Is the Smilie (aka Smiley) the Root Cause of Fake Find Logs? An Offshoot of

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Folks, an issue arose in the second day of the existence of my earlier thread entitled Do You Feel its Appropriate to Name Chronic Serial False Loggers on the forum when discussing their odd behaviors?, and it is an issue which has arisen a number of times in past threads which at all involved the issue of fake find logs. To wit, CoyoteRed wrote in a post to that thread earlier this morning that he believes that smilies (aka smileys) are the root cause of all fake find logs, and he is not the only person who has made this assertion over the past couple of years, nor is this the first time that he has aired this opinion. The post in that other thread wherein he stated his opinion follow:

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.

 

So, the purpose of this dedicated thread is to allow discussion of exactly that issue of whether smilies are the root cause of chronic serial fake find logging behaviors. Go for it!

 

Enjoy!

Edited September 28, 2008 by Vinny & Sue Team

[+D@nim@l]

It's the root cause of a lot of other behaviors people complain about in the forums. The only way for us to find out is for TPTB to drop the find counter and that is NEVER going to happen because it would impact the bottom line.

[Mr.Yuck]

Yes.

[+TrailGators]

I think it is. By the way, are some people logging hundreds of false Waymarks to get higher numbers there too?

Edited September 28, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Too Tall John]

Some say the false loggers are looking for a smiley.

If that is the case, then yes.

 

Some say that false loggers are looking for attention.

If their reasoning is that they will get attention because they have so many smileys, then yes.

If their reasoning is that they will receive attention (albeit negative) from people who think that their smileys are being devalued by false logs, then yes.

 

Some people say that false loggers just plain think it's funny in some way (that is unknown to me).

If this is the case, then no.

 

I'm sure someone will come out with another reason why the answer is "No," but for the majority of reasons I can think of, the answer is

Yes.

Edited September 28, 2008 by Too Tall John

[+Too Tall John]

The only way for us to find out is for TPTB to drop the find counter and that is NEVER going to happen because it would impact the bottom line.

What if individual cachers were simply given the option to drop the count?

[+D@nim@l]

The only way for us to find out is for TPTB to drop the find counter and that is NEVER going to happen because it would impact the bottom line.

What if individual cachers were simply given the option to drop the count?

 

It might be a good start, but I don't think it would help as it pertains to the question raised by the OP or the numbers crowd.

[+the hermit crabs]

Enjoy!

Vinny, I have to ask, have you surreptitiously infected my computer with a keystroke-tracker?

 

Every time I use the "ignore thread" greasemonkey option, you create a new one branching from it! First we had the Blatant False Logging Finds, to which my reaction was "oh, no, not this again" followed by a prompt click of the Ignore button. This was followed by your Chronic Serial False Loggers topic, which your first post noted was spun off from the first topic. Back to the Ignore button a second time... and now here is this third one! And even in the title/subtitle you taunt me by saying it's an offshoot of ignored thread #2. I could almost see the "...and there's nothing you can do about it!" tacked on to the end of the subtitle, accompanied by an evil snicker.

 

Time to run a spyware check...

[+fizzymagic]

Yes.

 

That and the community's co-dependent behavior of heaping praise upon those with high smiley counts.

[+hukilaulau]

It's the root cause of a lot of other behaviors people complain about in the forums. The only way for us to find out is for TPTB to drop the find counter and that is NEVER going to happen because it would impact the bottom line.

No wait... it's NEVER going to happen because the majority of members don't want it to happen.

To answer the question: I'm not sure if it is the root cause. I think some armchair cachers just want to have a kind of scrapbook of caches they've read about that caught their attention. You don't generally get hung up on the NUMBER of pictures you have in a scrapbook. You just like to go back and look at them every so often.

it's an interesting, but moot, question. Maybe cachers who actually do the false logging will tell us their thought process? For the rest of us all we can do is speculate.

[+markandsandy]

Is the Smilie (aka Smiley) the Root Cause of Fake Find Logs?

 

I think the root cause is in the psychological makeup of the individual who is generating the fake logs. If the smilie didn't exist, they would find another way of justifying their actions to themselves, but the behavior would remain, either in false logs, or it would manifest itself in some other way, generating a whole new generation of thread topics.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I think Yes, with a 'for the most part' qualification.

 

I am all for hiding the find number being an option that each cacher could select in their profile.

 

In the other thread on this topic I mentioned an armchair logger who says he does it because he enjoys it... but I note that he chooses to log Found It rather than a Note, which tells me that the smilie is important to him.

[Mushtang]

The only way for us to find out is for TPTB to drop the find counter and that is NEVER going to happen because it would impact the bottom line.

What if individual cachers were simply given the option to drop the count?

All I have to do is look at the overwhelming success of itsnotaboutthenumbers.com and the popularity of gsak macros that allow posting stats on profiles shown broken down in a myriad of ways to tell me that people LOVE their find counts.

 

In my opinion an option to take one's self out of the data pool will only be taken by a very small number of cachers. And these will be the folks that seem to think their numbers matter to other people (and therefore are trying to keep their stats away from others) while continuously spouting that numbers don't matter.

 

If this makes them happy, I say give them the option. But I doubt it'll keep them quiet about the subject of smileys. They'll still complain about how other people choose to enjoy stats.

[+MtnRubi]

I for one LOVE the find counts. It's what keeps me caching, it provides the motivation to get off my a** and to find some caches.

 

What I find amazing, is that folks get all worked up about what others are doing. Who cares that some souls are out there, falsely adding logs to caches they've never visited? It doesn't affect my counts, it doesn't change how I log things, it doesn't affect me in any way.

 

I'll still go out, I'll still brag about the 43 caches I got in one day, all off-road. My activity matters to me, but until geocaching.com starts handing out prizes, I can't see how my activity affects other players in any way.

 

Everybody plays their way, deciding what is important to them. False logging obviously makes somebody happy, or they wouldn't exert the effort.

 

I just don't see the fuss. (At least not 3 new threads worth....)

[+TrailGators]

Is the Smilie (aka Smiley) the Root Cause of Fake Find Logs?

 

I think the root cause is in the psychological makeup of the individual who is generating the fake logs. If the smilie didn't exist, they would find another way of justifying their actions to themselves, but the behavior would remain, either in false logs, or it would manifest itself in some other way, generating a whole new generation of thread topics.

Good answer because you go one level deeper. If you use the "5 Whys" method to determine the root cause then getting a smiley only answers the first why question (why do they log caches they haven't found?). The second why question (why do they want smileys so bad that they would cheat?) is most likely some mental aberration with these folks. We'll have to let the psychologists answer the next why question.... Edited September 28, 2008 by TrailGators

[+KoosKoos]

I think you could label the Smiley the root cause, but I see a couple of groups here:

 

1) the absolutely 100% fake find log group - I wasn't in this city/state/country/hemisphere, but I'm going to make up a log as if I found this cache

 

2) the "my smiley may not mean the same thing as your smiley group" - I found the cache, but couldn't sign the log, I found the area, but the cache was muggled, I performed an additional action and the owner let me log a 2nd smiley, I just want this cache off of my nearest list, etc.

 

To me, group 1 is completely hopeless and mentally bizarre. Group 2 is much more widespread and is less a question of "cheating" and more a question of what's considered "generally acceptable". TPTB have stated the question of if a smiley log is allowed is up to the cache owner, so I don't let it bother me that some owners are very strict (no name in the log, no smiley) and others are more permissive.

 

I think it renders the "smiley" mostly meaningless as any sort of community measure, but I know what MINE mean and I do love dissecting them with my stats program. And that's all that matters to me.

[+KBI]

Yes.

 

That and the community's co-dependent behavior of heaping praise upon those with high smiley counts.

Voice of the Lord: The one in the braces, he done it!

 

Klaus: It's a fair cop, but society's to blame.

 

Detective: Agreed. We'll be charging them too.

 

(The "Dead Bishop on the Landing" sketch from Monty Python's Flying Circus.)

[Mr.Yuck]

Is the Smilie (aka Smiley) the Root Cause of Fake Find Logs?

 

I think the root cause is in the psychological makeup of the individual who is generating the fake logs. If the smilie didn't exist, they would find another way of justifying their actions to themselves, but the behavior would remain, either in false logs, or it would manifest itself in some other way, generating a whole new generation of thread topics.

Good answer because you go one level deeper. If you use the "5 Whys" method to determine the root cause then getting a smiley only answers the first why question (why do they log caches they haven't found?). The second why question (why do they want smileys so bad that they would cheat?) is most likely some mental aberration with these folks. We'll have to let the psychologists answer the next why question....

 

I was just goofing around with my one word "yes" answer. Yes, there is a much deeper psychological thing going on here with pathological lying. From the several pathological liars I've met in the military (all of them self-made millionaires), to the chick my wife worked with who lied about having cancer, to the point of wearing a wool hat around the office, and leaving work for fictional chemo appointments, I have to say, I'm fascinated by these people, and what makes them tick.

[+wimseyguy]

Is there a limit to the number of tangential threads that can spawn from the same discussion?

[+KBI]

People complain when people go off-topic within the same thread.

 

But then other people complain when people spin off new threads in order to avoid going off topic in the same thread.

 

You can't win, can you Vinny?

[+tozainamboku]

Is there a limit to the number of tangential threads that can spawn from the same discussion?

I blame the post count and the topics started count. Some people will do anything to inflate their forum stats.

[Trinity's Crew]

In my opinion an option to take one's self out of the data pool will only be taken by a very small number of cachers. And these will be the folks that seem to think their numbers matter to other people (and therefore are trying to keep their stats away from others) while continuously spouting that numbers don't matter.

 

If this makes them happy, I say give them the option. But I doubt it'll keep them quiet about the subject of smileys. They'll still complain about how other people choose to enjoy stats.

 

I have a pretty small number of finds and hides. I have a disproportionately large number of posts in comparison. I was once chided in these forums because I hadn't found many caches so yes, the numbers DO matter to a lot of people, often for the wrong reasons. I probably wouldn't hide my numbers but that kind of BS sure makes it tempting.

 

As far as complaining about stats, I don't. I'll admit to being somewhat awestruck by the really high numbers that some cachers have achieved. It shows a level of dedication and determination that I certainly don't have, but beyond that I don't much care about peoples numbers.

 

On topic, I would have to agree with those who believe that we'll never really know the reasons behind logging a fake find, but certainly increasing your find count is one of them.

 

Edit: Changed no to know. Need coffee...

Edited September 29, 2008 by Trinity's Crew

[+briansnat]

Who cares that some souls are out there, falsely adding logs to caches they've never visited? It doesn't affect my counts, it doesn't change how I log things, it doesn't affect me in any way.

 

It may not have affected you yet, but I've targeted caches specifically because they had recent finds, only to find out there was no cache there and the logs were bogus. That is a waste of my time and gas money. I know one cacher who embarked on a long trip to find a cache that was previously thought missing, after someone logged a phony find on it.

 

As a cache owner I rely on these logs to gauge the condition of my caches. I had one cache with several DNFs and I was about to go out to check on it, when a phony find was logged on it. That made me think everything was OK with the cache. Turned out it wasn't true and the cache needed help.

 

These bogus logs can and do affect others. It's not always a victimless act.

 

To answer the OP, the smiley quest is responsible for a lot of poor behaviors such as scorched earth searches and trespassing, as well as questionable practices such as pocket caches, retirement cards, ALRs that get around the guidelines by offering extra smileys. I won't even go into the micro spew caused by this (well I guess I just did).

 

My activity matters to me, but until geocaching.com starts handing out prizes, I can't see how my activity affects other players in any way.

 

Geocaching.com may not hand out prizes and awards, but others do:

 

Golden Ammo Can

 

Geo achievement coins

 

Hall of Fame (see right side of home page)

 

Another Hall of Fame

 

Events

 

Forum attaboys.

Edited September 29, 2008 by briansnat

[+Mudfrog]

Who cares that some souls are out there, falsely adding logs to caches they've never visited? It doesn't affect my counts, it doesn't change how I log things, it doesn't affect me in any way.

 

It may not have affected you yet, but I've targeted caches specifically because they had recent finds, only to find out there was no cache there and the logs were bogus. That is a waste of my time and gas money. I know one cacher who embarked on a long trip to find a cache that was previously thought missing, after someone logged a phony find on it.

 

As a cache owner I rely on these logs to gauge the condition of my caches. I had one cache with several DNFs and I was about to go out to check on it, when a bogus find was logged on it. That made me think everything was OK with the cache. Turned out it wasn't true and the cache needed help.

 

These bogus logs can and do affect others. It's not always a victimless act.

 

To answer the OP, the smiley quest is responsible for a lot of poor behaviors such as scorched earth searches and trespassing, as well as questionable practices such as pocket caches, retirement cards, ALRs that get around the guidelines by offering extra smileys. I won't even go into the micro spew caused by this (well I guess I just did).

 

My activity matters to me, but until geocaching.com starts handing out prizes, I can't see how my activity affects other players in any way.

 

Geocaching.com may not hand out prizes and awards, but others do:

 

Golden Ammo Can

 

Geo achievement coins

 

Hall of Fame (see right side of home page)

 

Another Hall of Fame

 

Events

 

Forum attaboys.

 

Briansnat, i agree 100%. What you stated was factual and is something that should be obvious to everyone. Still, i suspect that it won't be long before someone (not mentioning any names) will come in and try to argue the opposite.

 

To answer the original question,,, YES! For various reasons, numbers do matter to most people. Nothing wrong with this of course but unfortunately, it can sometimes bring out the worst in people. There will always be those who'll do anything (in this case, lie) to get that high number.

[Mushtang]

To answer the OP, the smiley quest is responsible for a lot of poor behaviors such as scorched earth searches and trespassing, as well as questionable practices such as pocket caches, retirement cards, ALRs that get around the guidelines by offering extra smileys. I won't even go into the micro spew caused by this (well I guess I just did).

So.... the quest to find a lot of caches... is responsible for people enjoying finding a lot of caches.

 

These idiot are ruining our game!!!!!!

 

It was so much nicer in the early days of the game when everyone had low numbers and we liked it just fine.

 

[+wimseyguy]

But the longer you stick around, and the more you post and cache, the higher your counts will go! How can we reconcile this with the desire for the early days?

 

BTW I had FUN at 16 separate locations yesterday, even though I only found 13 caches for more smilies. I only had a little teeny bit of fun at one of them and left after a 3-4 minute search as it wasn't a very pretty place. At another one I had FUN at a LPC as I was actually able to find the container and sign the log this time. Last time I could touch but not retrieve it. But it was fun because I was able to do it while someone ate a cheeseburger two cars over and they didn't pay any attention to me while they focused on their cheesy paper.

Edited September 29, 2008 by wimseyguy

[+gpsblake]

 

I just don't see the fuss. (At least not 3 new threads worth....)

 

Amen. I noticed the one's fussing the most are the ones with 1,000s or even 10,000s of postings in here. Just think of how much time is wasted having post 10,000 times, say it takes 3 minutes to type a response, that's 3 minutes x 10,000 = 30,000 minutes or 500 hours of doing nothing but typing postings (over 20 straight days). That doesn't include all the time that's wasted reading OTHER postings. It's staggering. Geocaching is a game to me, nothing more, and I only play this game a few times a month.

 

Suggestion: Get rid of the post count on here and just label posters as newbies and senior posters. If it were me, i would also not make the total count of cache findings public..... That leads to lot of nonsense here...

 

Well, I vented.... Have fun, remember it's just a game.

[+KBI]

My activity matters to me, but until geocaching.com starts handing out prizes, I can't see how my activity affects other players in any way.

 

Geocaching.com may not hand out prizes and awards, but others do:

 

Golden Ammo Can

 

Geo achievement coins

 

Hall of Fame (see right side of home page)

 

Another Hall of Fame

 

Events

 

Forum attaboys.

The fact that others do, but that Geocaching.com does not, is the critical difference.

 

The fact that a subset of cachers choose to create unofficial and informal competitions among themselves, along with the fact that they enjoy awarding unofficial and informal recognitions and prizes to each other, is a very valid point – but only so far as it helps explain why a dishonest person might be moved to lie about finding Tupperware in the woods – which is the point of this thread. I therefore see, and am convinced by, Briansnat’s excellent point.

 

(Of course it is up to those voluntary competitors to establish their own private ad hoc verification standards, if desired. Those of us who choose not to compete have no reason to care about the believability of others’ stats. The website owners wisely stay out of it altogether.)

 

Much confusion results, however, from the fact that Briansnat’s point does NOT support the arguments of those who insist on agonizing over bogus logs because they view Geocaching as some kind of official competition. Unless I choose to participate in competitive activities such as the above listed examples, I am NOT being inherently cheated out of anything just because a bogus logger claims a false find. That, however, remains a subject of the other thread. This thread spun from that thread, so hopefully the OP will excuse my momentarily tangential reversion ...

 

... and I’ll shut up now.

[Mr.Yuck]

Who cares that some souls are out there, falsely adding logs to caches they've never visited? It doesn't affect my counts, it doesn't change how I log things, it doesn't affect me in any way.

 

It may not have affected you yet, but I've targeted caches specifically because they had recent finds, only to find out there was no cache there and the logs were bogus. That is a waste of my time and gas money. I know one cacher who embarked on a long trip to find a cache that was previously thought missing, after someone logged a phony find on it.

 

As a cache owner I rely on these logs to gauge the condition of my caches. I had one cache with several DNFs and I was about to go out to check on it, when a phony find was logged on it. That made me think everything was OK with the cache. Turned out it wasn't true and the cache needed help.

 

These bogus logs can and do affect others. It's not always a victimless act.

 

To answer the OP, the smiley quest is responsible for a lot of poor behaviors such as scorched earth searches and trespassing, as well as questionable practices such as pocket caches, retirement cards, ALRs that get around the guidelines by offering extra smileys. I won't even go into the micro spew caused by this (well I guess I just did).

 

My activity matters to me, but until geocaching.com starts handing out prizes, I can't see how my activity affects other players in any way.

 

Geocaching.com may not hand out prizes and awards, but others do:

 

Golden Ammo Can

 

Geo achievement coins

 

Hall of Fame (see right side of home page)

 

Another Hall of Fame

 

Events

 

Forum attaboys.

 

Those are interesting links! On the first one, the Golden Ammo can, it is suggested that this practice originated in a specific City. I kind of find that hard to believe, but maybe I'm wrong. Also it looks like that organization hasn't given one out in about 2 years. I suspect they've run out of them.

 

On the 2nd last one, Events, that event is from 2004. I think there are actually less events held for milestones these days, as X thousand finds was much rarer back then.

[+TrailGators]

 

I just don't see the fuss. (At least not 3 new threads worth....)

 

Amen. I noticed the one's fussing the most are the ones with 1,000s or even 10,000s of postings in here. Just think of how much time is wasted having post 10,000 times, say it takes 3 minutes to type a response, that's 3 minutes x 10,000 = 30,000 minutes or 500 hours of doing nothing but typing postings (over 20 straight days). That doesn't include all the time that's wasted reading OTHER postings. It's staggering. Geocaching is a game to me, nothing more, and I only play this game a few times a month.

 

Suggestion: Get rid of the post count on here and just label posters as newbies and senior posters. If it were me, i would also not make the total count of cache findings public..... That leads to lot of nonsense here...

 

Well, I vented.... Have fun, remember it's just a game.

There is no need to lash out at people that have enjoyed posting/helping with a handful of posts/day over many years. The thread is discussing what motivates people to log hundreds of caches that they never visited.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

I just don't see the fuss. (At least not 3 new threads worth....)

 

Amen. I noticed the one's fussing the most are the ones with 1,000s or even 10,000s of postings in here. Just think of how much time is wasted having post 10,000 times, say it takes 3 minutes to type a response, that's 3 minutes x 10,000 = 30,000 minutes or 500 hours of doing nothing but typing postings (over 20 straight days). That doesn't include all the time that's wasted reading OTHER postings. It's staggering. Geocaching is a game to me, nothing more, and I only play this game a few times a month.

 

Suggestion: Get rid of the post count on here and just label posters as newbies and senior posters. If it were me, i would also not make the total count of cache findings public..... That leads to lot of nonsense here...

 

Well, I vented.... Have fun, remember it's just a game.

There is no need to lash out at people that have enjoyed posting/helping with a handful of posts/day over many years. The thread is discussing what motivates people to log hundreds of caches that they never visited.

 

I almost missed that. Thank goodness I have 10,000 posts less than trailgators. Yes, no need to lash out. This is a discussion forum, and if someone has 10,000+ posts, they uh, enjoy discussing geocaching in an internet forum. This doesn't mean it's "more than a game" to them or anything.

 

Not the first time I've seen a lash out at "numbers posters" though.

[+markandsandy]

 

I just don't see the fuss. (At least not 3 new threads worth....)

 

Amen. I noticed the one's fussing the most are the ones with 1,000s or even 10,000s of postings in here. Just think of how much time is wasted having post 10,000 times, say it takes 3 minutes to type a response, that's 3 minutes x 10,000 = 30,000 minutes or 500 hours of doing nothing but typing postings (over 20 straight days). That doesn't include all the time that's wasted reading OTHER postings. It's staggering. Geocaching is a game to me, nothing more, and I only play this game a few times a month.

 

Suggestion: Get rid of the post count on here and just label posters as newbies and senior posters. If it were me, i would also not make the total count of cache findings public..... That leads to lot of nonsense here...

 

Well, I vented.... Have fun, remember it's just a game.

There is no need to lash out at people that have enjoyed posting/helping with a handful of posts/day over many years. The thread is discussing what motivates people to log hundreds of caches that they never visited.

 

I almost missed that. Thank goodness I have 10,000 posts less than trailgators. Yes, no need to lash out. This is a discussion forum, and if someone has 10,000+ posts, they uh, enjoy discussing geocaching in an internet forum. This doesn't mean it's "more than a game" to them or anything.

 

Not the first time I've seen a lash out at "numbers posters" though.

 

Wow! I just realized I missed my Milestone 100th Post on the 23rd.

 

Congratulations to me!

[+TotemLake]

 

I just don't see the fuss. (At least not 3 new threads worth....)

 

Amen. I noticed the one's fussing the most are the ones with 1,000s or even 10,000s of postings in here. Just think of how much time is wasted having post 10,000 times, say it takes 3 minutes to type a response, that's 3 minutes x 10,000 = 30,000 minutes or 500 hours of doing nothing but typing postings (over 20 straight days). That doesn't include all the time that's wasted reading OTHER postings. It's staggering. Geocaching is a game to me, nothing more, and I only play this game a few times a month.

 

Suggestion: Get rid of the post count on here and just label posters as newbies and senior posters. If it were me, i would also not make the total count of cache findings public..... That leads to lot of nonsense here...

 

Well, I vented.... Have fun, remember it's just a game.

There is no need to lash out at people that have enjoyed posting/helping with a handful of posts/day over many years. The thread is discussing what motivates people to log hundreds of caches that they never visited.

 

I almost missed that. Thank goodness I have 10,000 posts less than trailgators. Yes, no need to lash out. This is a discussion forum, and if someone has 10,000+ posts, they uh, enjoy discussing geocaching in an internet forum. This doesn't mean it's "more than a game" to them or anything.

 

Not the first time I've seen a lash out at "numbers posters" though.

It's an easy out at a weak attempt to discredit an opinion to make their opinion count for more.

[+briansnat]

Just think of how much time is wasted having post 10,000 times, say it takes 3 minutes to type a response, that's 3 minutes x 10,000 = 30,000 minutes or 500 hours of doing nothing but typing postings (over 20 straight days). That doesn't include all the time that's wasted reading OTHER postings.

 

3 minutes? You must be a slow typist.

 

Besides the bulk of my post count comes from helping other geocachers, particularly novices and in that light I'm more proud of it than I would be lifting 3,000 lamp post skirts.

 

(note this post took 35 seconds...oops add 5 seconds to correct a typo).

Edited September 29, 2008 by briansnat

[+StarBrand]

yes - for the most part.

 

False logs are all about trying to make oneself look better and more accomplished. Also too many tend to look at the DNF as a de-merit - so they would rather log a find.

 

Hiding the counts or giving the option to hide them would not stop the behavior.

[+fox-and-the-hound]

I find the whole phenomenon fascinating. I think the only thing more fascinating than someone logging a cache they didn't find is any person other than them even caring at all. Maybe because we're not big number generators ourselves it's missed on us. Then again, we often forget to log online our finds anyway. More often than not we don't even know how many finds or hides we have resorting in having to logon just to find out. It strikes me akin to judging my prowess at writing in my personal diary vs. someone else's prowess at writing in their personal diary. Maybe the next question to ask is "Why does anyone else care about your numbers?"

[+CBT69]

I run on my personal set of ethics. If I find the cache, IE, have it in my hand, then I "found" it. WHether or not I signed the paper log, (Which I do, whenever possible. Three exceptions so far.. a micro with a completely full log, an MKH which was so waterlogged it was like it had been run through the washer, and one with a standard notebook in a torrential downpour, where I wasn't going to unbag it and ruin the whole log).

 

I'll note in the online log why I couldn't sign, as long as it's not a spoiler, and will typically contact the cache owner if maintenance was the reason I could not sign.

 

I found it, I know I found it, in some cases going back four times to find it, and doing the mile deep hike, only to finally figure out the micro had a full log and was soaking wet. I'm logging it. Period.

 

but I've never logged one where I have not had the cache in my own hand. And I never will.

[+Renegade Knight]

... smilies (aka smileys) are the root cause of all fake find logs,...

 

A smilie is the reward for both a fake log and a real one. It's not the root cause of the fake logs though. That runs deeper and hits Maslo's hierarchy of needs. Love, Sex, Cigars, and Recognition. Maybe I mixed Freud and Clinton in there, but the root cause is folks willing to be dishonest to meet their needs.

 

Since a smilie also meets the needs of the more honest among us. It's not in and of itself the problem.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

yes - for the most part.

 

False logs are all about trying to make oneself look better and more accomplished. Also too many tend to look at the DNF as a de-merit - so they would rather log a find.

 

Hiding the counts or giving the option to hide them would not stop the behavior.

Hmmm..... this may be a bit of a tangent, but I love to loge DNFs, and I put a lot of TLC into writing them. And, I have even filed two technically "fake" DNFs in my life (sigh, yes, I know... I am hopelessly corrupt...). However, this all leads me to a new thought. So far, the purists tend to get all upset about fake online find loggers, and, indeed, there are numerous threads devoted to the topic. I wonder WHY we do not see threads devoted to the terrible, evil and insidious practice of loging finds in the physical logbook, but FAILING to log them online! In fact, that entire topic is such a timely one, and such an important one, that it deserves a dedicated thread!

[+TotemLake]

yes - for the most part.

 

False logs are all about trying to make oneself look better and more accomplished. Also too many tend to look at the DNF as a de-merit - so they would rather log a find.

 

Hiding the counts or giving the option to hide them would not stop the behavior.

Hmmm..... this may be a bit of a tangent, but I love to loge DNFs, and I put a lot of TLC into writing them. And, I have even filed two technically "fake" DNFs in my life (sigh, yes, I know... I am hopelessly corrupt...). However, this all leads me to a new thought. So far, the purists tend to get all upset about fake online find loggers, and, indeed, there are numerous threads devoted to the topic. I wonder WHY we do not see threads devoted to the terrible, evil and insidious practice of loging finds in the physical logbook, but FAILING to log them online! In fact, that entire topic is such a timely one, and such an important one, that it deserves a dedicated thread!

Noooooooooooooooo!

Hear my silent scream.

[+TrailGators]

yes - for the most part.

 

False logs are all about trying to make oneself look better and more accomplished. Also too many tend to look at the DNF as a de-merit - so they would rather log a find.

 

Hiding the counts or giving the option to hide them would not stop the behavior.

Hmmm..... this may be a bit of a tangent, but I love to loge DNFs, and I put a lot of TLC into writing them. And, I have even filed two technically "fake" DNFs in my life (sigh, yes, I know... I am hopelessly corrupt...). However, this all leads me to a new thought. So far, the purists tend to get all upset about fake online find loggers, and, indeed, there are numerous threads devoted to the topic. I wonder WHY we do not see threads devoted to the terrible, evil and insidious practice of loging finds in the physical logbook, but FAILING to log them online! In fact, that entire topic is such a timely one, and such an important one, that it deserves a dedicated thread!

Noooooooooooooooo!

Hear my silent scream.

How dare they! I mean how dare me! However, I have a legit excuse. When I'm out with friends and we come across a cache that induces me to roll my eyes, I tell them that I'm not signing that log. Then they give me a sinister laugh, 'bwa ha ha,' and they sign my name anyhow. I tell them "sign all you want, but when I get home, I'm not going to log it online, and you can't make me do it!"

 

P.S. This brings up yet another potential topic: Is it insincere to sign the log of any cache that is not fun just to get a smiley?

Edited September 29, 2008 by TrailGators

[+markandsandy]

P.S. This brings up yet another potential topic: Is it insincere to sign the log of any cache that is not fun just to get a smiley?

 

Maybe we need to be able to pick our icon based on what we thought of the cache.

[+briansnat]

P.S. This brings up yet another potential topic: Is it insincere to sign the log of any cache that is not fun just to get a smiley?

 

It's a found it log and you found the cache so how is that insincere? It's a log type, not a reward. That others choose to make a found it log some sort of commodity is irrelevant to me.

Edited September 29, 2008 by briansnat

[Skippermark]

What if individual cachers were simply given the option to drop the count?

I know of a couple people who have found thousands of caches yet have logged only a handful online. If the smiley/number didn't mean anything, then we would have more people doing this or writing notes rather than found logs on the site.

 

P.S. This brings up yet another potential topic: Is it insincere to sign the log of any cache that is not fun just to get a smiley?

I always find this ironic. I've heard people say that don't like certain types of hides and say they're bad for caching or whatever, yet they find caches of that type and log them online. If the smiley/number doesn't mean anything, they would stop finding and logging them.

 

That said, I do know of a few cachers who have refused to log certain caches online and opted to only write a note for various reasons.

Edited September 29, 2008 by Skippermark

[+TrailGators]

P.S. This brings up yet another potential topic: Is it insincere to sign the log of any cache that is not fun just to get a smiley?

I always find this ironic. I've heard people say that don't like certain types of hides and say they're bad for caching or whatever, yet they find caches of that type and log them online. If the smiley/number doesn't mean anything, they would stop finding and logging them.

 

That said, I do know of a few cachers who have refused to log certain caches online and opted to only write a note for various reasons.

I stopped because at some point in my caching career, I started asking myself 'why am I logging caches that I don't enjoy? What's the point? I have absolutely nothing good to say about this cache and I could care less about a smiley.' On the flip side we have people logging caches that they have never found that obviously care about smileys because that is all they are getting by doing that. In fact, the entire experience has been bypassed by them by doing that. To me it's all about the experience.

[+fox-and-the-hound]

P.S. This brings up yet another potential topic: Is it insincere to sign the log of any cache that is not fun just to get a smiley?

 

I stopped because at some point in my caching career, I started asking myself 'why am I logging caches that I don't enjoy? What's the point? I have absolutely nothing good to say about this cache and I could care less about a smiley.' On the flip side we have people logging caches that they have never found that obviously care about smileys because that is all they are getting by doing that. In fact, the entire experience has been bypassed by them by doing that. To me it's all about the experience.

 

I don't think it's insincere. I have an issue with logging some caches when it comes to a group find. If I'm last in the hiking order and the first person walks up to it because they spot it at a distance then I'd rather not log the cache online as a find. If we all arrive together, hunt together and find together then I'll log the find. I'll sign the log book either way, but don't see the point in logging a find for something I didn't actually even look for. The found it logs are my records of my experiences finding caches. Now that this subject has come up I think I'll start making a point of at least logging a note on the others, but save the smileys for the experiences that left me with a smilie.

[+Renegade Knight]

The only way for us to find out is for TPTB to drop the find counter and that is NEVER going to happen because it would impact the bottom line.

What if individual cachers were simply given the option to drop the count?

If I could I'd set it so my cache can only be found by those who are willing to list a count. It's too handy of a tool ignoring anything else to just drop it. Those who opt out of counts can solve the problem by using a note. That is until someone else wants to see all the notes.

 

Opting in and out works all directions.

[+Renegade Knight]

P.S. This brings up yet another potential topic: Is it insincere to sign the log of any cache that is not fun just to get a smiley?

I always find this ironic. I've heard people say that don't like certain types of hides and say they're bad for caching or whatever, yet they find caches of that type and log them online. If the smiley/number doesn't mean anything, they would stop finding and logging them.

 

That said, I do know of a few cachers who have refused to log certain caches online and opted to only write a note for various reasons.

I stopped because at some point in my caching career, I started asking myself 'why am I logging caches that I don't enjoy? What's the point? I have absolutely nothing good to say about this cache and I could care less about a smiley.' On the flip side we have people logging caches that they have never found that obviously care about smileys because that is all they are getting by doing that. In fact, the entire experience has been bypassed by them by doing that. To me it's all about the experience.

So what you want is to log a frownie find?

[+TrailGators]

P.S. This brings up yet another potential topic: Is it insincere to sign the log of any cache that is not fun just to get a smiley?

 

I stopped because at some point in my caching career, I started asking myself 'why am I logging caches that I don't enjoy? What's the point? I have absolutely nothing good to say about this cache and I could care less about a smiley.' On the flip side we have people logging caches that they have never found that obviously care about smileys because that is all they are getting by doing that. In fact, the entire experience has been bypassed by them by doing that. To me it's all about the experience.

 

I don't think it's insincere. I have an issue with logging some caches when it comes to a group find. If I'm last in the hiking order and the first person walks up to it because they spot it at a distance then I'd rather not log the cache online as a find. If we all arrive together, hunt together and find together then I'll log the find. I'll sign the log book either way, but don't see the point in logging a find for something I didn't actually even look for. The found it logs are my records of my experiences finding caches. Now that this subject has come up I think I'll start making a point of at least logging a note on the others, but save the smileys for the experiences that left me with a smilie.

It's insincere for me because I have this strange notion that when I log a cache and get a smiley that it means that I got a smile from that cache. Call me crazy but that's the way I see it...

[+TrailGators]

P.S. This brings up yet another potential topic: Is it insincere to sign the log of any cache that is not fun just to get a smiley?

I always find this ironic. I've heard people say that don't like certain types of hides and say they're bad for caching or whatever, yet they find caches of that type and log them online. If the smiley/number doesn't mean anything, they would stop finding and logging them.

 

That said, I do know of a few cachers who have refused to log certain caches online and opted to only write a note for various reasons.

I stopped because at some point in my caching career, I started asking myself 'why am I logging caches that I don't enjoy? What's the point? I have absolutely nothing good to say about this cache and I could care less about a smiley.' On the flip side we have people logging caches that they have never found that obviously care about smileys because that is all they are getting by doing that. In fact, the entire experience has been bypassed by them by doing that. To me it's all about the experience.

So what you want is to log a frownie find?

Not a bad idea! The problem is that some people would start logging false frownies.