

... and neither do those who make it their business to anguish and criticize over other people’s logging behavior.

The folks that profit are those that don't have to worry about a bogus log because the cache owner is steadfast in his trying to keep bogus logs off his cache pages.

Some cache owners are indeed very steadfast in this regard. Finding such well-maintained caches, however, has never put any money in my pocket. Similarly, finding caches with poorly-policed cache pages has never taken any money out of my pocket.

 

The premise of Mushtang’s post is that the act of posting an honest ‘Found it’ log to an online cache page is NOT, in itself, profitable to the honest logger. (Mushtang can please correct me if I have misinterpreted.)

 

The premise of your post appears to be exactly the opposite. You seem to be claiming that honest cache finders somehow turn a profit whenever cache owners are attentive.

 

Can you please expand on your claim, and show us exactly where this profit exists? Personally, I have logged finds for hundreds of geocaches which were very well maintained by conscientious and dutiful cache owners, yet I have never observed any resulting enhancements to my financial bottom line. I have also logged finds for a handful of geocaches for which the cache pages contained questionable logs – and have even seen a few smileys which were clearly bogus – yet I have never observed any resulting harm to my financial bottom line.

 

Have I not been getting my P&L statements in the mail?

 

[EDIT: Mispelled my own brother's name. Inexcusable.]

Edited August 9, 2008 by KBI

[+KBI]

Why does everyone keep referring to cachers who do not actually find the cache, yet log it anyways, as cheaters? If that's the way they choose to play the game, then what's the problem? What they do, how they cache, how they log offline and how they log online do not affect anyone except themselves. Isn't that right KBI?

That’s an oversimplification, but for the most part* – yes.

 

“Cheating” implies an action which gains something unearned, in this case by removing it from another person. “Cheating,” as the word has been applied to bogus “Found it” logs in this discussion, implies that innocent, honest cachers are somehow robbed of something tangible whenever a bogus log appears.

 

*Inaccurate logs may or may not cause inconvenience. They can cause potential inconvenience whether the inaccuracy is an innocent mistake or an intentional lie. I have never denied this fact.

 

Nobody has ever convinced me, however, that there is anything about an inaccurate “Found it” log that inherently violates my rights.

 

You can't cheat when you are the only one playing the game and are making up your own rules, right KBI?

If you are talking about solitaire, crossword puzzles or Geocaching, then I would answer by saying “Yes, you can cheat, but to do so would be pointless as you would only be cheating yourself.”

 

If you are asking me whether it is possible to cheat other cachers by posting bogus logs, then I say your question is irrelevant. The words “cheat,” “game” and “rules” in that case would imply that there is some sort of official competition inherent to this hobby.

[+KBI]

If I read correctly, you said you'd delete the log if they didn't convince you it was a "Real" find.

That is relatively correct, yes.

 

What qualifies as a find is strictly between the cache logger and the cache owner.

 

As a cache owner I prefer the logs on my cache pages to be truthful and accurate, just as I, as a cache finder, prefer the logs in my find history to be truthful and accurate.

 

One of my (many) reasons for not logging bogus finds is that the cache owner is both able and likely to delete my bogus log, making the entire effort a waste of time. Why would I bother? If someone lies about finding one of my caches, then they must therefore also reasonably expect their bogus log to be deleted. (I believe this is one of the (many) explanations for the rarity of bogus logs.)

 

If they insist on being unreasonable, then, and I can do something about it, then I will. The log gets deleted.

 

If the bogus log is on someone else’s cache, OTOH, then it’s really none of my business.

 

KBI, I really wish you wouldn't push your views down other people's throats. Its their game to play the way they want!!!

If you believe I have ever sought to forcibly impose my point of view on anyone, then please show me the offending post.

[+KBI]

Why are you pushing you view of what a "real" find is on other cachers KBI? Why are you interferring with how they choose to play their game KBI?

This pair of questions contains multiple logical fallacies; therefore the questions themselves are invalid; therefore I cannot answer.

 

Despite your suggestion, I do not consider a bogus online find log to be a "real" find.

 

I have never “pushed” ANY of my views on others. You are free to agree or disagree with my points of view as you see fit; I have never suggested that you HAVE to accept my view.

 

My posted opinions cannot in any way “interfere” with the way other cachers choose to play the game. Stating that bogus logs do not bother me, for example, cannot “interfere” with the way you enjoy your caching experience ... unless you actively choose to be bothered, that is – in which case it is you who has done the interfering, not me.

 

In the past you have demonstrated a propensity to become offended by harmless things which are not intended to offend you. With an attitude like that you will find pretty much anything to be an “interference,” no matter how inert, innocent or harmless the thing may be.

 

Bogus logs do not inherently bother me. If the mere statement of that opinion inherently bothers you, then you have my pity – but not my apology.

[Mr.Yuck]

Why are you pushing you view of what a "real" find is on other cachers KBI? Why are you interferring with how they choose to play their game KBI?

This pair of questions contains multiple logical fallacies; therefore the questions themselves are invalid; therefore I cannot answer.

 

Despite your suggestion, I do not consider a bogus online find log to be a "real" find.

 

I have never “pushed” ANY of my views on others. You are free to agree or disagree with my points of view as you see fit; I have never suggested that you HAVE to accept my view.

 

My posted opinions cannot in any way “interfere” with the way other cachers choose to play the game. Stating that bogus logs do not bother me, for example, cannot “interfere” with the way you enjoy your caching experience ... unless you actively choose to be bothered, that is – in which case it is you who has done the interfering, not me.

 

In the past you have demonstrated a propensity to become offended by harmless things which are not intended to offend you. With an attitude like that you will find pretty much anything to be an “interference,” no matter how inert, innocent or harmless the thing may be.

 

Bogus logs do not inherently bother me. If the mere statement of that opinion inherently bothers you, then you have my pity – but not my apology.

 

Sorry wrong thread. I thought I clicked the Religious Materials.

[+pooter2001]

Why does everyone keep referring to cachers who do not actually find the cache, yet log it anyways, as cheaters? If that's the way they choose to play the game, then what's the problem? What they do, how they cache, how they log offline and how they log online do not affect anyone except themselves. Isn't that right KBI?

That’s an oversimplification, but for the most part* – yes.

 

“Cheating” implies an action which gains something unearned, in this case by removing it from another person. “Cheating,” as the word has been applied to bogus “Found it” logs in this discussion, implies that innocent, honest cachers are somehow robbed of something tangible whenever a bogus log appears.

 

*Inaccurate logs may or may not cause inconvenience. They can cause potential inconvenience whether the inaccuracy is an innocent mistake or an intentional lie. I have never denied this fact.

 

Nobody has ever convinced me, however, that there is anything about an inaccurate “Found it” log that inherently violates my rights.

 

You can't cheat when you are the only one playing the game and are making up your own rules, right KBI?

If you are talking about solitaire, crossword puzzles or Geocaching, then I would answer by saying “Yes, you can cheat, but to do so would be pointless as you would only be cheating yourself.”

 

If you are asking me whether it is possible to cheat other cachers by posting bogus logs, then I say your question is irrelevant. The words “cheat,” “game” and “rules” in that case would imply that there is some sort of official competition inherent to this hobby.

 

Actually, it's not just the cacher that is cheating himself. Case example: While on vacation last year, my (now ex-) husband and I did ZERO caching. However, he came home and logged arm chair virtuals for both us so that he wouldn't be claiming them without me. Initially, I thought they were all virtuals from places we had actually been and maybe had taken a picture and so he was able to claim them that way. However, I discovered that some of them were from locations that were at least 50 miles off our route. When I went back last week and actually discovered this, due to my own personal integrity I felt I had no choice but to delete over twenty finds. That affected my count as I thought I had already reached a milestone of 400 and had logged it as such. So, then I had to go back and delete milestone logs and edit them. Not only did it affect the cachers who own those virtuals by me e-mailing them and explaining why I was deleting my log. It affected me because I had to fes up to the dishonest logs and it affected other cachers locally because I had to admit to them that I hadn't reached those particular milestones yet. It has the potential for affecting a large community of cachers now because my ex is still caching and still has all those arm chair virtuals and I don't. Just seems a little suspicious to those who actually care about it.

[+Driver Carries Cache]

Nobody "wins" at this game.

 

I've always had the feeling that everyone loses when we just allow poor behavior to go on un-called and un-checked.

 

It's sad that this topic comes up as often as it does.

 

DCC

What is being lost by you (in California) when some guy (in NYC) is busily logging caches that he didn't really find (for whatever reason) and some of the cache owners don't delete the bogus logs?

 

I'm honestly trying to figure out why this is sad, not just for you, but for so many others too.

 

It's just another ever-increasing step into the "hey it doesn't affect me so do whatever you want" mentality that has society in its current downward spiral.

 

DCC

[+KBI]

Actually, it's not just the cacher that is cheating himself. Case example: ..... <edited for brevity>

If you choose to share an account with another person, then you have also choosen to accept the obvious and inherent risks of doing so.

 

It affected me because I had to fes up to the dishonest logs and it affected other cachers locally because I had to admit to them that I hadn't reached those particular milestones yet.

That’s a bummer, and I sympathize. Like you, I prefer my find history to accurately reflect my caching activity. Thanks for making me happy I don’t share a team account with other people.

 

It has the potential for affecting a large community of cachers now because my ex is still caching and still has all those arm chair virtuals and I don't. Just seems a little suspicious to those who actually care about it.

... but not to those who don’t see any reason to be concerned, like me.

 

Don’t misunderstand: As I said before, I sympathize. I do NOT, however, have any less respect for you because of your experience. I would respect you just as highly if you had skipped all the log-deletions and posted a simple explanatory note to your profile instead.

 

Heck, I would respect you just as highly even if you never said anything about it at all. Seriously, why should I care? What logical reason do I have to look askance at anybody else’s total find count?

 

Sure, some people log “too many” caches, but keep in mind that some other people don’t log “enough” caches. Sometimes cachers sign the paper log but skip the online smiley. Suspecting that your find count might be inaccurately high would be the same to me as if I had reason to suspect that your find count might be inaccurate to the low side: It’s none of my business, and I see no reason to make it my business.

 

Why would “a large community of cachers” care how you manage the details of your account? Why would you even care what they care? If I started emailing other cachers and telling them that I wasn’t satisfied that every single one of their cache logs was honest and legitimate, I would fully expect to be told, bluntly and in detail, exactly where to shove my concerns.

 

It is truly none of my business.

[+KBI]

I've always had the feeling that everyone loses when we just allow poor behavior to go on un-called and un-checked.

Loses what, exactly?

 

You say everyone. That includes me. What, exactly, do I lose by failing to take action every time some confused individual somewhere lies about finding a cache?

 

What is being lost by you (in California) when some guy (in NYC) is busily logging caches that he didn't really find (for whatever reason) and some of the cache owners don't delete the bogus logs?

 

I'm honestly trying to figure out why this is sad, not just for you, but for so many others too.

It's just another ever-increasing step into the "hey it doesn't affect me so do whatever you want" mentality that has society in its current downward spiral.

Not caring about the behavior of others is a dangerous form of anarchy. When one person’s behavior violates the rights of another person it is a very serious concern, and cannot be ignored.

 

You are correct: Just because something doesn’t affect me personally doesn’t mean it is right for me to ignore it.

 

You didn’t really answer Mushtang’s question, however – and I was curious to hear the answer as well.

 

What is inherent to every bogus cache log that makes you so sad? What is inherent to every bogus cache log that is sending society into a downward spiral? How, exactly, does a bogus cache log violate your rights? Does a bogus log pick your pocket or break your leg?

 

I disagree with both of your stated premises:

(1) Civilization is crumbling.

(2) Bogus online geocache logs are causing the crumbling.

 

I also disagree with your implied premise that the mere existence of a bogus log somehow violates my rights to life, liberty and property.

 

I am very interested in anything specific and persuasive you have to say which might convince me otherwise.

[+Mudfrog]

Actually, it's not just the cacher that is cheating himself. Case example: ..... <edited for brevity>

If you choose to share an account with another person, then you have also choosen to accept the obvious and inherent risks of doing so.

 

It affected me because I had to fes up to the dishonest logs and it affected other cachers locally because I had to admit to them that I hadn't reached those particular milestones yet.

That’s a bummer, and I sympathize. Like you, I prefer my find history to accurately reflect my caching activity. Thanks for making me happy I don’t share a team account with other people.

 

It has the potential for affecting a large community of cachers now because my ex is still caching and still has all those arm chair virtuals and I don't. Just seems a little suspicious to those who actually care about it.

... but not to those who don’t see any reason to be concerned, like me.

 

Don’t misunderstand: As I said before, I sympathize. I do NOT, however, have any less respect for you because of your experience. I would respect you just as highly if you had skipped all the log-deletions and posted a simple explanatory note to your profile instead.

 

Heck, I would respect you just as highly even if you never said anything about it at all. Seriously, why should I care? What logical reason do I have to look askance at anybody else’s total find count?

 

Sure, some people log “too many” caches, but keep in mind that some other people don’t log “enough” caches. Sometimes cachers sign the paper log but skip the online smiley. Suspecting that your find count might be inaccurately high would be the same to me as if I had reason to suspect that your find count might be inaccurate to the low side: It’s none of my business, and I see no reason to make it my business.

 

Why would “a large community of cachers” care how you manage the details of your account? Why would you even care what they care? If I started emailing other cachers and telling them that I wasn’t satisfied that every single one of their cache logs was honest and legitimate, I would fully expect to be told, bluntly and in detail, exactly where to shove my concerns.

 

It is truly none of my business.

 

I have no way to do a scientific study or to get specific numbers but it's pretty obvious that you are one of the very few who do not care. Going by this and previous threads, you, Mushtang, possibly one or two others, are the only ones i've seen who say it doesn't affect them. While this might be the right attitude for you, it's pretty obvious that most do not think the same way. There are many different ways that people can choose to enjoy geocaching but there are basic things, lying with a bogus log for instance, that are wrong. Unlike you, and whether it affects us firsthand or not, most of us aren't going to simply look the other way and we're certainly not going to stand up for those who knowingly do wrong.

[+JBnW]

KBI, have been waiting to see your responses, and I must say “bravo”. As the OP suggested, most involved in this game seem to be of good character…and I would agree. Unfortunately, some want to make more of it no matter how often people say “numbers don’t matter”. To them, it likely does. The “gain” or “profit” of virtual logging is (and should be) only in improving their own opinion of their abilities as a cacher. And I’ll keep trying not to judge someone by their stats.

 

However, virtual logging does create the possibility of a “loss” to future visitors to a cache. I don’t have a real-life example of this, but if I were planning a caching road trip, I would skip caches that had several recent DNFs assuming that particular cache is probably no longer there or is currently inaccessible (like one near my home). Why go looking for something that hasn’t been found in several tries over a period of months? However, a virtual log at one of these sites could cause me to spend time, effort, and money (gas) searching for something that doesn’t exist, or that I couldn’t access. That, to me, is a "loss". Were virtual logging to become more common, some of us might start spending more time scanning cache pages looking for bogus logs, and therefore less time out looking for caches or other more-productive pastimes. Another “loss”.

[+webscouter.]

After reading through this thread again I still stand by my premise.

 

The cheater doesn't profit.

 

However his actions impact the caching community as a whole. But that isn't the question the OP asked.

[+chuckwagon101]

Why are you pushing you view of what a "real" find is on other cachers KBI? Why are you interferring with how they choose to play their game KBI?

This pair of questions contains multiple logical fallacies; therefore the questions themselves are invalid; therefore I cannot answer.

 

Despite your suggestion, I do not consider a bogus online find log to be a "real" find.

 

I have never “pushed” ANY of my views on others. You are free to agree or disagree with my points of view as you see fit; I have never suggested that you HAVE to accept my view.

 

My posted opinions cannot in any way “interfere” with the way other cachers choose to play the game. Stating that bogus logs do not bother me, for example, cannot “interfere” with the way you enjoy your caching experience ... unless you actively choose to be bothered, that is – in which case it is you who has done the interfering, not me.

 

In the past you have demonstrated a propensity to become offended by harmless things which are not intended to offend you. With an attitude like that you will find pretty much anything to be an “interference,” no matter how inert, innocent or harmless the thing may be.

 

Bogus logs do not inherently bother me. If the mere statement of that opinion inherently bothers you, then you have my pity – but not my apology.

 

 

Sorry wrong thread. I thought I clicked the Religious Materials.

 

 

 

LOL! LOL! LOL! Now THAT'S funny, that RIGHT there!! TOTALLY

Edited August 8, 2008 by chuckwagon101

[+KBI]

... there are basic things, lying with a bogus log for instance, that are wrong.

I agree.

 

I have never said that “lying with a bogus log” is NOT wrong ... or that it is commendable, or that it is a good thing to do.

 

Unlike you, and whether it affects us firsthand or not, most of us aren't going to simply look the other way and we're certainly not going to stand up for those who knowingly do wrong.

You persist in misrepresenting my point of view, and it's getting a little old. No matter how many times you try to tell me that I promote bogus logs, your misrepresentation will never become true.

 

Look the other way I may, but I do NOT “stand up” for those who knowingly post bogus logs. I refuse to defend the practice – I would much rather stand back and watch those who post bogus logs make fools of themselves.

 

Unlike you, I do not see any reason to allow the mere existence of a few bogus logs to sour my geocaching experience.

[+KBI]

However, virtual logging does create the possibility of a “loss” to future visitors to a cache. I don’t have a real-life example of this, but if I were planning a caching road trip, I would skip caches that had several recent DNFs assuming that particular cache is probably no longer there or is currently inaccessible (like one near my home). Why go looking for something that hasn’t been found in several tries over a period of months? However, a virtual log at one of these sites could cause me to spend time, effort, and money (gas) searching for something that doesn’t exist, or that I couldn’t access. That, to me, is a "loss". Were virtual logging to become more common, some of us might start spending more time scanning cache pages looking for bogus logs, and therefore less time out looking for caches or other more-productive pastimes. Another “loss”.

You make an excellent point – one which has been made dozens and dozens of times already.

 

I have already responded to that point. Here is my latest repeat of that response:

 

Inaccurate logs may or may not cause inconvenience. They can cause inconvenience whether the inaccuracy is an innocent mistake or an intentional lie. I have never denied this fact.

In other words: I am convinced that some intentionally bogus logs have the potential to cause the kind of practical problems you describe. The same can be said for unintentially inaccurate logs. Your description is only the latest in a long list of very convincing scenarios.

 

I am NOT convinced, however, that bogus logs are inherently evil on moral grounds. There is a big difference between the obvious practical hazard and the hypothesized moral threat.

 

The folks who insist on seeing evil in every bogus log are just as entertaining to me as the folks who post the bogus logs. I don’t understand the thinking of either group, but both groups provide me with plenty of smiles and laughs.

 

This hobby never ceases to come up with new and wonderful ways to entertain me.

[+JBnW]

KBI,

 

Thank you for your considered and considerate response. We may be approaching the detailed point where we agree to disagree (or maybe even agree), but let me clarify one thing. I was not commenting on the inherant moral values, or the underlying motives, of a bogus or mistaken log. I was responding to your statement of: "How, exactly, does a bogus cache log violate your rights? Does a bogus log pick your pocket or break your leg?" (Sorry, I'm a noob, not quite adept at quoting.) In my hypothetical example, I contend a bogus log could "pick my pocket" by luring me (or others) to spend money (a tangible thing that sometimes fills my pockets) searching a cache that may no longer exist, or may not be accessible. I think I mentioned a cache near my home; it's either under water from the constant rains here, or gone. I'll not revisit it until the rains stop and/or the water level goes down, and/or someone posts a new find. A bogus log at that site would lure me to go to the tangible expense of returning to the site...and suffering a loss. No moral comment here, just a statement that I (or someone else) woud expend time, effort, and money returning to the site based on a bogus log.

 

Do I consider this a violation of my rights? NO! I completely understand that I have the right to explore for any cache, or not. I also understand that I may not be as cunning as the CO who placed it, and that a DNF is a possibility. But only if the cache was actually there. A bogus log, in this hypothetical, robs me of "fair chase" and the expense of the chase.

 

Does a bogus log break my leg? Well, hopefully not, but I can be clumsy at times.

 

I also agree with you that this hobby is entirely too entertaining!

[+KBI]

.... I was not commenting on the inherant moral values, or the underlying motives, of a bogus or mistaken log. I was responding to your statement of: "How, exactly, does a bogus cache log violate your rights? Does a bogus log pick your pocket or break your leg?" .... In my hypothetical example, I contend a bogus log could "pick my pocket" by luring me (or others) to spend money (a tangible thing that sometimes fills my pockets) searching a cache that may no longer exist, or may not be accessible.

A common mistake some cachers make is to post a “Found it” log with an incorrect date. I do not believe this is intentional in most cases; it almost always appears to be mere sloppiness. I think sometimes people let a little time go by before they get around to posting their finds – sometimes a LOT of time – and then they post hurriedly and carelessly without paying attention to the fact that the default date is the current date. Thus we sometimes see logs dated as if they happened in June for finds that actually happened the previous January.

 

The scenario you describe – the one that costs you money – is one that can result from such an inaccurate log. The occurrence of such an unfortunate waste of time and gas therefore does not require the existence of an intentionally misleading log; it only requires an incorrect one.

 

Some intentionally bogus logs can be misleading; others are benign.

 

Some UNintentionally bogus logs can be misleading; others are benign.

 

Your very valid objection, therefore, is not against the deliberate lies; it is against ANY misleadingly incorrect information. Your point therefore says nothing to support the premise that liar’s logs are inherently bad; you and I seem to be in agreement on this point.

 

In neither case does the existence of the misleading log violate your rights, as you also seem to understand.

 

I disagree that we disagree. I believe instead that you and I are very much of the same viewpoint.

[+tozainamboku]

In my hypothetical example, I contend a bogus log could "pick my pocket" by luring me (or others) to spend money (a tangible thing that sometimes fills my pockets) searching a cache that may no longer exist, or may not be accessible. I think I mentioned a cache near my home; it's either under water from the constant rains here, or gone. I'll not revisit it until the rains stop and/or the water level goes down, and/or someone posts a new find. A bogus log at that site would lure me to go to the tangible expense of returning to the site...and suffering a loss.

The problem is that in all the threads on this subject we only see hypothetical examples. Only briansnat claims that it actually happened to some friends of his. And his story lacks any detail to make it seem more that another hypothetical. It's not that I don't believe it happens. I know many people who plan cache runs by filtering out any cache that has a recent DNF. Clearly a false 'Found it' log may result in them including a cache that would have otherwise been left out. But they are planing a cache run. There will likely be a few caches they DNF on the run and this may be just one more (or perhaps in spite of the false log, the cache is still there and they find it). No one complains that they suffered a loss because of a false log. And in any case the real problem would be the people who don't log DNFs. How many more caches are on their list because someone failed to log a DNF. Yet we don't read much in the forum about how someone not logging DNFs could hypothetically cause you to waste time an money.

 

If you are watching a particular cache that hasn't been found in awhile and get notification that it was found, I would hope you would read the log. If it appeared to be bogus you might not want to run out and look for it. You are the one to make the choice as to whether a new found it log means that you should try this cache. Whether or not the log is bogus, there is always the chance you will not find the cache. But if you had fun trying isn't that why you should be geocaching in the first place?

 

Perhaps the problem with bogus logs is with cache owners who won't do maintenance until they are multiple consecutive DNFs. If this cache owner doesn't recognize the log as a bogus log, it may cause a delay in having the cache replaced or archived. I believe that most cache owners however go by more than just the number of DNFs in determining that a cache needs maintenance so again the problem is only hypothetical.

[+ventura_kids]

Well.... here's my take on this.

I hate when geocachers log caches that they haven't really found .

By "really found", I mean they opened the cache, took out the logsheet, and applied their signature or geocaching handle to it.

 

Being the #1 non-cheating geocacher in the entire world is a tough job, but I'm up for it!

 

I would rather be the #1 geocacher in the entire world , but that will never happen due to this situation.

 

Does it hurt me?

yes, very much so.

 

On the other side of the coin..... some people just use the site as a sort of filter, to eliminate the caches they have attempted to find, and no longer want to find.

Remember...the ignore feature is still new (didn't exist in the beginning), so they would "find" the caches they wanted off their list.

Edited August 9, 2008 by ventura_kids