Jump to content

BOLO: User sunflower13 is a fraud


Bluehook
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

The user "sunflower13" keeps on posting a find log for one of my vituals without answering the required questions. It seems s/he is able to find caches all over the globe on the very same day s/he finds my New York City cache.

 

I've contacted the "authorities" here at GC.com -- I hope they can do something. I'm getting tired of deleting the logs.

Link to comment

The user "sunflower13" keeps on posting a find log for one of my vituals without answering the required questions. It seems s/he is able to find caches all over the globe on the very same day s/he finds my New York City cache.

 

I've contacted the "authorities" here at GC.com -- I hope they can do something. I'm getting tired of deleting the logs.

 

Wait a week, then go back and delete it and they probably won't notice it. Or leave a note above their find, explaining that it's fake but the person won't stop logging it.

Link to comment

The user "sunflower13" keeps on posting a find log for one of my vituals without answering the required questions. It seems s/he is able to find caches all over the globe on the very same day s/he finds my New York City cache.

 

I've contacted the "authorities" here at GC.com -- I hope they can do something. I'm getting tired of deleting the logs.

 

I wouldn't count on anyone at gc.com intervening. Their approach is that typically, the logging requirements are between the owner and the finder and they stay out of it. Have you sent a note to the person explaining why you're deleting their logs? Not saying that will stop the armchair logging, but it might.

 

Also, is there something you can change about your virtual so that an on-site visit is required?

Link to comment

The user "sunflower13" keeps on posting a find log for one of my vituals without answering the required questions. It seems s/he is able to find caches all over the globe on the very same day s/he finds my New York City cache.

 

I've contacted the "authorities" here at GC.com -- I hope they can do something. I'm getting tired of deleting the logs.

 

I wouldn't count on anyone at gc.com intervening. Their approach is that typically, the logging requirements are between the owner and the finder and they stay out of it. Have you sent a note to the person explaining why you're deleting their logs? Not saying that will stop the armchair logging, but it might.

 

Also, is there something you can change about your virtual so that an on-site visit is required?

 

I've never been to that park, but the answer can be found in less than 30 seconds.

 

It's time add more questions to your virtual. :)

Link to comment

Ah, there you go. Send Kit Fox's url to this person so at least they can answer the question. Problem solved.

 

Jim

 

He probably used the same site I did. I've noticed that the majority of threads complaining about armchair loggers of virtual caches involve easy to find answers, readily available on the internet. :) There is a particular Virtual about "Bugsy" Siegel in Las Vegas, that I saw on someones favorites list. For fun, I played on Google, and found the answer in less than five minutes.

 

I thought it was the responsibility of the virtual owners to make their caches "bulletproof" or at least bullet resistant. :)

Link to comment

The user "sunflower13" keeps on posting a find log for one of my vituals without answering the required questions. It seems s/he is able to find caches all over the globe on the very same day s/he finds my New York City cache.

 

I've contacted the "authorities" here at GC.com -- I hope they can do something. I'm getting tired of deleting the logs.

 

I wouldn't count on anyone at gc.com intervening. Their approach is that typically, the logging requirements are between the owner and the finder and they stay out of it. Have you sent a note to the person explaining why you're deleting their logs? Not saying that will stop the armchair logging, but it might.

 

Also, is there something you can change about your virtual so that an on-site visit is required?

 

I've never been to that park, but the answer can be found in less than 30 seconds.

 

It's time add more questions to your virtual. :)

 

Not true -- look again. You cannot answer question number 3 without actually visiting the cache site.

 

Not that it matters anyway, sunflower13 never bothered sending ANY of the required answers.

 

This cache has been operating successfully for 6 and a half years and has over 600 finds -- come one guys, give me a little credit here -- I'm not exactly a "newbie" to all this.

 

:)

Edited by Bluehook
Link to comment

The user "sunflower13" keeps on posting a find log for one of my vituals without answering the required questions. It seems s/he is able to find caches all over the globe on the very same day s/he finds my New York City cache.

 

I've contacted the "authorities" here at GC.com -- I hope they can do something. I'm getting tired of deleting the logs.

 

Maybe s/he is just "playing the game like they want to play it"! :):):ph34r:

 

Maybe s/he just "travels real fast" in a jet or something! Shouldn't we give our fellow cachers the benefit of a doubt!? :P:)

 

Maybe this person has a LazyBoy armchair recliner, model # B-O-Gus 13, Series 4! Maybe they are just trying out some new wrist and forarm moves for locating caches! It could HAPPEN!!! :D

 

Actually, these types of posts constitute only a small portion of the geocache world! There is nothing to be gained if this person is truly trying to post bogus logs. At any rate, it should not affect how you or millions of others play the game or your personal satisfaction from the game! Peace out! :)

 

****Please disregard the above..I have changed my mind! Delete that sucker and plow salt into the area around the cache so that it can NEVER grow timber large enough to build a BIG PILE OF STICKS ever again! :):)

Edited by chuckwagon101
Link to comment

 

Maybe s/he is just "playing the game like they want to play it"! :):D:ph34r:

 

Maybe s/he just "travels real fast" in a jet or something! Shouldn't we give our fellow cachers the benefit of a doubt!? :P:)

 

Maybe this person has a LazyBoy armchair recliner, model # B-O-Gus 13, Series 4! Maybe they are just trying out some new wrist and forarm moves for locating caches! It could HAPPEN!!! :)

 

Actually, these types of posts constitute only a small portion of the geocache world! There is nothing to be gained if this person is truly trying to post bogus logs. At any rate, it should not affect how you or millions of others play the game or your personal satisfaction from the game! Peace out! :)

 

****Please disregard the above..I have changed my mind! Delete that sucker and plow salt into the area around the cache so that it can NEVER grow timber large enough to build a BIG PILE OF STICKS ever again! :):)

 

Okay...what did you forget to do this morning?

 

ritalin_.jpg

 

 

:)

Link to comment

It takes all kinds. Such is life and geocaching included. After sitting at my desk at work in New Hampshire I was able to find all three answers within 5 minutes. The thing with parks and monuments is that , in most cases, the staes in which they reside have parks and recs sites that give lots of info.

 

I'm a cacher who very much enjoys the thrill of the hunt and some might suggest that hunting the internet for information can be just as thrilling, though I don't see how. You've got to take the good with the bad. If a guy/gal wants to sit in front of his/her computer while sipping on his/her favorite beverage and feel special that they vitually visited a virtual cache it's their deal. Be flattered that they found your cache interesting enough to "find".

 

Just my 2 bits.

 

Peace,

Reborn627

Link to comment
It takes all kinds. Such is life and geocaching included. After sitting at my desk at work in New Hampshire I was able to find all three answers within 5 minutes. The thing with parks and monuments is that , in most cases, the staes in which they reside have parks and recs sites that give lots of info.

 

I'm a cacher who very much enjoys the thrill of the hunt and some might suggest that hunting the internet for information can be just as thrilling, though I don't see how. You've got to take the good with the bad. If a guy/gal wants to sit in front of his/her computer while sipping on his/her favorite beverage and feel special that they vitually visited a virtual cache it's their deal. Be flattered that they found your cache interesting enough to "find".

If one really wanted to be picky, one could point out that nowhere in the cache page instructions does the owner actually require the cacher to physically visit the cache site.

 

In fact, there are only five specified requirements:

 

(1) Send an email,

(2-4) Provide correct answers to the three questions, and

(5) Ensure you don’t give away the answers in your log.

 

From the cache description:

 

To log the cache as a find you must email the following:
  1. What is his name?
  2. When did he live?
  3. What is the lower-most (closest to the ground) eight-letter word engraved at the bottom of the pedestal on the east side (statue back)?

Don't post your answers here, even if encypted.

The official list of cache types sort of semi-implies that one is expected to physically visit the, um, physical virtual location – but that list isn’t even part of the guidelines, much less a rule.

 

But then of course the Official Guidelines puts it a little more strictly:

 

Virtual Caches

 

A virtual cache is an existing, permanent landmark of a unique nature. The seeker must answer a question from the landmark and verify to the cache owner that he was physically at the location.

So there is that.

 

My conclusion? People who log virtuals virtally instead of physically (from their armchairs instead of via physical visits) are apparently people who haven’t read and understood the guidelines in detail.

 

These people have, however, voluntarily checked a box indicating that they have read and understood the guidelines in detail – so I say: Delete that bogus log!

 

(And, though it shouldn’t technically be necessary, if I were the OP I would consider making the in-person visit requirement a bit more plain in my description)

Link to comment

Well, as we have all seen over the past few months, the incidence of fake finds on virtual caches as well as on real physical caches is on the rise over the past half-year or so, and this is just one more symptom of the whole trend. It is kinda interesting, though, that within a few hours of the advent of this thread, another forum member resurrected another thread, called Heads-up About Geoposer And Finds On Extreme Caches, this one about fake finds on real caches, from about 28 months ago. In fact, that thread also intersects the recent topic of fake DNF logs, as we will see...

Link to comment

It takes all kinds. Such is life and geocaching included. After sitting at my desk at work in New Hampshire I was able to find all three answers within 5 minutes. The thing with parks and monuments is that , in most cases, the staes in which they reside have parks and recs sites that give lots of info.

 

I'm a cacher who very much enjoys the thrill of the hunt and some might suggest that hunting the internet for information can be just as thrilling, though I don't see how. You've got to take the good with the bad. If a guy/gal wants to sit in front of his/her computer while sipping on his/her favorite beverage and feel special that they vitually visited a virtual cache it's their deal. Be flattered that they found your cache interesting enough to "find".

 

Just my 2 bits.

 

Peace,

Reborn627

 

If you would, email me the answer to question number 3 -- and of course, a link to where you found it on the 'net.

 

I wasn't aware that that information was out there and will be very surprised if you are able to supply the correct answer. If I get proof that the answer is available, I will certainly change the criteria required for a find.

 

That said, out of 600-plus finds on this cache, I have allowed 2 virtuals. These came from handicapped/homebound cachers with extensive explanations. On both occasions they had an able bodied "surrogate" physically visit the site to get the info. One finder from was even from Europe and convinced a distant relative via email to visit the site. I felt he more than deserved to claim the find.

 

Looking forward to hearing from you Reborn627.

Link to comment

It takes all kinds. Such is life and geocaching included. After sitting at my desk at work in New Hampshire I was able to find all three answers within 5 minutes. The thing with parks and monuments is that , in most cases, the staes in which they reside have parks and recs sites that give lots of info.

 

I'm a cacher who very much enjoys the thrill of the hunt and some might suggest that hunting the internet for information can be just as thrilling, though I don't see how. You've got to take the good with the bad. If a guy/gal wants to sit in front of his/her computer while sipping on his/her favorite beverage and feel special that they vitually visited a virtual cache it's their deal. Be flattered that they found your cache interesting enough to "find".

 

Just my 2 bits.

 

Peace,

Reborn627

 

If you would, email me the answer to question number 3 -- and of course, a link to where you found it on the 'net.

 

I wasn't aware that that information was out there and will be very surprised if you are able to supply the correct answer. If I get proof that the answer is available, I will certainly change the criteria required for a find.

 

That said, out of 600-plus finds on this cache, I have allowed 2 virtuals. These came from handicapped/homebound cachers with extensive explanations. On both occasions they had an able bodied "surrogate" physically visit the site to get the info. One finder from was even from Europe and convinced a distant relative via email to visit the site. I felt he more than deserved to claim the find.

 

Looking forward to hearing from you Reborn627.

 

Sorry I missed your virtual when I was in Manhattan a couple of months ago. I have to find a way to let the family allow more geocaching on vacation. :) Well, I'm glad you keep a close eye on the logs. European armchair logging has gone crazy the last year and a half or so, as Vinny said. It used to be just a "winter" thing, but no more. I could point to several virtuals with non-attentive (or totally absent) owners that have dozens and dozens of "greetings from Germany" logs from people who obviously never visited the site. I have a funny feeling they all just surf each other's profiles to find virtuals that are "googleable". I'd say keep on deleting.

 

If you want to write to contact@geocaching.com, and open up a trouble ticket, they may do something, but probably not.

Link to comment

Reborn627 was indeed able to find the required info on the 'net -- looks like some tweaking is in order.

 

I was actually able to find it myself after my last post and Reborn is right, it didn't take very long.

 

I have checked over the years every now and then to make sure the info wasn;t out there -- I guess it became available sometime last year.

 

Rebirth, you mentioned "it will only take a minor modification to you discription page to make it more difficult for someone to fake it." I'm open to suggestions from you and/or anyone else here -- what did you have in mind?

 

Thanks.

Link to comment

Well, as we have all seen over the past few months, the incidence of fake finds on virtual caches as well as on real physical caches is on the rise over the past half-year or so, and this is just one more symptom of the whole trend.

Is it? Or is it just being discussed on the forums more often? My guess would be the latter.

TAR, my own casual (not formal) observation is that there has ALWAYS been a baseline level of such activity, but that we are seeing an upswing over the last year in the rate of fake finds, due almost entirely to the emergence of this practice as a much-favored offshoot of the sport among some cachers in some regions of Europe, particularly parts of Germany and Austria.

Link to comment

Well, as we have all seen over the past few months, the incidence of fake finds on virtual caches as well as on real physical caches is on the rise over the past half-year or so, and this is just one more symptom of the whole trend.

Is it? Or is it just being discussed on the forums more often? My guess would be the latter.

TAR, my own casual (not formal) observation is that there has ALWAYS been a baseline level of such activity, but that we are seeing an upswing over the last year in the rate of fake finds, due almost entirely to the emergence of this practice as a much-favored offshoot of the sport among some cachers in some regions of Europe, particularly parts of Germany and Austria.

 

Believe Vinny when he tells you, TAR, that European armchair logging has taken off in the last 12-18 months or so. Once the word gets out that it's "Googleable", and that the owner doesn't do anything, it becomes a frenzied orgy of "Greetings from Germany" logs. I'll not be mentioning any particular virts, or providing any links though. :D

Link to comment

That's the same way I feel. I have several earthcaches out there. Sometimes I get the answers sent to me and sometimes they post pictures which both are supposed to be done. Do I let it get to me if they don't do what is supposed to be done to the point of deleteing the logs? Nah, why bother. If that is there way of doing it, who really cares. :D

Link to comment

That's the same way I feel. I have several earthcaches out there. Sometimes I get the answers sent to me and sometimes they post pictures which both are supposed to be done. Do I let it get to me if they don't do what is supposed to be done to the point of deleteing the logs? Nah, why bother. If that is there way of doing it, who really cares. :D

 

Fortunately for society, not everyone shrugs off mediocrity and lack of adherence to published standards. :D

Link to comment
I'm going to say this just for the sake of saying it.

 

WHO CARES IF SOMEONE IF "FAKE LOGGING".

 

Ok, said it. now, carry on.. :D

 

couldn't resist.

I, for one, am glad the cache owner is deleting the bogus Find. That's what I'd do on my cache.

 

But if they hadn't, and let it stay, I wouldn't care, and it wouldn't make a difference to my game.

Link to comment

What are the published standards? Last I read is that everyone plays this a little different than the other. :D

 

I know you are being facetious, but for those who are unfamiliar with the guidelines:

 

 

Virtual Caches

 

A virtual cache is an existing, permanent landmark of a unique nature. The seeker must answer a question from the landmark and verify to the cache owner that he was physically at the location.

 

 

 

Virtual Cache and Webcam Cache Maintenance Guidelines

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility for their cache listings.

 

Although the cache is not something you physically maintain, you must maintain your cache's web page and respond to inquiries. In the case of Virtual Caches and Webcam Caches you must periodically check the physical location. You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache.

 

You should also return to the Geocaching.com web site at least once a month to show you are still active. Caches posted and "abandoned" may be archived by the site.

 

The owner will assume the responsibility of quality control of logged "finds" for the cache, and will agree to delete any "find" logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive the listing. Grandfathered caches may not be unarchived.

 

 

So for those of you who think "WHO CARES IF SOMEONE IS "FAKE LOGGING". realize that Bluehook risks having his cache archived if he doesn't maintain the logs, as policing the logs is part of the maintenance responsibility of the cache owner.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
That's the same way I feel. I have several earthcaches out there. Sometimes I get the answers sent to me and sometimes they post pictures which both are supposed to be done. Do I let it get to me if they don't do what is supposed to be done to the point of deleteing the logs? Nah, why bother. If that is there way of doing it, who really cares. :huh:

Fortunately for society, not everyone shrugs off mediocrity and lack of adherence to published standards. :D

"Society" owns an Earthcache? :D

 

Just this month I deleted a log from my Earthcache after the logger (1) failed to answer the questions correctly, and (2) failed to respond to my repeated friendly requests for correct answers, which were accompanied by my friendly offers to help.

 

But that, of course, is between me and the logger. It’s my Earthcache and his log. How you choose to handle your own Earthcache and your own loggers is your business – unless you choose to go beyond your own game and tell other owners how to play, that is. Should you decide to enforce a different level of strictness, that doesn’t have to bother me – unless I choose to let it, that is.

 

Some people take this game waaaaay too seriously.

Link to comment
What are the published standards? Last I read is that everyone plays this a little different than the other. :D

So for those of you who think "WHO CARES IF SOMEONE IS "FAKE LOGGING". realize that Bluehook risks having his cache archived if he doesn't maintain the logs, as policing the logs is part of the maintenance responsibility of the cache owner.

The existence of the occasional fake logger requires the owner to occasionally click the delete key.

 

The existence of the much-more-than-occasional cache-stealing muggle, cache-destroying animal, caching-confused newbie and cache-obliterating bad weather, on the other hand, requires the typical owner to do some serious maintenance – some of which requires significant time, expense and physical effort – and this type of maintenance is typically required much more frequently.

 

Which of the above is the least common “problem,” and requires the least amount of effort to solve? Yet which of the above generates by far the most screaming and yelling and gnashing of teeth in the forums?

 

Some people take this game waaaaay too seriously.

Link to comment
What are the published standards? Last I read is that everyone plays this a little different than the other. :D

So for those of you who think "WHO CARES IF SOMEONE IS "FAKE LOGGING". realize that Bluehook risks having his cache archived if he doesn't maintain the logs, as policing the logs is part of the maintenance responsibility of the cache owner.

The existence of the occasional fake logger requires the owner to occasionally click the delete key.

 

The existence of the much-more-than-occasional cache-stealing muggle, cache-destroying animal, caching-confused newbie and cache-obliterating bad weather, on the other hand, requires the typical owner to do some serious maintenance – some of which requires significant time, expense and physical effort – and this type of maintenance is typically required much more frequently.

 

Which of the above is the least common “problem,” and requires the least amount of effort to solve? Yet which of the above generates by far the most screaming and yelling and gnashing of teeth in the forums?

 

Some people take this game waaaaay too seriously.

 

:D

Link to comment

That's the same way I feel. I have several earthcaches out there. Sometimes I get the answers sent to me and sometimes they post pictures which both are supposed to be done. Do I let it get to me if they don't do what is supposed to be done to the point of deleteing the logs? Nah, why bother. If that is there way of doing it, who really cares. :D

 

Fortunately for society, not everyone shrugs off mediocrity and lack of adherence to published standards. :D

 

Agreed TWU, my thoughts exactly and i couldn't have said it any better!

Link to comment

Mushstang, KBI, we know, we know,,, you do not care and you do not let false logs bother you. We get the message already. :D

 

The other 90 something percent of us do take issue with it, for various reasons, and would like to discuss it without you two coming in and insisting that it shouldn't matter to us.

Link to comment
:D

Now why didn't I think of that?

 

How can I possible counter a rolleyes?

 

You’ve convinced me, Brian. I cannot compete with such ironclad and persuasive logic.

 

Starting today, I will endeavor to learn how to develop my own pious and simmering anguish over how other people define their own personal logging standards, regardless of any real, practical or perceived effect their behavior has on my actual enjoyment of the hobby.

 

Thank you for finally showing me the light.

Link to comment
Mushstang, KBI, we know, we know,,, you do not care and you do not let false logs bother you. We get the message already. :D

 

The other 90 something percent of us do take issue with it, for various reasons, and would like to discuss it without you two coming in and insisting that it shouldn't matter to us.

My guideline-compliant opinion counts for exactly as much as yours. Which is zero.

 

My guideline-compliant opinion also has just as much right to be here as yours. Which is every.

 

This is a public forum. If you wish to conduct a private and exclusive conversation I suggest you try the PMs, or one of the many chat rooms available elsewhere on the Internet. (IF you think you can fit "90-something percent" of all forum posters into one chat room, that is. You will let me know what percent actually turns out, won't you?)

Link to comment
The other 90 something percent of us... would like to discuss it without you two coming in and insisting that it shouldn't matter to us.

You're right, and I apologize. I shouldn't have insisted that you, and everyone else in the 90%, have the same viewpoint as I do. That was wrong.

 

I need you to understand though, that what I meant to say was that as far as I was concerned the existence of a bogus log didn't matter to the person writing this post, me, Mushtang, and I guess I picked the wrong words. My post which insisted that you have the same viewpoint was out of line, and I hope you can forgive me.

 

Perhaps you can help me so in the future I don't make that mistake again. How do I convey my opinion without insisting on how you should believe, which I so obviously did by saying, "I wouldn't care, and it wouldn't make a difference to my game"?

 

Maybe I should stay completely out of this thread until I get the answer, so I'll just wait for you to PM it to me. Thanks.

 

And again, my humblest apologies.

Link to comment

Yes, sometimes humor is the best medicine. :D

 

 

 

 

What are the published standards? Last I read is that everyone plays this a little different than the other. :D

 

I know you are being facetious, but for those who are unfamiliar with the guidelines:

 

 

Virtual Caches

 

A virtual cache is an existing, permanent landmark of a unique nature. The seeker must answer a question from the landmark and verify to the cache owner that he was physically at the location.

 

 

 

Virtual Cache and Webcam Cache Maintenance Guidelines

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility for their cache listings.

 

Although the cache is not something you physically maintain, you must maintain your cache's web page and respond to inquiries. In the case of Virtual Caches and Webcam Caches you must periodically check the physical location. You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache.

 

You should also return to the Geocaching.com web site at least once a month to show you are still active. Caches posted and "abandoned" may be archived by the site.

 

The owner will assume the responsibility of quality control of logged "finds" for the cache, and will agree to delete any "find" logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive the listing. Grandfathered caches may not be unarchived.

 

 

So for those of you who think "WHO CARES IF SOMEONE IS "FAKE LOGGING". realize that Bluehook risks having his cache archived if he doesn't maintain the logs, as policing the logs is part of the maintenance responsibility of the cache owner.

Link to comment
The other 90 something percent of us... would like to discuss it without you two coming in and insisting that it shouldn't matter to us.

You're right, and I apologize. I shouldn't have insisted that you, and everyone else in the 90%, have the same viewpoint as I do. That was wrong.

 

I need you to understand though, that what I meant to say was that as far as I was concerned the existence of a bogus log didn't matter to the person writing this post, me, Mushtang, and I guess I picked the wrong words. My post which insisted that you have the same viewpoint was out of line, and I hope you can forgive me.

 

Perhaps you can help me so in the future I don't make that mistake again. How do I convey my opinion without insisting on how you should believe, which I so obviously did by saying, "I wouldn't care, and it wouldn't make a difference to my game"?

 

Maybe I should stay completely out of this thread until I get the answer, so I'll just wait for you to PM it to me. Thanks.

 

And again, my humblest apologies.

 

Mushstang, KBI, we know, we know,,, you do not care and you do not let false logs bother you. We get the message already. :D

 

The other 90 something percent of us do take issue with it, for various reasons, and would like to discuss it without you two coming in and insisting that it shouldn't matter to us.

My guideline-compliant opinion counts for exactly as much as yours. Which is zero.

 

My guideline-compliant opinion also has just as much right to be here as yours. Which is every.

 

This is a public forum. If you wish to conduct a private and exclusive conversation I suggest you try the PMs, or one of the many chat rooms available elsewhere on the Internet. (IF you think you can fit "90-something percent" of all forum posters into one chat room, that is. You will let me know what percent actually turns out, won't you?)

 

Of course this is a public forum and i'm certainly not suggesting that anyone not post. We all have our opinions as well but, this thread, along with a growing mumber of others, are brought up by people who take issue with bogus logs. They are looking for suggestions on how to deal with them and are not looking for someone to try and change their mind on how they feel about them. You showing up in every thread about this subject and telling them (make that everyone) that it shouldn't bother them or that they take the game too seriously, does not provide answers to questions posed. I just don't think there's much of a chance that Mushtang, KBI, me, or anyone else can change how a person feels about bogus logs...

Link to comment
I'm going to say this just for the sake of saying it.

 

WHO CARES IF SOMEONE IF "FAKE LOGGING".

 

Ok, said it. now, carry on.. :D

 

couldn't resist.

I, for one, am glad the cache owner is deleting the bogus Find. That's what I'd do on my cache.

 

But if they hadn't, and let it stay, I wouldn't care, and it wouldn't make a difference to my game.

 

Exactly my point. Its a game to have fun. I could care less how many finds you or anyone else has. We do this as a family and have fun with hit. Numbers mean little.

But there are some that live by the numbers and that is fine, its a hobby, have fun!

Link to comment
The other 90 something percent of us... would like to discuss it without you two coming in and insisting that it shouldn't matter to us.
You're right, and I apologize. I shouldn't have insisted that you, and everyone else in the 90%, have the same viewpoint as I do. That was wrong.

 

I need you to understand though, that what I meant to say was that as far as I was concerned the existence of a bogus log didn't matter to the person writing this post, me, Mushtang, and I guess I picked the wrong words. My post which insisted that you have the same viewpoint was out of line, and I hope you can forgive me.

 

Perhaps you can help me so in the future I don't make that mistake again. How do I convey my opinion without insisting on how you should believe, which I so obviously did by saying, "I wouldn't care, and it wouldn't make a difference to my game"?

 

Maybe I should stay completely out of this thread until I get the answer, so I'll just wait for you to PM it to me. Thanks.

 

And again, my humblest apologies.

Mushstang, KBI, we know, we know,,, you do not care and you do not let false logs bother you. We get the message already. :D

 

The other 90 something percent of us do take issue with it, for various reasons, and would like to discuss it without you two coming in and insisting that it shouldn't matter to us.

My guideline-compliant opinion counts for exactly as much as yours. Which is zero.

 

My guideline-compliant opinion also has just as much right to be here as yours. Which is every.

 

This is a public forum. If you wish to conduct a private and exclusive conversation I suggest you try the PMs, or one of the many chat rooms available elsewhere on the Internet. (IF you think you can fit "90-something percent" of all forum posters into one chat room, that is. You will let me know what percent actually turns out, won't you?)

Of course this is a public forum and i'm certainly not suggesting that anyone not post. We all have our opinions as well but, this thread, along with a growing mumber of others, are brought up by people who take issue with bogus logs. They are looking for suggestions on how to deal with them and are not looking for someone to try and change their mind on how they feel about them. You showing up in every thread about this subject and telling them (make that everyone) that it shouldn't bother them or that they take the game too seriously, does not provide answers to questions posed. I just don't think there's much of a chance that Mushtang, KBI, me, or anyone else can change how a person feels about bogus logs...

Okay, sarcasm didn't work. So tell me where I said it shouldn't bother you, or anyone?

Link to comment
Of course this is a public forum and i'm certainly not suggesting that anyone not post.

Apology accepted. :)

 

We all have our opinions as well but, this thread, along with a growing mumber of others, are brought up by people who take issue with bogus logs. They are looking for suggestions on how to deal with them and are not looking for someone to try and change their mind on how they feel about them.

That is a clear contradiction.

 

Demonstrating that there may be no good reason to anguish over bogus logs the first place is a very valid suggestion on how to deal with them.

 

The fact that you happen to disagree with my point of view does not make my point of view invalid, nor does it disqualify my point of view from the conversation.

 

You showing up in every thread about this subject and telling them (make that everyone) that it shouldn't bother them or that they take the game too seriously, does not provide answers to questions posed.

And you continuing to post misinterpretations of other people’s posts, as you just did with mine, does provide answers?

 

I just don't think there's much of a chance that Mushtang, KBI, me, or anyone else can change how a person feels about bogus logs...

I disagree. I have seen very convincing evidence to the contrary.

 

You keep on posting your opinion, I’ll keep posting mine, and anyone else who wishes to express an opinion can join in as well – and then any observer who is interested enough to read all the opinions together and compare them to their own reasoning can freely form their own conclusion as they see fit.

 

Fair enough? Fair enough.

Link to comment

Mushstang, KBI, we know, we know,,, you do not care and you do not let false logs bother you. We get the message already. :)

 

The other 90 something percent of us do take issue with it, for various reasons, and would like to discuss it without you two coming in and insisting that it shouldn't matter to us.

 

Talk about obsessed. I often wonder why it bothers them so much that some people aren't thrilled with bogus logs.

Link to comment

Mushstang, KBI, we know, we know,,, you do not care and you do not let false logs bother you. We get the message already. :)

 

The other 90 something percent of us do take issue with it, for various reasons, and would like to discuss it without you two coming in and insisting that it shouldn't matter to us.

Talk about obsessed. I often wonder why it bothers them so much that some people aren't thrilled with bogus logs.

Speaking for myself: It doesn’t bother me at all. It merely amuses me. In fact, the amusement is what keeps me coming back.

 

(Of course your statement is a blatant and exaggerated misrepresentation of my point of view – I would never expect anyone to be "thrilled" with bogus logs. But then, of course, you knew that. No shortage of strawmen here!)

 

Talk about obsessed. What I often wonder is why so many people seem to be so bothered by the knowledge that I am NOT bothered. :)

Link to comment

What are the published standards? Last I read is that everyone plays this a little different than the other. :)

 

Sorry, I had to step away for several hours. Joranda, that post was made with a big friendly grin on my face, I'm sure you don't promote mediocrity in things that really matter in life, like school and work and such things.

 

Yes, of course I take everything seriously, I was in the Army for 22 years. And it was all in the reserves. Imagine what I'd be like if I was really in the Army for 22 years. :)

 

Interesting point on your Earthcache though. I own two Earthcaches, and on one of them (and only on one of them, for some odd reason), about 25 newbies over the past year decided they were not going to meet either of the two requirements for logging the cache. Anyone who is interested can check my profile, I only own two Earthcaches, and there is a "rant" from me posted this month on the one.

 

Eventually, even after I added bold red text threatening to delete non-compliant logs, I posted the note after two newbies still logged the earthcache without a clue as to the requirements. Notice, by the way, that mean old "takes the game way to seriously" TWU has not deleted any of the over two dozen non-compliant logs.

 

I don't think this is "playing the game their way", but rather cluelessness. People need to read up a little, and get a clue. I know back in 2003, I had no clue what a travel bug was, or how they worked, but I sure as heck read up a little and looked into it before I grabbed my first one. :D

Link to comment

Mushstang, KBI, we know, we know,,, you do not care and you do not let false logs bother you. We get the message already. :)

 

The other 90 something percent of us do take issue with it, for various reasons, and would like to discuss it without you two coming in and insisting that it shouldn't matter to us.

 

Talk about obsessed. I often wonder why it bothers them so much that some people aren't thrilled with bogus logs.

Funny, but despite the fact that I am not thrilled with bogus find logs (see footnote #1), and despite the fact that I visit the forum quite regularly and have likely read every post authored over the past 2.5 years by Mushtang, KBI and CaptBruce, I truly cannot recall ever getting the impression that either of those posters is obsessed with this matter, or that either of them has ever stated that it bothers them terribly that some folks are not thrilled with bogus find logs. What I do believe that I have seen each of them say a number of times is the following:

  • that they personally dislike bogus find logs, but do not get overly upset about them, and may not get at all upset about them, but rather accept them as a fact of life and move on.
  • building on the above statement, each appears to have also stated that if they ever encountered a bogus find log on one of their caches, they would delete it, but would not be particularly bothered by the whole experience, that the whole phenomenon is rather harmless.
  • that they do get a good laugh out of some of the statements made by some of the more rabid and opinionated posters on this forum and on other geo forums who seem claim that claim that bogus find logs pose a dire threat to the sport, to the moral and ethical sanctity of the human race, and that such bogus find logs portend what amounts (my own interpretation here...) to a signal flagging the beginning of the End of Days, the beginning of end time.
  • that they also get a good laugh from reading some of the more extreme on-forum responses made by some of the more rabid and vociferous "moral watchdog" opponents of bogus find logs in reply to their own posts stating that they dislike bogus find logs but are not particularly bothered by them.
  • that they are often amazed at how some of the more rabid and vociferious "moral watchdog" opponents of bogus find logs twist and distort the meaning of the statements which they make in their posts regarding this matter.

In fact, I notice that I personally react in much the same way as do Mushtang and KBI, to the phenomena noted in the last three bulleted items in the list above.

 

That about sums it up, folks! :)

 

Footnote #1: And I either delete bogus find logs when I encounter them, or, in the case of some of the more historically-significant or colorful bogus logs, I leave them in place but insert an adjacent note from the owner (i.e., myself) on the cache listing page to the effect that the adjacent log by cacher XXXX is a fraudulent log entry but is being left in place as part of the unique and colorful history of the cache.

Link to comment

I think logs that are obviously fake are funny, but the ones that are not are annoying. But I'm not going to post obviously fake logs because I think they are funny if I know that someone else would be annoyed. I know some people think it's funny that other people are annoyed at all fake logs, and others feel that all funny fake logs are annoying, but it is annoying to think that just because someone else doesnt think they are funny, that they should think they should not be annoyed, which is both annoying and funny at the same time, I think.

Link to comment
It takes all kinds. Such is life and geocaching included. After sitting at my desk at work in New Hampshire I was able to find all three answers within 5 minutes. ...
... I wasn't aware that that information was out there and will be very surprised if you are able to supply the correct answer. ...
Unfortunately, the internet keeps getting filled with more and more information every day. Answers to verification questions that were not online yesterday may certainly show up in a google search tomorrow.

 

It should also be noted that I also am not bothered by bogus logs on any caches that I don't own. If I discover one on my caches, I'll delete it. I'll also advise others to delete them if they ask my opinion. Beyond that, I'm not really affected in any way by bogus logs.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
I don't think this is "playing the game their way", but rather cluelessness. People need to read up a little, and get a clue.

Well said.

 

I agree with your interpretation. Based on my puny and limited experience I am thoroughly convinced that it is pure, innocent, bumbling cluelessness, NOT rebellious anarchy, which accounts for virtually every bogus log out there.

 

For every rare liar’s log that is actually posted with the lucid intent to cause subversive mischief (if such a log even exists), I believe there are also hundreds of other ‘bogus’ logs made by those who don’t quite grasp the concept, by those who merely have their own honest-yet-goofy logging standards, or by those who ... well, those whose cheese has simply slid off their cracker.

 

I believe most (if not all) bad logging judgment stems from innocent ineptitude, not wicked defiance.

 

Besides, there are mechanisms in place to remove from the website those who prove themselves unworthy of the honor system. Our venerable Lackeys do a rather impressive job of policing out the occasional chronic bad guys. I would imagine that a string of provably subversive liar’s logs would earn any account holder a prompt cyber-deportation from this Ground of which I Speak.

 

This uber-cool hobby is open to pretty much everyone, clueful or otherwise. I wouldn’t have it any other way. Bogus logs have never bothered me – they merely entertain me, as do the episodes of agitated hand-wringing they seem to attract.

 

If bogus logs ever DO turn into an overwhelming Biblical locust swarm, as has been oft-predicted by the hand-wringers, I will humbly accept an I-Told-You-So from—and will happily apologize to—each and every prognosticator who has predicted the feared and devastating Coming Plague O’ Bogusness. Until then, I will continue to sit back and laugh at all the anxious consternation ... and to blissfully enjoy this incredibly entertaining hobby.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...