Do You Feel its Appropriate to Name Chronic Serial False Loggers

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I've seen where "I didn't find it, but I'm logging a find anyway" types simply didn't stop because of peer pressure--even public outing here in the forums. They kept logging. They kept being revered as gods among children. Go figure.

That's where I disagree. You may not like some of the questionable found logs, but if the cache owner allows it then why would anyone care?

Because if a group of owners who don't care allow questionable or outright fraudulent logs then it makes it worth it to attempt it on all caches. This puts the owners who do care on the spot of having to delete bogus logs. That why I care. I was one of the cache owners who had to deal with a bogus log.

 

See, it's not just those who log the bogus logs, but the owners who allow the bogus logs. It's precisely the attitude of "it's no skin off my nose" that created the issue of bogus logs. Now we're asked to not discuss particulars? What's the use of a find count if its face value can't be trusted? In some circles, it's not a "find count," but more of a "log count that I've got to stick." I have no problem with anyone pointing out those who fall into that last group.

I disagree to a large extent that if a group of owners allow fraudulent logs then it will encourage bogus loggers to try the same on all caches, and I also largely disagree with the statement that

It's precisely the attitude of "it's no skin off my nose" that created the issue of bogus logs.

Frankly, blatantly bogus find logs have been around almost since the inception of the game, and, in the intervening years, with the growing number of people attracted to the sport (and some of them will inevitably be psychotic or sociopathic, and others will be bad apples...), and with the growing hordes of people who have gotten on board the Internet, it only makes perfect sense that we are seeing a greater incidence of bogus logs filed by chronic serial fake find loggers. And, the simple reality is that some bogus find logs will never be detected, either because the owners have long ago gone dormant and become inactive, or because a still-active owner is simply unaware that one or two of the finds logged for a few of her caches are not backed up by paper log signatures in the physical logbook.

 

Bottom line is that if we took CoyoteRed's assertion to its ultimate conclusion, it would mean that we must require EVERY SINGLE cache owner -- with no exceptions -- to perform a reconciliation of ALL online find logs against paper cache logbooks at least once per month to prevent a (claimed) massive epidemic of fake find logs.

[+TotemLake]

Better to let our friends the Lackeys handle it quietly and effectively. I’m not sure, but I’m guessing that’s precisely why Groundspeak eventually chose to hide all cache-finding information from those who don’t first provide self-identifying information. It prevents the miscreants from causing trouble anonymously, and allows Groundspeak to quash them more easily.

Seems to be too much dependence on letting someone else deal with the problem. As a community, we do have to deal with it. Community awareness is one facet of that. If a hider ignores the false log, that does encourage more to be made and negates the original concept of the game... physically finding the cache. That in and of itself causes issues with hiders that do care if the find log is legitimate. Peer disclosure raises that community awareness.

[CoyoteRed]

So you’re against cache owners being expected to take responsibility for the maintenance of their caches?

Wow! That's a major twist in logic. No, I fully expect owners to take responsibility of the maintenance of their caches and take exceptions when they don't. This is the whole idea behind this thread. Should chronic fakers being brought to the attention of others. I say they should and this allows cache owners to be on the alert of these very persons so they can properly maintain their cache.

 

What's the use of a find count if its face value can't be trusted?

What does find count have to do with this topic?

Why did you pull it out of context and be off topic? Edited September 27, 2008 by CoyoteRed

[CoyoteRed]

Bottom line is that if we took CoyoteRed's assertion to its ultimate conclusion, it would mean that we must require EVERY SINGLE cache owner -- with no exceptions -- to perform a reconciliation of ALL online find logs against paper cache logbooks at least once per month to prevent a (claimed) massive epidemic of fake find logs.

Hardly.

 

All is required is bogus logs to not be acceptable to a single cache owner. If folks knew their bogus logs would be deleted once detected, without exception, then the vast majority of bogus logging would cease. If the standard was "if you didn't sign the log then it's not a find, no whining, no excuses" then you wouldn't have nearly as many folks doing it.

 

Instead, I log a DNF and the owner says "yeah, it's missing. Go ahead and log a find." Umm... I. Did. Not. Find. It. By their very own admission it was not there to find.

 

Then these very same owners turn around expect the same from my caches. "Umm... No, I'm sorry you wasted your time on my missing cache, but it was not there for you to find." "No, a throw-down doesn't count as you finding my cache." etc. etc.

 

So, if every owner said bogus logs are not acceptable then the vast major of false logs would go away. Even if they privately didn't have a problem with it, but public opinion was so strong to be against it they didn't allow it.

[Clan Riffster]

As usual, the Riffster Clan is a day late and a dollar short.

My initial reaction to the question of appropriateness was, "Sure, why not?" After all, this is a geocaching forum, and that would be a geocaching topic. After reading Keystone's post, I've had a change of heart. If I were to declare, "BillyBobNosePicker is logging bogus finds!", that could be seen as more than a statement of fact. It could be viewed as a public attempt to discredit and humiliate a specific individual, which, regardless of their own degree of guideline violation, could be a TOS violation.

 

So, the twofold answer.

Is it appropriate? I reckon not.

Would it bother me? Not really

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Bottom line is that if we took CoyoteRed's assertion to its ultimate conclusion, it would mean that we must require EVERY SINGLE cache owner -- with no exceptions -- to perform a reconciliation of ALL online find logs against paper cache logbooks at least once per month to prevent a (claimed) massive epidemic of fake find logs.

Hardly.

 

All is required is bogus logs to not be acceptable to a single cache owner. If folks knew their bogus logs would be deleted once detected, without exception, then the vast majority of bogus logging would cease. If the standard was "if you didn't sign the log then it's not a find, no whining, no excuses" then you wouldn't have nearly as many folks doing it.

 

Instead, I log a DNF and the owner says "yeah, it's missing. Go ahead and log a find." Umm... I. Did. Not. Find. It. By their very own admission it was not there to find.

 

Then these very same owners turn around expect the same from my caches. "Umm... No, I'm sorry you wasted your time on my missing cache, but it was not there for you to find." "No, a throw-down doesn't count as you finding my cache." etc. etc.

 

So, if every owner said bogus logs are not acceptable then the vast major of false logs would go away. Even if they privately didn't have a problem with it, but public opinion was so strong to be against it they didn't allow it.

Actually, a good number of us here, including the vast majority of those cachers (such as myself) who do not get overly worked up over bogus find logs, DO INDEED delete bogus find logs diligently (or, in appropriate cases, ask the finder to convert the find log to a note or DNF within 24 hours, else their log will be deleted in entirety.) In fact, I bet that over 90% of the contributors to this thread do the same, without fail. So, there are already a lot of us who diligently delete bogus find logs or deal with them via other equally drastic means.

 

And, the four or five times that a cache owner has offered me the privilege of logging a find on an extreme cache that I could see and almost touch, but could not score a real find because of lack of appropriate gear, in every case, I have politely declined the overly-generous offer, logged a long and humorous DNF, and returned to the cache site within 8 weeks, this time armed with the appropriate safety gear, and have logged a real find!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

Do you feel that it is appropriate to disclose the geo handles of chronic serial false find loggers when discussing their behavior on a forum, whether it be the Groundspeak forum or a forum for a local geocaching society?

 

Enjoy!

 

This thread reminds me of an incident that occurred about 20 years ago. I was reading a local usenet newsgroup and came upon a posting by someone that was complaining about the service he received at a small electronics repair shop. The complaints went far beyond just a gripe about the poor service but made a number of accusations about the proprietor of the business which questioned his honesty and even sanity.

 

Now, this was in 1988 or so when internet use was not that widespread, and thus the accusations this person was making would likely not be contested. However, as it turned out, the electronics shop and proprietor in questions was across the street from where I lived. I printed out the message from the usenet group and brought it to the attention of the proprietor, who of course had never heard of usenet. I offered to let him use my account to respond but he ended up signing up with an ISP to create his own account just so that he could respond to the accusations. A few others reading the newsgroup offered their opinions and the general consensus after hearing both sides of the story was that it wasn't the business proprietors sanity that should have been questioned.

 

Jump forward 20 years and we have a hobby that is dependent upon the internet, communication between it's participants through a common website, and easy access to discussion forums. For the most part, any accusations made about the behaviour of someone that participates in this hobby can be easily and quickly rebutted...as long as the target of those accusations is aware of what is being said.

 

So, I would agree that it's acceptable to use the geo handles (which may or may not be linked to the real name of a person) when discussing questionable behavior as long as they're given the opportunity to respond.

[+tozainamboku]

What's the use of a find count if its face value can't be trusted?

What does find count have to do with this topic?

Why did you pull it out of context and be off topic?

 

If the reason to be upset about false logs or to justify outing chronic false loggers were to make the find count accurate, I'd say more power to the false loggers.

 

To me the logs are simply a place to tell about your experiences geocaching; in that way the logs are like fishermen's tales. While I'd like to the think the logs are substantially honest, there is certainly some embellishment and sometimes just confusion about what happened at which cache. Sometimes a person may simply make a mistake and log a found it on the wrong cache. Other times, a person may feel that, whatever the reason, he's entitled to a find on some cache where he didn't actually sign the log. But all of this is different from the chronic false logging that is the topic of this thread. This kind of logging is more like a person making up fishing stories even though they never actually went fishing. The real fishermen would probably feel more sorry for that person than get angry with him. Still they might tell that person to find a group that is interested in his lies and leave the fishing logs for the fishermen to tell stories that at least have some basis in fact.

[+TrailGators]

I don't think many people would object to lifting the rock and shining the light on the true abusers. However, the reality is that if this proposal was allowed, that some idiots will start calling out people with minor/accidental violations. How do you protect against that happening?

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I don't think many people would object to lifting the rock and shining the light on the true abusers. However, the reality is that if this proposal was allowed, that some idiots will start calling out people with minor/accidental violations. How do you protect against that happening?

Good points, but the reality is that I did not make a proposal, but rather simply asked a question. And, so far, my observation has been that at least 60% of the chronic serial fake find loggers have already been outed by name on geo forums, whether at geoaching.com (as we have seen with Geoposer, FTFJaeger and a few others) or in local/regional geo forums. So, it looks like it is already a practice that is largely accepted in most cases.

[+brodiebunch]

"Do you feel that it is appropriate to disclose the geo handles of chronic serial false find loggers when discussing their behavior on a forum, whether it be the Groundspeak forum or a forum for a local geocaching society?" is the question posed.

 

Yes, I think its appropriate.

 

Shame is something our entire society has been forced to step away from because it may hurt the feelings of those who should be ashamed of themselves.

 

However there is a place and time for it as a deterrent to bad behavior. Since the geocaching community is pretty much self policing, participants need to know there are consequences to bad behavior.

[+TrailGators]

I don't think many people would object to lifting the rock and shining the light on the true abusers. However, the reality is that if this proposal was allowed, that some idiots will start calling out people with minor/accidental violations. How do you protect against that happening?

Good points, but the reality is that I did not make a proposal, but rather simply asked a question. And, so far, my observation has been that at least 60% of the chronic serial fake find loggers have already been outed by name on geo forums, whether at geoaching.com (as we have seen with Geoposer, FTFJaeger and a few others) or in local/regional geo forums. So, it looks like it is already a practice that is largely accepted in most cases.

I'm all for shining the light on the big gross bugs. I also think this practice is more prevalent than people think. We know of cases where people are signing logs for other people to help them pump their numbers. How ridiculous is that? But it's impossible to prove unless someone you know catches them red-handed, which is how I learned about this form of abuse.

[+KBI]

Better to let our friends the Lackeys handle it quietly and effectively. I’m not sure, but I’m guessing that’s precisely why Groundspeak eventually chose to hide all cache-finding information from those who don’t first provide self-identifying information. It prevents the miscreants from causing trouble anonymously, and allows Groundspeak to quash them more easily.

Seems to be too much dependence on letting someone else deal with the problem. As a community, we do have to deal with it. Community awareness is one facet of that. If a hider ignores the false log, that does encourage more to be made and negates the original concept of the game... physically finding the cache. That in and of itself causes issues with hiders that do care if the find log is legitimate. Peer disclosure raises that community awareness.

I’m not suggesting inaction, and I'm not suggesting anyone ignore false logs instead of deleting them.

 

Reporting the problem to Groundspeak is not inaction – it is taking what I believe to be the most effective action.

 

Plastering the liar’s name all over the forums isn’t likely to be the best action. It violates the prime anti-troll directive when dealing with such attention seekers.

[+KBI]

So, the twofold answer:

Is it appropriate? I reckon not.

Would it bother me? Not really

Hey cool! For once, I agree 100% with Clan Riffster!

 

 

(That twofold answer also happens to perfectly describe the way I feel about people posting bogus finds in the first place, BTW. )

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

"Do you feel that it is appropriate to disclose the geo handles of chronic serial false find loggers when discussing their behavior on a forum, whether it be the Groundspeak forum or a forum for a local geocaching society?" is the question posed.

 

Yes, I think its appropriate.

 

Shame is something our entire society has been forced to step away from because it may hurt the feelings of those who should be ashamed of themselves.

 

However there is a place and time for it as a deterrent to bad behavior. Since the geocaching community is pretty much self policing, participants need to know there are consequences to bad behavior.

Harrumph! Are you daring to say that I should feel shame just because I log tens of thousands of "remote finds" on every cache in a 60 mile wide swath beneath the flight path of the jumbo jet whenever I take a cross-country commercial jet flight to California or Arizona, or for the caches beneath my flight path when I take a flight to Hong Kong or Malaysia? And are you claiming that I should feel shame because I have hired two India-based outsourcing companies to file find logs for me on tens of thousands of caches across North America? Hello? Earth to brodiebunch? How dare you say that I should feel shamed!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[+KBI]

So you’re against cache owners being expected to take responsibility for the maintenance of their caches?

Wow! That's a major twist in logic. No, I fully expect owners to take responsibility of the maintenance of their caches and take exceptions when they don't. This is the whole idea behind this thread. Should chronic fakers being brought to the attention of others. I say they should and this allows cache owners to be on the alert of these very persons so they can properly maintain their cache.

I don’t necessarily disagree with this new point, but that's not what you said before. I didn't "twist" anything. I only reiterated what you said:

 

This puts the owners who do care on the spot of having to delete bogus logs.

[+KBI]

What's the use of a find count if its face value can't be trusted?

What does find count have to do with this topic?

Why did you pull it out of context and be off topic?

And the obfuscation begins, right on schedule.

 

You comment was addressed in the context in which it was presented. If you were off topic when you posted it, then so was I. If I was off topic, then so were you.

 

Look: If you’re not interested in defending your viewpoint, that’s fine by me. I reserve the right to respond to your comments – but I will not dance this obfuscation dance with you anymore.

[+flask]

 

Oh please. There is very little potential for confusion here. If a cacher can't figure out which cache he/she found then we should NOT be defending them. I know what state my find was in. Good grief. No grey area. Cheating or stupid. Neither one deserves any sympathy.

 

i accidentally logged a cache i haven't found yet recently. not only did i do it, but i did it TWICE and did not discover my mistake until two weeks later.

 

i am neither a cheater nor am i stupid.

 

i wouldn't want sympathy for it, but mistakes do happen.

[+brodiebunch]

Yes.

 

That kind of geocaching you described is akin to cutting out photos from a national geographic and pasting them in album to say that yes you have been there.

 

Or leaving the picture of the handsome guy or beautiful woman that came with the wallet and passing it off as your significant other.

 

What is the point to that?

 

I have seen pictures of your psycho caches, I don't think you are armchair geocachers by any means

 

 

"Do you feel that it is appropriate to disclose the geo handles of chronic serial false find loggers when discussing their behavior on a forum, whether it be the Groundspeak forum or a forum for a local geocaching society?" is the question posed.

 

Yes, I think its appropriate.

 

Shame is something our entire society has been forced to step away from because it may hurt the feelings of those who should be ashamed of themselves.

 

However there is a place and time for it as a deterrent to bad behavior. Since the geocaching community is pretty much self policing, participants need to know there are consequences to bad behavior.

Harrumph! Are you daring to say that I should feel shame just because I log tens of thousands of "remote finds" on every cache in a 60 mile wide swath beneath the flight path of the jumbo jet whenever I take a cross-country commercial jet flight to California or Arizona, or for the caches beneath my flight path when I take a flight to Hong Kong or Malaysia? And are you claiming that I should feel shame because I have hired two India-based outsourcing companies to file find logs for me on tens of thousands of caches across North America? Hello? Earth to brodiebunch? How dare you say that I should feel shamed!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[+WRASTRO]

 

Oh please. There is very little potential for confusion here. If a cacher can't figure out which cache he/she found then we should NOT be defending them. I know what state my find was in. Good grief. No grey area. Cheating or stupid. Neither one deserves any sympathy.

 

i accidentally logged a cache i haven't found yet recently. not only did i do it, but i did it TWICE and did not discover my mistake until two weeks later.

 

i am neither a cheater nor am i stupid.

 

i wouldn't want sympathy for it, but mistakes do happen.

I agree that my use of the word "stupid" was a bit harsh. People make mistakes when logging caches and most, like you, figure them out.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Yes.

 

That kind of geocaching you described is akin to cutting out photos from a national geographic and pasting them in album to say that yes you have been there.

 

Or leaving the picture of the handsome guy or beautiful woman that came with the wallet and passing it off as your significant other.

 

What is the point to that?

 

I have seen pictures of your psycho caches, I don't think you are armchair geocachers by any means

"Do you feel that it is appropriate to disclose the geo handles of chronic serial false find loggers when discussing their behavior on a forum, whether it be the Groundspeak forum or a forum for a local geocaching society?" is the question posed.

 

Yes, I think its appropriate.

 

Shame is something our entire society has been forced to step away from because it may hurt the feelings of those who should be ashamed of themselves.

 

However there is a place and time for it as a deterrent to bad behavior. Since the geocaching community is pretty much self policing, participants need to know there are consequences to bad behavior.

Harrumph! Are you daring to say that I should feel shame just because I log tens of thousands of "remote finds" on every cache in a 60 mile wide swath beneath the flight path of the jumbo jet whenever I take a cross-country commercial jet flight to California or Arizona, or for the caches beneath my flight path when I take a flight to Hong Kong or Malaysia? And are you claiming that I should feel shame because I have hired two India-based outsourcing companies to file find logs for me on tens of thousands of caches across North America? Hello? Earth to brodiebunch? How dare you say that I should feel shamed!

 

 

 

Well, I tend to have a very large sense of humor, and I cannot take anything very seriously for too long! I also often create elaborate and bizarre posts about how I am planning to log 20,000 "attendeds" for having attend a local event!

 

 

BTW, speaking of

...Or leaving the picture of the handsome guy or beautiful woman that came with the wallet and passing it off as your significant other...

I must note that I have read articles reporting that many people on social networking sites such as MySpace create accounts for imaginary friends (usually of the opposite sex, unless they are gay) and then fill those fake accounts account with photos of beautiful people that they stole from elsewhere on the web, and then link to these fake accounts as their network "Friends"! Amazing!

Edited September 27, 2008 by Vinny & Sue Team

[+TrailGators]

Yes.

 

That kind of geocaching you described is akin to cutting out photos from a national geographic and pasting them in album to say that yes you have been there.

 

Or leaving the picture of the handsome guy or beautiful woman that came with the wallet and passing it off as your significant other.

 

What is the point to that?

 

I have seen pictures of your psycho caches, I don't think you are armchair geocachers by any means

"Do you feel that it is appropriate to disclose the geo handles of chronic serial false find loggers when discussing their behavior on a forum, whether it be the Groundspeak forum or a forum for a local geocaching society?" is the question posed.

 

Yes, I think its appropriate.

 

Shame is something our entire society has been forced to step away from because it may hurt the feelings of those who should be ashamed of themselves.

 

However there is a place and time for it as a deterrent to bad behavior. Since the geocaching community is pretty much self policing, participants need to know there are consequences to bad behavior.

Harrumph! Are you daring to say that I should feel shame just because I log tens of thousands of "remote finds" on every cache in a 60 mile wide swath beneath the flight path of the jumbo jet whenever I take a cross-country commercial jet flight to California or Arizona, or for the caches beneath my flight path when I take a flight to Hong Kong or Malaysia? And are you claiming that I should feel shame because I have hired two India-based outsourcing companies to file find logs for me on tens of thousands of caches across North America? Hello? Earth to brodiebunch? How dare you say that I should feel shamed!

 

 

 

Well, I tend to have a very large sense of humor, and I cannot take anything very seriously for too long! I also often create elaborate and bizarre posts about how I am planning to log 20,000 "attendeds" for having attend a local event!

You are funny Vinny. I enjoy reading your posts. When all is said and done all about you can really do is to just sit back and see the humor in the way some people act. Edited September 27, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Yes.

 

That kind of geocaching you described is akin to cutting out photos from a national geographic and pasting them in album to say that yes you have been there.

 

Or leaving the picture of the handsome guy or beautiful woman that came with the wallet and passing it off as your significant other.

 

What is the point to that?

 

I have seen pictures of your psycho caches, I don't think you are armchair geocachers by any means

"Do you feel that it is appropriate to disclose the geo handles of chronic serial false find loggers when discussing their behavior on a forum, whether it be the Groundspeak forum or a forum for a local geocaching society?" is the question posed.

 

Yes, I think its appropriate.

 

Shame is something our entire society has been forced to step away from because it may hurt the feelings of those who should be ashamed of themselves.

 

However there is a place and time for it as a deterrent to bad behavior. Since the geocaching community is pretty much self policing, participants need to know there are consequences to bad behavior.

Harrumph! Are you daring to say that I should feel shame just because I log tens of thousands of "remote finds" on every cache in a 60 mile wide swath beneath the flight path of the jumbo jet whenever I take a cross-country commercial jet flight to California or Arizona, or for the caches beneath my flight path when I take a flight to Hong Kong or Malaysia? And are you claiming that I should feel shame because I have hired two India-based outsourcing companies to file find logs for me on tens of thousands of caches across North America? Hello? Earth to brodiebunch? How dare you say that I should feel shamed!

 

 

 

Well, I tend to have a very large sense of humor, and I cannot take anything very seriously for too long! I also often create elaborate and bizarre posts about how I am planning to log 20,000 "attendeds" for having attend a local event!

You are funny Vinny. I enjoy reading your posts. When all is said and done all about you can really do is to just sit back and see the humor in the way some people act.

Yep! And, if you notice, I simply state my position or opinion and then stand back -- I never argue, I never bicker, I never take things personally, and rather, I am a happy person and I love life, and see no reason to take anything too seriously! And, just noticed your sig line, which says something along the lines of:

"Don't take life too seriously. You'll never get out alive. - Bugs Bunny"

And, funny thing is, because I never argue, and never take offense, I receive plenty of compliments on how thick-skinned (versus thin-skinned) I am on the forums, but the reality is even broader or deeper than being thick-skinned -- it is just that I am a happy person, and I love this world, and I cannot possibly bother to get significantly worked up over ANYTHING that happens in the world, much less anything that someone might say in a forum! I also operate over 34 email list groups and forums, and because of that, I have learned to manage bizarre personalities and trolls swiftly, calmly and easily.

 

The only one who continues to drive me crazy is that dern Sionevil, the weird geocacher / geostalker / geostalkee in Bellevue, Nebraska... she keeps sending me notes along the lines of:

"You are very evil. You are like a black hole of evilness. You probably have a PhD in Horribleness."

and her 3 AM phone calls, plus her fake find logs on all our caches...., well...

 

....sigh!

 

 

 

[+TrailGators]

Yes.

 

That kind of geocaching you described is akin to cutting out photos from a national geographic and pasting them in album to say that yes you have been there.

 

Or leaving the picture of the handsome guy or beautiful woman that came with the wallet and passing it off as your significant other.

 

What is the point to that?

 

I have seen pictures of your psycho caches, I don't think you are armchair geocachers by any means

"Do you feel that it is appropriate to disclose the geo handles of chronic serial false find loggers when discussing their behavior on a forum, whether it be the Groundspeak forum or a forum for a local geocaching society?" is the question posed.

 

Yes, I think its appropriate.

 

Shame is something our entire society has been forced to step away from because it may hurt the feelings of those who should be ashamed of themselves.

 

However there is a place and time for it as a deterrent to bad behavior. Since the geocaching community is pretty much self policing, participants need to know there are consequences to bad behavior.

Harrumph! Are you daring to say that I should feel shame just because I log tens of thousands of "remote finds" on every cache in a 60 mile wide swath beneath the flight path of the jumbo jet whenever I take a cross-country commercial jet flight to California or Arizona, or for the caches beneath my flight path when I take a flight to Hong Kong or Malaysia? And are you claiming that I should feel shame because I have hired two India-based outsourcing companies to file find logs for me on tens of thousands of caches across North America? Hello? Earth to brodiebunch? How dare you say that I should feel shamed!

 

 

 

Well, I tend to have a very large sense of humor, and I cannot take anything very seriously for too long! I also often create elaborate and bizarre posts about how I am planning to log 20,000 "attendeds" for having attend a local event!

You are funny Vinny. I enjoy reading your posts. When all is said and done all about you can really do is to just sit back and see the humor in the way some people act.

Yep! And, if you notice, I simply state my position or opinion and then stand back -- I never argue, I never bicker, I never take things personally, and rather, I am a happy person and I love life, and see no reason to take anything too seriously! And, just noticed your sig line, which says something along the lines of:

"Don't take life too seriously. You'll never get out alive. - Bugs Bunny"

And, funny thing is, because I never argue, and never take offense, I receive plenty of compliments on how thick-skinned (versus thin-skinned) I am on the forums, but the reality is even broader or deeper than being thick-skinned -- it is just that I am a happy person, and I love this world, and I cannot possibly bother to get significantly worked up over ANYTHING that happens in the world, much less anything that someone might say in a forum! I also operate over 34 email list groups and forums, and because of that, I have learned to manage bizarre personalities and trolls swiftly, calmly and easily.

 

The only one who continues to drive me crazy is that dern Sionevil, the weird geocacher / geostalker / geostalkee in Bellevue, Nebraska... she keeps sending me notes along the lines of:

"You are very evil. You are like a black hole of evilness. You probably have a PhD in Horribleness."

and her 3 AM phone calls, plus her fake find logs on all our caches...., well...

 

....sigh!

 

 

 

 

People can learn a lot from people like you Vinny. I put that Bugs Bunny line there to constantly remind myself that nothing in these forums is worth losing a smile over. I think it has been helping me lately. A smile goes a long way and it will make you live longer and happier. We have some great recent examples of people that have a knack for keeping a smile. The media has put Sarah Palin on a frying pan and yet she has never lost her smile or her spirit. Regardless of your political beliefs, it's hard not to admire her unsinkable spirit.

[AZcachemeister]

... the forum guidelines don't allow calling out a particular cacher.

 

Word.

 

It's a discussion forum, not a courtroom. Discuss the behavior, don't attack the person.

 

This is the answer.

 

While I do understand that a cache owner in East Bunghole might be concerned with the goings-on there, I do not need to know the identities of the caches, cachers, or cache owners to render my opinion of some apparently deviant or questionable logging practices in the area.

 

In the unlikely event that I DID care to look, I'm sure I could find the relevant material without too much effort.

[+BlueDeuce]

...

Edited September 28, 2008 by BlueDeuce

[+chuckwagon101]

All this talk about "armchair logging" has made me POWERFUL hongry for some CONTENDER status!!

 

If I start right now....right this minute....I might get my personal smilie count up from 31 or so to three or four HUNDRED!! Think about it!

 

And I could do it all before my greeter shift starts at 9:00 AM tomorrow....down to the Wal*mart store!

 

I'm getting all itchy and twitchy for the outcome of this thread!

 

I could possibly reach CONTENDER status before Christmas! or maybe Thanksgiving? or possibly even...........HALLOWEEN!

 

Hmmmmmmm....thousands of smilies, no pain, no WAITING, no OUTING, ...................Gotta Love It!

Count me ...........IN!!

[+TotemLake]

Better to let our friends the Lackeys handle it quietly and effectively. I’m not sure, but I’m guessing that’s precisely why Groundspeak eventually chose to hide all cache-finding information from those who don’t first provide self-identifying information. It prevents the miscreants from causing trouble anonymously, and allows Groundspeak to quash them more easily.

Seems to be too much dependence on letting someone else deal with the problem. As a community, we do have to deal with it. Community awareness is one facet of that. If a hider ignores the false log, that does encourage more to be made and negates the original concept of the game... physically finding the cache. That in and of itself causes issues with hiders that do care if the find log is legitimate. Peer disclosure raises that community awareness.

I’m not suggesting inaction, and I'm not suggesting anyone ignore false logs instead of deleting them.

 

Reporting the problem to Groundspeak is not inaction – it is taking what I believe to be the most effective action.

 

Plastering the liar’s name all over the forums isn’t likely to be the best action. It violates the prime anti-troll directive when dealing with such attention seekers.

I didn't indicate you suggested inaction. I indicated too much dependence on someone else doing the job. There is a difference.

[+Winnie_thePooh]

Have we as cache-rs become our fellow cache-rs keeper? Some of us seem to be to concerned about other cache-rs finds and like to rat these people out. I am of the opinion that there are cheaters in every game and what one does in this caching community and all over the world is their business. I am so concerned that others are making this wonderful family sport a mockery as to what it was intended to be. Sweep out your own back door and then judge other as to how they play the game......It's their game. No matter how we all dislike the ones that cheat on their caching finds, it will never end. Get a grip, this is not rocket science. Just a fun game if one minds their own business.

[Clan Riffster]

Hey cool! For once, I agree 100% with Clan Riffster!

Ack!! Take that back, Sir! I have a reputation to uphold!

[+KBI]

I didn't indicate you suggested inaction. I indicated too much dependence on someone else doing the job. There is a difference.

I see what you mean. I stand corrected.

 

Not being one of those who agonizes over the mere existence of bogus logs, however, I still see no need to take up arms myself.

 

If an individual logger ever becomes so confused about the purpose of smileys (or simply decides the honor system doesn’t apply to him) that he posts huge, distracting numbers of bogus logs, I still say it’s FAR more effective to simply report the problem and let Groundspeak shut off his account.

 

The alternative being pushed here is that we instead (not in addition to, but instead) take it upon ourselves to ruthlessly frown sternly upon the offender, as loudly and sternly and mercilessly as we can frown, while hoping as hard as we can hope that our pious disapproval will have the desired effect on someone who has already proven himself to be either peer-pressure resistant, common-sense resistant or maybe even totally without a social clue – and in the process, give him the attention he likely seeks.

 

Like I keep saying: If others prefer the relative futility of the frown-at-the-hooligan approach, it doesn’t bother me. If it makes you feel better, do it. I’m not arguing against that. Just don’t expect me to jump in. I’ve got better things to do than to scream about following the rules to a giggling rule-deaf vandal – especially when there is a convenient "Delete Vandal" button right here at my fingertips.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I didn't indicate you suggested inaction. I indicated too much dependence on someone else doing the job. There is a difference.

I see what you mean. I stand corrected.

 

Not being one of those who agonizes over the mere existence of bogus logs, however, I still see no need to take up arms myself.

 

If an individual logger ever becomes so confused about the purpose of smileys (or simply decides the honor system doesn’t apply to him) that he posts huge, distracting numbers of bogus logs, I still say it’s FAR more effective to simply report the problem and let Groundspeak shut off his account.

 

The alternative being pushed here is that we instead (not in addition to, but instead) take it upon ourselves to ruthlessly frown sternly upon the offender, as loudly and sternly and mercilessly as we can frown, while hoping as hard as we can hope that our pious disapproval will have the desired effect on someone who has already proven himself to be either peer-pressure resistant, common-sense resistant or maybe even totally without a social clue – and in the process, give him the attention he likely seeks.

 

Like I keep saying: If others prefer the relative futility of the frown-at-the-hooligan approach, it doesn’t bother me. If it makes you feel better, do it. I’m not arguing against that. Just don’t expect me to jump in. I’ve got better things to do than to scream about following the rules to a giggling rule-deaf vandal – especially when there is a convenient "Delete Vandal" button right here at my fingertips.

I do realize that some of the recent posters to this thread have proposed using the publication of names of chronic serial fake find loggers as a way of shaming them or publicly chiding them, but, personally, for me, I do not want them named in order to allow cachers to intentionally shame them. Rather, because I love gossip and because I am fascinated by the fact that some people feel compelled to log hundreds or thousands of fake finds, I simply vastly prefer that they be named on the forum so that I can find their accounts easily and research their antics at my own leisure, much as I did with Geoposer and FTFJaeger, and with the NC military guy who was named on the local forum as being a serial fake finder. Elsewise (is that really a word, or did I just violate the English language?[1]), I end up needing to do all kinds of behind-the-scenes research in order to identify the cacher in question if someone mentions a serial fake logger without naming them on the forum. In fact, I had to do that kind of behind-the-scenes research over the past couple of days to find the identity of the retired military guy who left a swath of such finds up and down the east coast!

 

footnote 1: I just checked, and the dictionary says that elsewise is a real word, meaning "otherwise", but it can only be used on weekdays, and never on weekends, particularly never on Sundays.

[+KBI]

... , I simply vastly prefer that they be named on the forum so that I can find their accounts easily and research their antics at my own leisure, much as I did with Geoposer and FTFJaeger, and with the NC military guy who was named on the local forum as being a serial fake finder.

If you were truly bothered by the behaviors of those account holders, and wanted their distractions to go away, then wouldn't it have been simpler and easier to report them to Groundspeak? You make a great point, but all it generally takes is for one person to become aware of the offender – and then the complaint email can be sent to Sherriff O'Frog and his able deputies.

 

Anything beyond than that is a futile attempt to shame the unshameable.

 

You are willing to go to far more trouble than I am over this. That’s not good OR bad; it’s just different. I may be wrong ... and if so you may be doing me and everybody else a favor. If so, I thank you. I just don’t see it.

[CoyoteRed]

I don't think many people would object to lifting the rock and shining the light on the true abusers. However, the reality is that if this proposal was allowed, that some idiots will start calling out people with minor/accidental violations. How do you protect against that happening?

There's no protection from it happening now, but it can be dealt with the same way the bogus loggers would be dealt with.

[+JATurtle]

It seems to me that the problem with all of this is that the discussion is a negative spiral sucking you in and dragging the game down with it. What if you out a person and encourage another to delete a log which is in fact legitimate? I deleted a log once for a reported “near find.” The person later went back and supposedly found the cache and logged his find after I deleted his first log. Unfortunately, the cache went missing within 48 hours, so I was never able to confirm the find. Even though I thought I was following the rules, this event left me with an unpleasant feeling. I then bumped into this person at an event. This meeting also proved to be unpleasant. I may have been justified, but I created my own negative spiral. I also think that this event bothered me more than it bothered him.

 

These types of threads are all over the GC forum, but to what positive end? If you believe it is necessary, delete a false find log. Why drag it out further? If you know you are justified, is there really any reason to discuss it, or out the person? When I had my suspected false log, I asked in this forum if I had done the right thing, and was told I had. This reassurance didn’t change that night at the event.

 

I find it difficult, when browsing the GC forum, to find active threads with honest questions or discussions about making a cache better or some looking for suggestions on how to improve a cache or solve a problem.

 

I believe that if more people deleted false logs, they would be less likely to happen. But I also think you are not going to change a person who doesn’t want to act on false finds. Happy caching.

[CoyoteRed]

I didn't "twist" anything. I only reiterated what you said:

Reiterated? No. At best, a poor paraphrase.

 

Additionally, what I said had in no way advocated cachers to not fulfill their responsibility.

 

Just because someone throws thrash in my yard, does the fact I want them to not throw thrash in my yard mean I don't want the responsibility of keeping up an acceptable appearance? Of course not. It means I don't want the extra work of picking up the trash. Same with bogus logs.

 

And the obfuscation begins, right on schedule.

Yep, right after attempts of derailment.

 

You comment was addressed in the context in which it was presented. If you were off topic when you posted it, then so was I. If I was off topic, then so were you.

It was only on-topic because it was in context. It was in the context of find counts where seekers and owners pass around smilies while ignoring bogus logs.

 

Look: If you’re not interested in defending your viewpoint, that’s fine by me. I reserve the right to respond to your comments – but I will not dance this obfuscation dance with you anymore.

Don't pull stuff out of context and that won't happen. We don't need to discuss the meaning of "is" either. Thank you.

[CoyoteRed]

I also think that this event bothered me more than it bothered him.

Yep. Those types of folks really don't care about others. You were in the way of another smilie and he "showed you!" He probably had a smug feeling that he did away with your cache and there was nothing you were going to do about it. He bullied you into giving him that smile he thought he deserved and at your expense.

 

This whole issue relies on the ever present influence of the smilie. How many threads have we had complaining about rampant false logging of DNFs or NM? That probably should tell you the smilie is the thing with value. I've long advocated the option of not having the smilie. If that happened then instantly our caches would no longer be targeted by those who will do the less-than-admirable thing while hunting them. Heck, I'd like a PQ option that allowed them to remove smilie-less caches from their downloads. That would be a fantastic upgrade, IMHO.

[+TrailGators]

I don't think many people would object to lifting the rock and shining the light on the true abusers. However, the reality is that if this proposal was allowed, that some idiots will start calling out people with minor/accidental violations. How do you protect against that happening?

There's no protection from it happening now, but it can be dealt with the same way the bogus loggers would be dealt with.

Sure it happens on rare occasions and the mods deal with it. My point was that if they allowed this to happen, some people would start singling out the wrong people. Where is the abuse line that separates right and wrong? Would the masses ever agree on the same line? Not. So maybe they could allow people with proven sound judgment like Vinny the privilege of being deputies, so they could let us know who these people are....

Edited September 28, 2008 by TrailGators

[+TotemLake]

I didn't indicate you suggested inaction. I indicated too much dependence on someone else doing the job. There is a difference.

I see what you mean. I stand corrected.

 

Not being one of those who agonizes over the mere existence of bogus logs, however, I still see no need to take up arms myself.

 

If an individual logger ever becomes so confused about the purpose of smileys (or simply decides the honor system doesn’t apply to him) that he posts huge, distracting numbers of bogus logs, I still say it’s FAR more effective to simply report the problem and let Groundspeak shut off his account.

 

The alternative being pushed here is that we instead (not in addition to, but instead) take it upon ourselves to ruthlessly frown sternly upon the offender, as loudly and sternly and mercilessly as we can frown, while hoping as hard as we can hope that our pious disapproval will have the desired effect on someone who has already proven himself to be either peer-pressure resistant, common-sense resistant or maybe even totally without a social clue – and in the process, give him the attention he likely seeks.

 

Like I keep saying: If others prefer the relative futility of the frown-at-the-hooligan approach, it doesn’t bother me. If it makes you feel better, do it. I’m not arguing against that. Just don’t expect me to jump in. I’ve got better things to do than to scream about following the rules to a giggling rule-deaf vandal – especially when there is a convenient "Delete Vandal" button right here at my fingertips.

I think your analogy is a little heavy handed for the lightweight false logs who really don't know the difference and need a little offline nudge. This OP, the way I took it, was about the obviously fraudulent loggers who know they are armchairing their finds. These are the ones that need to be publicized.

 

Not responding directly at anybody but I have some points to make:

What about the hiders that don't care? The only reason I can see them coming into the equation is they are enablers of bad behavior.

Ratting out people... Yah ok, live and let live. You're not learning from history here. See my point above about enablers.

Letting Groundspeak do the job. That's a valid action, but not the ONLY action to take for the big fakers. Community awareness also has to come into play for action as deemed appropriate. Otherwise, the game can and will degrade the integrity by invalidating the concept which is, to log the find, you have to find the cache.

 

Keeping the name of the big fake loggers out is merely keeping the community at large ignorant of a known foul in the game and unaware their cache could be targeted if it happens to be in in the general area of other caches being targeted.

 

I'm not talking about the accidental whoops, or the newbie ignorance. I'm talking about people who knowingly do this to degrade the integrity of the game.

 

Would you have these same people sneak in from the out of bounds to get a goal in any other game? No. Would you let the referee maybe allow it? Or would you voice off a foul to the opposing team and let everybody else know it? Ask yourself why that is.

 

-=-=grammatical fixes=-=-

Edited September 28, 2008 by TotemLake

[CoyoteRed]

Would the masses ever agree on the same line? Not.

You got that right.

[+KBI]

I also think that this event bothered me more than it bothered him.

Yep. Those types of folks really don't care about others.

All the more reason not to waste one’s time trying to shame the un-shameable into modifying their behavior.

 

You were in the way of another smilie and he "showed you!" He probably had a smug feeling that he did away with your cache and there was nothing you were going to do about it. He bullied you into giving him that smile he thought he deserved and at your expense.

Even MORE reason not to waste one’s time trying to shame the un-shameable into modifying their behavior.

 

My point was that if they allowed this to happen, some people would start singling out the wrong people. Where is the abuse line that separates right and wrong? Would the masses ever agree on the same line? Not.

And here we have a great reason not to waste one’s time trying to shame the un-definable into modifying their behavior.

 

Would the masses ever agree on the same line? Not.

You got that right.

... and again, with concurrence. Thanks.

 

Once more I say: Outing a serial liar isn't harmful, and I'm not against others' doing it; in my opinion it is merely ineffective and pointless relative to my preferred alternative.

[+KBI]

I think your analogy is a little heavy handed for the lightweight false logs who really don't know the difference and need a little offline nudge. This OP, the way I took it, was about the obviously fraudulent loggers who know they are armchairing their finds. These are the ones that need to be publicized.

And so was I.

 

I'm not talking about the accidental whoops, or the newbie ignorance. I'm talking about people who knowingly do this to degrade the integrity of the game.

And so am I. You even quoted me:

 

If an individual logger ever becomes so confused about the purpose of smileys (or simply decides the honor system doesn’t apply to him) ...

[+KBI]

Would you have these same people sneak in from the out of bounds to get a goal in any other game? No. Would you let the referee maybe allow it? Or would you voice off a foul to the opposing team and let everybody else know it? Ask yourself why that is.

Because you are describing competitive games, which is irrelevant here. You are confusing Geocaching with competition.

 

Geocaching is not a competition. Those things you say only apply when points, wins, and losses are at stake. A "found it" log is not a point, a run, a basket, a touchdown, or any other credit which can be tallied to determine who "wins." A "found it" log is simply a documentation of a find.

 

Bogus points don't cheat me when I'm not competing.

[+Renegade Knight]

....

Do you feel that it is appropriate to disclose the geo handles of chronic serial false find loggers when discussing their behavior on a forum, whether it be the Groundspeak forum or a forum for a local geocaching society?l...

 

As long as it's a fact and not a suspicion.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

... , I simply vastly prefer that they be named on the forum so that I can find their accounts easily and research their antics at my own leisure, much as I did with Geoposer and FTFJaeger, and with the NC military guy who was named on the local forum as being a serial fake finder.

If you were truly bothered by the behaviors of those account holders, and wanted their distractions to go away, then wouldn't it have been simpler and easier to report them to Groundspeak? You make a great point, but all it generally takes is for one person to become aware of the offender – and then the complaint email can be sent to Sherriff O'Frog and his able deputies.

 

Anything beyond than that is a futile attempt to shame the unshameable.

 

You are willing to go to far more trouble than I am over this. That’s not good OR bad; it’s just different. I may be wrong ... and if so you may be doing me and everybody else a favor. If so, I thank you. I just don’t see it.

Hmmmmmm... unless I misunderstand your post, I think you may have read my post hastily and misunderstood what I said. I have always made clear that I am not particularly bothered by fake find logs (although I delete them or deal with them in other firm ways when they appear on our caches), and rather, I am somewhat fascinated by the behaviors of the chronic serial fake find loggers who will often log dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of fake find logs. So, I do not want to see them attacked, I do not want to see them shamed, and rather I just want to learn more about their compulsion and about their antics. And, since I find such things interesting, in much the same way as my dear deceased Aunt Anita useta love to read paperback "true crime" stories about serial killers and in much the same way as my ex-girlfriend Sophie useta love to read "true crime" tales about torture (at least until she was arrested for torturing her psychotherapy clients under the guise of "radical discipline therapy", then I also appreciate being able to see their names revealed in threads discussing their antics on the forums, as this saves me the trouble of having to do detective work to discover their identity.

[+tozainamboku]

This whole issue relies on the ever present influence of the smilie. How many threads have we had complaining about rampant false logging of DNFs or NM? That probably should tell you the smilie is the thing with value. I've long advocated the option of not having the smilie. If that happened then instantly our caches would no longer be targeted by those who will do the less-than-admirable thing while hunting them. Heck, I'd like a PQ option that allowed them to remove smilie-less caches from their downloads. That would be a fantastic upgrade, IMHO.

So lets say that the false loggers are motivated because they believe, like CoyoteRed, that a false smiley has some value. Does that mean that outing them will stop it. Now all the people who read on the forums will know that this persons find count is inaccurate. What will that mean? That he doesn't get his golden ammo can a the event? Do these chronic bogus loggers even show up at an event. I doubt very much that the smilie has very much to do with motivating the bogus logger. These are more likely people who like to see how much they can get away with even if they get no other benefit. They log bogus logs and get some percentage deleted by diligent cache owners and others which stay because the owner doesn't care. If they do this often enough they may get noticed and enjoy reading about themselves in the forums. Eventually they all tire of the activity or Groundspeak gets involved and suddendly they find their account lock out.

 

Now I will out a person who leaves an inaccurate record of their geocaching experience by not logging every cache they find. CoyoteRed has stated right here in the forums on numerous occasions that he doesn't log every cache he finds. And the reason he gives it the smiley. Yes, he claims that some caches are so lame that they must have been placed only for the smileys that finders will get. Rather than encouraging such hides he fails to log his experience online as specified in the Rules of Geocaching. Apparently, protesting the value of the smiley is more important to him than following rules.

 

It would seem to me that if the smiley is not important to you as a motivation for finding caches, you really don't have a reason to worry that it is important to someone else. You may speculate that that is the motivation for anyone to inflate their count in any way you think is wrong, but it seems silly to be upset about something that you've already said isn't important to you. If bogus logging is wrong, it is not because someone is getting a higher find count then they deserve. The online logs are for sharing your geocaching experiences and perhaps to thank the cache owner for the hide. Using them for other than the intended purpose is stealing bandwidth and storage space from Grounspeak and, I will agree with CR here, causing cache owners to have to do extra work to maintain the accuracy of logs on their caches.

Edited September 28, 2008 by tozainamboku

[+TotemLake]

Would you have these same people sneak in from the out of bounds to get a goal in any other game? No. Would you let the referee maybe allow it? Or would you voice off a foul to the opposing team and let everybody else know it? Ask yourself why that is.

Because you are describing competitive games, which is irrelevant here. You are confusing Geocaching with competition.

 

Geocaching is not a competition. Those things you say only apply when points, wins, and losses are at stake. A "found it" log is not a point, a run, a basket, a touchdown, or any other credit which can be tallied to determine who "wins." A "found it" log is simply a documentation of a find.

 

Bogus points don't cheat me when I'm not competing.

Now who is obfuscating the point? I was always talking integrity. Leave the competition out for a moment. Think of the integrity of the game. Then where does that leave it?

Edited September 28, 2008 by TotemLake

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I also think that this event bothered me more than it bothered him.

Yep. Those types of folks really don't care about others. You were in the way of another smilie and he "showed you!" He probably had a smug feeling that he did away with your cache and there was nothing you were going to do about it. He bullied you into giving him that smile he thought he deserved and at your expense.

 

This whole issue relies on the ever present influence of the smilie. How many threads have we had complaining about rampant false logging of DNFs or NM? That probably should tell you the smilie is the thing with value. I've long advocated the option of not having the smilie. If that happened then instantly our caches would no longer be targeted by those who will do the less-than-admirable thing while hunting them. Heck, I'd like a PQ option that allowed them to remove smilie-less caches from their downloads. That would be a fantastic upgrade, IMHO.

The hypothesis raised by CoyoteRed above, postulating that the smilie (aka smiley) is the root cause of all fake find logs, is an issue which has arisen a number of times before in past threads which at all involved the issue of fake find logs. Since this is a valid topic for discussion in itself, and since I do not want this somewhat tangential topic to derail this current thread, I have started another thread in the Geocaching Topics section (this section) entitled Is the Smilie (aka Smiley) the Root Cause of Fake Find Logs? An Offshoot of the "Naming Chronic Serial Fake Finders" Thread

 

Please feel free to discuss this particular tangential topic on the new thread devoted just to that issue! Enjoy!

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

This whole issue relies on the ever present influence of the smilie. How many threads have we had complaining about rampant false logging of DNFs or NM? That probably should tell you the smilie is the thing with value. I've long advocated the option of not having the smilie. If that happened then instantly our caches would no longer be targeted by those who will do the less-than-admirable thing while hunting them. Heck, I'd like a PQ option that allowed them to remove smilie-less caches from their downloads. That would be a fantastic upgrade, IMHO.

So lets say that the false loggers are motivated because they believe, like CoyoteRed, that a false smiley has some value. Does that mean that outing them will stop it. Now all the people who read on the forums will know that this persons find count is inaccurate. What will that mean? That he doesn't get his golden ammo can a the event? Do these chronic bogus loggers even show up at an event. I doubt very much that the smilie has very much to do with motivating the bogus logger. These are more likely people who like to see how much they can get away with even if they get no other benefit. They log bogus logs and get some percentage deleted by diligent cache owners and others which stay because the owner doesn't care. If they do this often enough they may get noticed and enjoy reading about themselves in the forums. Eventually they all tire of the activity or Groundspeak gets involved and suddendly they find their account lock out.

 

Now I will out a person who leaves an inaccurate record of their geocaching experience by not logging every cache they find. CoyoteRed has stated right here in the forums on numerous occasions that he doesn't log every cache he finds. And the reason he gives it the smiley. Yes, he claims that some caches are so lame that they must have been placed only for the smileys that finders will get. Rather than encouraging such hides he fails to log his experience online as specified in the Rules of Geocaching. Apparently, protesting the value of the smiley is more important to him than following rules.

 

It would seem to me that if the smiley is not important to you as a motivation for finding caches, you really don't have a reason to worry that it is important to someone else. You may speculate that that is the motivation for anyone to inflate their count in any way you think is wrong, but it seems silly to be upset about something that you've already said isn't important to you. If bogus logging is wrong, it is not because someone is getting a higher find count then they deserve. The online logs are for sharing your geocaching experiences and perhaps to thank the cache owner for the hide. Using them for other than the intended purpose is stealing bandwidth and storage space from Grounspeak and, I will agree with CR here, causing cache owners to have to do extra work to maintain the accuracy of logs on their caches.

Please continue any discussions about whether or not the smilie (aka smiley) is the root cause of all fake find logs, and related issues, in the new thread in the Geocaching Topics section (this section) entitled Is the Smilie (aka Smiley) the Root Cause of Fake Find Logs? An Offshoot of the "Naming Chronic Serial Fake Finders" Thread

 

Enjoy!

[+KBI]

Would you have these same people sneak in from the out of bounds to get a goal in any other game? No. Would you let the referee maybe allow it? Or would you voice off a foul to the opposing team and let everybody else know it? Ask yourself why that is.

Because you are describing competitive games, which is irrelevant here. You are confusing Geocaching with competition.

 

Geocaching is not a competition. Those things you say only apply when points, wins, and losses are at stake. A "found it" log is not a point, a run, a basket, a touchdown, or any other credit which can be tallied to determine who "wins." A "found it" log is simply a documentation of a find.

 

Bogus points don't cheat me when I'm not competing.

Now who is obfuscating the point?

Not me.

 

You used a 'competition' analogy. I merely pointed out that the competition analogy does not apply to non-competitive pastimes.

 

I was always talking integrity. Leave the competition out for a moment. Think of the integrity of the game. Then where does that leave it?

I dunno, you tell me.

 

Do you think I'm being cheated out of something when a cache owner allows a cacher to post a bogus log? I've inventoried my assets, and I haven't seen where anything has gone missing.

 

If you see where I've been harmed by bogus logs, please point it out.