The Terrible, Evil, Insidious Practice of Signing the Logbook and Failing

[+PotomacSprings]

It's not happened yet but i check on my caches every week or so. I then check to see if the logs are right.

 

If someone cheated i would delete the log a post a note on the cache.

[+TrailGators]

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.' ... To me it's all about the experience.

My philosophy is simple. Put this -> on my face and I will put this -> on your cache page!

Otherwise you won't log the cache online?

 

The 'Found It' log is not intended to be used as an approval rating; the only purpose of a 'Found It' log is to document that you found the cache.

 

One could make the argument, then, that your unapproved and improvised "philosophy" is an abuse of the feature; that you are in fact 'bogus logging' when you refuse to web-log certain finds based purely on your own personal aesthetic standards.

 

Of course I'm not presenting that as my viewpoint; your kind of bogus logging doesn't bother me any more than the other kind. I'm just saying one could make that argument—and that if one did make that argument, one would have made a pretty dadgum good point. IF the other arguments of the anti-bogus-log preachers are to be accepted, that is.

Why do you think they use a smiley face instead of a check mark for the find icon? Could it be just total random chance?

 

Anyhow, I already cleared stated that I never personally signed the logbook of the caches that I'm not logging online. You left that very important part out. So please site the guideline that you think I am violating by doing this?

[+CBT69]

It's not happened yet but i check on my caches every week or so. I then check to see if the logs are right.

 

If someone cheated i would delete the log a post a note on the cache.

 

"cheating" however, implys that you are doing something in order to "win" over someone else.

 

That's the mentality that is apparently escaping me. In Geocaching, you are really only competing with yourself.

 

I still don't see how it's a "cheat" on a totally random hobby that, in reality, has guidelines primarily.

 

I mean, if it's a contest cache or something, then I could see it. But in that case, it would be a totally different scenario.

[+chuckwagon101]

YAWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNNN!...........Strettttttttttttttttttttttttcccchhhh!

 

Ho Humm......Is my Big Pile Of Sticks ready yet?

 

Oh well.

 

<<<<< Smilie! Cute!

[+tomfuller & Quill]

I feel that most cache owners like to know when their seldom visited caches have a new paper log.

My caching buddy PMOGUY was pleasantly surprised that Dave Ulmer took the time to visit his cache.

Perhaps Dave doesn't log online so that others won't form geotrails following in his footsteps.

I don't consider the people who don't log online terrible, evil or insidious. I play the game as I see fit and feel cache owners should be kept informed of finders of their caches.

[+KBI]

Why do you think they use a smiley face instead of a check mark for the find icon? Could it be just total random chance?

 

Anyhow, I already cleared stated that I never personally signed the logbook of the caches that I'm not logging online. You left that very important part out. So please site the guideline that you think I am violating by doing this?

Please read my post again. I was not berating you. I was, in fact, congratulating you.

 

As I said in my post, I have no problem at all with your method. Matter of fact, I kinda like it. I like it because it helps you to better enjoy the hobby while simultaneously NOT violating anyone else’s enjoyment.

 

I was only making a general, academic point about bogus logging, about the so-called abuse of smileys, and about those who insist on seeing evil in every misuse of the feature.

[CoyoteRed]

I was only making a general, academic point about bogus logging, about the so-called abuse of smileys, and about those who insist on seeing evil in every misuse of the feature.

Who are those folks?

[+TrailGators]

Why do you think they use a smiley face instead of a check mark for the find icon? Could it be just total random chance?

 

Anyhow, I already cleared stated that I never personally signed the logbook of the caches that I'm not logging online. You left that very important part out. So please site the guideline that you think I am violating by doing this?

Please read my post again. I was not berating you. I was, in fact, congratulating you.

 

As I said in my post, I have no problem at all with your method. Matter of fact, I kinda like it. I like it because it helps you to better enjoy the hobby while simultaneously NOT violating anyone else's enjoyment.

 

I was only making a general, academic point about bogus logging, about the so-called abuse of smileys, and about those who insist on seeing evil in every misuse of the feature.

I read it again KBI and I just don't see the "congrats" part. You called what I am doing "your kind of bogus logging." It isn't bogus at all! If anything, I am being more truthful to my own personal convictions by only placing found smileys on caches that made actually me smile. I'm not saying that anyone else has to do what I'm doing. It's my personal thing.

[+Renegade Knight]

...If someone cheated i would delete the log a post a note on the cache.

 

"cheating" however, implys that you are doing something in order to "win" over someone else....

You can swap lying for cheating and the end result is the same. However if you accept that to be caching we need to be doing about the same thing (finding containers and signing the log book) cheating applies.

 

With no cache there is no caching. Just blogging. That's another thing.

[+KBI]

I was only making a general, academic point about bogus logging, about the so-called abuse of smileys, and about those who insist on seeing evil in every misuse of the feature.

Who are those folks?

Been away for a while?

[+KBI]

You called what I am doing "your kind of bogus logging." It isn't bogus at all!

Exactly.

 

You and I are apparently on the same side, and share the same viewpoint. That was the point of my post.

 

It's called "tongue in cheek."

[+TrailGators]

You called what I am doing "your kind of bogus logging." It isn't bogus at all!

Exactly.

 

You and I are apparently on the same side, and share the same viewpoint. That was the point of my post.

 

It's called "tongue in cheek."

Sorry I missed your sarcasm. I'm glad to hear that this was sarcasm:

The 'Found It' log is not intended to be used as an approval rating; the only purpose of a 'Found It' log is to document that you found the cache.

 

It never made much sense to me to see logs like this:

This cache was not fun for me.

 

This makes more sense:

This cache was not fun for me.

 

But since we can't do that then this makes the most sense to me:

no log

[+wimseyguy]

The only time I don't sign the logbook nor log a find online is if I am skipping out of work to geocache. I wouldn't want there to be any evidence that I'm not fully focused on work when I am supposed to be here there.

[+markandsandy]

 

It never made much sense to me to see logs like this:

This cache was not fun for me.

 

This makes more sense:

This cache was not fun for me.

 

But since we can't do that then this makes the most sense to me:

no log

 

This cache was not fun for me.

[+TrailGators]

 

It never made much sense to me to see logs like this:

This cache was not fun for me.

 

This makes more sense:

This cache was not fun for me.

 

But since we can't do that then this makes the most sense to me:

no log

 

This cache was not fun for me.

That's better but that some caches don't deserve one single smiley. Anyhow, like I already said I walk away from those caches and sometimes my buddies sign me in as a joke. So even the puritans would agree that I didn't really find those. Edited September 30, 2008 by TrailGators

[+River Cacher]

I have been caching for several years and when I started everyone was so into the number of finds and it drove me crazy.

I made the choice to find a cache and enjoy the area and not just run off to the next cache.

If I did take a TB or the cache had issues I would log the find and post notes.

I hate when all caching trips are GO GO GO for the numbers.

I decided years ago the numbers do not matter.

I do log DNF's to make sure the owners can check on there cache.

I have several hundred finds in the last few months that have not been logged.

I do now realize it has been causing some issues as some have been not found for awhile and when i do pocket quarries the same caches show up I have found.

I do not see why cachers would get upset with others for not logging there finds as many of people out there do not have the time to go through and log there finds or just do not care like me.

When I hide caches I do not expect the cachers to log there finds if they choose not to and there should not be any rules that say they have to.

My hides are my hides and it is up to me to check on them and maintain them and I should not expect others to take care of them for me or to report issues. I have several hundred caches hidden and I make sure I place them in areas that I go to.

I have had some that have not been logged for a long time but when I check on them there is logs in the books and it makes me happy to see that Cachers are finding them and having a great time with the sport.

I have found caches in several states that I have not logged and I am sad to see this offends other Cachers.

One of these days I may change my ways but until then I will be out enjoying and having a GREAT time geocaching.

Sorry if I have ever offended anyone.

Edited September 30, 2008 by River Cacher

[+BuxCamper]

I would prefer people to log a find on any of my hides. Prefferably with a few words of how the search went. Obviously the ones saying it was a good hide bring a smile to my face.

 

But there are going to be some people who don't. Not logging isn't really going to change anything. The hide will be there at least as long as it doesn't get muggled.

 

I haven't done any maintenance on my hides yet so I haven't counted the signatures verses log entries.

[+TrailGators]

I have several hundred finds in the last few months that have not been logged. I do now realize it has been causing some issues as some have been not found for awhile and when i do pocket queries the same caches show up I have found.

That is what the ignore button is for. If you ignore those caches then you can check a box in your PQ to not send you your ignored caches. It was very nice of Groundspeak to add that feature!

[+tozainamboku]

Why do you think they use a smiley face instead of a check mark for the find icon? Could it be just total random chance?

 

Anyhow, I already cleared stated that I never personally signed the logbook of the caches that I'm not logging online. You left that very important part out. So please site the guideline that you think I am violating by doing this?

I've complained about the use of a frownie face for a DNF log. I've logged a few DNFs where I've had lots more fun than on some finds. If I was to use TrailGators logic, I would have to not log those DNFs because I wasn't really sad about not finding the cache. Now when I posted this before several people asked "Wouldn't you have had even more fun if you found the cache?" To which my response is "I don't know. Had I found the cache the experience would have been a hole lot different." Perhaps the effort spent looking and not finding anything was more enjoyable than having to have just seen another pile of sticks with the obvious cache hidden there. In any case I don't get the choice between

Didn't find the cache but it was fun anyhow

and

Had fun looking and just happened to spot the cache in the last place I looked.

 

Trying to turn the online log into a rating system for caches seems a bit of stretch. It might be more useful to keep two bookmark lists - DNFs I really had fun looking for and Finds that were such stinkers that I wish I hadn't bothered in the first place. At least that way you could share them with your friend (if you didn't want to make them public so they show on the cache page.)

 

Since you don't sign the physical logs, I can't complain since I don't have to cross out your name in the physical log book. However what you are doing when you visit the caches you don't like is not Geocaching. The rules of Geocaching are simple.

What are the rules in Geocaching?

1. If you take something from the cache, leave something of equal or greater value.

2. Write about your find in the cache logbook.

3. Log your experience at www.geocaching.com.

 

My guess is you don't trade on these caches either. Congratulations, it seems like you have found away to go caching in Lake Wobegon. If you "find" a location that is not "above average" you just skip it. If you still decide to look for the cache and feel the experience was not "above average" you don't log it. And you don't log any "below average" experiences online. Every cache that you find can be above average.

[+jkern]

I always thought this kind of thing has slowly disappeared over the years but I dunno. I always saw these kind of logs back when we first started but not so much anymore.

 

*cough* On a side note, we recently found a letterbox that had about a dozen finds logged online and no less than 50 signatures and stamps in the logbook! And that had been around for two years.

 

Guess the philosophy is different around there.

[+TrailGators]

Why do you think they use a smiley face instead of a check mark for the find icon? Could it be just total random chance?

 

Anyhow, I already cleared stated that I never personally signed the logbook of the caches that I'm not logging online. You left that very important part out. So please site the guideline that you think I am violating by doing this?

I've complained about the use of a frownie face for a DNF log. I've logged a few DNFs where I've had lots more fun than on some finds. If I was to use TrailGators logic, I would have to not log those DNFs because I wasn't really sad about not finding the cache. Now when I posted this before several people asked "Wouldn't you have had even more fun if you found the cache?" To which my response is "I don't know. Had I found the cache the experience would have been a hole lot different." Perhaps the effort spent looking and not finding anything was more enjoyable than having to have just seen another pile of sticks with the obvious cache hidden there. In any case I don't get the choice between

Didn't find the cache but it was fun anyhow

and

Had fun looking and just happened to spot the cache in the last place I looked.

 

Trying to turn the online log into a rating system for caches seems a bit of stretch. It might be more useful to keep two bookmark lists - DNFs I really had fun looking for and Finds that were such stinkers that I wish I hadn't bothered in the first place. At least that way you could share them with your friend (if you didn't want to make them public so they show on the cache page.)

 

Since you don't sign the physical logs, I can't complain since I don't have to cross out your name in the physical log book. However what you are doing when you visit the caches you don't like is not Geocaching. The rules of Geocaching are simple.

What are the rules in Geocaching?

1. If you take something from the cache, leave something of equal or greater value.

2. Write about your find in the cache logbook.

3. Log your experience at www.geocaching.com.

 

My guess is you don't trade on these caches either. Congratulations, it seems like you have found away to go caching in Lake Wobegon. If you "find" a location that is not "above average" you just skip it. If you still decide to look for the cache and feel the experience was not "above average" you don't log it. And you don't log any "below average" experiences online. Every cache that you find can be above average.

Toz, in a prior post I did suggest having a smiley DNF log!

 

I think you are right and I have adapted well to the changing caching environment, but I will have to admit that it was a little rocky at first. Another example of one of my recent adaptations is that when I go hiking I don't stop every 500 feet to get every single cache on the trail. I enjoy stopping at scenic overlooks or every mile or so to take a break, but I'm out there for the enjoyment of the journey. I can save those caches for some other day when I do the same hike.

Edited September 30, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Kohavis]

The Terrible, Evil, Insidious Practice of Signing the Logbook and Failing, to log finds online! It will destroy the sport

Isn't that cheating themselves out of a find in their numbers when they're entitled to it

 

Don't you mean logging the find online, but never having signed the logbook?

[+CBT69]

The Terrible, Evil, Insidious Practice of Signing the Logbook and Failing, to log finds online! It will destroy the sport

Isn't that cheating themselves out of a find in their numbers when they're entitled to it

 

Don't you mean logging the find online, but never having signed the logbook?

 

no, read the thread. People have knotted knickers over that, too.

[gerboa]

If this practice is predominant in the wilderness, perhaps they were eaten by bears before they got home. Just a Thought

[+traildad]

 

Of course I’m not presenting that as my viewpoint; your kind of bogus logging doesn’t bother me any more than the other kind. I’m just saying one could make that argument—and that if one did make that argument...

it would be entirely hypothetical.

[+traildad]

Why do you think they use a smiley face instead of a check mark for the find icon? Could it be just total random chance?

 

Anyhow, I already cleared stated that I never personally signed the logbook of the caches that I'm not logging online. You left that very important part out. So please site the guideline that you think I am violating by doing this?

Please read my post again. I was not berating you. I was, in fact, congratulating you.

 

As I said in my post, I have no problem at all with your method. Matter of fact, I kinda like it. I like it because it helps you to better enjoy the hobby while simultaneously NOT violating anyone else’s enjoyment.

 

I was only making a general, academic point about bogus logging, about the so-called abuse of smileys, and about those who insist on seeing evil in every misuse of the feature.

Sounds more like you want to take every opportunity to link everything to bogus logging in the hopes we won't notice that you condone bogus logs. If anything is ok then everything is ok. What is academic about that?

[+Mule Ears]

If this practice is predominant in the wilderness, perhaps they were eaten by bears before they got home. Just a Thought

 

That's an excellent theory. I adopted a cache that's located on top of a steep-sided butte, and there are several logbook entries that don't have corresponding online logs. Thought is that these finders' shattered bones are somewhere at the base of the butte, 500 feet below the cache.

[+KBI]

Why do you think they use a smiley face instead of a check mark for the find icon? Could it be just total random chance?

 

Anyhow, I already cleared stated that I never personally signed the logbook of the caches that I'm not logging online. You left that very important part out. So please site the guideline that you think I am violating by doing this?

Please read my post again. I was not berating you. I was, in fact, congratulating you.

 

As I said in my post, I have no problem at all with your method. Matter of fact, I kinda like it. I like it because it helps you to better enjoy the hobby while simultaneously NOT violating anyone else’s enjoyment.

 

I was only making a general, academic point about bogus logging, about the so-called abuse of smileys, and about those who insist on seeing evil in every misuse of the feature.

Sounds more like you want to take every opportunity to link everything to bogus logging in the hopes we won't notice that you condone bogus logs. If anything is ok then everything is ok. What is academic about that?

Does it bother you when a cacher signs a cache’s paper log, but then fails to claim the find online, Traildad?

[+traildad]

 

I was only making a general, academic point about bogus logging, about the so-called abuse of smileys, and about those who insist on seeing evil in every misuse of the feature.

Sounds more like you want to take every opportunity to link everything to bogus logging in the hopes we won't notice that you condone bogus logs. If anything is ok then everything is ok. What is academic about that?

Does it bother you when a cacher signs a cache’s paper log, but then fails to claim the find online, Traildad?

Does it bother you when someone goes off topic by dredging up an argument they couldn't win earlier, by making a bogus "academic point"? Now maybe the OP thinks he/she is making humor, or maybe they are condoning bogus logging in the guise of this topic. If you want to know how I feel, it would be better if you engaged the subject in an adult fashion, rather than playing the "they see evil in it" game. If you were to read my previous post you would already have an idea how I feel. If you were to read all of my posts on the subject of false logging you would have a chance of seeing the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that I have a problem with arguments made simply to "win" the point. Just like in partisan politics these days. No discussions, just debates. In a debate you can take either side and you can say anything to win points. I would like to see this forum about Geocaching discussions. Unfortunately some topics here are dominated by a few who only want to win the point, and don't care about the discussion.

[+9Key]

Poor misguided Vinny. Little did he know that he was to start the very thing that this topic brings to light. For the last year or so several cachers that will remain nameless are now afraid to log a certain cacher's hides online for fear that someone might post their logs here, in these forums, for all to see. OMFG! Vinny, you devil!

[+Headhardhat]

Two Words...... Decaf.

 

Wasn't this an episode in Seinfeld?

 

The caching rant "about nothing"?

 

[Mr.Yuck]

I have been caching for several years and when I started everyone was so into the number of finds and it drove me crazy.

I made the choice to find a cache and enjoy the area and not just run off to the next cache.

If I did take a TB or the cache had issues I would log the find and post notes.

I hate when all caching trips are GO GO GO for the numbers.

I decided years ago the numbers do not matter.

I do log DNF's to make sure the owners can check on there cache.

I have several hundred finds in the last few months that have not been logged.

I do now realize it has been causing some issues as some have been not found for awhile and when i do pocket quarries the same caches show up I have found.

I do not see why cachers would get upset with others for not logging there finds as many of people out there do not have the time to go through and log there finds or just do not care like me.

When I hide caches I do not expect the cachers to log there finds if they choose not to and there should not be any rules that say they have to.

My hides are my hides and it is up to me to check on them and maintain them and I should not expect others to take care of them for me or to report issues. I have several hundred caches hidden and I make sure I place them in areas that I go to.

I have had some that have not been logged for a long time but when I check on them there is logs in the books and it makes me happy to see that Cachers are finding them and having a great time with the sport.

I have found caches in several states that I have not logged and I am sad to see this offends other Cachers.

One of these days I may change my ways but until then I will be out enjoying and having a GREAT time geocaching.

Sorry if I have ever offended anyone.

 

I could be wrong, but I think you're taking the thread too seriously, and in reality, no one is offended by your actions. Or your evil, insidious lack of them.

[+KBI]

Does it bother you when a cacher signs a cache’s paper log, but then fails to claim the find online, Traildad?

Does it bother you when someone goes off topic by dredging up an argument they couldn't win earlier, by making a bogus "academic point"?

I asked you first.

[+TrailGators]

Does it bother you when a cacher signs a cache's paper log, but then fails to claim the find online, Traildad?

Does it bother you when someone goes off topic by dredging up an argument they couldn't win earlier, by making a bogus "academic point"?

I asked you first.

Kids stop throwing sand in each others eyes and play nice...

Uncle Vinny wanted this to be a fun sandbox...

[+KBI]

Does it bother you when a cacher signs a cache's paper log, but then fails to claim the find online, Traildad?

Does it bother you when someone goes off topic by dredging up an argument they couldn't win earlier, by making a bogus "academic point"?

I asked you first.

Kids stop throwing sand in each others eyes and play nice...

Was there something less than nice about my question to Traildad?

[4wheelin_fool]

I have well over 42 million finds, but have logged online less than a thousand because I don't like being a showoff.

[+TrailGators]

I have well over 42 million finds, but have logged online less than a thousand because I don't like being a showoff.

If my calculations are right, if I never sleep again I should be able to catch you in about 800 years. Edited October 1, 2008 by TrailGators

[+tozainamboku]

Does it bother you when a cacher signs a cache's paper log, but then fails to claim the find online, Traildad?

Does it bother you when someone goes off topic by dredging up an argument they couldn't win earlier, by making a bogus "academic point"?

I asked you first.

Kids stop throwing sand in each others eyes and play nice...

Was there something less than nice about my question to Traildad?

No. But he made a good point about actually discussing the topic instead of just throwing out points to win a debate. Not that he hasn't been guilty of the same thing sometimes.

 

At first blush, turning the bogus online log where a person didn't find the cache let alone sign the physical around and make it a discussion of someone who signs the physical log but doesn't log the find online, sound like rhetorical device to score debate points. After all the bogus log requires an act of commission to perpetrate the fraud. The bogus logger likely knows what he is doing is wrong. Not logging a find one line is an act of omission. The non logger likely feels there is nothing wrong with what he did.

 

The example of not logging finds is meant however to demonstrate the silliness of obsessing over the online logs.

 

The online logs will never be a accurate representation of who found or didn't find the cache. Therefore a few bogus logs aren't messing up the accuracy of the statistics.

 

The so call "find count" isn't really a find count. It is simple the total number of 'Found It', Attended, and Webcam Photo taken logs that a cache has entered that weren't deleted by the cache owner. Some cachers do not enter every cache they found online. Some cachers may enter logs for caches they never found. Generally they have some reason for counting these - temporary caches they found at an event, a bonus smiley the cache owner allows for doing some extra task, an armchair virtual that the owner allows, credit for a missing cache that an owner allows grateful for knowing that his cache needed maintenance. Some people seem to need no reason to log cache they didn't actually find - perhaps they're bored and want to see how many logs they can enter before they get tired - or get caught, or they mistakenly believe that a higher find count - even one attained with bogus logging - will get them some reward.

 

Several people point out that a bogus found it log could hypothetically cause someone to go look for a cache that they would otherwise not have looked for and "waste" money and time looking for a missing cache. Or cache owners might postpone a maintenance visit to cache. The example of the found cache that isn't logged online is given to show that in this case a cache owner may make an unnecessary maintenance trip or someone waiting for a cache to be found may postpone going to look for it. Bogus logs may cause harm - but a lot of other practices have just a much ability to cause harm. In reality little harm is done, and it is seen a part of the risk of playing a game based on what strangers post on the internet.

 

It is true that cachers and cache owners rely on a generally honest and accurate account in the online logs. It is how we can select caches we want to search for and how cache owners can decide when a maintenance visit is need. The logs are a way for the cache owner to get feedback on his cache and know that people are enjoying it (or not). If a significant number of logs were bogus the usefulness of the logs for cachers and cache owners would be diminished. Cache owners should delete logs that clearly appear to be bogus to keep the bogus logs under control. Chronic bogus loggers should face sanctions from Groundspeak including banning of accounts and even IP lockout in extreme cases. But getting upset over a few bogus logs is as silly as getting upset over caches who don't log all their finds online.

[+KBI]

Was there something less than nice about my question to Traildad?

No. But he made a good point about actually discussing the topic instead of just throwing out points to win a debate. Not that he hasn't been guilty of the same thing sometimes.

So Toz, are you saying I was NOT discussing the topic of this thread? Do you really think I’m trying to “win” something, to “defeat” someone?

 

If so, I disagree. I think Vinny, with this thread, did a great job of pointing out the absurdity of worrying about bogus logs; I think my earlier post did as well; and judging by your posts, you appear to hold much the same viewpoint.

 

I have no interest in winning any debate here. In my opinion there is nothing here to “win” anyway. I seek only to express my untroubled viewpoint, and if possible to convince others to enjoy the serenity that comes with adopting it as their own.

 

More importantly, if it turns out that my viewpoint is somehow bad or wrong, then I hope to be convinced to agree with someone who has a better point of view. Who wants to go around being wrong if you don’t have to?

 

I made a statement. Traildad somehow assumed I was talking about him, and then made it clear he had taken offense. In order to clarify my understanding of his position I asked what I still believe to be a perfectly reasonable question. He responded by textually flying off the handle – and by NOT answering my question.

 

I’d hardly call that a win. If I won anything there, it wasn’t very satisfying.

 

You can have my trophy if you want it.

[+TrailGators]

The example of not logging finds is meant however to demonstrate the silliness of obsessing over the online logs.

I think you are making an assumption that people are purposely not logging to rebel against the smiley. There are way better reasons than that. In fact, I would bet if there were no smileys that more people would quit logging blah caches. Many people don't log McDonald's waymarks and they aren't obsessing about anything. What you need to understand is that a smiley is not a big enough incentive for some people to take time to log caches that they can't even remember. The incentive for those people is to thank those hiders that put a smile on their face. Edited October 1, 2008 by TrailGators

[+paleolith]

Rubblerouser. But OK, henceforth all cachers must carry smart cards and all caches must have RFIDs attached. When the smart card gets close enough to the RFID, it will automatically upload the found log (delayed if necessary to avoid the occasional requirement for satellite link, seismic signals, etc). Does away with the hassle of signing the log book -- in fact, for those caches which are difficult to remove from their niches, removes that hassle. Big help to those doing cache dashes. Really difficult hides may be finessed just by waving the card over every surface until it beeps.

 

Saves lots of time since you don't have to write an online log. Saves flask and me lots of time that way.

 

Those who desire can use a slightly larger smart card with a camera built in which will take and upload a photo of the cache. The smart card will make sure the photo is badly backlit, that the sky is white, and that no one is recognizable, saving the cacher the trouble.

 

Something for everyone. Onward and upward.

[+tozainamboku]

The example of not logging finds is meant however to demonstrate the silliness of obsessing over the online logs.

I think you are making an assumption that people are purposely not logging to rebel against the smiley. There are other reasons. If you look at the flip side, many people log blah caches just because they want the smiley. One guy in this thread even made a statement about "earning" a smiley. I bet if there were no smileys that more people would quit logging blah caches. Many people don't log McDonald's waymarks and they aren't obsessing about anything.

I don't see where I ever made an assumption about why people don't log online. My guess is that many people don't log online because they don't see it as part of geocaching. Instead of using Jeremy's rules they use Dave Ulmer's rules (the same ones Jeremy used till a few months ago)

1. Take something from the cache

2. Leave something in the cache

3. Write about in the log book.

 

Those rules never said anything about logging online. While Jeremy and Groundspeak may think that logging your experience at www.geocaching.com deserves to have its own rule, my guess is that many people just don't see it as being a requirement for geocaching.

 

If there were no smileys and no online logs people would still geocache. The use of the online log to share experiences and to manage the waypoints of caches you've found make geocaching on geocaching.com a much nicer experience for most people. This is probably the reason that geocaching and geocaching.com have grown in popularity so quickly. Before there was Geocaching.com people would post the coordinates of caches they hid and others would find them. There were no find counts. If you subscribed to the listserver you might see where a person posted that he found a cache. I suspect that many early finders never even posted on the listserver. My guess is that geocaching would exist today whether or not Jeremy had started Geocaching.com and whether or not he kept track of which caches you found. It would not be as popular but it would still exist. There would be fewer caches and perhaps a smaller percentage would be "blah" caches. But I don't doubt (because of where I've seen some letterboxes hidden) that we would have "blah" caches even if there were no smiley counts.

[+KBI]

If there were no smileys and no online logs people would still geocache.

The loooong history of Letterboxing is proof enough of that.

[+traildad]

Was there something less than nice about my question to Traildad?

No. But he made a good point about actually discussing the topic instead of just throwing out points to win a debate. Not that he hasn't been guilty of the same thing sometimes.

So Toz, are you saying I was NOT discussing the topic of this thread? Do you really think I’m trying to “win” something, to “defeat” someone?

 

If so, I disagree. I think Vinny, with this thread, did a great job of pointing out the absurdity of worrying about bogus logs; I think my earlier post did as well; and judging by your posts, you appear to hold much the same viewpoint.

 

I have no interest in winning any debate here. In my opinion there is nothing here to “win” anyway. I seek only to express my untroubled viewpoint, and if possible to convince others to enjoy the serenity that comes with adopting it as their own.

 

More importantly, if it turns out that my viewpoint is somehow bad or wrong, then I hope to be convinced to agree with someone who has a better point of view. Who wants to go around being wrong if you don’t have to?

 

I made a statement. Traildad somehow assumed I was talking about him, and then made it clear he had taken offense. In order to clarify my understanding of his position I asked what I still believe to be a perfectly reasonable question. He responded by textually flying off the handle – and by NOT answering my question.

 

I’d hardly call that a win. If I won anything there, it wasn’t very satisfying.

 

You can have my trophy if you want it.

I don't think taking offense is the correct phrase. I do not like the tone of the "discussion". When you write

I was only making a general, academic point about bogus logging, about the so-called abuse of smileys, and about those who insist on seeing evil in every misuse of the feature.

Your choice of words hinders the discussion. As you know, in the previous debate the word evil was used to paint everyone that disagrees with false logging as some kind of zealot. You show your intent to be something other than discussing the pros and cons of not logging online. It is kind of like playing the race card in politics. Once it is played the other side can't make any argument without being a racist. Anyone that has a reason to disapprove of bogus logs simply insists on seeing evil where none exist. "End of discussion" is the result of that kind of tactic. Go back and look at the last discussion on bogus logs and see how many times you and others did NOT answer my questions. Have you gone back and looked at my response to tozainamboku stating how I felt about the subject?

[+TrailGators]

The example of not logging finds is meant however to demonstrate the silliness of obsessing over the online logs.

I think you are making an assumption that people are purposely not logging to rebel against the smiley. There are other reasons. If you look at the flip side, many people log blah caches just because they want the smiley. One guy in this thread even made a statement about "earning" a smiley. I bet if there were no smileys that more people would quit logging blah caches. Many people don't log McDonald's waymarks and they aren't obsessing about anything.

I don't see where I ever made an assumption about why people don't log online. My guess is that many people don't log online because they don't see it as part of geocaching. Instead of using Jeremy's rules they use Dave Ulmer's rules (the same ones Jeremy used till a few months ago)

1. Take something from the cache

2. Leave something in the cache

3. Write about in the log book.

 

Those rules never said anything about logging online. While Jeremy and Groundspeak may think that logging your experience at www.geocaching.com deserves to have its own rule, my guess is that many people just don't see it as being a requirement for geocaching.

 

If there were no smileys and no online logs people would still geocache. The use of the online log to share experiences and to manage the waypoints of caches you've found make geocaching on geocaching.com a much nicer experience for most people. This is probably the reason that geocaching and geocaching.com have grown in popularity so quickly. Before there was Geocaching.com people would post the coordinates of caches they hid and others would find them. There were no find counts. If you subscribed to the listserver you might see where a person posted that he found a cache. I suspect that many early finders never even posted on the listserver. My guess is that geocaching would exist today whether or not Jeremy had started Geocaching.com and whether or not he kept track of which caches you found. It would not be as popular but it would still exist. There would be fewer caches and perhaps a smaller percentage would be "blah" caches. But I don't doubt (because of where I've seen some letterboxes hidden) that we would have "blah" caches even if there were no smiley counts.

You make some good points. I guess I view my find log as a thank you to the cache hider for making me smile. I also use it to share the experience that made me smile. We will always have blah caches that mainly exist to increase someone's smiley count. Just getting a smiley isn't enough to make me smile.

[+KBI]

I don't think taking offense is the correct phrase. I do not like the tone of the "discussion". When you write

 

I was only making a general, academic point about bogus logging, about the so-called abuse of smileys, and about those who insist on seeing evil in every misuse of the feature.

Your choice of words hinders the discussion. As you know, in the previous debate the word evil was used to paint everyone that disagrees with false logging as some kind of zealot. You show your intent to be something other than discussing the pros and cons of not logging online. It is kind of like playing the race card in politics. Once it is played the other side can't make any argument without being a racist.

Was there something about my post that led you to assume I was referring to YOU, TrailDad?

 

This is easy: If you do NOT see evil in every bogus log – and I am happy to take you at your word – then I was obviously NOT talking about you in my post, was I? If I was NOT talking about you, then what is your beef?

 

If, on the other hand, you believe I AM talking about you in that post, then what part of my post led you to that conclusion?

 

That very ambiguity was the reason for my question – the question you still haven’t managed to answer.

 

This is obviously very important to you; therefore, in order to hopefully facilitate some kind of happy resolution, I will repeat the original question:

 

Does it bother you when a cacher signs a cache's paper log, but then fails to claim the find online, Traildad?

 

(While reading the question, please note the complete absence of any emotional trigger-words, racial references, insults, or trash talk about your Mama. I thought my question was rather polite and reasonable myself, but you are of course free to disagree with my biased self-analysis.)

 

I look forward to your answer.

[+traildad]

 

Was there something about my post that led you to assume I was referring to YOU, TrailDad?

I look forward to your answer.

Your use of the word evil led me to assume that you were talking about everyone that expressed a condemnation of bogus logging. I did that, so I am lumped into that group.

[+traildad]

Does it bother you when a cacher signs a cache's paper log, but then fails to claim the find online, Traildad?

Did you not yet read my post?

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3657966

Does this not answer your question? If it does not then I will need more detail as to what you mean by bother.

Do I think they should be banned from Geocaching?

Do I think it should be condemned?

Do I think it should be condoned?

Do I spend time fretting about the problem?

Do I think it is undesireable?

Do I think it is equal to bogus logging?

What exactly do you want to know?

[+chuckwagon101]

Does it bother you when a cacher signs a cache's paper log, but then fails to claim the find online, Traildad?

Did you not yet read my post?

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3657966

Does this not answer your question? If it does not then I will need more detail as to what you mean by bother.

Do I think they should be banned from Geocaching?

Do I think it should be condemned?

Do I think it should be condoned?

Do I spend time fretting about the problem?

Do I think it is undesireable?

Do I think it is equal to bogus logging?

What exactly do you want to know?

 

Not logging on line does not bother me greatly. But we have to look at what your definition of "bother" is...............is!

 

What bothers me is when the Big Pile Of Sticks is less than one foot high. The audacity of some cachers to put a pitiful pile of sticks over a juicy ammo box and have the total height not more than 6 or 8 inches is just.........WRONG! And don't EVEN get me started about those cachers who sneak in huge chunks of crumbly bark as a substitute for a sound, viable STICK! I get CHILLS just thinking about it!

 

Yes Brother, there is a lot of Bother in this world. False logs may make some cachers cringe. Omitted online posts may cause others to sweat all stinky stuff. But none of that can compare to an ill-formed Big Pile Of Sticks.

 

I'm Chuckwagon101 and I approve this message!

[Mr.Yuck]

 

The example of not logging finds is meant however to demonstrate the silliness of obsessing over the online logs.

 

The online logs will never be a accurate representation of who found or didn't find the cache. Therefore a few bogus logs aren't messing up the accuracy of the statistics.

 

 

Sorry, don't mean to interrupt the Traildad/KBI show. So what you're saying, Mr T, is that all these threads created by Vinny over the past several weeks are part of an elaborate scheme to illustrate "the silliness of obsessing over the online logs"???

 

Couldn't he have just done this in one forum post in one thread?