Cheaters never profit...?

[CoyoteRed]

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

...and, IMHO, should be a basic feature so there is no incentive for non-paying members to log a bogus find for that very reason.

[Mushtang]

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

...and, IMHO, should be a basic feature so there is no incentive for non-paying members to log a bogus find for that very reason.

I suspect the people that run the company would rather it be an incentive for non-paying members to become paying members instead.

[+Mach2003]

When one chooses to hide a cache, and list it for others to find, what "profit" do they expect to gain?

 

When I hide a cache, and list it for others to find, the "profit" I get is the logs that others "give" me when they find my cache.

 

Bogus logs steal this profit.

 

Bogus logs, if there are enough of them, could cause a hider to stop hiding caches, thus effecting ALL potential seekers.

 

Each bogus log left to stand, promotes more bogus logs (JBogusCacher did it, why can't I).

[CoyoteRed]

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

...and, IMHO, should be a basic feature so there is no incentive for non-paying members to log a bogus find for that very reason.

I suspect the people that run the company would rather it be an incentive for non-paying members to become paying members instead.

Well, true. However, I don't think it's a well though-out incentive. That folks don't pay shouldn't bother me. However, if they use the find it logs to get caches off their Nearest Cache List--which is something I don't use as I'm a paying member and use GSAK's much more powerful features--then it does start to affect me. These bogus find logs filter over into my "game play."

 

Face it, with many of the threads about bogus logs and the number of cache owners who refuse to remove bogus logs, there is no real incentive to not to at least attempt to get a bogus log in on a cache they don't want to do simply to get it off their Nearest Cache List. Only those who have a bit of self respect and refuse to log bogus logs are the ones that have to suffer with caches on that list if they choose to not pay. Why should they be the ones punished and not the one's that don't care?

 

So, instead of putting pressure on someone to pay like not letting them have PQs, the pressure is put on other hobbyists? How does that make sense?

[Mushtang]

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

...and, IMHO, should be a basic feature so there is no incentive for non-paying members to log a bogus find for that very reason.

I suspect the people that run the company would rather it be an incentive for non-paying members to become paying members instead.

Well, true. However, I don't think it's a well though-out incentive. That folks don't pay shouldn't bother me. However, if they use the find it logs to get caches off their Nearest Cache List--which is something I don't use as I'm a paying member and use GSAK's much more powerful features--then it does start to affect me. These bogus find logs filter over into my "game play."

 

Face it, with many of the threads about bogus logs and the number of cache owners who refuse to remove bogus logs, there is no real incentive to not to at least attempt to get a bogus log in on a cache they don't want to do simply to get it off their Nearest Cache List. Only those who have a bit of self respect and refuse to log bogus logs are the ones that have to suffer with caches on that list if they choose to not pay. Why should they be the ones punished and not the one's that don't care?

 

So, instead of putting pressure on someone to pay like not letting them have PQs, the pressure is put on other hobbyists? How does that make sense?

It makes sense because the company is NOT promoting competition and therefore giving away a benefit just so competition can be easier to manage by those that wish to compete takes away from the reason they ARE in business. And that is to make money.

 

Pretend, for a minute, that there were a LOT of cachers out there that really hated micro caches. I mean, they despised them so much that every chance they got they bashed them in the forums - even in topics that weren't about micros. Now suppose that one of them suggested that you stop selling micro containers in your web based business (which rides the coat tails of the successful geocaching.com site). Suppose they made the argument that if you stopped selling the micro containers there would be some benefit to those that didn't like them. Would you be more interested in pleasing a section of cachers that don't like playing the game in a way that jives with your business, or would you continue to sell the micro containers because you're making more money doing it?

 

I'm not suggesting that people should Find caches off their nearest list that they haven't really found, I'm just pointing out why it's silly to expect gc.com to give away the benefit of the ignore list just to please cachers that like to compare Find Counts.

[+KBI]

When one chooses to hide a cache, and list it for others to find, what "profit" do they expect to gain?

 

When I hide a cache, and list it for others to find, the "profit" I get is the logs that others "give" me when they find my cache.

 

Bogus logs steal this profit.

Bogus logs remove legitimate logs from your cache page? How does that work, exactly?

 

Bogus logs, if there are enough of them, could cause a hider to stop hiding caches, thus effecting ALL potential seekers.

How many bogus logs have you seen on one cache? How many bogus logs have you seen, period?

 

You say "if" there are enough of them. That’s a big "if." I would prefer to discuss existing issues, not hypothetical ones. Why make up a pretend problem to worry about when there are other, very real, problems to tackle?

 

"If" what you describe ever comes true, then I might change my viewpoint. Until then I see bogus logs as an entertaining and rare curiosity, not a terrifying and surging epidemic.

 

Each bogus log left to stand, promotes more bogus logs (JBogusCacher did it, why can't I).

I disagree. I have seen bogus logs. Seeing a bogus log has never encouraged me to post a lie of my own.

[+Mach2003]

When one chooses to hide a cache, and list it for others to find, what "profit" do they expect to gain?

 

When I hide a cache, and list it for others to find, the "profit" I get is the logs that others "give" me when they find my cache.

 

Bogus logs steal this profit.

Bogus logs remove legitimate logs from your cache page? How does that work, exactly?

 

Bogus logs, if there are enough of them, could cause a hider to stop hiding caches, thus effecting ALL potential seekers.

How many bogus logs have you seen on one cache? How many bogus logs have you seen, period?

 

You say "if" there are enough of them. That’s a big "if." I would prefer to discuss existing issues, not hypothetical ones. Why make up a pretend problem to worry about when there are other, very real, problems to tackle?

 

"If" what you describe ever comes true, then I might change my viewpoint. Until then I see bogus logs as an entertaining and rare curiosity, not a terrifying and surging epidemic.

 

Each bogus log left to stand, promotes more bogus logs (JBogusCacher did it, why can't I).

I disagree. I have seen bogus logs. Seeing a bogus log has never encouraged me to post a lie of my own.

 

If I offer to sell you a new GPSr at a bargin rate, enter into a discussion with you, then never send you the unit (nor take your money), how do you feel? Is this case simular to a Bogus log I would make to your cache listing?

 

I have seen a few bogus logs, even a few on the same cache.

 

Oh I see, cause you don't monkey see, monkey do, then no others will. You are the standard for humanity are you?

 

I believe that issues should be corrected BEFORE they become "problems".

[+KBI]

If I offer to sell you a new GPSr at a bargin rate, enter into a discussion with you, then never send you the unit (nor take your money), how do you feel? Is this case simular to a Bogus log I would make to your cache listing?

No, it is not. Do you think it is?

 

 

Oh I see, cause you don't monkey see, monkey do, then no others will. You are the standard for humanity are you?

 

I believe that issues should be corrected BEFORE they become "problems".

You said: "Each bogus log left to stand, promotes more bogus logs." I responded: "Seeing a bogus log has never encouraged me to post a lie of my own."

 

I didn’t claim no others will post bogus logs. Obviously they have – why would I deny an obvious fact?

 

I do not post bogus logs because there is no coherent reason for me to do so. There are actual and potential drawbacks, and zero benefits. All bad, no good. It is logically pointless. I believe this fact, all by itself, explains why there aren’t more bogus logs than there are now – and why there never will be.

 

It is the rare cacher who is not logical, rational, intelligent and practical. Good people, like the typical cacher, don’t need busybodies preaching from threads like this one to convince them that bogus logging is a bad idea; all they need is their own common sense.

Edited August 10, 2008 by KBI

[+tozainamboku]

If I offer to sell you a new GPSr at a bargin rate, enter into a discussion with you, then never send you the unit (nor take your money), how do you feel? Is this case simular to a Bogus log I would make to your cache listing?

 

I have seen a few bogus logs, even a few on the same cache.

 

Oh I see, cause you don't monkey see, monkey do, then no others will. You are the standard for humanity are you?

 

I believe that issues should be corrected BEFORE they become "problems".

Of course cache owners who hide caches because they gain by seen the legitimate logs left by finds (even if only TFTC) may feel bad when they see a log on their cache that appears to be bogus. But you can hardly say you've been cheated. In fact you have been given an opportunity to perform a kind of cache maitenance that few cacher owners are afforded. You can delete the bogus logs. You should feel good about the fact the geocaching.com not only allows you to correct the issue but actually tells you to do so as part for the guidelines.

 

Now what happens when you see something that appears as a bogus log on someone else's cache? You can't delete that log. You can perhaps post a note or try to contact the cache owner or you could come an post on the forums about the logs. Maybe you ought to post a SBA on the cache since the owner isn't doing maintenance. And suppose the cache is actually still there and other cachers could go find it. What have you accomplished by getting a perfectly good cached archived because some once post a false log on it?

 

I'm certain you have seen false logs on caches because there is an entire thread on the forums devoted to false logs. Trouble is most of the logs there aren't really bogus logs. The person writing the log will more often than not state that they didn't find the cache and are logging is as found because of some reason they feel justifies this. You may not agree with using of the "found it" log in this case. The problem here is that is once again up to the cache owner to decide whether to accept the log as a find. Does this effect someone else. Well some people seem to think that the find count is supposed to provide some measure by which you can compare cachers. Clearly if this is true and cacher 1 will never log found it unless he actually found the cache and signed the log while cachers 2 will log find if saw the container, or drop a replacement when they couldn't find the caches, or simply logs finds on every cache they look for; you'd have a problem comparing cacher 1 and cacher 2 find counts. I just figure that find count means the number of found it logs they have written and not the number caches they have found. So, if someone in Germany wants to sit at their desk an log found it all day long, it just isn't going to affect me. Bogus logs that actually result in a person wasting time or money looking for a cache that isn't their are in fact rare and possibly only exists as hypotheticals. In any case, I would realize that any time I use information that I get from the internet that can't be verified I risk the chance of being mislead. Do I like that? No but the alternative would be to take away a lot of good information that while not verifiable I may still find useful.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I do not post bogus logs because there is no coherent reason for me to do so. There are actual and potential drawbacks, and zero benefits. All bad, no good. It is logically pointless. I believe this fact, all by itself, explains why there aren’t more bogus logs than there are now – and why there never will be.

 

It is the rare cacher who is not logical, rational, intelligent and practical. Good people, like the typical cacher, don’t need busybodies preaching from threads like this one to convince them that bogus logging is a bad idea; all they need is their own common sense.

 

Update: I finally checked the second cache of mine that said geocacher logged. As expected, no signature. As I mentioned somewhere, these two caches may be two miles apart, but I could not imagine anyone going for both on the same day. (Hey. It took me two weeks to check the second...) That's what aroused my suspicions. The informal survey is that fifteen caches have been checked, out of 1300 'found'. None of the fifteen had been signed. About 1%, but no signatures, and across three states.

It is logically pointless.

Yeah. That sort of says it all. It makes one wonder if this person has ever actually found a cache. and, why he is bothering to log them on-line?

Edited August 10, 2008 by Harry Dolphin

[CoyoteRed]

I'm not suggesting that people should Find caches off their nearest list that they haven't really found, I'm just pointing out why it's silly to expect gc.com to give away the benefit of the ignore list just to please cachers that like to compare Find Counts.

First, I don't expect Groundspeak to do anything. I'm wondering why you would suggest I did. I don't expect Groundspeak to add a single basic feature to this site. I can't think of a single one since PM services were implemented. (Not one that didn't benefit Groundspeak more than the user.) I simply made a point.

 

Second, I doubt there are very many folks who make the decision of opting to pay based on the ignore feature. If it were free, you seriously think they would say to themselves, "you know, if the ignore feature weren't free I'd probably opt for the Premium Membership." I think that is what is silly.

[CoyoteRed]

I do not post bogus logs because there is no coherent reason for me to do so. There are actual and potential drawbacks, and zero benefits. All bad, no good. It is logically pointless. I believe this fact, all by itself, explains why there aren’t more bogus logs than there are now – and why there never will be.

 

It couldn't be that there are folks who are vocal against bogus logs, could it? Naw, huh uh. Nope. Never.

[CoyoteRed]

Trouble is most of the logs there aren't really bogus logs. The person writing the log will more often than not state that they didn't find the cache and are logging is as found because of some reason they feel justifies this.

Um, wouldn't the logger stating they didn't find the cache mean they understand they didn't find the cache and therefor the log automatically be bogus? What they would be trying to justify is the log being bogus, not that it wasn't bogus.

Edited August 11, 2008 by CoyoteRed

[+KBI]

I do not post bogus logs because there is no coherent reason for me to do so. There are actual and potential drawbacks, and zero benefits. All bad, no good. It is logically pointless. I believe this fact, all by itself, explains why there aren’t more bogus logs than there are now – and why there never will be.

 

It couldn't be that there are folks who are vocal against bogus logs, could it? Naw, huh uh. Nope. Never.

That is my point, yes.

 

You appear to believe otherwise.

 

Tell me, then: What is your reason for not posting bogus "Found it" logs, Coyote?

[CoyoteRed]

I do not post bogus logs because there is no coherent reason for me to do so. There are actual and potential drawbacks, and zero benefits. All bad, no good. It is logically pointless. I believe this fact, all by itself, explains why there aren’t more bogus logs than there are now – and why there never will be.

 

It couldn't be that there are folks who are vocal against bogus logs, could it? Naw, huh uh. Nope. Never.

That is my point, yes.

 

You appear to believe otherwise.

I do. I believe some folks are swayed by what other folks think. If no one expressed in public they felt bogus logs are wrong and no one ever challenged a bogus logs, I am 99.9999% certain there would be more bogus logs. "How can you say that with such certainly, CR?" Because I've challenged bogus logs on our own caches and those logs are now gone. I'll give you the .0001% simply because everyone who logs a bogus log might see the light and delete those logs themselves for reasons other that peer pressure.

 

If you think folks aren't swayed by what others think then why do we have posts asking for advise? "Thoughts?"

 

Tell me, then: What is your reason for not posting bogus "Found it" logs, Coyote?

Because I'm not ruled by the almighty smilie? Heck, I don't even post some legitimate "Found It" logs.

[+Mach2003]

If I offer to sell you a new GPSr at a bargin rate, enter into a discussion with you, then never send you the unit (nor take your money), how do you feel? Is this case simular to a Bogus log I would make to your cache listing?

No, it is not. Do you think it is?

 

Yes I do, why else would I have posted it?

 

You said: "Each bogus log left to stand, promotes more bogus logs." I responded: "Seeing a bogus log has never encouraged me to post a lie of my own."

 

No actually you said this:

I disagree. I have seen bogus logs. Seeing a bogus log has never encouraged me to post a lie of my own.

 

Pardon me if the "I disagree" statement was interpreted to mean that you do not think others will post bogus logs, if they are allowed to stay un-checked.

[+KBI]

Tell me, then: What is your reason for not posting bogus "Found it" logs, Coyote?

Because I'm not ruled by the almighty smilie? Heck, I don't even post some legitimate "Found It" logs.

So ... you’re saying you have your own internal and logical reasons for not logging false smileys? You're telling me that you can think for yourself? Interesting.

 

I thought you just told me, sarcastically even, that people abstain from bogus logs NOT for internal reasons, but because other cachers are vocal against bogus logs.

[+KBI]

If I offer to sell you a new GPSr at a bargin rate, enter into a discussion with you, then never send you the unit (nor take your money), how do you feel? Is this case simular to a Bogus log I would make to your cache listing?

No, it is not. Do you think it is?

Yes I do, why else would I have posted it?

So you think breaking a legal contract is the equivalent of posting a false find log to a geocache page?

[CoyoteRed]

I thought you just told me, sarcastically even, that people abstain from bogus logs NOT for internal reasons, but because other cachers are vocal against bogus logs.

You thought wrong. Read the post again. Hint: "some"

[+Mach2003]

If I offer to sell you a new GPSr at a bargin rate, enter into a discussion with you, then never send you the unit (nor take your money), how do you feel? Is this case simular to a Bogus log I would make to your cache listing?

No, it is not. Do you think it is?

Yes I do, why else would I have posted it?

So you think breaking a legal contract is the equivalent of posting a false find log to a geocache page?

Ok you win KBI, you do not feel cheated by someone posting a false log to your cache page, and no one else should either.

[+KBI]

I thought you just told me, sarcastically even, that people abstain from bogus logs NOT for internal reasons, but because other cachers are vocal against bogus logs.

You thought wrong. Read the post again. Hint: "some"

Okay then, let's read it again:

 

I do not post bogus logs because there is no coherent reason for me to do so. There are actual and potential drawbacks, and zero benefits. All bad, no good. It is logically pointless. I believe this fact, all by itself, explains why there aren’t more bogus logs than there are now – and why there never will be.

 

It couldn't be that there are folks who are vocal against bogus logs, could it? Naw, huh uh. Nope. Never.

Sorry, Coyote. I've re-read that post eleven times, and I still don't see your hint word.

 

Can you point it out to me?

 

It sure sounds to me like you’re trying to say that the only reason honest loggers don’t post bogus logs is because they are shamed out of it by “vocal folks,” as opposed to the idea that they have internal, logical, common sense reasons for not doing so, and don’t need to be told what is right and what is wrong.

[+KBI]

If I offer to sell you a new GPSr at a bargin rate, enter into a discussion with you, then never send you the unit (nor take your money), how do you feel? Is this case simular to a Bogus log I would make to your cache listing?

No, it is not. Do you think it is?

Yes I do, why else would I have posted it?

So you think breaking a legal contract is the equivalent of posting a false find log to a geocache page?

Ok you win KBI, you do not feel cheated by someone posting a false log to your cache page, and no one else should either.

You started this.

 

You asked a question. I answered. In an attempt to determine where you were going with your question I asked you a similar question. Don't you want to answer my question?

[+Mach2003]

If I offer to sell you a new GPSr at a bargin rate, enter into a discussion with you, then never send you the unit (nor take your money), how do you feel? Is this case simular to a Bogus log I would make to your cache listing?

No, it is not. Do you think it is?

Yes I do, why else would I have posted it?

So you think breaking a legal contract is the equivalent of posting a false find log to a geocache page?

Ok you win KBI, you do not feel cheated by someone posting a false log to your cache page, and no one else should either.

You started this.

 

You asked a question. I answered. In an attempt to determine where you were going with your question I asked you a similar question. Don't you want to answer my question?

Gee now, I thought it was clear...

 

I do feel cheated by bogus logs, my example was designed to expose that, nothing more.

 

Do you agree that the log is some form of the hider's payback for placing a cache?

Do you see that a false log cheats the hider of this payback?

 

If Bogus logs were accepted as the norm, folks would do them. Every one that is allowed to stand, inches closer to an eventual acceptance of the new standard. Like CR is trying to say (as I see it), the fact that some folks come here and complain about them, in itself, discourages others from posting them. Not that everyone needs this encouragement.

[+KBI]

Gee now, I thought it was clear...

 

I do feel cheated by bogus logs, my example was designed to expose that, nothing more.

In that case, why won’t you answer my question?

 

Do you think breaking a legal contract is the equivalent of posting a false find log to a geocache page?

 

I need you to answer that question before I can begin to consider whether your example will convince me to take up your point of view.

 

If Bogus logs were accepted as the norm, folks would do them.

Speak for yourself. I wouldn’t log them. I see no reason to post bogus logs. What is there to gain?

 

If Bogus logs were accepted as the norm, why would you log them?

[+KBI]

If Bogus logs were accepted as the norm, folks would do them. Every one that is allowed to stand, inches closer to an eventual acceptance of the new standard. Like CR is trying to say (as I see it), the fact that some folks come here and complain about them, in itself, discourages others from posting them.

So you think peer pressure is the only thing preventing an overwhelming epidemic of bogus logging? You think a massive outbreak of pointless lying is inevitable without a handful of people like you instructing people how to behave?

 

I disagree. I guess I give the typical cacher way more credit for being able to think for themselves than you do.

[CoyoteRed]

Sorry, Coyote. I've re-read that post eleven times, and I still don't see your hint word.

 

Can you point it out to me?

Oh, I don't know. It was in the post that you quoted, just not the part you quoted. Selective reading, I guess.

 

It sure sounds to me like you’re trying to say that the only reason honest loggers don’t post bogus logs is because they are shamed out of it by “vocal folks,”...

Nope. But let's not now restrict ourselves to "honest loggers" whom we don't have much of a problem with to begin with.

 

Your claim is:

I do not post bogus logs because there is no coherent reason for me to do so. There are actual and potential drawbacks, and zero benefits. All bad, no good. It is logically pointless. I believe this fact, all by itself, explains why there aren’t more bogus logs than there are now – and why there never will be.

Only those who recognize the no benefit in bogus logs won't log a bogus log and therefore those who don't realize this or reject the notion may or may not log bogus logs regardless of any outside influence.

 

Huh.

 

Interesting.

[CoyoteRed]

If Bogus logs were accepted as the norm, folks would do them. Every one that is allowed to stand, inches closer to an eventual acceptance of the new standard. Like CR is trying to say (as I see it), the fact that some folks come here and complain about them, in itself, discourages others from posting them.

So you think peer pressure is the only thing preventing an overwhelming epidemic of bogus logging? You think a massive outbreak of pointless lying is inevitable without a handful of people like you instructing people how to behave?

 

I disagree. I guess I give the typical cacher way more credit for being able to think for themselves than you do.

Pointless lying. Hmm... Pointless caches.

 

Nope. No connection.

[+tozainamboku]

I do not post bogus logs because there is no coherent reason for me to do so. There are actual and potential drawbacks, and zero benefits. All bad, no good. It is logically pointless. I believe this fact, all by itself, explains why there aren’t more bogus logs than there are now – and why there never will be.

 

It couldn't be that there are folks who are vocal against bogus logs, could it? Naw, huh uh. Nope. Never.

I doubt the the people who post bogus logs are the least swayed by what gets posted in the forums. Most are too busy finding caches to spend the hours some of us do debating nuances in the forum. They will mostly say geocaching is just a game and it is silly to get worked up over specifics of when to use the found it log online. Certainly there are newbies who post all the time asking about proper etiquette for posting a found it log. Often they are asking because they see a log that appears bogus to them. I just see that a more proof that most people would agree with you on what is bogus. The problem is when they are told that the people doing this are causing a problem for geocachers. If the log appears bogus, they you can make a judgement whether to let cause a problem or whether you can ignore it.

 

Trouble is most of the logs there aren't really bogus logs. The person writing the log will more often than not state that they didn't find the cache and are logging is as found because of some reason they feel justifies this.

Um, wouldn't the logger stating they didn't find the cache mean they understand they didn't find the cache and therefor the log automatically be bogus? What they would be trying to justify is the log being bogus, not that it wasn't bogus.

CR, you and me agree that you you should find the cache and if possible sign the log before you log a find. That is just not the way some people choose to play the game. They will say they found the cache because they saw the box but couldn't retrieve it. Maybe because the hider made it a challenge to retrieve or maybe because the cache was frozen in ice or they was a rattlesnake sitting on the cache. Some people will skip signing because there are muggles around and they don't want to compromise the cache. The cache owner may even be happy they didn't sign in this case. I know several people now who have gotten so tired of having to roll up little scrolls of paper and trying to get them to fit back in a nano containter, that they have stopped signing nanos. To them, it is a find if they can touch the cache. Other people I know routinely drop replacement caches if they can't find a cache (particularly one that has had a few DNFs). Then they log a find since they are "doing cache maintenance for the owner". I know a few people who have armchair logged virtuals. And even some one who posted a found it on puzzle cache for solving the puzzle with the permission of the cache owner. I've tried to convince my friends not to log these. They have started to call me a "puritan". I think there will always be people who log found it logs in these cases because to them they have found the cache. You and I can call it bogus all we like, it won't stop it.

 

If Bogus logs were accepted as the norm, folks would do them. Every one that is allowed to stand, inches closer to an eventual acceptance of the new standard. Like CR is trying to say (as I see it), the fact that some folks come here and complain about them, in itself, discourages others from posting them. Not that everyone needs this encouragement.

Bogus logs are not considered the norm. Nor will they ever be. The point of the game is to go out and find caches. Anyone sitting at home logging 'found it' logs without ever going geocaching is just going to get bored. And will likely find out that they don't get any more respect for having a higher find count - especially one that is suspect. On the other hand, complaining about bogus logs is not going to stop them either. Most bogus logs are simply people deciding at what level they want to call their geocaching a find. Some people may stop if they were convinced what they claim a find is not the norm, and we have had people post that they used to do but have stopped (but only a few of those wend back and deleted their old finds ); but my experience has been that most people will continue to log what they consider a find and won't listen to strangers on the forums (whom they consider quite silly for spending all the time we spend debating the issue instead of going caching) let alone to what their friends tell them. I worry more that all the angst in the forum over a few bogus finds may actually convince people who are already doing that they should do it more, since the numbers must really be important to get people so upset over a few bogus logs. A bit more of "ho, hum! another bogus logger who cares" might actually do more to discourage these practices that all of your righteous indignation.

[+Mach2003]

Ok Toz, I see your point and agree that we may just be giving armchair loggers the attention they were looking for, here. And that most cachers would not follow their ways.

 

I have seen no issues first hand, with people who have a different way of recording finds than I or anyone I know. My comments were based on armchair loggers, as I understand the OP to mean.

 

But I guess that the difference in armchair logging and, just seeing or touching the container, or extrating and physically signing the log is all a matter of degree.

 

Up until now, I have always (except once, long ago) considered my mark on the log as the bar to record a find. On caches I own, I have deleted logs that are obviously bogus or describe the cache incorectly, but never because I did not find a physical log entry that matches.

 

Does anyone recomend that obvious armchair logs shood be left on the page?

[Mushtang]

Does anyone recomend that obvious armchair logs shood be left on the page?

No, it shoodn't. Any log that is obviously bogus should be deleted.

[+KBI]

Sorry, Coyote. I've re-read that post eleven times, and I still don't see your hint word.

 

Can you point it out to me?

Oh, I don't know. It was in the post that you quoted, just not the part you quoted. Selective reading, I guess.

"Part?" I quoted the ENTIRE post. Go look at your post number 112 if you don’t believe me.

 

Sloppy reading, I guess.

 

(Are we reading the same thread?)

 

It sure sounds to me like you’re trying to say that the only reason honest loggers don’t post bogus logs is because they are shamed out of it by “vocal folks,”...

Nope. But let's not now restrict ourselves to "honest loggers" whom we don't have much of a problem with to begin with.

I can’t agree to that restriction.

 

Sorry, but I’m not interested in wandering into hypothetical territory. I firmly believe the set of cachers we can reasonably describe as "honest loggers" makes up almost 100% of all cachers. I firmly believe the set of cachers who can blow off all logic and reason and post bogus logs, and which does not overlap with the first set, is a tiny minority of all cachers.

 

If you want to try to convince me otherwise, then maybe we should start there -- instead of you making assumptions about what I believe.

 

Only those who recognize the no benefit in bogus logs won't log a bogus log and therefore those who don't realize this or reject the notion may or may not log bogus logs regardless of any outside influence.

 

Huh.

 

Interesting.

Thanks. I think so too.

 

If a cacher has the ability to ignore rational thinking, blow off the honor system and post a lie to a cache page, then what makes you think he will give a flying diaperload what you or I think or say about it?

Edited August 11, 2008 by KBI

[+KBI]

Does anyone recomend that obvious armchair logs shood be left on the page?

I do NOT recommend that obvious armchair logs be left on the page of one’s own cache. There is no good reason to do so, and leaving them there disrupts the accuracy of the history of the cache.

 

I also do NOT recommend that one view obvious armchair logs on somebody else's cache page as a threat to one’s caching enjoyment, a threat to one’s chances at winning the non-existent Annual Geocaching Competition, or a threat to the fragile health of one’s home, family, country or civilization. Life is way too short to get upset over other people's benign silliness.

[+KBI]

If Bogus logs were accepted as the norm, folks would do them. Every one that is allowed to stand, inches closer to an eventual acceptance of the new standard. Like CR is trying to say (as I see it), the fact that some folks come here and complain about them, in itself, discourages others from posting them.

So you think peer pressure is the only thing preventing an overwhelming epidemic of bogus logging? You think a massive outbreak of pointless lying is inevitable without a handful of people like you instructing people how to behave?

 

I disagree. I guess I give the typical cacher way more credit for being able to think for themselves than you do.

Pointless lying. Hmm... Pointless caches.

 

Nope. No connection.

Can't find a connection? Does this mean you won't be wandering off-topic into your favorite preference-bashing agenda?

 

That's a relief.

[+Vater_Araignee]

KBI,

I have to ask. Are you every one else? Just because you wont do something based on replicating the actions of another doesn't mean that John Doe won't. You are not we, just an infinitesimal part of it.

I know, I know you don't think that way but you must be psychic, at least the following quote would imply you are.

I do not post bogus logs because there is no coherent reason for me to do so. There are actual and potential drawbacks, and zero benefits. All bad, no good. It is logically pointless. I believe this fact, all by itself, explains why there aren’t more bogus logs than there are now – and why there never will be.

The basic implication of that statement is... well? I cant even begin to describe, because it depends on what point of view you are taking when reading it. A magician such as my self would say you are either a lunatic or a charlatan. A psychologist would claim that such a statement could only come from a megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur.

I ran that statement past my wife to make sure I wasn't just being the a** I am prone to being and she said "I'll sign up and log just to prove him wrong."

 

One more thing.

bogus

not genuine : sham

 

Is there a coherent reason for for posting a bogus log? Not according to the definition of bogus or you.

So why does it look like you are defending false logs?

[+Renegade Knight]

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.

 

I agree with them. Cheaters find a profit in it. Sane, Intillegent, Rational may or may not have anything to do with it.

[+infiniteMPG]

So why does it look like you are defending false logs?

Catching up on reading this thread (dang home renovations!) and the proverbial dog still seems frustrated in not catching his tail.... I still don't see a single word defending bogus logs by anyone, all I see is a choice to not take aggressive action against anything short of a blatantly obvious bogus log.

 

That condones and defends bogus logs the same as anyone failing to call the authorities when they witness someone tossing a gum wrapper out the car window condones and defends littering. I doubt that by not taking agressive action against that littering motorist it will spread to more and more people tossing things out their car window until the day when the norm to toss all your trash out the car window. Peer pressure won't stop littering, actual laws and penalties don't even stop it yet I doubt anyone defends it. Does littering affect us all? Yeah, in various ways it does. Do we try to teach others that's not the way to act? Yup. Will we stop it? Nope. If you feel strong about it go ahead and grab a trash bag and spend your weekends walking the streets picking it up. Also track down littering folks and call the authorities and report them if you feel that strong about it. But if your neighbor doesn't do it, don't stand there shaking your trash bags at him saying he's defending littering because he doesn't aggressively attack the problem like you do. I think if someone threw their trash in his yard he'd clean it up. I think if he saw them do it he might even call the authorities. But I doubt he'd put much of his limited time on this little chunk of dirt to agressively attack the problem, everyone has their own priorities. A lot of people will chime in about how bad the problem is but very few will actually back that talk up with action.

 

All I have heard anyone state about bogus logs is if something blatently raises a flag they'll look into it, or if they do a normal maintenance run and they notice something out of sorts they'll look into it, and after checking then delete it if necessary. I think just about everyone is in agreement on doing that. So other then that, what does anyone expect anyone to do? Print out all your log entries and make regular log validation runs to all caches? Regardless of it being an all day paddle or hike to get there? Every time you do a maintenance run check all the log entries since your last mainetance run there no matter how many have found it? And nanos? Stickers? Multiple names signed by one cacher?

 

Maybe GC could sign people up to be log validators, non-working or retired people who enjoy hunting down bogus logs and have nothing better to do with their time. I think there's a few people in some local homeowner's associations that would like that job.

[+Driver Carries Cache]

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?

 

OK... here we go!

 

I never said bogus cache logs made me sad, I said it was sad that the topic of cheating needs to be brought up with such frequency.

 

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 also never said that bogus logs were sending society into a downward spiral. I think I was fairly clear in saying that it was the "it doesn't affect me mentality" (seen frequently as a response in these very forums) that is detrimental to society.

 

I disagree with both of your stated premises:

(1) Civilization is crumbling.

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

(1) I think again, I said that society was in a downward spiral (that could be a topic for debate, but it's out of scope in this forum) and no crumbling of civilization was ever mentioned.

(2) I also never said that either of these were caused by bogus online logs.

 

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

Don't remember seeing this in my post either, but upon checking my handy pocket Bill Of Rights, I didn't run across anything that pertains to Geocache logging (online or otherwise). The framers did seem to lack foresight on the topic of Geocaching and it's impact on civil society.... or maybe it was the fact that they couldn't achieve a solid satellite lock.

 

DCC

[+infiniteMPG]

I also never said that bogus logs were sending society into a downward spiral. I think I was fairly clear in saying that it was the "it doesn't affect me mentality" (seen frequently as a response in these very forums) that is detrimental to society.

To what extent people act on things is totally dependent upon the importance they put on it. While I agree that society has generally slid a little to the apathetic or self-centered side of things, we are facing pretty difficult times. In the grand scheme of things I think most people migrate to geocaching to escape from the stress and confrontation that they experience at work, at home and on the road just to have some light hearted relaxing fun. Introducing confrontation and worry over benign bogus logs is against what a lot of people get into GC for. So even though people will agree that bogus logs are bad and wrong, I doubt many people will allow that to be a distraction as to why they play.

[woodstrider]

Wow- so many replies! I guess I touched a nerve.

 

I guess I just wanted to say that the person who was falsifying logs had been very greedy...he logged a number of finds in two states (ok ok, the finds were in NY and NJ and close together if you are driving) and I guess I let off a little steam. But...

 

I think that it is important to be trustful in this life...in certain arenas and certainly in this one. I just don't like being made a chump of, or having those people that really looked (and some had some difficulty and returned more then once to find my hides).

 

I know that there are some people that need the "ego stroking" and will inflate numbers. They are a bunch of sad sacks and have to live with themselves. I know myself, I could not live with that kind of dishonesty in my life- my life is not a sham, a lie a cheat or bulls***.

 

Someone made a comment about mountain climbing and summit registers... not all mountainns do have registers. Some mountains had them and then they were removed, like the Adirondack 46rs (because the summit registers, or cannisters, were non-conforming to the idea of wilderness as set forth in a government master-plan...but I digress). So, it does come down to trust and honor.

 

This gives me an idea- a cache that has no log, no email confirmation... just find it and you can log it, total honor system. This would be pretty low maintainance for the CO.

 

But, lets not forget that this is a game.

 

Thanks for letting me vent and for all the replies

[+SixDogTeam]

most everyone that I have come across in this sport is really of a superior character.

 

It's comforting to think the vast majority of people in our hobby-- geocaching/mushing/ carshow people etc. are cut above. The reality of it is they are just a cross section of normal society and contain the good, the bad and the ugly--In a sport with hundreds of thousands of adherents, I' sure there are a few who use performance enhancing techniques or are maybe even serial killers...

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

most everyone that I have come across in this sport is really of a superior character.

 

It's comforting to think the vast majority of people in our hobby-- geocaching/mushing/ carshow people etc. are cut above. The reality of it is they are just a cross section of normal society and contain the good, the bad and the ugly--In a sport with hundreds of thousands of adherents, I' sure there are a few who use performance enhancing techniques or are maybe even serial killers...

Wait! You swore that you wouldn't reveal my secret! I am very hurt by this betrayal!

 

Sheesh!

[CoyoteRed]

"Part?" I quoted the ENTIRE post. Go look at your post number 112 if you don’t believe me.

Just who do you think you are fooling? It wasn't post 112 you were quoting, it was 115.

[CoyoteRed]

Sorry, but I’m not interested in wandering into hypothetical territory. I firmly believe the set of cachers we can reasonably describe as "honest loggers" makes up almost 100% of all cachers. I firmly believe the set of cachers who can blow off all logic and reason and post bogus logs, and which does not overlap with the first set, is a tiny minority of all cachers.

 

If you want to try to convince me otherwise, then maybe we should start there -- instead of you making assumptions about what I believe.

Talking about going off on a tangent...

 

~sheesh~

[CoyoteRed]

Does this mean you won't be wandering off-topic into your favorite preference-bashing agenda?

You probably wouldn't know what that was if I did.

[+infiniteMPG]

This gives me an idea- a cache that has no log, no email confirmation... just find it and you can log it, total honor system. This would be pretty low maintainance for the CO.

Hmmmm, sparks another idea.... weld the lid of an ammo can shut and plop it out somewhere with a normal cache log listing. If anyone finds it and doesn't complain that they couldn't get it open, or says something like "Signed the log and hit the trail" you know it's BS. Could put a few of these "radar traps" out in the wild and after a while the bogus loggers (if there are that many) would start to think twice about their lil' activity

[+KBI]

KBI,

I have to ask. Are you every one else? Just because you wont do something based on replicating the actions of another doesn't mean that John Doe won't. You are not we, just an infinitesimal part of it.

I know, I know you don't think that way but you must be psychic, at least the following quote would imply you are.

 

I do not post bogus logs because there is no coherent reason for me to do so. There are actual and potential drawbacks, and zero benefits. All bad, no good. It is logically pointless. I believe this fact, all by itself, explains why there aren’t more bogus logs than there are now – and why there never will be.

The basic implication of that statement is... well? I cant even begin to describe, because it depends on what point of view you are taking when reading it. A magician such as my self would say you are either a lunatic or a charlatan. A psychologist would claim that such a statement could only come from a megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur.

I ran that statement past my wife to make sure I wasn't just being the a** I am prone to being and she said "I'll sign up and log just to prove him wrong."

 

One more thing.

bogus

not genuine : sham

 

Is there a coherent reason for for posting a bogus log? Not according to the definition of bogus or you.

Your very last line (the question and the following statement) very nicely sums up exactly what I was trying to say. Why, then do you have a problem with my analysis?

 

Lunatic? Charlatan? Megalomaniac? Why are you atacking me personally?

 

I merely made an observation:

 

Fact A (according to my reasoning): Posting a bogus log is a logically pointless thing to do.

Fact B (according to my experience): Bogus logs are rare, and the occurence of bogus logs does not seem to be increasing.

 

Conclusion: I see a clear causal relationship between those two facts. A causes B.

 

You are free to disagree.

 

If you wish to debate the factuality of my premises or the validity of my conclusion, I would be very interested to hear anything you and/or your wife have to say.

 

I see no excuse, however, for you to resort to name calling -- especially in the absence of any well-reasoned and convincing opposing arguments on your part.

 

(Telling me you "can't begin to describe" your reasons for disagreeing, or that your wife also disagrees, or that you are a magician ... those things do not count, in my opinion, as well-reasoned and convincing opposing arguments.)

 

So why does it look like you are defending false logs?

You tell me.

 

I am NOT defending false logs. It is not a thing I praise, like, promote, or encourage. I am merely defending the tolerance of false logs. I view false logs as a mere curiousity, and I question why anyone would work so hard to see inherent evil in them.

[+KBI]

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

Don't remember seeing this in my post either, but upon checking my handy pocket Bill Of Rights, I didn't run across anything that pertains to Geocache logging (online or otherwise). The framers did seem to lack foresight on the topic of Geocaching and it's impact on civil society.... or maybe it was the fact that they couldn't achieve a solid satellite lock.

That's funny, but -- you have made an erroneous assumption. I never said anything about the Bill of Rights.

 

I was only responding to your implication that the mere existence of a few bogus logs somehow automatically violates the rights of every single person. Yes, that's right: every single person. You even highlighted the word "everyone" when you made the claim:

 

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

Everyone includes me, does it not? I asked you what, exactly, I lose when someone posts a liar's log. You never answered.

 

You have not convinced me of any observable personal loss. You have not demonstrated any financial setback, any personal injury, or any violation or threat to my life, liberty or property.

 

All you ever really implied as an answer to my question was the existence of some vague and general crumbling of civilization -- but then you recanted that claim in your later post.

[+KBI]

"Part?" I quoted the ENTIRE post. Go look at your post number 112 if you don’t believe me.

Just who do you think you are fooling? It wasn't post 112 you were quoting, it was 115.

Are you serious?

 

Please go back and read post number 114, and THEN tell me which one I was quoting.

 

While you're at it, you might consider actually responding to post number 114, and explaining what, exactly, prevents you from posting bogus logs (as opposed to going off topic about not posting valid logs. Where did that come from?)

 

Look, Coyote: If you're going to continue this obfuscation dance as a means of avoiding defending your comments, then please count me out. Getting the thread locked might help you save face, and if so I congratulate you, but I'm not interested in helping you pursue that pointless waste of time any further.

 

If you decide to defend your claim regarding the reasons most people do not post bogus logs, I will happily resume the discussion.

 

If you decide instead to continue this annoying line of silliness, then I'm out. Have fun.

Edited August 12, 2008 by KBI

[+KBI]

I do not post bogus logs because there is no coherent reason for me to do so. There are actual and potential drawbacks, and zero benefits. All bad, no good. It is logically pointless. I believe this fact, all by itself, explains why there aren’t more bogus logs than there are now – and why there never will be.

 

It couldn't be that there are folks who are vocal against bogus logs, could it? Naw, huh uh. Nope. Never.

So does your lack of response mean you didn't really intend this post to imply what it seemed to imply?

 

(I've quoted it again in an attempt to eliminate the previous confusion.)

[+Driver Carries Cache]

KBI,

 

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

 

That's what I said, I still stick by what I feel (as quoted above). That is what my words actually say... "I've always had the feeling". You're not going to change my mind.

 

Obviously, you disagree... we get it.

 

At least I guess you disagree, either that or you just enjoy attacking me. I'll withdraw myself from the discussion so you can concentrate your attacks on someone else.

 

Enjoy!

 

DCC